Bill C-45 (Historical)

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

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

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

The House proceeded to the 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There are 1,667 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-45.

Motions Nos. 241, 387 and 388 will not be selected by the Chair since they require a royal recommendation.

Motions Nos. 4, 39 and 62 will not be selected by the Chair as they should have been preceded by a ways and means motion.

Motion No. 1085 will not be selected by the Chair as it could have been proposed in committee.

Motions Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 to 17, 19 to 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 33, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53 to 60, 66 to 73, 75 to 77, 79 to 82, 85 to 94, 98, 107, 117 to 130, 132 to 135, 137, 141, 148 to 150, 152, 154, 156, 161, 238, 239, 244, 247, 250 to 252, 255 to 277, 283 to 285, 290, 291, 298, 301, 342, 343, 358 to 360, 367, 391, 403, 406, 408, 412 to 414, 416 to 418, 420, 421, 424, 425, 427, 429 to 437, 439, 441, 444, 447, 450 to 453, 462, 468, 496, 576, 584, 585, 593, 609, 668 to 1084, 1086 to 1336, 1339 to 1547 and 1549 to 1667 will not be selected by the Chair as they were defeated in committee.

Motions Nos. 1337, 1338 and 1548 will not be selected by the Chair because they are repetitive.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.

Group No. 1 will include Motions Nos. 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 18, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34 to 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 61, 63 to 65, 74, 78, 83, 84, 95 to 97, 99 to 106, 108 to 116, 131, 136, 138 to 140, 142 to 147, 151, 153, 155, 157 to 160 and 162.

Group No. 2 will include Motions Nos. 163 to 237, 240, 242, 243, 245, 246, 248, 249, 253, 254, 278 to 282, 286 to 289, 292 to 297, 299, 300, 302 to 341, 344 to 357, 361 to 366, 368 to 386, 389, 390, 392 to 402, 404, 405, 407, 409 to 411, 415, 419, 422, 423, 426, 428, 438, 440, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448, 449, 454 to 461, 463 to 467, 469 to 495, 497 to 575, 577 to 583, 586 to 592, 594 to 608, and 610 to 667.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 18, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34 to 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 61, 63 to 65, 74, 78, 83, 84, 95 to 97, 99 to 106, 108 to 116, 131, 136, 138 to 140, 142 to 147, 151, 153, 155, 157 to 160, and 162 in Group No. 1 to the House.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

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

moved:

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

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

, seconded by the member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, moved:

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-45, in Clause 9, be amended by deleting lines 12 and 13 on page 14.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-45, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 15 with the following:

“before 2020, or”

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

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

moved:

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

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

moved:

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

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

, seconded by the member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, moved:

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-45, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 35 with the following:

“(a.1) 19% of the amount by which the”

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-45, in Clause 27, be amended by deleting line 14 on page 38 to line 11 on page 39.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-45, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 38 to line 11 on page 39 with the following:

“scribed offshore region, and that is acquired after March 28, 2012, 10%.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

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

moved:

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

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

moved:

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

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

moved:

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

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

moved:

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No. 159

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 160

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Motion No. 162

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-45, in Clause 62, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 134 with the following:

“(b) 65% multiplied by the proportion that”

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-45, in Clause 62, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 134 with the following:

“(c) 65% multiplied by the proportion that”

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand today and raise the issue of what is before us, a seriously flawed budget bill. The Liberal Party has been consistent from the moment the bill was introduced to the point at which we sat for hours in committee, working to try to send a strong message to the government of the day.

We are disappointed in one sense because we understand what it is that the government is attempting to do with the budget bill and how it is being used to pass what many, including myself, would argue is a piece of legislation that should have taken into consideration a whole session of legislation. There are numerous pieces of legislation that should have been brought to the chamber, but instead the government—a majority, Reform Party-style government—has lumped all of the amendments and changes to legislation into one bill and tried to sneak them in through the budget. We within the Liberal Party believe that is undemocratic and is not the way the House should pass budget legislation.

We were disappointed when we tried to raise the issue in committee and we saw the New Democratic Party, which claims to be an opposition party, go onside with the government. It really surprised a number of people. I do not know how many times NDP members stood in their places and voted with the government on this legislation. I would suggest it was a thousand plus times. Time and again the NDP failed Canadians by not recognizing the importance of what was taking place in committee. Had NDP members understood what was taking place, had they understood what their role in the House really is, they would have opposed this legislation that was being brought in through the back door. The Liberal Party opposed it. I am very disappointed that the NDP did not fulfill its responsibility in terms of trying to oppose the budget bill.

That is why I was a bit surprised when the opposition House leader stood in his place to complain about the system. It was just a few days ago when the NDP was sucked in by the government. Those members overruled the chair in co-operation with the government in order to limit debate on the clause-by-clause discussion, which was critically important. It should have taken place. We would have expected that in finance committee, at the very least, the government would have recognized the need for debate on every clause. Every clause should have been debated on this budget during committee. That is what the Liberal Party wanted to see happen. The Liberal Party wanted to see a legitimate vote on each clause. We wanted to be able to point out to the government the many flaws within the budget.

I sat on the immigration committee. I did not like what was happening in that committee when we had the portion within the budget that would change immigration. It should have been a separate piece of legislation. That section went before immigration committee.

I had hoped for the opportunity to not only address it at the immigration committee but to also address it at the finance committee. That would have been the right thing to do because there is a need for amendments. In essence, what the government is intending to do through the budget bill with respect to immigration, which should require a separate bill, is establish three types of visitors who would come to Canada.

The first type of visitors are American citizens, who are welcome to come at any point, whether by hopping on a plane or crossing the border, as long as they have a valid passport. We all know that the Liberal Party is a very strong advocate of the easy access cross-border movement to encourage Americans to come to Canada. We want to see that.

The second type of visitors are citizens from countries where a visa is required, an area which creates all sorts of problems. We could have debated the issue of getting visas for hours and hours. It poses a serious problem. We need to do a lot more in that area. Parents and siblings are being denied entry into Canada, through visiting visas, to participate in events such as funerals, weddings, birthday celebrations, graduation ceremonies, bar mitzvahs and the like. Far too often they are being rejected. This is an issue that should be brought up in the immigration committee.

I will now come to the relevance of the creation of the third section within the legislation, the visitors. I suspect very few Canadians are aware of the fact that, now, no matter where people are living in the world—with the exception of American citizens from the United States or citizens from a country where a visa is required—they would be required to go online and acquire electronic approval before they could come to Canada. That is a significant change. That means people from London, Australia, many European countries and countries all over the world can no longer just board a plane with their passports and come to Canada. Rather, they have to be pre-approved before doing so.

One might ask what is wrong with that, but the biggest problem is that the government has not done its homework on the issue. The minister of immigration has no idea of the details of the program.

Fortunately, I had the opportunity to ask some questions in committee, because we were able to get some of the stuff off to committees and ask some basic questions. The department could not provide the answers in terms of what the anticipated costs were of implementing the program. The government had no idea.

I wanted to be able to ask those questions at the finance committee. We know the department of immigration, through the minister of immigration, had no idea. I suspect and was hoping that the Minister of Finance and the finance committee would know the answers, but we were denied that because the Conservatives were in a hurry to pass this legislation through committee, in an underhanded way and with the support of the New Democratic Party. What is so shameful is that the NDP has collapsed like a stack of cards with a light breeze going through it.

The New Democrats should be ashamed of their performance. They say that they object to the bill and do not want to see it passed. Actions speak louder than words and their actions the other night are a complete abrogation of any sort of opposition to the bill.

However, not to worry, the Liberal Party of Canada will stand and defend—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to point out that what was just said is completely inaccurate. The NDP does not support the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order. I will stop you right away.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Chatham--Kent--Essex.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the hon. member across the way. He talks in defence of his party, how the Liberals rallied to the cause and fought for their constituents and the rest of Canada.

However, would he comment on this? It is a fact that we spent, I believe it was in excess of 50 hours, from 3:30 in the afternoon on Wednesday until 7:30 in the afternoon on Friday. The majority of that time was changes that the Liberals wanted to make to lakes and rivers and not just in a cluster, but one after another. We witnessed department people sitting there for who knows how long on the first day and then the rest of the time. All that time and money was spent for no apparent reason.

Could he comment on that and tell Canadians why the Liberal Party would waste that kind of time and taxpayer money?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is the reality of what we do and there is a cost for that. Many civil servants are deeply offended by what the bill would do and appreciate the Liberal Party's fight to try to get the government to do the right thing. This is at the same time that the government and the NDP support increasing the size of the House of Commons by 30 plus MPs, at a cost of over $30 million annually. What about that cost?

In bringing together of all the legislation under the one budget bill, we spent a small amount of time on it. It should have been almost a complete legislative agenda, which normally would have had hundreds of hours of debate and questions and answers. Instead of that, the government chose to bring it in by sliding it through the back door of a budget debate.

It is historic. Never before in the history of Canada has there been such a huge budget bill presented to the House. That is one of the reasons why the Liberal Party opposes the legislation. We stand alone in ensuring that—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I would ask that we try to get three questions in each five minute session of questions and comments, which means you will have to limit your questions and answers to 45 seconds maximum.

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has displayed not only inaccuracy, but quite frankly, embarrassing partisanship. The New Democratic Party is focused in holding the government to account and raising the substantive issues about which Canadians tell us they care. The partisanship and partisanship games that the member is displaying, frankly, are not fit for the debate on this important bill.

However, I will give him another opportunity and will ask the hon. member if he could comment on the very serious changes to the research and development grant cuts that have been made in the budget. This would seriously affect jobs, research and development, innovation and productivity in Canada. Could he answer a substantive question on that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one could ultimately ask why she did not even stand and want to have recorded votes for her motions in committee. She should feel somewhat shameful of the NDP's behaviour because the NDP had a choice. It could have been in committee and fought with Canadians in recognizing that the bill was bizarre, it was historic and had no merit being in committee. The member, along with the New Democratic Party, caved. It was the Liberal Party that took the battle in committee. The NDP members did not do their job. That is why they might be a little sensitive on this issue right now.

I do not take any shame. We could have used the support of the New Democratic Party to oppose the legislation. It chose not to do that. You made the bed, now you have to sleep in it, is what I would suggest—

[The Deputy Speaker]

We will not let this degenerate into direct contact between individual members and other members in the House. I insist in this debate for the rest of the day, as are other Speakers, that you address all of your comments to the Chair. If you do not, you will be cut off.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we have a substantive and factual debate when it comes to important legislation such as the federal budget, so let me change the tone from never-never land to the facts.

We are facing incredibly serious challenges in our country. We have consulted with Canadians right across the country. We have held public hearings and we have heard first-hand the serious concerns that Canadians have, concerns about the all-time record high personal debt that Canadians face.

We have heard about the unemployment levels, where more than 300,000 Canadians are still unemployed than were before the downturn in 2008, where youth unemployment is double that of the rest of the country and so many of our young people cannot get a start in life. They are facing very high student debt. They are starting out with incredible economic burdens, yet they cannot find decent jobs.

We have also heard about the growing inequality in Canada, the fourth highest growth in inequality of the OECD over the last 20 years, a global scourge is what the Economist magazine has called growing inequality around the world and, sadly, in Canada as well.

We have heard about the impact on people's health that growing inequality creates. We have heard about the reduction in life expectancy. We have heard about the impact of other social factors. We have heard about the lack of housing, the lack of investment in child care, in mental health strategies, the lack of a program for child nutrition and the lack of investment in pharmacare, the fastest growing cost in our health care system.

We heard from boards of trade and chambers of commerce about the lack of investment in infrastructure and the economic drag on our GDP to the tune of billions of dollars each and every year because of the lack of an infrastructure strategy and concrete dollars invested in infrastructure.

We have heard about the skills deficit, where young people in certain communities, like aboriginal communities, cannot get the skills they need to take advantage of job opportunities because the government is failing, failing first nations, failing young people, failing those facing inequality and unemployment.

Yet we see a budget that not only does not invest in health care, for example, but reduces health care expenditures to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in coming years.

We have, with Bill C-45, another massive omnibus budget implementation act. This spring we had a huge Trojan horse budget bill. We complained about it, protested about it and opposed it. We called for more time. What did the government do? It brought in an even bigger omnibus budget bill this fall and gave us less time and less opportunity to debate it. We want to have a substantive debate about the serious concerns that Canadians face.

The budget overall reduces the opportunity for Canadians to get old age security, increases the age from 65 to 67, which means more people will live in poverty. It reduces the investment in research and development tax credits, the SR&ED tax credit.

We heard from manufacturers, exporters and other experts. Concretely, this will take millions of dollars out of the manufacturing sector, out of economic development. It will cost jobs for Canadians at a time when we already face high unemployment. It will change and cut public sector pensions, and we heard from the public sector on this, and it guts environmental protection.

We saw the Environmental Assessment Act attacked, gutted, this spring. Now we see this fall, changes to the Navigable Waters Act that will basically remove the majority of lakes and rivers in Canada from environmental protection. Instead of Navigable Waters Protection Act, it becomes the navigation act. In other words, it is to facilitate navigation, changes, construction, pipelines perhaps, rather than protect our valuable water resources.

With the budget implementation bill this fall, we see changes to over 60 pieces of legislation. There are some changes here that we, as the New Democratic Party, support. For example, there is a completely new bill included in the act, the bridge to strengthen trade act, which would create a new bridge between Windsor and Detroit. We support that and think it would be a positive change. There is also a very small tax credit for small business hiring, which we support. There are also some minor changes around environmental tax credits that we support.

However, these changes are all bound up with many other changes that we do not support. For example, the bill would continue the give-away each and every year to the oil and gas sector to the tune of $1.3 billion, which we do not support. It would also make changes to the Fisheries Act, which we do not support.

The bottom line is that we have not had the time to adequately examine this massive omnibus bill. Rather than it going to other committees where, in some cases, there were just one-day meetings on it, the bill should have been divided up and appropriately studied by the relevant committees, which could have drawn upon the expertise of witnesses and members of Parliament for a thorough examination and debate to make the best decisions possible on behalf of Canadians.

The bill and this budget pretend to be about job creation, a point that I want to address.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying that this budget would directly cost Canadians some 43,000 jobs. Combined with other cuts, it would probably mean more than 100,000 jobs lost. He has said that because of the budget's austerity measures, it will be a drag on our gross domestic product.

Now we have the Minister of Finance saying that the government's projections were wrong. This year, next year, the following year and year after that, their projections will be wrong to the tune of $33 billion. They are supposed to be good economic managers, but, quite frankly, they are mismanaging what is a very serious situation for Canadians. This is costing people their jobs, and it will cost even more jobs with things like the changes to the SR and ED tax credit at the same time the government is gutting environmental protections in this country.

The budget bill once again raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability. Not only would it remove accountable commissions and boards and concentrate more power in the hands of ministers, the very act of cramming everything into this one omnibus budget bill means that we parliamentarians cannot properly hold the government to account.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer had to take the unprecedented step of taking the Conservative government to court. The Office of the PBO was created by the government, but the PBO is now having to take the government to court to get basic information that parliamentarians need to do their jobs.

I want to reassert in the strongest possible terms that we are against this omnibus budget bill and the process of cramming far too many things into one bill. We are against the fact that the Conservatives are not standing up for Canadians by investing in the programs and protections that Canadians need. They are not doing the job in terms of creating employment and job opportunities for Canadians.

We will oppose this bill in the strongest possible terms. Here in the New Democratic Party, we will stand up for Canadians. We will do the job on behalf of Canadians.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for the fine job she did as vice-chair of the committee.

In that respect, I want to give her an opportunity to respond to some of the allegations made by the Liberal member who spoke before her, just to set the record straight. It is important that the House and the people of Canada know of the important work that was done at committee and what really happened for those three nights. I wonder if she would like to respond to that, given this opportunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I find so difficult to grapple with is not only that we have this massive omnibus budget bill but also time allocation motions that have restricted our ability as parliamentarians to fully examine this bill. That is the most difficult aspect, whether in trying to deal with so many amendments in the finance committee or in not having adequate time for witnesses. This bill is being rammed through and dealt with far too quickly without proper examination and without sufficient information being made available to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and members of Parliament, so that we can hold the government to account and do our jobs properly. That is the biggest problem with this bill.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that astonishes me with this omnibus bill, similar to previous omnibus bills, is that with each day that we peel back more and more layers we find many hidden dimensions within this bill. It is absolutely astonishing and I believe the member alluded to that.

One of the things I have noticed is a recent trend to increase certain fees, which the government is slowly trying to put through under the table for its administration of government. One of them, of course, is in regard to the hiring credit that the CFIB and the Liberals called for, but which now includes an EI hike for many small businesses.

Could the member comment on how the Conservatives seem to be the government of lower taxes, but that fees seem to be creeping in everywhere.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, all of these user fees are in fact a tax hike on Canadians.

I want to speak specifically about EI. Both the current government and the previous Liberal government helped themselves to tens of billions of dollars in the EI fund, which meant that when there was in surplus, they took that money, and when we went into a period of high unemployment, the money was not available for the unemployed workers who had paid into the fund along with the employers.

Yes, there is a hike, but it is partly because governments helped themselves to that money, which should belong to the working people of Canada.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I visit my riding, I sometimes go to shopping centres to do some errands, and I speak to the women who work at the Zellers store, which will soon be closing. I ask them if they know what they will do after the store closes and whether they will have a job. They tell me that they have no idea. These are often immigrant women.

Big changes are being made to employment insurance. I would like my colleague to explain how these fundamental changes to EI will affect women, and more specifically immigrant women.

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

Mr. Speaker, increasingly we are seeing that some of the most marginal people in the workforce, including newcomers and women and young people, are simply not qualifying for employment insurance. In fact, today in Canada less than 40% of Canadians qualify for an insurance program they paid into and ought to be entitled to. It is a national disgrace that started with the Liberal government and has been perpetuated, sadly, by the current government and made even worse. It is a factor in increasing inequality in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to yet another budget omnibus bill. I suppose I should not use the word “pleased”.

I want to first make a few comments on the subject of omnibus bills and what we have seen in this one year. We essentially have seen budget 2012 used as an excuse for the tabling of 900 pages of legislation largely unrelated to the budget itself. This exercise is both illegitimate and undemocratic in combining 70 different bills in Bill C-38, allegedly related to budget 2012, and now 60 different bills in Bill C-45.

I have fewer amendments today than I had tabled for Bill C-38 and Canadians might want to know the difference. Bill C-38, while a couple of pages shorter, did far more damage to the fabric of environmental laws in Canada. Bill C-38 took an axe to our Fisheries Act, destroying habitat protections; , repealed the Environmental Assessment Act; and put in place a substitute piece of legislation that would be an embarrassment to a developing country. It was absolutely abominable.

In Bill C-38, we also saw the explicit removal of pipelines as a category of obstruction under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I would have thought that the Conservative agenda toward pipelines was satisfied with Bill C-38, but we go on to Bill C-45 and see that the attack on environmental laws includes the evisceration of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

In Bill C-38, I made the case, as members may recall, to ask the Speaker for a ruling that the bill was out of order and not properly put together. I think we need to revisit the rules and to create some rules t around omnibus bills because this is clearly illegitimate.

In Bill C-45, we have proof of how appalling the process was in Bill C-38 in that some of what we are voting on this week are remedies for errors made in the drafting of Bill C-38. These were obvious errors that could have been caught if the normal legislative process had taken place.

Now we are asked, in Bill C-45, to correct drafting errors made in Bill C-38 where the English does not accord with the French, or where, under the Fisheries Act, they forgot to protect certain aspects of navigation through the fisheries corridors where there are weirs and other fishing apparatus. We also have changes to the Environmental Assessment Act because of poor drafting the last time around. Why was the drafting poor? It was because 70 different laws were put together in one piece of legislation and forced through the House without a willingness to accept, in 425 pages of legislation, a single amendment.

This is not proper parliamentary process. No previous Privy Council in the history of this country has ever equated an amendment to a bill between first reading and royal assent as some sort of political defeat that must be avoided at all costs. This is a level of parliamentary partisanship that takes leave of its senses. It is essentially a form of parliamentary insanity for the government to decide that it cannot possibly accept an amendment from first reading to royal assent and then to come back and give us this which finally provides some of the corrections.

I will speak to my amendments relatively quickly. I want to stress that neither Bill C-38 nor Bill C-45 are really about jobs, r growth or the budget. I will highlight the things in Bill C-45 that I hope to amend because they will hurt jobs.

Bill C-45, the omnibus budget bill, would hurt jobs in tourism through this quite extraordinary proposal, which is not a proposal but will be passed into law unless we are able to persuade Conservative members of Parliament that they should vote for what they think is right and not how they are told, ordered and instructed to vote.

When tourism in this country is such an important part of our economy, it makes no sense to pass into law a requirement that tourists from around the world, from countries that do not currently require a visa to come to Canada, regardless of whether they have any aspersions on their character, whether they are considered to be a risk, every tourist to Canada, except those from the United States because of our agreements over a shared border security process, would need to fill out a form to find out if they are allowed to come here for a vacation. This is a terrible change and it would significantly hurt tourism.

Another terrible change is reducing the tax credit, the SR and ED, the scientific research and experimental development tax credit. This is where Canada lags. If we listen to the economists, there is tremendous concern about our competitiveness and productivity, which is directly related to research and development, and to why we need to have the scientific research and experimental development tax credit available to Canadians. We think it would be a big mistake to reduce that.

I will now talk about what I like in Bill C-45. The assumption is that every opposition member hates everything in Bill C-45. That is one of the reasons I object to omnibus bills. There are measures here that I would vote for were they not coupled together with so much destruction. I would vote for the actual budgetary measures that one finds at the beginning of Bill C-45, the tax credits to encourage investment in clean energy and energy efficiency. They are too small but I am certainly not against them. Rather, I am for them.

I would vote for the closing of some of the tax credits to encourage oil and gas development, such as the Atlantic investment tax credit for oil, gas and mining, and for the corporate mineral exploration and development tax credit. I would also vote for the closing of the loopholes in transfer pricing and foreign affiliate dumping that have been used by corporations to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Those are the measures I would vote for.

What deeply disturbs me in this bill, in addition to the measure that I had mentioned to create a new requirement for filling out a form to come to Canada under immigration, is the elimination of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission. My amendments would keep that commission in place.

As well, we could do more with the hiring credit for small business.

The changes to the Fisheries Act are largely to repair mistakes made by the Conservatives to the Fisheries Act that had weakened it. They are now fixing some of what they did not need to weaken so desperately. However, we have suggested an amendment to allow for the definition of “aboriginal fisheries”, on the basis of first nations advice, to ensure that the definition is fully respected and takes into account the constitutional and treaty rights of first nations in any definition of “aboriginal fisheries”.

Before moving on to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, I wish to speak to the Canada Grain Act. My amendments oppose a move to take away the independent bond actors in terms of looking at Canadian grains. The third party inspection that is now being proposed would create a conflict of interest between the private sector and the grain companies. We think that would be a mistake. We have certainly learned from the XL Foods beef scandal that it is important to ensure that inspections are truly independent.

The bulk of my amendments deal with the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The Conservatives have taken three runs at it through three different omnibus bills, the first being in 2009. The objective definition of what is “navigable” was changed to a discretionary definition wherein “navigable” would mean whatever the Minister of Transport says that it means.

In Bill C-38, just this past spring, the Conservatives took another run at the Navigable Waters Protection Act with the specific exclusion of pipelines as works or undertakings. Pipelines are no longer in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. These new amendments are certainly not about pipelines because the Conservatives took care of that in Bill C-38.

What this does is it takes an act that we have had since 1882 that directly comes from the Constitution of this country, that being the federal responsibility for navigation. The Navigable Waters Protection Act, which was brought in by Sir John A. Macdonald, has protected the rights of Canadians to put a canoe or kayak in any body of water and paddle from there to wherever they want to go. As Canadians, we have a right to navigation. This is now being superseded with the false story that there is somehow a burdensome regulatory amount of red tape that offends people in municipalities. Therefore, we need to blow apart the Navigable Waters Protection Act to say that a body of water is only navigable if it can be found in the schedule at the back of the act. Ironically, the 99.5% of Canadian waters that are not listed there are not ones near municipalities, cottages and people who want to build wharfs, but are in our wilderness areas where, without the Navigable Waters Protection Act, nothing stands in the way of obstructions to navigations for Canadians.

The government will tell us that is all right because Canadians have a common law right. If people have a couple of hundred thousand dollars and are prepared to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to defend their right to use a waterway that is not listed, they can do that. However, this is an egregious abdication of responsibility for a federal head of power that no other level of government has the right to step up and fill the void.

I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to give due consideration to these serious and important amendments.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the fisheries committee and the environment committee, I stand in this House and strongly defend the measures we have taken to reform and strengthen our environmental laws.

One of the things I am very curious about, however, is that the opposition parties never actually focus on the environment itself. All they focus on is protest, like environmental lawyers always do.

Let us look at what is actually happening to the environment, in our environment, on our watch: sulphur dioxide emissions are down, nitrous oxide emissions are down and carbon dioxide emissions are down. We are number two in the world in water quality based on a 2010 UNESCO report. We were in government when this report came out.

We have doubled the amount of protected areas. We have increased the number of environmental farm plans. Randle Reef in Hamilton harbour is getting fixed. I could go on and on with measurable environmental achievements. Why do the opposition parties not actually focus on measuring the environment itself?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette that,as leader of the Green Party, I pay a lot of attention to measurable actions of the party that he represents. Those measurable actions include recklessly ignoring the worsening state of the Great Lakes; failing to appoint a commissioner to the International Joint Commission, which the Conservatives have left vacant for almost a year; the abdication of responsibility by cancelling science across this country: closing the Experimental Lakes Area; shutting down the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research labs; cancelling all research into climate science; and pretending, by throwing money at Lake Simcoe, that they are somehow dealing with water quality.

This is a big country and the reality of what the current government has done is an appalling assault of negative action for protecting our wilderness and the air and water that we need to live.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask the Green Party leader a question about the Conservative Party's intentions regarding the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act in Bill C-45.

Can she tell us what she thinks is behind those changes? Personally, I think those changes are meant to speed up the pipeline approval process and ensure that there is no legislation standing in the way of that development.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

In my view, the motivation behind the huge changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act is to eliminate the protection of most of Canada's lakes, rivers and waterways. It is not meant only for pipelines, because before Bill C-38 was passed, developers had to obtain a permit issued by Transport Canada for any pipelines that went through navigable waters. Since Bill C-38 was passed, pipelines are no longer included in the groups known as works and undertakings.

Pipelines were specifically excluded in Bill C-38.

The decision in Bill C-45 to reduce the protection of navigable waters has to do with mines, dams and all other aspects that present a danger to Canada's waterways.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to share my opinion on this omnibus bill. I am very happy to speak, but I am very unhappy that the Conservatives are once again trying to shove a bill down Quebeckers' throats that is going to be harmful not only for urban and rural areas but for all Quebeckers.

One of the amendments that I proposed, the one I am speaking about, deals specifically with the federal government's desire to reduce tax credits that are useful to research and development.

For companies and research centres in my area, in eastern Quebec, the Conservatives plan to make very harmful and risky cuts to investment tax credits by cutting the scientific research and experimental development program.

Economic diversification is essential for our region. The Conservatives' cuts to investment tax credits will harm a program that is used by companies that hope to develop new expertise through the college centres for technology transfer. This program allows Quebec companies to claim a tax credit when they sign a contract with the college centres for technology transfer. It therefore encourages these companies to try to diversify and find ways of developing new niches through research, development and creativity.

This program provides direct assistance to companies but also provides indirect assistance to all the centres in eastern Quebec. These centres, which are located throughout the province—and there are eight in my area—help companies to diversify their expertise in more traditional areas. For example, the Merinov technology transfer centre in the Gaspé works in the area of fisheries; the Innovation maritime centre in Rimouski works in the marine industry; the Service de recherche et d'expertise en transformation des produits forestiers de l'Est du Québec in Amqui, in my riding, and the Centre d'expérimentation et de développement en forêt boréale in Baie-Comeau on the north shore, work in the area of forestry; and the Bioproducts Development Center in La Pocatière works in the area of agrifood processing.

These centres play a vital role in strengthening our traditional economy, which is experiencing a downturn. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are lowering tax credits. Thus, the businesses that traditionally worked with the technology transfer centres will lose some of the incentive to diversify. Solutions Novika, in la Pocatière, works in industrial manufacturing and is a very pertinent example.

These cuts will also have an impact on sustainable development. For example, the Centre d'initiation à la recherche et d'aide au développement durable, which is based in Carleton-Sur-Mer, is a technology transfer centre that promoted its services to businesses with tax credits.

But let us rise above the ideological differences we sometimes have with the Conservatives. The Conservatives say that they promote the regions and, according to their slogan “Our Region in Power”, which they used extensively in the last election campaign, they were there to develop the regions.

The regions feel very misunderstood by the Conservatives. I urge them to remove this part of their omnibus bill, as it will be detrimental to innovation spurred by research and development.

I have to speak out about all the changes to the employment insurance program that will hurt the regions. The government laid the groundwork with the previous omnibus bill, Bill C-38. And now Bill C-45 will finish the job, as we say. At present, this program no longer meets the needs of workers who lose their jobs, especially in regions such as mine where seasonal employment is vital to the economy. I am speaking on behalf of workers who lose their jobs at a time of year when there are no more jobs to be had.

The Conservatives do not understand that winter comes around every year in some corners of our great region and that it is impossible for forestry and fishery workers to work during that time. They are trying to penalize these workers by telling them that if they do not try to find a job outside of their region, their benefits will be cut.

This directly targets the regions and drains their pool of skilled workers. This can put a strain on families and on our region's development, but also on the employers that need skilled workers when they are ready to hire again.

The Conservatives are being short-sighted with this very harmful reform. I urge the minister—as I have done many times—to reconsider the reforms she is currently making to the EI program. First and foremost, we can understand the need for a program to help workers get through a difficult time in their lives—one that they did not ask for. No one wants to be unemployed. Forestry, fishery and tourism workers are very important to the regions.

Tourism will be drastically affected by this reform. Not too long ago, I was speaking to a business owner in my region who runs an arts centre. He employs skilled workers, whom he trained. He has diversified his operations over the years. He told me that he had development projects that he invested a great deal of energy into, but that he was not sure if he was going to be able to make his business grow, develop and prosper, because he was not sure that his skilled workers—which represent the determining factor for him—would come back. We are talking about his customer service and his business's reputation.

In a very large region like ours, many representatives from municipalities, businesses, community groups and development agencies have spoken out about how they do not understand the Conservatives' plan. They are wondering—and I have asked the Conservatives this many times—if the Conservatives truly want to shut down the regions. I think we have the answer.

The omnibus bill targets many different things, including the environment. The federal government is once again lowering its environmental criteria. The leader of the Green Party made an eloquent speech about this just now.

The St. Lawrence River, which runs through my riding, is an extremely busy waterway, with rivers flowing into it and ships providing marine transportation. Relaxing the criteria and decreasing protections could cause changes to the quality of waterways, which would open the door to potential dangers. I am talking here about the St. Lawrence River, the sea.

On that note, I would like to talk about the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, a research centre that, since last spring, has been affected by cuts resulting from the Conservatives' desire to cut back on science, to reduce access to knowledge. This knowledge is embarrassing to the Conservatives. The research conducted by the scientists at the institute makes it possible to determine the causes and effects of dumping toxic substances into the river.

The Conservatives are directly attacking science under the pretext of wanting to make cuts. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans must do its part and cut its budget. As a result, organizations such as the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, the largest francophone research centre at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, are paying the price.

I will certainly have another opportunity to talk more about this, since I am going to ask a question today during question period about very specific techniques, extremely precise cuts that may sometimes appear to be innocuous, for example the elimination of two librarian positions and the closure of the Maurice Lamontagne Institute's library.

These cuts are planned and serve to directly promote the Conservative ideology of curbing access to knowledge.

My time has run out. I would like to thank my colleagues for listening to my comments about this omnibus bill. I hope that the Conservatives will accept the opposition's amendments.

The last time, they ignored all the amendments, so I urge them to accept my amendment.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear those comments about employment insurance. People in my riding have been talking a lot about problems with the new changes.

I have a very specific question for the hon. member. I would like him to talk about the benefits. We have been talking about the Conservatives' misdeeds, but I would like him to comment more generally on the benefits of a Canada-wide employment insurance program that would enable all regions to help each other. The regions that need it most could benefit from a program that would enable the wealthiest regions to help those with the most problems, regions like his.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sherbrooke for his question. He has given me an excellent opportunity to talk about the employment insurance program.

There have been problems for many years. There have been many attempts to reform the system since 2006, when the Conservatives came to power. Each time, the opposition and the government blocked these attempts. The Bloc Québécois's proposed changes focused on getting the government to understand that the program should do more to address Quebeckers' concerns.

Many people, including the former chief actuary of the employment insurance program, Mr. Bédard, and economist Pierre Fortin, came to the same conclusion we did: Quebec must be in control of its own employment insurance program. The program must meet Quebeckers' needs. During its election campaign, the Parti Québécois said that it wanted to take control of the program.

I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support transferring the program to Quebec City so that our government can create a program that meets the needs of Quebeckers, which the current program does not do.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is about changes to support for businesses conducting scientific research and experimental development. In Montreal, there have been job losses in this sector.

In this bill, the Conservatives are ignoring the need for a meaningful, detailed, coordinated and effective policy for the research and development industry. Does my colleague agree with that?

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Honoré-Mercier for giving me the opportunity to speak again, clarify a few things and answer her question regarding the Conservatives' cuts to tax credits.

When tax credits are decreased, they become less attractive, and that goes for my region as well as the rest of Quebec. This is especially true in Montreal, where high-tech companies are trying to figure out how to succeed in this still fragile economy. The Conservatives are saying that everything is fine, yet we know that these are still tough economic times. And since times are still tough across Quebec, it is dangerous—as I said in my speech—to reduce a tax credit that is very popular and that helps businesses to develop. As these businesses grow, they employ more people. Regardless of the region, this increased economic activity will create secondary jobs, including jobs for subcontractors for instance, and economic benefits for all businesses.

As I said earlier, I urge the government to reassess the situation and maintain the current rate for tax credits in order to avoid harmful consequences across Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague opposite. In this bill, the government has included a number of measures to help small businesses and to eliminate duplication.

I wonder if he could comment specifically on the measures to close tax loopholes? That is very important. We are listening to what Quebeckers are saying about tax loopholes. I would like to know his thoughts on the measures proposed in the bill.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saint Boniface for the question.

Yes, tax loopholes need to be closed. It is important that Canada, through its Parliament, bring in increased controls and regulations to ensure that people pay their taxes.

In that regard, the Conservatives are not going far enough and sometimes talk out of both sides of their mouths. For instance, they recently concluded a free trade agreement with Panama, which opens the door to certain tax loopholes.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my Bloc Québécois colleague who just spoke. Obviously, it is extremely important to speak on behalf of Quebeckers here in Ottawa. That is what we intend to do, that is what we have been doing for some time now, and that is what we will do with regard to this bill by introducing specific amendments that affect Quebec in particular.

These amendments also affect other regions. Employment insurance is not exclusive to Quebec. However, my colleague who just spoke gave examples of problems with regard to tourism and agriculture in his region. These types of problems exist throughout Quebec. They also exist in my riding. I will speak about them a little bit later in my speech.

We have presented substantive amendments to emphasize the importance of preserving Quebec's assets. The government wants to make cuts to those assets, by introducing an omnibus bill. We do not understand why the government does not agree to split up this omnibus bill, which the media refer to as a mammoth bill. This has now become the way to describe the Conservative Party's bills. First we had Bill C-38 and now we have Bill C-45.

The countless pages of the bill are flooded with a host of measures that, in the end, will have drastic effects on the everyday lives of Canadians, but people will not find about those effects until later because we do not have time to debate this bill. The government is imposing gag orders. The Conservatives have now imposed about 30 gag orders on bills. Unfortunately, I expect that there will be another one for Bill C-45, and we are lucky to have a chance to speak before that happens.

As a result of these gag orders, parliamentarians are not able to properly debate this type of bill and are being muzzled in committee. A little while ago, I learned from a Liberal colleague that the NDP had accepted or overlooked the time allocation motion. When that happens, the amendments proposed by the other parties are not debated in committee.

Clearly, there is a problem with regard to democracy in this Parliament. This problem is exacerbated by the attitude of the Conservatives, who refuse to present reforms one at a time so that members can debate them properly and vote on them. Whether we agree or disagree, I respect members' decisions because that is democracy. However, we have to be able to have a minimum amount of debate and make Canadians aware of what is happening.

Mr. Speaker, everyone here is an MP, including you. Many people are coming to my riding office to talk about the changes to employment insurance. We are learning more about these changes every day. Why? Because we did not have a proper debate about them in this place. The minister and the government simply refused to split the omnibus bill, in order to create a separate, proper bill that we could debate properly.

Therefore, we are proposing a series of amendments so that we can at least discuss some of the issues. I hope that the parties, and especially the government, will listen to reason and accept these amendments.

My colleague just spoke about research and development. Members are also talking about amendments that affect employment insurance, the environment and labour standards. I proposed an amendment concerning research and development because in Bill C-45 the government has decided to decrease its support from 65% to 55%. That is a substantial decrease in research and development tax credits. Naturally, this will affect investments in the manufacturing and forestry sectors by Quebec businesses.

We know what this Conservative government did to the forestry sector, even though the Minister of Transport is from Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, in the Roberval area, where forestry is vitally important. During the recession that began in 2008, this government favoured Ontario's automotive industry. I am not saying that it should not have. However, billions of dollars were poured into the auto industry while Quebec's forestry industry received peanuts.

Now, the government has introduced an omnibus bill that cuts research and development. We know just how important R&D is for the forestry industry. The government's initial response to the problems in the forestry industry was unfair. Now, it is compounding the problems.

My region, which covers a large part of central Quebec and the Eastern Townships, has a forestry industry and many small and medium-sized businesses. There are also big businesses such as Cascades, in Kingsey Falls, which employs more than 2,000 people in Quebec, the United States and Europe.

It has been in the recycling business since 1964. It makes cardboard, paper, and so on. Pretty much everyone has, at some point, used a Cascades product. Obviously, research and development are the lifeblood of this kind of manufacturing business. The government will probably say that this is not a very big cut, but tax credits are extremely important for the growth of businesses in the sustainable development sector, extraordinary job-creating businesses like Cascades. This is a harsh blow, particularly at a time when the Canadian dollar is so high.

Again, the government will probably say that this is not its responsibility, but when everyone is struggling with the effects of an economic crisis—such as the high-flying loonie—the government has no business trying to drown companies that are managing to keep their heads above water. I am not talking about Cascades. I am talking about all of the companies whose research and development over the years have made them what they are today.

That is especially true for Quebec, and that is why we proposed this amendment. I hope that everyone will consider this matter carefully before agreeing to these cuts. The government is being penny-wise and pound foolish when it should be doing the opposite. It still does not get that investing in research and development pays off. I do not understand how a government that claims to be so focused on the economy can propose measures as unfair as those in Bill C-45.

Some members talked about employment insurance. My Bloc Québécois colleague discussed it in some detail, but I would like to reiterate the importance of protecting what we have. I am not talking about wanting to collect employment insurance. I am talking about making sure that people working for businesses in the tourism and agricultural sectors can do what everyone wants to do, which is keep working close to home. Are the people making these decisions from major urban centres exclusively? It certainly seems that way. Employment insurance affects them too, but the new measures will primarily affect the regions.

I do not think this is what we should do, but in Switzerland, farmers are paid to leave sheep in the fields, not because they are raising sheep and producing wool, but because tourists like seeing sheep in the fields. I am not saying this is what we should do, but some places are aware of the importance of land use.

My colleague spoke about the Gaspé. My father comes from a municipality in his riding, Causapscal. He was born in agricultural area where there is a lot of tourism. As the member pointed out, winter comes every year and there is a period during which seasonal businesses unfortunately do not operate. But as soon as tourist season returns, people line up to take in the beautiful landscapes and all that these regions have to offer tourists.

We have a choice to make: do we want to shut down these regions and ensure that there are no skilled workers able to work there, or do we want to adjust the employment insurance program so that it is fairer to everyone and so that we can protect these jobs that are so important to keeping the regions going? If we shut down these regions, everyone will end up in big cities and major centres, and then we will definitely have a problem with employment insurance.

I wanted to talk about other amendments, but I urge my colleagues in the House of Commons to examine the important amendments very carefully. If we are stuck with Bill C-45 because this is a majority government, we could at least make amendments to improve it before it is passed.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my Bloc Québécois colleague, the industry critic, for his thoughtful remarks in the House about the Conservatives' vision as expressed in this omnibus bill.

I would like to focus on the Conservatives' cuts to science and technology. They are planning to close the Maurice Lamontagne Institute's library, which, as I mentioned earlier, has two employees—librarians—and promotes French-language science culture. It is Fisheries and Oceans Canada's only French library. The Conservatives decided to transfer the books elsewhere and put them in storage. The books will no longer be accessible because they cannot be digitized because of the Copyright Act.

What is the Conservatives' vision for scientific progress? I would like my colleague to comment on that. What is his understanding of the Conservatives' proposed vision?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have sat in the House for a long time, so I speak as a veteran, and I have always been flabbergasted at the Conservative government’s disdain for science and technology. There are blatant examples of this, including the cuts in my colleague’s riding that he spoke about.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois recently visited Chicoutimi, and the people there had much to say to him about how we had brought the House’s attention to the cuts the government wants to make to the Aluminum Technology Centre. For the Cascades company, in my riding, research and development is the driving force. In the Chicoutimi region, what is now called the City of Saguenay, research and development in connection with aluminum is obviously very important.

These days, when we have a growing need for research, development and the contribution that scientists make to finding new, more effective approaches, if the government makes cuts like these, as I was just saying, it amounts to standing on the head of a person whose head is barely above water.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments.

I would like to talk about two things that are important to Quebeckers. The people and the Government of Quebec say that these things are important to them.

So I would like to hear my colleague’s comments in the House of Commons about the implementation of the fiscal framework for pooled registered pension plans, which the Government of Quebec is waiting for impatiently, and the improvements to registered disability savings plans that are proposed in the bill.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which gives me an opportunity to reiterate what I said at the very beginning of my speech. She is entirely correct. There are very important measures in Bill C-45, as there are in any other bill.

If she has heard the things I have said in the past, she knows that I nearly always say there are never just bad measures or good measures in a bill. This is why it is so important that the government split these bills, particularly when we know that there are measures that are very important to Quebec, as she so rightly said. That is how we make sure that we talk about registered savings plans or tax measures in a bill that concerns those subjects.

Bill C-45 is a catch-all that contains an unending series of measures. It is 400 or 500 pages long and deals with 70 bills that have nothing in common, be it the environment, employment insurance or taxation. It never ends. About the only thing not included in this bill is the justice system.

What we are telling the government, over and over, is that we have to split these measures. Why did we do this when the issue was members’ pensions, when everyone was in agreement? The government agreed to remove that idea from the bill so we could vote on it separately, probably because, from a political perspective, it looked good. We cut our pensions and members were unanimous on that. It worked well and it went quickly.

If the government can do that for issues that affect members, I do not see why it would not do it for issues that are very important to Quebec and the other provinces.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to report stage debate on this vital piece of legislation that is so incredibly important for the continued economic strength of Canada, Bill C-45, jobs and growth act, 2012, which we all know implements key portions of economic action plan 2012.

As Canadians know, in the midst of global economic turbulence, Canada's economy, with the help of our government's pro-growth agenda, has performed relatively well compared to our international peers. Whether it be job creation, economic growth, or our fiscal position, Canada is actually leading the way.

Canadians can take pride that we have seen the strongest job creation record over the G7 in recent years, with more than 820,000 net new jobs that have been created since the recession. The vast majority of those jobs are full-time. Canadians can take pride that we have the best finances in the G7 with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio by far. The list goes on and on.

It is little wonder that more and more third-party and international observers have applauded our government's economic record. Why do we not listen to some of those observers?

Listen to Finn Poschmann of the C.D. Howe Institute who had this to say: “The economic outlook for Canada is a lot stronger than the rest of the world”.

What about Pier Carlo Padoan, the chief economist of the OECD who declared, “The Canadian economy is doing well. ...the Canadian economy...is doing much better than most of the other advanced economies”?

However, we cannot be complacent, especially at this time. We must remain vigilant and focused on the economy, as we know all too well that the global economy continues to face considerable challenges, especially when we look to the United States and Europe, two of Canada's most important trading partners.

That is exactly what our government is doing with economic action plan 2012, as demonstrated with today's important legislation. Canadians expect their government to be working on and moving forward with exactly this type of targeted, pro-growth and job-creating legislation.

Canadians, who are cautious about the state of the global economy and its possible impact on Canada, want to know that their Parliament is taking the situation equally as seriously. They would be incredibly disappointed if they were to witness their politicians use this opportunity to play partisan games with the Canadian economy. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Liberal Party did at the finance committee, engaging in a costly, multi-day filibuster. Instead of moving forward with key economic reforms, the Liberal Party decided to play partisan political games, moving thousands of frivolous amendments, mainly only serving to delay economic action plan 2012.

I should note that the Liberals did move a handful of substantive amendments at finance committee and actually argued quite forcefully for them. However, and shockingly, the vast majority of the amendments the Liberal Party actually chose to discuss surrounded tax loopholes.

In fact, in a rare moment of agreement between the government and the NDP, we both expressed our stunned collective disbelief as the Liberal finance critic time and again spoke to demand that we actually leave tax loopholes open and turn our backs on the basic principles of tax fairness. I am still scratching my head trying to figure out why the Liberal finance critic was so adamant that we leave these tax loopholes in place so that a select privileged few could avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

I am proud that our Conservative members stood up to the Liberal Party and voted down every attempt it made at committee stage to leave tax loopholes open. I am also very proud that our Conservative members stood strong for days on end, night and day, and stopped the partisan Liberal attempt to block economic action plan 2012 and its support for the Canadian economy.

As I mentioned earlier, our plan and its elements legislated through the jobs and growth act 2012 is a positive plan for the economy and Canadian families. Indeed, I want to share with Canadians many of the initiatives in this legislation that will assist them and their communities, initiatives that the opposition opposes and is trying to stop.

For instance, our Conservative government is helping build a stronger economy and creating jobs in today's legislation by extending for one year the job-creating hiring tax credit for small business, promoting interprovincial trade, improving the legislative framework governing Canada's financial institutions, facilitating cross-border travel, removing red tape and reducing fees for Canada's grain farmers, supporting Canada's commercial aviation sector and much more.

Today's legislation also helps support families and communities by improving registered disability savings plans, helping Canadians save for retirement by implementing a tax framework for pooled registered pension plans, improving the administration of the Canada pension plan and, again, much more.

The jobs and growth act, 2012 also takes concrete action to promote clean energy and enhanced neutrality of the tax system by, for instance, expanding tax relief for investment in clean energy generation equipment and phasing out tax preferences for the mining, oil and gas sectors.

Furthermore, today's legislation also works to better respect taxpayer dollars by taking landmark action to ensure the pension plans for federal public sector employees are sustainable and financially responsible. We are also closing tax loopholes. We are eliminating duplication and much more.

With all these positive pro-growth initiatives to help the Canadian economy and Canadian families, why would the opposition parties stand in their way and try to block them?

In my time remaining today I would like to focus on one very important initiative in particular that will really support economics in local communities right across Canada by supporting small businesses, especially in my home riding of Saint Boniface.

We all know the importance of small businesses, from the local hairdresser shop to the small manufacturer and more. Canada's small and medium-size enterprises account for 99% of companies. They employ 60% of working Canadians and they contribute about 40% to Canada's GDP, proving to be economic drivers and important sources of job creation.

That is why I am very pleased that economic action plan 2012, through today's legislation, extends the hiring credit for small business, making it easier for businesses to hire more Canadians and growth. By extending the temporary hiring credit for small business, today's legislation will make available a credit up to $1,000 against the small employer's increase in its 2012 EI premiums. This credit would be available to about 536,000 employers whose total EI premiums were at or below $10,000 in 2011, thus reducing their 2012 payroll costs by about $205 million. That is $205 million that our small businesses were able to keep in their pockets thanks to this temporary hiring credit.

This and many other positive initiatives in economic action plan 2012 will help Canadians and the Canadian economy. That is why Canadians support this plan and today's legislation. That is why the opposition should really stop trying to block it and stop the political games. I call on members to put political games aside, focus on the economy and help support the timely passage of today's legislation and economic action plan 2012.

Now on a personal note, as many Canadians know, parliamentarians are here sometimes five days a week and we miss special moments back home. As a result, I was unable to attend a funeral for a friend and I would like to take a moment to talk about Peter O'Kane who died suddenly in an accident at 42 years of age, a police officer I worked with very closely, a friend and a colleague that I admired quite a bit. In memory of Peter, I would like to read a special poem called “Final Inspection”:

The Policeman stood and faced his God,
Which must always come to pass.
He hoped his shoes were shining as brightly as his brass.
“Step forward now, officer. How shall I deal with You?
Have you always turned the other cheek?
To my Church have you been true?”
The officer squared his shoulders and said,
“No, Lord, I guess I ain't.
Cause those of us who carry badges can't always be a saint.
But I never took a penny that wasn't mine to keep,
Though I worked a lot of overtime when the bills just got too steep.
And I never passed a cry for help, though at times I shook with fear.
And sometimes, God forgive me, I wept an unmanly tear.
I know I don't deserve a place among the people here.
They never wanted me around except to calm their fear.
If you've a place for me here, Lord, it needn't be so grand.
I've never expected or had too much.
But if you don't, I'll understand”.
There was silence all around the throne where the saints had often trod.
As the officer waited quietly for the answer of his God.
“Step forward now, Officer, you've borne your burdens well.
Come walk a beat on Heaven's Streets. You've done you time in Hell”.

This is an ode for Peter O'Kane who died recently and I am very apologetic I could not be at the funeral.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to offer my condolences to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for her loss.

The Standing Committee on Finance met for many hours to discuss Bill C-45. On most of what we discussed, including the amendments, we were in strong disagreement with the government.

Our view is that the government is headed in the wrong direction. The government is missing out on obvious opportunities to play a positive role in Canada's economy. I do not have a lot of time to ask a question, so I would like to focus on one specific aspect on which we were in disagreement. That was the issue of scientific research and experimental development.

In committee, we heard several witnesses, particularly from the world of business, including the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association, which described its concerns about how changes were being made. The government is claiming that investment in private sector research and development has dropped by $500 million, whereas according to Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the figure is closer to $633 million. According to the association, this will lead to 18% to 20% less private sector research and development.

Another significant component is the elimination of capital expenditure eligibility for the research and development tax credit. The NDP has accordingly suggested postponing the changes for five years so that the implications could be studied more carefully.

I would like to know why the government is refusing a measure like this one, which would make it possible to study the changes proposed by the government in greater detail.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Finance. We work very well together, and it is a pleasure to work with this member of the official opposition.

I would like to begin by noting that a report, called the Jenkins report, was recently tabled. Experts were asked to give us advice on how to introduce measures that would support research and development.

On the basis of the Jenkins report, we added measures to the bill itself to allow for direct funding to certain organizations. These measures were recommended by the experts who prepared the report. They are also supported by other organizations. I should point out that even the organization mentioned by our NDP colleague supports several of the other measures that were recommended. It supports us on the hiring credits, and it supports us in terms of giving more money to research and development.

This should indicate to my colleague that many people support our measures. We intend to continue in the same direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the finance committee, the member actually voted against adding Kingfisher Lake to the list of protected waterways under the Navigable Waters Act. I am told that Kingfisher Lake is a magnificent place. It is located less than 10 kilometres from the member's riding. On a hot summer day, all 2,000 parking spaces at its beach are usually filled with Winnipeggers and St. Boniface residents who flock to the lake for recreation in the summer. The lake has received seven Master Angler Awards for rainbow trout, like the 58 centimetre one caught a few years ago by Jason Everett.

Why did the member not stand up for her constituents, who love Kingfisher Lake, and vote for the Liberal amendment to add the lake to the protected list?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely the Kingfisher Lake is protected. This government supports the Environmental Assessment Act, which protects those lakes, and we continue to move forward on a number of other environmental measures.

Let us talk about what that member did in committee. The member should answer these questions. When given an opportunity to put forward amendments on tax loopholes to actually ensure that Canadians paid their fair share, that there were no elite Canadians who would get away with paying less than is fair, the member put forward amendments to leave tax loopholes open. They included amendments like the avoidance of tax through the use of partnerships, or ensuring there was more integrity and fairness in thin capitalization rules, transfer pricing secondary adjustments, foreign affiliate dumping. Those are measures that we need to close those tax loopholes. That member ought to be ashamed that he made amendments to take those out, leaving tax loopholes open for other Canadians to abuse.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this important piece of legislation.

I first want to talk about a couple of things that build on the accomplishments that we have made as a government with our economic agenda.

First, I will mention the 820,000 net new jobs created since 2009. There is strong jobs growth in this country. Also, Canada's economy has expanded for nine of the ten past quarters. This is a great track record, one of the best in the G7. Indeed, Canada's unemployment rate is well below that of the United States. I cannot stress enough how significant that is. This is the first time this has happened in more than three decades, and we continue to see a lower unemployment rate here in Canada than the United States. That is absolutely a direct benefit of the policies of this government and, of course, the economic action plan.

The list goes on and on. Forbes magazine has ranked Canada and the number one place in the world for businesses to grow and create jobs. What will that do? Getting an award like that will lead to more direct investment in Canada, leading to a stronger economy and more jobs for Canadians.

Canada has one of the strongest fiscal positions in the G7. Fitch Ratings, Moody's and Standard and Poor's have all renewed Canada's rock-solid AAA credit rating. Again, this is a direct result of Canada's economic action plan. Furthermore, Canada has taken its place among the top five countries with the most economic freedom, according to a new Fraser Institute report. We are now leaps and bounds ahead of the United States.

These things all clearly show that our government is on the right track with our economic policies. We will continue to expand the economy and grow jobs. The amazing thing is that all of these accomplishments have been achieved without a carbon tax, and we will make sure there is not a $21 billion carbon tax to derail our progress.

I want to talk about some of the highlights, some of the important things that would be implemented. We are talking about extending the hiring credit for small business up to $1,000 to encourage additional hiring. That will also lower business payroll taxes by an amazing $205 million. The amazing thing about that is that it has helped 536,000 employers across Canada. We should think about that, because it benefits a huge number of small businesses, which we all know, especially on the Conservative side of the House, are the ones that drive the economy and are benefiting from this policy.

There is $110 million for the National Research Council to increase support through the industrial research assistance program and industrial technology advisers. Investing in technology will move our economy forward.

There is also $95 million over three years and $40 million per year in ongoing funding to make the Canada innovation commercialization project permanent. This is a very important initiative. We have to move these technological advancements to commercialization so we can continue to be successful, not only here in Canada but of course also in the ever competitive global economic market.

There is also $14 million to expand the industrial research and development internship program, which will place more Ph.D. students in practical business internships. That will benefit our businesses.

Talking about another wonderful program, we have extended the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturers to purchase processing machinery and equipment. I have heard directly from businesses in my riding how important that is. It allows them to invest in new machinery and equipment and quickly write off the cost of purchasing it, thereby improving productivity and making our businesses more productive. Enhancing the productivity of our businesses is very important and will spur economic growth.

We have also increased the lifetime capital gains exemption, which allows capital gains on qualifying small business shares to be realized tax free. We have increased that from $500,000 to $750,000. This is the first increase since 1988. We think that overtaxing capital gains is not a good idea.

I want to talk about clean energy and the economy, because that is important as well. We are investing $97 million to develop and promote clean energy technologies. There is $1 billion for priorities such as green energy generation, transmission infrastructure, carbon transmission and storage infrastructure. We also have $1 billion allocated to support pulp and paper mills to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, there is $1 billion in support of clean energy research and development demonstration projects, and $252 million in support of regulatory activities to address climate change and air quality. The list goes on and on. In short, our government has made significant investments in the clean energy economy.

I also want to talk about the amendments to land designation. This a very important piece of the legislation. We on the Conservative side of the House believe that we have to allow our first nation communities to move at the speed of business. They have to be able to engage in land transactions to be able to spur their economies.

One of the most powerful things that we have in Canada is an ability to leverage our land and to be able to use that for financing and development. We want to help first nations do that.

We are doing a couple of things here. First of all, we are going to reduce the voting threshold to a simple majority vote when dealing with land designations, as opposed to the majority of the majority. Why is that important? It is going to speed up the process of approving land designations on reserve. The current process can take one to two years, with two votes spanning four to six months. It is going to reduce the cost of doing business with first nations, as well as reduce the expenses in the designation process.

Some may criticize this, but a majority vote is currently sufficient to elect the chief and council of a first nation, to accept multi-million dollar out-of-court settlements and accept a settlement of a specific claim with a value of between $3 million and $7 million. If a majority vote is good enough for those kinds of things, a majority vote is good enough for a land designation.

The second aspect of that is the removal of the Governor in Council requirement for approval. Section 39 of the Indian Act requires that the Governor in Council approve land designations. Given that lands do not lose their reserve status, this level of authorization, we believe, is counterproductive to Canada's efforts to support economic development on reserve.

By allowing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to authorize the land designation, this will reduce the time required for land designations, thereby reducing costs for economic development on reserve and spurring the development of these local economies.

We are also amending the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It is one of the oldest pieces of legislation, dating back to 1882, a time when our waterways were the primary transportation routes. This act's main purpose was to facilitate trade and commerce by balancing the efficient movement of maritime traffic with the need to construct works, bridges, et cetera. Over time, the scope of this act has increased significantly as a result of many factors. The act now applies to all waters in Canada. Imagine that. It even applies to a temporary creek from a spring runoff but that then dries up within a month or two. It triggers a review under the act. That is not the purpose of this act. It is a hindrance to economic development.

The vast majority of our waterways will still continue to be protected by Transport Canada's marine safety laws, the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and various provincial statutes. We are going to continue to protect our waterways but also make amendments to allow business to move faster and things to move more quickly.

This is a great piece of legislation, and I am hopeful that the members on that side of the House will see the light and not continue to propose amendments, like changing the implementation date 365 times, which has no purpose. They should vote for this bill and vote for the economy, and let us move forward.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I would point out to the member that it was one of the richest corporations listed in Forbes magazine that unfortunately emptied out most of the pension fund that belonged to the workers at the Stadacona plant in Quebec City.

I would like to come back to a subject that is no less amusing. In 1994, the Prime Minister criticized the Liberal government of the day for introducing an omnibus bill. I must admit that, as hard as I tried, I could not come up with anything better than his own words. He said:

I just regret that we are proceeding with this omnibus approach to legislation...because it lumps in things we support and things we do not support....This bill will ultimately go to only one committee of the House, a committee that will inevitably lack the breadth of expertise required for consideration of a bill of this scope.

Beyond the schemes to try to justify the so-called studies in other committees, how can my colleague keep a straight face while defending the government's decision to introduce such a huge omnibus bill that is impossible to study?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is where we are at: They are going to argue about process because they know that this piece of legislation will be an excellent thing for Canadians and the Canadian economy. All they have left is to attack the process. That tells us exactly how good this piece of legislation is.

If the member wants to talk about what the leaders of parties have said, what does the leader of his party say? He says they are going to impose a $21 billion carbon tax and generate billions of dollars from the program. That is not what we are going to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Etobicoke--Lakeshore for his nice summary of what the bill will do and how important is will be for our economy.

I found it ironic listening to the things that the member for Parkdale—High Park thought should be in the bill. She added item after item, which to me showed that she recognized that a budget plan needs to be comprehensive. Therefore, would the member for Brampton West perhaps share with the members how it is important to have a comprehensive plan to deal with the economy, and how the bill does just that.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the opposition says that this piece of legislation has too much in it, but then proposes thousands of amendments to put more things in it. I am not sure I understand the logic of that. We certainly cannot have it both ways.

It does point out exactly what the member has said, that this piece of legislation is an important driver of the economy. It needs to be expansive and include all kinds of things to move the economy forward. That is why we are doing it.

Of course, the most important thing is what is not in it, a $21 billion carbon tax, which is one of the things they would love to stuff in there if they could.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we completely object to this process, because this bill is huge and the process does not allow enough time for debate. Also, there was hardly any consultation.

As for the Navigable Waters Protection Act, what is most troubling is that the Conservatives are placing the burden of responsibility onto citizens, who will have to take developers to court themselves. Meanwhile, developers no longer have to conduct any public consultation and their projects will no longer be subject to environmental assessments, because permits will be automatically granted.

How can the member justify all these decisions, which go against the public interest?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to explain to my colleague that there are still lots of things left to protect our waterways. I mentioned them in my speech. Perhaps she did not hear them. It is not just necessarily the Navigable Waters Protection Act. There are Transportation Canada's maritime safety laws, the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and the Species at Risk Act. All of these things are still going to be there to protect the water in the country. Those are the pieces of legislation that should be doing it, not the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

The important thing that is not in there, and will never be in there, is a $21 billion carbon tax.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend from a Etobicoke—Lakeshore would want to be telling the truth in this place. However, he was a bit misinformed. He said that the NDP had put thousands of amendments forward at committee. I want to be clear that we put forward 72 very considered amendments at committee.

Not everything in this bill is bad. That will come as a shock to some members over there. However, I want to go a bit further and talk about what the NDP was looking for. We as a party are focused on what we think are the real priorities for families in Canada, which, obviously, are jobs, health care, pensions and protecting our environment. When we look at Bill C-45, we see aspects of those areas that are being infringed upon or even destroyed in some respects.

We only need to look at what happened with environmental assessment between Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. I have been told that in the past approximately 5,000 environmental assessments were conducted each year, whereas now there would be roughly 40. If the Conservatives had a legitimate concern with environmental assessments, maybe that would warrant an adjustment but not a hundredfold decrease. What is lacking here is common sense, which does not appear to be common here anymore.

The NDP believes in rewarding people who create jobs. In our last platform, we had rewards for people who employed new workers for a year. I know that sounds contrary to the rhetoric we have heard, particularly in the speech by the member for Winnipeg North.

The OECD's best practices for budget transparency states that draft budgets should be submitted to Parliament no less than three months prior to the start of the fiscal year. It also notes that budgets should include a detailed commentary on each revenue and expenditure program, the comparative information on actual revenue expenditure during the past year, and a forecast going forward. If some of that had been contained within the 400 to close to 1,000 pages that we have gone through with respect to Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, there might have been a different response.

We were troubled this past spring when Bill C-38 came before the House and then committee. We were troubled with its content and stated our problems we saw with respect to that, but we were also very troubled by the process. With Bill C-45, we see an extension of the process that is generated when there is an omnibus bill that addresses too many areas and tries to do too much, much of which, we would argue, is not related to budgetary matters. Bill C-38 amended 72 pieces of legislation. I understand that Bill C-45 addresses 70 pieces of legislation.

Let us picture the meetings we had with our six to eight expert witnesses, good souls who gave up their time to come and provide testimony at committee. Each member had five minutes to ask a question. From those six to eight people who spoke on different subject matters we had to select who we wanted to hear from. These were witnesses who could cross-converse and offer other testimony. They were witnesses from all over the place. I do not think that offers MPs of all parties the opportunity to proceed with the due diligence that is expected of us in this place by the people who sent us here.

I have argued that, due to the size of the bill and the amount of changes made in such a short period, it was nearly offensive to Parliament. I still stand by that comment. I have said numerous times in this place that committees should be in place to improve legislation. Members should think about that statement. The official opposition brought forward 72 amendments, none of which were frivolous. Other parties chose to bring in thousands, some of which were reasonable. However, the amendments we brought forward were intended to improve this legislation but not one was accepted by the government side.

The problem is the my-way-or-the-highway approach to the governance of our country and to the changing of legislation. The advice that came from many people on issues around the environment, in particular, raised grave concerns. Those concerns, in my opinion, were ignored by the government side. It is difficult when the government is not prepared to give due consideration to the opinions and amendments offered by the other side.

That brings us to a place where we need to face a hard reality. I listened to the member for Winnipeg North go on about how the NDP was hand in glove with the government, trying to politicize the situation. The hard reality is, whether we like it on this side of the House or not, that the government has a majority and in committee it has the ability to shut down the opposition. When we offered our 72 amendments, the Conservatives' decision was that they were not acceptable. No one can tell me that out of the 72 amendments not one amendment could have been accepted. I believe a majority of them were certainly worthy of being accepted.

I was going to say something about the member for Winnipeg North but I do not want to get too partisan. The one comment I will make is that the remarks in that member's speech earlier were vested purely and simply on political rhetoric. We should be past that point in this place.

In its content, Bill C-45 has a large variety of very complex issues. I alluded to that when I talked about expert witnesses. We need to consider, for example, the overhaul of the Canada Grain Act and the changes to the scientific research and experimental development or the SR and ED tax. I thought we had put forward a reasoned amendment. The proposal from the government moved, not necessarily in a bad way, but counter to the advice we were getting from people who testified, so we suggested that the government delay it for five years which would allow Canadian businesses time to plan.

One of the crucial things for businesses today is to plan their cash flow and research and do it in a very careful manner because we are inches away from a potential recession. They know that, they understand that and they realize the risks they face. To my mind, that was a reasonable suggestion on behalf of the official opposition and I am baffled as to why it was not received.

I will now switch to the content of the bill and we think in terms of the areas of responsibility that the committees are tasked with in this place. To my mind, an omnibus bill takes away a committee's ability to offer its opinions, due diligence and evaluation of the portion of this omnibus bill that really belongs in a specific committee, environment being the clearest example I can give, and then it is sent to a different committee, such as the finance committee.

I sit on the finance committee and I am far from an expert on the environment. I go to that committee thinking I can bring something to it. When there are changes to the Canada Grain Act, the Fisheries Act or the Environmental Protection Act, they should be sent to the committees that are tasked with hearing testimony from people with expertise so they can interpret the testimony to the benefit of the bill.

As a result of the fact that I feel this bill is blatantly undemocratic, I will not be supporting it.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for some of the candour and flashes of common sense in his speech. He did admit that there are good measures in the bill. We think all the measures are good. They would give Canadians better, more efficient government and above all a better business environment, one that would bring jobs, growth and long-term prosperity to this country. In fact, they are already bringing those things to this country.

I will ask the member about transparency and candour. We campaigned on this platform, in favour of budgets and action plans such as this. We campaigned to focus on the economy, to bring sector-by-sector change, reform and restructuring, to make Canada's economy stronger and to make our business environment the best in the world.

If our eyes have not failed us, the New Democrats campaigned on implementing a $21 billion carbon tax. Will the hon. member, with some of the candour he has shown, stand up and explain to us what that proposal means and why his colleagues on the opposition benches will not talk about it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about Bill C-45. However, I find it astounding that what we proposed in the 2011 election was precisely what your party proposed in 2008—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I would remind all hon. members to address the Chair with their comments, not their colleagues. I think the point was raised earlier this morning that all Chair occupants are going to be reminding members and enforcing the rule more clearly. Members must refer to colleagues in the third person and address their comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you and I apologize for that. We do get carried away a bit in this place, probably more than we should.

However, the fact of the matter remains that what we were offering up was precisely what your party has offered up—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

“Your party”, what is this?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a choice of words. I am not an expert in this.

The Conservative Party of Canada, in 2008, offered the exact same thing as we did in our platform. If the member is going on about whatever it costs, he had better check back because that is what he was suggesting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the New Democratic Party for his comments and I quite enjoy working with him at the finance committee.

I want to know why the New Democrats on the finance committee voted in favour of the Conservatives' time allocation motion on Bill C-45. That happened on October 31. Did they not understand that this was a time allocation motion?

Also, the finance committee chair, the member for Edmonton—Leduc is widely respected by all parties for his fair and balanced approach. Therefore, I wonder why his members, the New Democratic members on the finance committee, worked with the Conservatives and ganged up on the chair and actually voted against the chair's ruling, overruled the chair and effectively changed the rules at committee. Why did New Democrats not insist that the rules be respected?

Does the member recognize that a dangerous precedent has been created, where now the Conservatives can use their majority on committees to challenge the chair, say the rules mean black instead of white and have their way on any debate whatsoever? Why are the New Democrats complicit in this?

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

Mr. Speaker, very simply put, when the motions were put before the NDP in the context at the time we felt the chair was incorrect.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I decided to immigrate to Canada, it was mainly because of the strength of its democracy and its parliamentary system. When one speaks of the parliamentary system, it includes debating ideas.

One thing that bothers me about this bill is that once again, certain commissions are being removed and even more power is being given to ministers.

I would like my colleague to speak about the weakening of Canada's democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no way I can begin to address, in the 30 seconds I have left, the offence that I feel is happening in our country. When they take the democratic process and subvert it with omnibus bills to the point where, for pieces of legislation that are critical to the needs of our citizens, MPs are not given the opportunity to do the due diligence that Canadians expect of us, it is very troubling.

Immigration is a significant one. The environment is another significant one. Seniors is another one that would be affected by this bill, where we did not get the opportunity to do what was needed.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to respond to the points made by my previous colleagues, my parents are immigrants and they love this country because it is a strong democracy. I spent 33 years in the Canadian Forces fighting for our rights and ensuring that we have a strong democracy.

Our government demonstrates the fact that a strong, stable government has a steady hand on the tiller and that is why Canada is one of the greatest countries in the G7 right now in so many different ways, not just economically.

The previous speaker mentioned a few times in his speech about being baffled. I would respectfully submit that the New Democratic Party often is baffled. That party does not understand why Canadians need such strong legislation and a budget implementation act such as this. Canadian families depend on tax savings. They depend on those moneys being reinvested in their families and reinvested from businesses into the economy, thereby creating a stronger economy overall. This government facilitates that and allows Canadians to be able to do that.

Ever since this government came into power in 2006, it has been committed to ensuring economic growth and prosperity. I am proud that this government has delivered, with Canada emerging as one of the top countries in the G7 with 820,000 net new jobs created since 2009. Canada has had the best rate of job growth in the G7 and both the IMF and the OECD say so themselves. They forecast that Canada will be at the head of the pack for economic growth in the G7 in the years ahead. All we have to do is go outside of this country to hear what other nations are saying about Canada, and it is absolutely glowing. We are the envy of the world and I wish the New Democratic Party would take a look at what others in the world, our peers on the global stage, are saying.

The jobs and growth act would implement key initiatives from economic action plan 2012 and it would ensure that our economic advantage remains strong today and into the long term. This legislation would help our families and small businesses, consumers, seniors, students and manufacturers across Canada as well. The budget will provide tremendous opportunities for my constituents in Etobicoke Centre.

As someone who served as a reservist both full time and part time for 33 years, I know the extraordinary commitment that reservists make to keep Canadians safe. They can be called upon to serve abroad for extended periods, which can place significant financial strain on their employers, particularly small businesses, which are supportive of Canada's democracy and Canada's foreign policy and the need to sometimes send reservists abroad.

Canada Company numbers well over 250 of our captains of industry in this country, some of the same people who participate in True Patriot Love and similar organizations. Canada Company's motto is “Many ways to serve”. It builds the bridge between business and community leaders and the Canadian Forces.

The government is working to ensure that our reservists remain gainfully employed and that members of our military receive the widest support, care and recognition, which they deserve for the important contributions that they have made and continue to make to the security of Canada.

Building on our government's commitment to support the men and women of our armed forces, economic action plan 2012 commits to providing financial support to employers of reservists to offset such costs as the hiring and training of replacement workers or increasing overtime hours for existing employees. As a former commanding officer of a regiment and having worked for the Canadian Forces Liaison Council and others, this is a huge initiative because allowing reservists to deploy overseas has always been a sticking point. This is going to make it so much easier for those employers to make that contribution to their country, while maintaining their businesses and giving soldiers an opportunity to serve their country in uniform. Small businesses provide gainful employment to our reservists and a wide variety of Canadians. They play a vital role in the economy and job creation. Our government is committed to helping them grow and succeed.

Economic action plan 2012 includes a number of key measures to support the growth of small businesses, such as extending the hiring credit for small businesses.This is a temporary credit of up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2011 employment insurance premiums over those paid in 2012. This temporary credit is going to help approximately 536,000 employers defray the costs of additional hiring.

Many are familiar with the burdens of red tape and how it can negatively affect a business trying to grow. By the way, that often affects non-profit organizations as well. Our government is committed to reducing red tape by implementing a one-for-one rule and committing to develop a red tape reduction action plan to reduce unnecessary and ineffective regulations, allowing small businesses to focus on growing and creating jobs.

Other ways our government is reducing the administrative tax burden on small businesses include enhancing the Canada Revenue Agency secure “my business account” portal, and that improves the business section on CRA's website; doubling the thresholds for eligibility to use the GST/HST streamlined accounting methods; enhancing the predictability of the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program; and providing written responses to business inquiries by the CRA.

These important measures all build on top of our government's significant action to reduce taxation for small businesses since 2006. For example, we provided $20 million to support the Canadian Youth Business Foundation's activities. The foundation works with young entrepreneurs to help them become the business leaders of tomorrow through mentorship, learning resources and start-up financing.

We extended the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment to help manufacturers and processors make new investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment.

We increased the small business limit to $500,000. This refers to the amount of income earned by small businesses eligible for a reduced federal tax rate. We reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, and we lowered the federal corporate income tax rate to 15% to help create jobs and economic growth for Canadian families and communities. We increased the lifetime capital gains exemption, which allows capital gains on qualifying small business shares to be realized tax-free, from $500,000 to $750,000. This is the first time it has been increased since 1988; it is incredible.

Our government also released a code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry of Canada to protect small businesses. This was heralded by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who I quote as saying:

Merchants have new powers under the Code that have helped them achieve tangible results in their dealings with the industry....

This simply wouldn't have happened without the code.

As important as small businesses are to our economy, students represent Canada's future. I think all parties here can agree on that. Our government has an impressive track record of supporting Canada's students and growing our labour force. We have invested more than $10 billion annually in students and education, including more than $3 billion in transfers to provinces for post-secondary education and over $7 billion in direct support to students and their families.

As well, we have established the Canada student grant program, which is providing up to $250, per month of study, to low-income students and up to $100 per month to middle-income students. We have created a new textbook tax credit to help with the cost of textbooks for students; and $342 million a year is provided for the youth employment strategy giving young Canadians much-needed support as they pursue an education and career.

Apprenticeships have the potential to create a wealth of new talent in this country. Our government realizes the importance of practical hands-on experience. That is why we have provided $140 million per year to encourage more young Canadians to pursue apprenticeships, including the new apprenticeship incentive grant and the apprenticeship completion grant. We have created the new apprenticeship job creation tax credit to encourage employers to hire new apprentices.

Our Conservative government's major new investments have already helped better prepare Canada's students for the opportunities and jobs ahead. But we continue to expand on past initiatives and measures to provide students even more opportunities.

We are ensuring that students are even better equipped and better integrated into the workforce by increasing support for youth employment opportunities with an additional $50 million to the youth employment strategy.

We are doubling graduate internships in innovative firms with an additional $14 million for the industrial research and development internship program, to place even more students into practical hands-on research internships in Canadian companies.

This takes us to the fast and flexible economic immigration system. Immigrants are an important component of our economy. Many immigrants chose to settle down in my riding of Etobicoke Centre, as my parents chose to settle in Toronto. They are hard-working and eager to contribute to our economy; however, we need a fast and flexible economic immigration system.

Our government has placed a top priority on attracting immigrants who have the skills and experience our economy needs. The economic action plan will enable them to transition to an increasingly fast and flexible economic immigration system. In the future, our government will explore with provinces, territories and employers approaches to developing a pool of skilled workers who are ready to begin employment in Canada.

The federal skilled worker point system will be reformed to reflect the importance of younger immigrants with Canadian work experience and better language skills. Canada's immigration system supports a vibrant workforce by attracting skilled workers who will contribute to the growth of our economy.

I encourage the opposition to get behind this bill and support Canada's economic growth and prosperity, because all the things I have just laid out are why Canadians need to support to this bill, why the opposition needs to support this bill, and that is why they claim to be baffled.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question will be relatively short, and it concerns the speech made by the member for Etobicoke-Centre. I suggest that he start making corrections to the talking points that he uses for his speeches.

For example, he spoke about the fact that the International Monetary Fund and the OECD have acknowledged the government's sound performance. I would like to know whether he has read the recent IMF report that ranked Canada 12th among the 30 OECD countries in 2012-2013 in terms of economic growth, and that instead of improving, Canada's position will be deteriorating by 2016-2017. In fact, because of the measures taken by the Conservative government, and in particular the austerity measures implemented at a time of economic uncertainty, Canada is expected to drop to 17th place among the 30 OECD countries by 2016.

Having compared these figures to those mentioned in the talking points presented this afternoon, I would like to know what the member for Etobicoke-Centre thinks about the IMF report, which would appear to contradict what he said earlier in his speech.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of what the hon. member is saying.

Many reports, the IMF and others across this world have touted Canada for its economic performance and its G7 performance. Even the Bank of England has now taken our bank governor to assist it in its troubles. That is speaking significantly about Canada's prowess in the economic world and what we are doing with our economy and our country.

We are one of the best G7 countries in the world. There are many reports, many bodies, many countries and others, including the G20 and G7 themselves, that lay that out.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member should know, the Conservatives' so-called hiring credit will actually punish small businesses if they either hire new employees or pay higher wages to existing employees.

In fact, companies that qualified in 2011 but then grew too big to quality in 2012 could face an EI premium hike of as much as 14¢. This is eminently fixable. We Liberals proposed an amendment in the finance committee that would have fixed it. We were supported by CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

My question to the Conservatives is: Why are they forcing EI premium hikes on Canadian small businesses?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member highlights why there are so few members of his party in that corner.

The amendments the Liberals tried to introduce tried to derail the system. They tried to derail the process through that effort, tried to cripple Canadians in their ability to save taxes and earn, as well as contribute to their families, their small businesses and the EI program.

That is why the Liberal Party of Canada does not understand what the economic action plan 2012 is all about.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's frustration with the two opposition parties, who are not only embracing the wrong policies—or indeed, in the case of the party in the corner, no policy at all—but talking down the reality of the Canadian economy. The Canadian economy is creating jobs well ahead of the pace of any other advanced economy and has put up better growth numbers than any country in Europe, including Germany, since the start of this recession, indeed since the start of this government.

My puzzlement is unassuaged. I would like to ask the member for Etobicoke Centre what his interpretation is of the NDP's inability to talk about the facts of its platform from 2011. We campaigned on a platform of jobs and growth, and we are delivering it now. The NDP members campaigned on a platform of a $21 billion carbon tax, and for some reason they are not prepared to talk about it today. Why is that?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I serve with the hon. parliamentary secretary on the defence committee, and he has done a brilliant job in that capacity.

I also share his frustration because the New Democratic Party did campaign on a $21 billion carbon tax. This is what would put Canadians out of business. This is what would create hardship for all the people I talked about just now. It would create hardship for families, students, reservists trying to get out and deploy into the world, and others, and would burden the rest of the country, driving us further down into economic crisis.

That $21 billion carbon tax would drive us into crisis. I share the hon. member's views that the party in the corner has no policies at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am pleased to rise in this House, but of course, like for many of my colleagues on this side of the House, it is not altogether a pleasure to do so. What detracts from it is the fact that we feel that Bill C-45, the second budget implementation bill, is headed in the wrong direction.

The government's approach and that of the official opposition, the NDP, are undeniably completely different. The main difference is that the approach taken by the Conservatives ensures that Canada's economy will not achieve its potential and that economic uncertainty will continue, whereas our approach would maximize and optimize our current resources.

Let us look at what the government has done since coming to power. One of its first decisions was to take two percentage points off the GST. A one-point decrease means $5 billion less in government coffers. It then continued to cut the corporate tax rate. Indeed, the government lowered it from 19% in 2009 to 15%, where it stands at the moment. Every percentage point costs the Canadian treasury about $2 billion. The two measures combined represent an average of $7 billion in foregone revenue per year.

We must remember that when the Conservative government came to power in 2006, it inherited a budget surplus. Even before the recession, that surplus had been wiped out and, of course, things got worse with the measures in the economic action plan, an economic stimulus plan. From a $13 billion surplus, we immediately plunged into a deficit. And we are still there. We must remember that despite the Conservatives' reputation for being good managers of public affairs—a reputation I have never understood—if we disregard the year and a half after they came to power, when they rapidly made the surplus disappear, the last balanced budget under a Conservative government in Canada occurred back in 1912, under Robert Borden.

Bill C-45 truly reflects the Conservative ideology at its worst. The Conservative ideology denies that the federal government can play a constructive role in the development of our society. The Conservative government will not hesitate to say no to a federal investment of one dollar, even if that federal investment could result in economic growth equivalent to $10 where it is invested. Similarly, this government will not hesitate to make an economic cut of one dollar, even though it may cause $10 in losses.

I know this. I see it in my riding. I see it in my region, where the government has imposed huge cuts on institutions like the Maurice Lamontagne Institute and on investments through Canada Economic Development. This has major repercussions. Rimouski is Quebec's centre of marine technology. It has taken 30 years of hard work to find this region a specific niche. Rimouski is one of the three leading centres of ocean science, along with Halifax and Vancouver. This government is making it hard for the region with these cuts, which not only make no sense scientifically, but will weaken the region's economic potential.

This government rejects the very concept of one day attaining a balanced budget. I base that on a statement made by the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism on May 2, in reply to a question from one of his Conservative colleagues. He said that the government was going to continue cutting taxes after it has balanced the budget.

The government's objective is not good governance, public governance, or managing public funds for the common good; its ideological position is to diminish the size of the state—the government—and diminish the good the government can do for the general public.

The government's economic policies are also haphazard. It is putting all its eggs in one basket: natural resources. Does anyone know where the government wants to take Canada, economically, in 15, 20 or 25 years? What are the niches in which Canada can excel? We have no idea. At present, the government is relying solely on the free market, which prevents forecasting or envisioning the long-term economy.

Here is one example: we are now in the 21st century and we are operating with 20th century infrastructure. The Conservative government has not taken any steps to endow Canada with proper 21st century infrastructure.

Emerging nations are doing it. Canada is just standing by and waiting until it is no longer competitive on the world market. Bill C-45 and the 2012 budget are indicative of this lack of vision.

Other people will speak sooner or later during the report stage about some of Bill C-45's major problems, particularly the best-known one, the repeal of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

I would like to point out two elements that clearly demonstrate this lack of vision. The government is very fond of appearances, but in the end, it will not produce results. These two examples concern scientific research and experimental development, and also the hiring tax credit for small business, which the hon. member mentioned earlier.

The NDP is in favour of this tax credit. It was in our election platform in 2011, but the government will not mention that. We even proposed a small business hiring tax credit of $4,200, which is more than the Conservative one, and an additional $1,000 if the employee was still there after a year.

At the moment, the government is proposing a $1,000 tax credit, for which 536,000 businesses are eligible. That is what we heard in the Standing Committee on Finance. But let us look at the absurdity of this situation. Last year, that tax credit already existed. Some 530,000 businesses took advantage of it. That suggests that 530,000 new workers were hired last year, but that is not the case.

In committee, witnesses were repeatedly asked whether a business could hire an employee for a few months and claim the tax credit. They said that it was possible.

Although the tax credit is a good idea based on a positive principle, and we support the principle without supporting the way it is applied, this clearly shows that this measure is not encouraging the creation of permanent jobs. The NDP's proposal, on the other hand, which would add a credit for retention after a year, would encourage the creation and retention of the jobs created by the government.

Then there is scientific research and experimental development. The government plans to reduce credits to large companies from 20% to 15%, which amounts to a 25% decrease. This proposal has been decried by the business community, particularly the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters. The government argues that the overall decrease in incentives for R&D would be $500 million, but the CME argues that the losses could be $633 million.

In addition, some argue that capital expenditures should be removed from calculations for tax credit purposes. The first suggestion was in the Jenkins report, but the second was not. The government made this up; it is not based on a recommendation from the report. We heard a very persuasive argument in the committee about how some industries in the natural resources sector and in manufacturing need to be able to include capital expenses in R&D tax credit calculations. Such industries often need to establish pilot projects—model factories, in effect—to implement the research they have already done. By eliminating that option, this measure puts some industries that really need it at a disadvantage.

Many witnesses were also worried about the government's new ability to choose winners, which would make it possible for the government to choose successful grant applicants.

Claims to the effect that Canada outperformed all the other countries are truly exaggerated. Canada did better in some ways. However, I do not believe that the Conservative government can take credit for that. Canada has survived the recession so well mainly because of the monetary policies of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and in particular his determination to immediately lower the interest rate at the first signs of the recession, when the government was still denying that there was a problem on the horizon.

To conclude, in 2015, Canadians and Quebeckers will be able to look back on the tenor of the debates in the House and have their say about whether circumstances are better than they were before the start of the Conservative government reign. The answer will be no.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend's speech. He railed against the tax cuts that we brought forward for small businesses and said that reducing taxes for businesses was a terrible thing. I cannot believe he would make that kind of statement.

My question for the member is this. Not only are the New Democrats against lowering taxes for business, but will they finally admit that a cap and trade scheme that would raise $21 billion in revenue is a carbon tax, which they are supporting? I do not want the member to reply by saying increased fuel efficiency standards are a tax because that is absolutely ridiculous.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of reducing taxes for small and medium-sized businesses. In fact, our program suggested a tax cut of up to 9%. The government decided on 11%. We therefore certainly do not need any lectures on this matter from the Conservative government.

Perhaps the Conservative government needs some lessons. There are three ways to combat climate change. A carbon tax like the one proposed by the Liberal Party could be introduced. An emissions or carbon exchange system like the one proposed by the NDP and the Conservatives in 2008 could be established. The third option is sectoral regulation as currently practised by the Conservatives.

Combatting climate change will cost money. The Conservatives are now spending money with their sectoral regulation system. According to a number of economists, this will cost a total of $52 billion for carbon and vehicle emissions alone.

The government should be more careful when it presents figures on combatting climate change. It is in fact generally recognized that the NDP carbon exchange approach is far superior to the Conservatives' approach thus far.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that Bill C-45 is an unprecedented bill that attempts to change a wide variety of legislation that would have very profound impacts. In fact, historically, it is precedent setting that the government has tried to put so much in a budget bill. When it went to committee, the NDP voted with the government to limit debate on the bill. That would have been a wonderful opportunity to go though it clause-by-clause and ask questions of the government on a wide variety of issues.

Why did the NDP vote to limit the committee debate on the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to correct what my friend just said, which is that it is an unprecedented measure. The precedent was Bill C-38 which also established a multitude of statutes. There were amendments to more than 70 pieces of legislation. Bill C-45 is the second bill of this kind. There was therefore a precedent.

In response to my colleague's question, we discussed various things in subcommittee. Amendments to the dates were proposed and there was a vote on referring various parts of the bill to different committees. This was all done in good faith and we could all see that the government was not being responsible and not acting in good faith when it proposed that committees should study the relevant items. For example, the Standing Committee on the Environment did not adequately study the Navigable Waters Protection Act. That is why the bill or parts thereof were referred to the committees. That is what we voted on.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents of Nipissing—Timiskaming about our economic action plan 2012.

Canada, in stark contrast to other G7 countries, has had unparalleled success in leading the global recovery. We are resilient and prosperous. What has contributed to this record? Has it been by belabouring businesses with costly and redundant red tape? No. Has it been by implementing or maintaining fiscally unsustainable programs? No. Has it been by bloating government with a cradle to grave philosophy? No. Has it been by promoting an aggravating and massive $21 billion carbon tax as touted by the NDP? No, not at all.

The single reason why Canada remains resilient and prosperous, the explicit principle behind our success, is the courageous long-term vision of our Conservative government. Our sound fiscal framework has been rooted in our conviction to serve the interests of all Canadians now and well into the future.

It is easy for the opposition to sit across the aisle and fire accusations. Take, for example, our stance on the principled and necessary changes to OAS. The NDP believe, in spite of sober facts, that Canada should recklessly maintain an unsustainable framework. The member for Churchill claimed the other day that our changes were unfair to the younger generation. I challenge the NDP to explain how fair and reasonable it is to allow that younger generation to reach retirement age and realize that there is no money because the government at the time, fully seized of an unsustainable model, sat back and did absolutely nothing.

This is the kind of principled leadership that Canada needs and, indeed, is the kind of leadership Canadians voted for in 2011. Our government bases its decisions on principle and accountability to the Canadian people. This government will not sell out the future of this country for political convenience. Our plan for growth and long-term prosperity may at times be difficult, but it remains necessary. It is only our Conservative government that holds the courage and principle to do what is right.

I would like to quickly highlight three specific areas our government has improved for the long-term benefit of Canadians, ones that have a particular impact on my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming, those being families, seniors and small businesses.

Our Conservative government remains committed to keeping families strong. Part of economic action plan 2012 has been our effort to provide families with the necessary relief and flexibility in their household budgets to ensure that they can meet the challenges and rewards of raising a family, especially those most vulnerable.

We first cut the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, a tax write-off of about $1,000 back into the pockets of average families. We have decreased the lowest personal income tax to 15% and removed one million Canadians from the tax rolls altogether.

We also introduced the universal child care benefit, giving families flexibility and choice in daycare, by providing $1,200 a year for each child under six years of age. We have also invested in the quality of life and future of our young Canadians through the children's art and children's fitness tax credits.

New initiatives like the first-time homebuyer's tax credit are opening up new possibilities for Canadian families and reducing the economic challenges of keeping a family healthy and strong.

Our strong record of tax relief has, on average, put $3,100 back into the pockets of Canadian families. Indeed, Canadian families are the most essential part of Canadian life and they can count on their Conservative government to deliver principled results, as opposed to the opposition who remain fixed on a job-killing $21 billion carbon tax and all kinds of red tape.

With regard to seniors, our government has taken a principled stand on ensuring dignity and respect for those who have helped make Canada the great nation it is today. Our government recognizes that the global economic downturn has been difficult on many Canadians, including seniors. Again, our Conservative government has remained vigilant to provide relief and flexibility to seniors, especially those most vulnerable.

We have increased the amount that recipients of the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, can earn through employment without any reduction in their GIS benefits. We have also introduced the largest GIS increase in over 25 years, ensuring that eligible, low income seniors will receive additional assistance so that they may live in peace and security. We have increased the age credit amount to $2,000 and doubled the pension income credit to $2,000.

Our support for seniors has not been limited simply to direct financial help. We remain committed to improving the quality of life and ensuring the dignity of Canadian seniors. That is why we have taken steps to combat elder abuse in all forms; enhanced the new horizons for seniors program by providing an additional $10 million to promote volunteerism, mentorship and the social participation of seniors; and of course introduce tougher legislation for those who abuse seniors.

Having been in business and development my entire life, leading trade missions across the globe, I am particularly proud of our Conservative record in supporting small business. Whereas the opposition wants to drown small business owners with costly and redundant red tape, our government recognizes the crucial role that small business plays in the diversity and vitality of our Canadian economy.

Part of our government's principled, long-term vision is supporting opportunities for growth and long-term prosperity. We have increased direct financial support for business innovation through the National Research Council, the Canadian innovation commercialization program, and the industrial research and development intern program

Our job-creating hiring credit for small business benefited 534,000 employers in the last year alone. We have increased the small business limit to $500,000 and decreased the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%.

It is clear from these examples and the additional contents of our economic action plan 2012 that our Conservative government remains committed to making principled and necessary long-term commitments on behalf of Canadians for the benefit of Canadians.

I am rather disturbed that the only consistent argument put forward by the NDP is that this is an omnibus bill that should be reduced in size and broken up. I have news for the opposition: while we may be enjoying a fragile recovery, many Canadians have suffered in the recession and many continue to suffer.

Canadians need principled leadership now. Canadians chose a Conservative majority in 2011 because they knew and understood who would get the job done. Canadians understand that it is only Conservatives who have the intestinal fortitude to get the job done. This government will not take the easy way out. We will continue to fight for the benefit of Canadians now and in the long term.

While the NDP is continually focused on a $21 billion job-killing carbon tax, enforcing costly bureaucratic redundancy or prescribing the enforcement of the Migratory Birds Convention Act as solutions to reviving the manufacturing sector, it is our government that continues to deliver principled results.

It is no surprise that the opposition is so anti-growth, anti-business and anti-entrepreneur. Its solution to everything is to just throw money at it. A good look at Europe will show how those socialist policies turn out.

Frankly, I do not think the opposition believes in the capacities of Canadians and the potential of Canada. Opposition members consistently spout and defend divisive rhetoric. Even the Liberals, like the member for Papineau, believe that if someone is not from a specific part of the country, he or she is not fit to govern.

Our economic action plan 2012 is for the benefit of Canadians. It was tailored in consultation with Canadians from coast to coast to coast and is proving to be a sound fiscal framework. Canadians need to realize their full potential and live their lives how they want to live them.

Our economic action plan 2012 will deliver growth, jobs and long-term prosperity. I encourage the opposition to support it. I encourage them to believe in Canadians and national unity in Canada.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's quite amusing speech. In light of the information in the public arena, I would not say that it was wrong, because I am not allowed to say that, but I would say that it was completely misguided, if you will permit me the expression.

Can the member explain the $36 billion automobile tax that the Conservatives recently proposed?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know about that tax, but the $21 billion carbon tax is the centrepiece of the NDP program. It seems to be focusing on a one-solution-fits-all carbon tax of $21 billion. It is beyond me why the NDP members will not explain that carbon tax yet are so focused on it. They seem to have no other policies than focusing on that tax.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I differ from my colleague. I was not amused by those remarks but somewhat saddened because they are so far off base. What was on base was a study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives on the effects of the government's policies in my region. The report indicates that as a result of the government's punitive action against Atlantic Canada, Atlantic Canadian communities and Atlantic Canadian families, “approximately 4400 direct full-time equivalent federal jobs, representing at least $300 million in salaries and wages, will be lost in the Atlantic region by 2014–15”.

The Conservative government is damaging the Atlantic Canadian economy. Now we have a senator, a political hack for the Prime Minister from the other place, in Atlantic Canada saying that he wants to fix this economic chaos by destroying the Constitution and eliminating Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as provinces.

I ask the member, is it the Conservative Party's policy to do away with the constitutional and sovereign rights of maritime Canadians?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the economic action plan 2012 here. We are talking about the growth of the Canadian economy and long-term prosperity for all Canadians, including Atlantic Canada. It is clear from the IMF and all the international bodies that Canada is doing among the best of all the G7 countries. Atlantic Canada will improve along with other Canadians as rule if we keep these policies. It is our government's plan to keep these policies, to continue the growth and long-term prosperity of Canadians everywhere, including Atlantic Canada.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his passionate speech and hard work on behalf of his constituents.

I wonder if the member could highlight some of the positive benefits that will happen for his constituents after the bill passes the House, and some of the things that he may have heard from his constituents, and also the possible harm that the NDP carbon tax may cause to the economy?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what will happen is clear from the economic action plan. I have been a part of international business for most of my career. As I mentioned in my speech, it is clear from the initiatives that we have put in place to drive innovation and entrepreneurship in business that this will be of great benefit to our particular part of the province. I am thinking of the incentives through the National Research Council and the Canadian innovation commercialization program. These are all positive benefits for businesses in my area, which are not unlike Atlantic Canada.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. I already had the opportunity to speak to the bill in the House, and we are still talking about it after examining it in the Standing Committee on Finance. The process has been very long. We embarked upon a marathon of votes. Indeed, we voted on amendments for several days in a row.

I do not know whether I should thank my Liberal colleagues for having introduced 3,000 amendments. I understand what they were trying to do—they were trying to talk about the issue at hand—but I am not sure about their approach. We have proposed amendments that are fair, well written, and that are intended to improve the bill.

Basically, this bill is a step backwards when it comes to the environment. My colleagues have said this several times during question period and in the House, in general. A number of measures are very damaging to the environment. I will come back to that.

One thing that I would like to discuss is the fact that the government often boasts that the bill will create jobs. Let us not forget that based on the initial budget and figures from the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance, we know that the unemployment rate has gone up. If the goal was to make the unemployment rate go up, then I congratulate the Conservatives, because their efforts are paying off.

Several thousands of jobs are being lost as a result of this government's cuts. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that approximately 43,000 jobs will be lost. If this is lumped together with previous cuts, approximately 102,000 jobs will have been lost.

When it comes to job losses, it is important to understand what is happening from an economic standpoint and, especially, in terms of services provided to Canadians. The Minister of Finance said from the outset that there would be no problem, and that services would in no way be affected, that Canadians would not see much of a change because services would not be affected.

In my opinion, it is already clear that services are being affected. In my riding of Brossard—La Prairie, the government closed a Canada Revenue Agency office, which means that persons with reduced mobility, who can normally apply for a disability tax credit, can no longer get information. It is becoming increasingly difficult for people who do not have access to the Internet or who have a hard time understanding what they see on the Internet. Forget about service by phone. It is extremely long and complicated. Once again, services are obviously being lost. This is just one example, but there are many others.

Another thing stood out to me in particular. Two weeks ago, I met with some people when I visited Whitehorse, Yukon.

They were really angry because the government decided to shut down the Canada Revenue Agency office in Whitehorse. That meant people had to drive 1,000 kilometres to the next CRA office. Basically, that means less services for people in Yukon and more cost to them, if they have to drive so far. Also, if they have questions to ask CRA officials, they may now have to go through a private consultant, someone they have to pay, and there will be increased fees in terms of postage.

Again, cutting off services to Canadians and increasing fees that are transferred to them is not the way to go when we talk about a budget, especially in the circumstances where we are right now with Europe being very slow and with the U.S. hopefully not going over a fiscal cliff at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. Things are not certain and what the government is doing is cutting services to Canadians and laying people off.

I want to come back to a subject that is very important to me: the environment. My colleagues often say that the NDP wants to implement a carbon tax. They refer to our plan and I know that they know they are not telling the truth.

I must admit that I am very disappointed to see adult elected officials straight out lying and spreading misinformation. It is sad to see that in the House. They try to be very nice with the Prime Minister; he gives them lines to repeat and they must listen to him.

I find it disappointing to see elected officials rising to read lies. I find it even more disappointing that they even go to the Standing Committee on Finance, where we are supposed to have intelligent discussions and talk about real issues, and they come out with such ridiculous statements.

I know that the members opposite know what a lie is. If they were listening, they would know that there is a difference between—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. About a minute ago my hon. friend used an unparliamentary word during his speech. He used the word “lies” in referring to—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The Chair did not hear that comment. If it was used and the member would like to retract it, he may.

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I was not referring specifically to what an individual did, but rather about things that were being said in general. It was not an attack on a specific member. I do not, therefore, withdraw what I said—it is entirely true.

If my colleagues opposite were more aware and listened, they would know that there is a difference between a carbon market and a carbon tax.

When I ran in the 2008 election, the Liberals proposed a carbon tax, the Conservatives proposed a carbon market, as did the NDP. The difference with, and the advantage of, a carbon market is that it paves the way for the future. It is important to understand that there is a polluter-pay principle that must be taken into consideration.

Nevertheless, it is also important to think about investing in the future, in what is called “the green economy” and in technologies that, later, will ensure that we are less reliant on fossil fuels, such as oil. It is important to think about the future which, quite clearly, is not this Conservative government's intention, nor that of its members.

There is really a lack of vision, and there is a stark difference between what the Conservatives are saying, what we are saying, and even what the Liberals said about their carbon tax, which truly was a tax on carbon.

I would encourage my friends to think carefully about this and to get the information they need. If the issue is too complicated for them, we can explain it in point form and use illustrations. Then they might see the difference. However, they really need to understand these differences from the point of view of people who are interested in standing up for Canadians' interests rather than simply repeating and rehashing idiocies.

Once again, I would like to come back to Bill C-45 because it is important. The Conservatives have made changes and have chipped away at environmental protection provisions. The deputy environment critic has spoken about how the bill will directly affect lakes and navigable waters.

In fact, this bill is called “omnibus bill No. 2”. The government waged war on anything to do with environmental assessment in the first bill. Now that the Conservatives have realized that certain aspects of the environment are still protected, it has turned its attention to lakes and rivers. The Minister of Transport says that the legislation never protected lakes and rivers.

However, we know what we see, and our rivers and lakes must be protected. I come from Quebec and, in my opinion, there is nothing more important than water, and this holds true for Canada, too. It is crucial.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but, as I have raised before, Bill C-45 is the second budget bill that has been brought forward that contains an amazing amount of changes that would impact other legislation. Canadians need to be very much aware of just how unprecedented this legislation is. It is an attempt by the government, through the back door of a mandatory budget vote, to pass dozens and dozens of pieces of legislation that should have been stand alone. Had they been stand alone, there would have been ample opportunity for opposition parties to be diligent in posing questions and trying to get a better understanding of all that was being captured.

That did not happen and we now have Bill C-45 before us. The other night the NDP worked with the Conservative Party to limit debate on the budget bill. Why did the NDP move to limit debate and not allow the Liberal Party, at the very least, the opportunity to continue to ask questions about this very important bill that we should not even pass?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, but perhaps not its underlying premise. I will explain, because I know the hon. member was not present at the Standing Committee on Finance, so I do not know if he understands everything that happened.

What happened was that a motion was moved by the Conservatives, who can do whatever they like in this committee with the majority they have. The committee was able to debate until midnight, proposing amendments and discussing them. Then, at midnight, debate was shut down. I recognize that this is a non-transparent government that pushes us around and prevents debate. At that point, all we could do was vote.

The Liberals decided to use all the time to talk about "ridiculous" amendments. There are 3,000 amendments and some are very slight and lacking in substance. Sometimes they proposed amendments, the amendments were rejected, and in the end, they voted in favour of the proposal.

What we wanted to do was to debate these amendments, propose our own, and explain the advantages and disadvantages. There were more advantages. Unfortunately, the Liberals prevented us from having a proper discussion and debate.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that astonishes me about the New Democrats is that they do not know anything about the environment. All they talk about is process.

Let me talk about our government's record. On our watch, sulphur dioxide emissions, nitrous oxide emissions and carbon dioxide emissions are down. We are number two in the world on water quality based on a 2010 UN report. We have doubled the amount of protected areas and environmental farm plans. Randle Reef is being cleaned up in Hamilton harbour. We have established new emission regulations.

We are actually doing something about the environment and all the New Democrats talk about is process. Why will they not focus on the environment?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side are truly concerned about the environment and we take a long-term view. We are not just thinking about little housekeeping tasks.

I do recognize that some action has been taken, and that is important, but the hon. member does not understand that the environment is not a concern for us alone, but also for our children and grandchildren. Right now, we say that polluters must clean up, but polluters continue to pollute, and future generations will have to pay the price. That is what we are trying to explain to our hon. colleague.

We want to invest, to move forward, and to have a sustainable economy. I hope the hon. member realizes that we will not always be able to depend on fossil fuels. One day we will have to transition to the power sources of the future. Why not do it now, to make sure the change gets made? Why not tell today's polluters that they must pay, rather than saying that if our children want a cleaner environment they will be the ones to pay the price?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House today on behalf of my constituents of Pickering--Scarborough East in supporting Bill C-45, the second budget implementation bill, and against the NDP and Liberal opposition attempts to delay and defeat it.

I fully support the legislation, which, logically, would provide the means and tools to continue to build Canada's future economic strength for many years to come. As a professional engineer, I appreciate the logic and systematic nature of our progressive efforts in Bill C-45 to maintain our country as the best place in the world to live, raise a family and do business.

As members may know, Bill C-45 includes vital implementation measures outlined in jobs, growth and long-term prosperity in Canada's economic action plan 2012 which is focused on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for our nation. It would help continue to set the stage for the next wave of job creation and economic growth and position Canada for a secure and prosperous future.

Bill C-45 contains a series of clarifications and measures to amend several acts and bring technical changes in order to streamline the application of provisions previously passed in economic action plan 2012. In fact, it reflects a logical continuation of responsible and prudent fiscal management.

I would note the baseline matters that are extremely important to my constituents in Pickering--Scarborough East. These are to maintain a low unemployment rate, the creation of new jobs with a high technological content and the logical expectation that the government is creating the proper environment for this purpose.

My riding is quite unique in that it contains the Pickering nuclear power plant, which is in the proximity of Canada's largest urban area and employs many engineers and technologists. My riding also houses the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus and Centennial College, institutions that produce many youth close to entering the job market. In addition, my riding has many small and medium size businesses.

The global economy is changing. Competition for the brightest minds is intensifying. The pace of technological change is creating new opportunities while making older business practices obsolete. Canada's long-term economic competitiveness in this emerging knowledge economy demands globally competitive businesses that innovate and create high-quality jobs.

I will take this opportunity to underline and specify to the House that engineering, my profession, is a practical vocation that makes things happen and is not hiding behind words and commas. Its practitioners are optimists who seek solutions and are confident that solutions can be found in an economical and ethical way.

Engineers do not just work on physical implementation of industrial projects. Some also use their practical knowledge to help governments understand choices and the most effective means to get things done. They are also realists who abhor abstraction and rigorous planners with a strong sense of discipline. Engineers also help to inform public opinion by illuminating what can be done and bringing to life the sense of what is possible, a hugely important motivator for all of us. They are looking for solutions and not sensations.

Indeed, it strikes me that the more complex the challenges facing the world become, the more pivotal engineering is to the search for solutions. I am talking especially about energy, where Canada has immense resources and the contribution of engineering is crucial to their responsible development. I invite my colleagues from the opposition to collaborate in its rational utilization for the benefit of our nation and mankind rather than demonizing it.

The future is never guaranteed but rational and positive resource exploitation today ensures an independent and economically stable tomorrow. It is, therefore, imperative for all of us to act today and not tomorrow.

Churchill put it in characteristically stark terms in June 1940 as he contemplated what, at the time, seemed a catastrophic future for mankind. If Britain failed to halt Hitler. He said, “the whole world...will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science”.

Science in the service of evil could enslave mankind, but what of applied science in the service of the good, in the cause of averting catastrophe?

It is to this end that our government is investing in the science and engineering of the good, and creating a fertile environment for small and medium size businesses to develop. These policies will help to maintain Canada's position among the leading industrialized countries of the world.

However, despite strong policy fundamentals to support innovation in Canada, Canadian businesses do not take full advantage. Canada continues to lag behind peer countries in terms of overall innovation performance, including private sector investment in research and development, and the commercialization of research into products and processes that create high-value jobs and economic growth.

This is why our government is committed to a new approach for supporting innovation in Canada by pursuing active business-led initiatives that focus resources on better meeting private sector needs and Bill C-45 leads in that direction.

Bill C-45 focuses on continuing to implement a strong economy and create jobs as outlined in the economic action plan 2012 in order to secure jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canada.

Our government's focus continues to be on practical matters with real commercial potential meant to create jobs and prosperity for Canadians. It does not stop there, however. It also invests in people, the most precious resource, by creating the right environment and opportunities to be creative.

I would mention some areas where the bill brings improvements and clarifications: responsible resource development ensures that major resource projects are not bogged down by the regulatory system and that one project receives only one review in a clearly defined timeframe; the hiring credit for small businesses extends the credit of up to $1,000 for one year to encourage additional hiring, and lowers total business payroll taxes by $205 million, which benefited nearly 534,000 employers last year; for helping youth gain skills and experience, $50 million to the youth employment strategy; and for connecting Canadians with available jobs, $21 million to improve job and labour market information for Canadians looking for work.

As I said before, Bill C-45 is very important for the advancement of the Canadian economy, and our Conservative government's top focus is just that, creating jobs, promoting economic growth and ensuring long-term prosperity. We know what matters to Canadians and their families, and we are getting results for them on that front with nearly 820,000 net new jobs created since July 2009, 90% full-time and over 80% in the private sector.

We all know that Canada is not immune to these global challenges and we need to be on guard. That is why we are working hard to implement economic action plan 2012 and Bill C-45 would do just that. That is why we, along with many Canadians, are so disappointed in the NDP and the Liberals for refusing to put Canadians ahead of their own partisan agenda by delaying these important measures to help Canada's economy to keep its good momentum.

The measures I have highlighted today are significant examples of this government's commitment to a strong economy and responsible management in the name of all Canadians. It represents the continuation and implementation of our longer term view of how we can become more efficient and more prudent with taxpayers' heard-earned money.

As our Conservative government has said all along, the global economic recovery remains fragile. That makes responsible management to return to balanced budgets even more important, and that is the laser focus of Canada's economic action plan 2012 and Bill C-45 provides the means for its implementation.

It is the steps we take today that will give us the ability to withstand the complex global challenges of today and tomorrow. That is why our Conservative government's main focus has been and will remain the economy, including implementing Canada's economic action plan 2012, and why I do not support the NDP and opposition attempts to delay and defeat Bill C-45.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. As such, the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East will have five minutes for questions and comments when this matter returns before the House.

The House resumed 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the Conservatives' latest omnibus budget legislation, Bill C-45, at report stage.

I will focus my remarks today on: one, how the New Democrats worked closely with and supported, helped, aided and abetted the Conservatives in their ramming of this omnibus bill through committee; two, a very dangerous precedent that was set at finance committee during the study of Bill C-45; and, three, some of the flaws in Bill C-45 that were identified by Canadians during the committee's study.

As members know, Bill C-45 is a mammoth bill. It is over 400 pages long and would amend over 60 different laws. It includes a large number of provisions that simply do not belong in a budget bill: rewriting the laws protecting Canada's waterways; redefining aboriginal fisheries, without even consulting first nations peoples; and eliminating the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission. These are just a few examples of what is in Bill C-45 and examples of measures that would really have nothing to do with the fiscal situation of the country.

Canadians overwhelmingly disapprove of the Conservatives' use of omnibus budget bills to ram a large number of unrelated measures through Parliament without sufficient study or debate. A recent poll by Forum Research shows that 64% of Canadians oppose the Conservatives' omnibus legislative approach. Even a majority of Conservative supporters oppose the Conservatives' use, overuse and abuse of omnibus bills.

The Prime Minister once opposed the use of omnibus bills, but under his watch we have seen a clear trend toward the use of omnibus legislation. In fact, Bill C-13 in 2006 was 198 pages; Bill C-28 in 2007 was 378 pages; Bill C-10 in 2009 was 552 pages; Bill C-9 in 2010 was 904 pages; Bill C-13 in 2011 was 658 pages; and Bill C-38 earlier this year was 452 pages.

To put this in context, the largest Liberal budget bill was Bill C-28 in 2003, which was 144 pages in length, and it focused on fiscal measures, not on unrelated measures.

I will also speak about the NDP in this case. The NDP actually helped the Conservatives in passing Bill C-45 as quickly as possible through committee. The New Democrats say that they oppose Bill C-45 and they say that they oppose closure. However, their actions speak louder than their words. While they talk the talk, they do not walk the walk when it comes to actually standing up to the Conservatives and their abuse of Parliament. Instead of standing up to the Conservatives and providing any real opposition to Bill C-45, the New Democrats have actually been helping the Conservatives.

Here are a few examples. The New Democrats voted with the Conservatives to impose time allocation to limit the debate on Bill C-45 at committee. The New Democrats voted with the Conservatives to overrule the finance committee chair, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, a chair who is respected by all members of the House for his judgment. To have him rebuked by his own colleagues was bad and it was terrible to see the New Democrats gang up with the Conservatives against the member for Edmonton—Leduc. The New Democrats voted with the Conservatives to throw out the rules at committee and to shut down opposition to Bill C-45. The New Democrats then gave up one of their votes at finance committee and worked out a schedule with the Conservatives so the finance committee could get through Bill C-45 as quickly as possible. The New Democrats voted with the Conservatives almost 2,000 times at the finance committee to oppose measures that could have delayed certain parts of Bill C-45.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

A coalition.

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

Right, it could be considered a coalition.

It is not clear what the New Democrats were thinking, or whether they were thinking. It is either a question of gross incompetence, benign neglect or absolute complicity with the Conservatives. We have three choices—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

A combination of all of them.

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

—or a combination.

They opposed both measures in the bill as well as the amendments that would have delayed those measures in the bill. How incoherent could that be? Normally if we oppose a piece of legislation, then logically we would also support measures to delay that legislation. The New Democrats voted in favour of the Conservatives' time allocation motion at committee, but this week they have been rising on points of order to complain to the Speaker about the very time allocation motion they supported at the finance committee: go figure.

For the life of me I cannot understand why the NDP would ever join with the Conservatives in overruling the member for Edmonton—Leduc, a friend of mine, a great fellow and someone whose judgment is extremely good at committee. It is just a travesty.

In terms of Liberal amendments, Canadians have told us loud and clear that they oppose the Conservative omnibus budget bills. They want us to, as much as we can and within the rules, every legislative and parliamentary tool we have to fight this abuse of Parliament.

The Liberals listened. We introduced just over 3,000 amendments to Bill C-45 at the finance committee. These amendments would: stop the hidden Conservative tax grab on small businesses by expanding the hiring credit in Bill C-45; stop or delay the drastic cuts to SR and ED tax credits that support job creation in Canada and are key to Canada's international competitiveness; improve the definition of “aboriginal fisheries” to ensure that it includes the right to earn a moderate livelihood, as set out in the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Marshall; delay the foreign affiliate dumping provisions that risk Canada's global reputation in finance and mining; and add almost 1,000 lakes to the list of protected waterways under the new Navigations Protections Act in Bill C-45.

I want to speak to the dangerous precedent we saw at finance committee. The time allocation motion that the Conservatives and the NDP both supported to limit debate on Bill C-45 at committee prevented me from properly moving my amendments there. When the Conservatives realized that their time allocation motion would have allowed us to move most of these amendments in the House during report stage, they did the unthinkable. Instead of amending the time allocation motion, they overruled the committee chair, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, and used their majority to interpret the time allocation motion as meaning the opposite of what the motion actually stated. Bizarrely, the Conservatives were joined by the NDP in overturning the chair and throwing out the rules. It is a dangerous precedent that was set at finance committee. Essentially, the Conservatives can now use their majority to challenge any chair in any committee, say that the rules are black instead of white and have their way without any debate whatsoever.

As a result of this dangerous precedent at the finance committee, all the motions I put on notice were retroactively deemed to have been moved without my consent. We protested this dangerous precedent by insisting on recording votes for most of the motions. However, the NDP again helped speed up the passage of Bill C-45 at committee by giving up one of their votes at committee and agreeing with the Conservatives to a schedule to pass Bill C-45 as quickly and easily as possible.

It is really quite shocking how complicit the NDP members have been in helping the Conservatives pass this budget bill. They say that they oppose both the measures in the omnibus budget bill and the abuse of Parliament implicit in the omnibus budget bill. However, at the end of the day, when it comes down to brass tacks they have been supporting the Conservatives legislatively, ensuring passage of this bill as quickly as possible.

There are some very good reasons to oppose the bill. There are many serious flaws. The so-called hiring credit for SMEs is so badly designed that it will actually punish certain small businesses that hire new workers or give existing workers a wage increase. It includes a hidden 7¢ EI premium hike for small businesses that qualify this year and up to a 14¢ EI premium hike for small businesses that qualified last year but do not qualify this year.

We have tried to fix these design flaws with amendments that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business actually supports. However, the Conservatives refuse to do the right thing, which was to listen and fix the bill.

In terms of the foreign affiliate dumping issue and provisions, we have heard from the Toronto Stock Exchange and the mining industry, PDAC, about how foreign affiliate dumping provisions will put Canada's finance and mining sectors at risk. It is important to consider that 80% of mining transactions or financing in the world over the last five years were transacted in Toronto.

Both on the finance side and on the actual development of mines, Canada is a global leader. There are measures in the bill that will compromise our capacity to create jobs in the mining sector both in Canada and for Canadians around the world.

These are some of the concerns, along with SR and ED. Canada's innovators, manufacturers and exporters are telling us that these changes to SR and ED are going to imperil Canada's innovation and research and development. The Conservatives are not listening and they are going ahead with these changes.

In conclusion, Bill C-45 includes measures to correct the mistakes that were in the spring omnibus budget legislation in Bill C-38. The Conservatives should have learned from ramming that through that they made some mistakes. They should have listened to Canadians, listened to opposition members, respected Parliament and not introduced another egregious omnibus bill such as Bill C-45.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

We agree with our colleagues that Bill C-45 is an omnibus bill. However, I would like to set the record straight. The Conservatives tabled in committee a motion to limit debate. In fact, the hon. member is well aware of that since he sits on the Standing Committee on Finance. So, we were allowed to debate until midnight, but afterwards we could no longer discuss the legislation or the amendments. We had to vote.

The hon. member and the Liberals proposed 3,000 amendments. Quite frankly—and my colleague must acknowledge this—these amendments were not all substantial. A number of them were even very superficial. Yet, even those minor amendments were rejected. Later on, the hon. member voted in favour of the clause in question.

He claims we are saying one thing and doing another. However, it should be noted that the Liberals voted 114 times in support of the Conservatives on a confidence vote, and they supported three budgets after rising in the House to voice their opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the hon. member's question. Frankly, I really like the NDP member. He is a good guy. We work very hard together on the committee.

I do not understand why the New Democrats supported the Conservatives. They voted with the Conservatives to limit debate in committee and to expedite the passage of the bill. That does not make any sense. I hope that, in the future, we can stand up to the Conservatives with the support of New Democrats. I am somewhat disappointed that the New Democrats did not stand up to the Conservatives in committee.

Again, I am disappointed. I do not understand the NDP's incompetence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I should point out a couple of things. To say that the NDP supported the government on Bill C-45 is not correct and the member knows that, obviously.

Also, with respect to what happened at committee, there were 1,800 amendments proposed by the member, which changed successive days in terms of coming into force, which the NDP, in my view, responsibly voted against because those are not substantive policy amendments. The member should be clear on that.

I would like to ask the member a question because he was praising Liberal budgets before with respect to 1997 and 2003. Could the member for Kings—Hants, a member who I have the greatest respect for, indicate how many Liberal Party budgets between 1997 and 2003 did he stand up and vote for in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, during that period of time as a finance critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, I obviously developed a very good working relationship with the then finance minister, Paul Martin. As he became prime minister, I developed an even closer working relationship with him. That speaks to a collegiality of Parliament that existed back when the Liberals were in power. They worked with opposition critics. They worked together for the betterment of Canadians. They worked together constructively and reached out to opposition members to seek their ideas and input. In some cases it was to seek their membership in the Liberal caucus.

The reality is that there was a different level of co-operation and of respect for Parliament when I sat as a member of the opposition to a Liberal government. The committees worked better at that time. We developed unanimous reports in many cases because there was a working across.

I do not blame the hon. member, the chairman, for the dysfunction that exists at finance committee. I do not blame him for the fact that the government members try to run it as a branch plant of the minister's office. I know he does his best as a professional to run the finance committee right, but I do not envy the position that he is put in by a government that—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Before we resume debate, just a reminder to hon. members that throughout the debate on report stage, we have a 10-minute time period for the speech presentation and five minutes for questions and comments.

I do note that many members would wish, as one would expect, to get up on questions and comments. However, to accommodate as many members as possible, we do need some co-operation from hon. members to think about a one-minute question and a one-minute response so that other members, or their own colleagues, quite often, will have the opportunity to question the member who just spoke.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the economy and our government's economic action plan.

The current state and future direction of the Canadian economy is of great interest and concern to all Canadians. The Canadian economy has weathered the financial storm, avoided recession and prevented job losses on the level we have seen in our neighbour to the south. The strength and stability of the Canadian economy speaks for itself. Its fortitude is a reflection of the industrious spirit of Canadian commerce and the integrity of Canadian values.

I am proud of the hard work and the commitment this government has made to foster strong, sustainable, long-term economic growth and the creation of high-quality, value-added jobs for Canadians. The Minister of Finance assured Canadians that our government is striking the right balance between returning to balanced budgets over the medium term, and continuing to invest in the key drivers of economic growth and job creation.

Today I would like to remind the House of this government's commitment to creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We are achieving these goals through new programs; increasing funding for research and development; negotiating new trade deals with other governments as well as continuing to work with our neighbour and largest trading partner, the United States; introducing new immigration policy, attracting qualified and capable newcomers; investing in small and medium-sized businesses; and lowering corporate tax rates to encourage development in existing companies and attract responsible foreign investment. All of these strategies aim to promote sustainable growth in the medium and long term. These are the economic priorities of this governments, which I want to further explain and expand on today.

An economy's growth potential is measured by the innovation and development of its industries. Without new ideas and new markets, an economy will struggle and stagnate. In Canada, we are proud to have industries, businesses and entrepreneurs that are forward thinking and focused on expanding into new and emerging markets.

Research and development plays a crucial role in the success or failure of new programs and products. That is why this government has optimized federal spending on research and development to stimulate innovation and create economic opportunities in Canada. This government contributed $29.9 billion in funding to support R and D last year, an increase of 2% on the year before. Following the recommendations of the Jenkins report, this government invested $1.1 billion to directly support R and D, and $500 million for venture capital.

Our government's economic action plan is committed to the success of Canadian entrepreneurs, innovators and world-class researchers. Following the recommendations outlined in the report “Innovation Canada: A Call to Action”, our government implemented strategies to help innovative businesses grow into larger, globally competitive companies.

One of these key strategies is to shift resources from indirect support through the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program, or SR and ED, to direct forms of support, including the industrial research assistance program. This program will receive an additional $110 million per year, doubling support for small and medium-sized businesses and creating high-value jobs. The industrial research assistance program is a cornerstone of Canada's innovation system and is regarded worldwide as one of the best programs of its kind.

Canada remains a world leader in R and D. We are one of the top ten countries in the world for R and D investment, contributing 1.8% of GDP. Our government recognizes the important role research and development plays in the success of entrepreneurs, innovative businesses and world-class researchers. We are determined to see their continued success in the years to come.

In keeping with our government's economic action plan for investment, we are also focused on reducing the impediments to growth. It is no secret that red tape restricts economic growth and erodes public trust. That is why we are committed to removing bureaucratic obstacles to businesses' efforts to create jobs and growth. Fulfilling a budget 2010 pledge, our government established the Red Tape Reduction Commission, which I proudly took part in. The commission was tasked with formulating recommendations to reduce irritants to businesses that affect productivity, competitiveness and innovation.

An example of this was the implementation of the one-for-one rule. This rule stipulates that every time the government adopts a new rule, it must eliminate an existing one. This balanced approach to business regulation has received wide support from small and medium-sized businesses across the country. We are committed to delivering better regulations that reduce obstacles, lower costs and promote growth for Canadian businesses.

While small and medium-sized businesses form the backbone of the Canadian economy, corporations are equal contributors to creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity in Canada. Our government's economic action plan has introduced broad-based tax reductions that promote investment and growth across the Canadian economy.

We are delivering more than $60 billion of tax relief to job-creating businesses through a six-year fiscal plan. To better support business investment and improve productivity, this government has reduced the federal general corporate income tax rate to 15% on January 1, 2012, from 22% in 2007. Reducing corporate taxes and removing obstacles for foreign investment will spur the Canadian economy forward.

These improvements are already producing results. Lower general corporate taxes have increased the rate of return on investment and reduced costs, providing businesses with stronger incentives to invest and hire in Canada. Canada leads the G7 with the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment. Our proven policies have been recognized by Forbes magazine. In 2011, Forbes magazine featured “The Best Countries for Business”, and Canada is the number one jurisdiction for conducting business among 134 countries studied. This article is high praise. Keeping taxes low and providing the right incentives for Canadian businesses is a cornerstone of this government's long-term plan for jobs, growth and prosperity.

International trade and foreign investment continue to be high priorities. If Canada is to continue to grow and prosper, we need strong, reliable trade partners, partners who will invest in Canadian industry while encouraging Canadian investment in their own. These are the partnerships this government has forged and will continue to build on. We are pursuing the most ambitious trade expansion plan in Canadian history.

We are committed to creating the right conditions for Canadian businesses to compete internationally and in new emerging markets. Canada's foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, FIPA, with China will provide stronger protection for Canadians investing in China and facilitate the creation of jobs and economic growth here at home. This is exactly the trade partnership Canadian businesses and venture capitalists need to grow and expand. This treaty is designed to protect Canadian investors in China through stable, predictable rules and protection against discriminatory and arbitrary practices. Despite the baseless claims made by members of the opposition parties, this treaty does produce a net benefit to Canadian industry. This government's pro-trade plan is opening new doors for Canadian businesses and provides important benefits for Canadian investors.

In addition to forging new partnerships, this government is sitting down with old friends in the European Union to establish a new trade agreement. The Canada-Europe comprehensive and economic trade agreement promises to be a co-operative and valuable partnership. The agreement mirrors NAFTA, but is considerably more ambitious and more lucrative. In a recent study produced by a joint Canada-EU trade committee, it was found that a new agreement could boost Canada's GDP by $12 billion annually and increase bilateral trade by 20%. To put that into perspective for the House and for Canadians, that is equivalent to creating almost 80,000 new jobs or adding $1,000 dollars to the average Canadian family's income.

Trade agreements aim at creating jobs in high-growth industries such as resource development, agriculture production, high-tech manufacturing and global finance. These are important markets with high growth potential. Their success will have a direct impact on the infrastructure, development and success of communities across this country. The beauty of CETA is that it will enhance trade alliances and corporate partnerships in markets throughout the provinces and territories. We all stand to profit from this treaty. The negotiations with the European Union are the most transparent and collaborative trade negotiations ever undergone in Canada. All levels of government recognize the economic benefits this agreement would bring to all regions in Canada. The EU holds tremendous opportunity for Canadian workers and businesses. The EU market includes 500 million people and annual economic activity of over $17 trillion. The European Union is Canada's second-largest trade and investment partner, behind only the United States. Canadians' prosperity and standard of living depend on these trade agreements, and this government is committed to seeing all of them realized.

There are other things I wanted to talk to, but I see I am running low on time, so I will move toward the end of my presentation.

We believe that the federal skilled worker program aims to better recognize younger immigrants with Canadian work experience and better language skills. That is something we want to examine. Another major section of the Canadian immigration system to be improved is the pan-Canadian framework for the assessment and recognition of foreign qualifications. This is a system that is important as we move forward as well, as we attract new people to help with the jobs we are going to continue to have.

I just want to summarize by saying this government's economic action plan and vision are clear. We are committing to fostering strong, sustainable, long-term economic growth and the creation of high-quality, value-added jobs for Canadians.

Canadians have placed their trust and financial interests in the hands of our government, and we are dedicated to delivering on all their expectations. Strong, fiscally responsible governance, focused on creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity—that is the Conservative vision. That will produce results. That is what we have, and it is in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something else that Forbes says. It is that there is something fundamentally unfair about a government that takes away so much of people's money, power and personal control, while telling them life will be better as a result. This budget is a good demonstration of that.

Would the hon. member support taking the $1.3 billion in taxpayers' money that is given to the fossil fuel industry, shifting it toward renewables and creating 18,000 jobs as a result, as outlined in the Blue Green Canada report that just came out a couple of days ago?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the great things this government has done. We have continued to make sure we are able use and explore the resources we have here in Canada.

I might add that we continually look at ways to improve that. Companies are doing that now so that there is less of a footprint, and I think that speaks well for what our resource sector is doing.

We have also committed dollars to the renewable sector. I do not think it needs be either/or. We can do both. We need to be proud of the fact that we have a great resource base in this country. We need to continue to use that, but we can also look for other methods as well, as we have done.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member recognizes that what we are really talking about today is the massive budget bill, which will have a profound impact on several pieces of legislation. It is historical in the sense of the size, the magnitude and the number of changes the government is bringing forward.

The member made reference to the European Union. One of the obligations in this budget bill will be that the people who live in the European Union are now going to have to go online to get a form that will allow them to come to Canada. It is a fairly significant change.

I do not know if the member was made aware of that or if the caucus was made aware of it. Does the member not think that, when laws are being changed to that degree, it would have been better to have had it as a separate piece of legislation as opposed to bringing it in through a budget implementation bill?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we look at some of the things I talked about—and I realize 10 minutes is really not an adequate amount of time to talk about all the things this government is doing—we have to look at the pieces.

We have talked about working with trade deals. We have talked about dealing with immigration issues. We have talked about research and development. We have talked about lower taxes. All these things are working together. The immigration piece is just one of those pieces. It is about how we welcome people to Canada and the kinds of people we welcome.

That is what makes this economic action plan so important, all the pieces working together so that we can have a strong and coherent strategy.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's excellent speech really highlights the difference between the government's plan and the opposition's plan.

We have seen absolutely no plan from the opposition. That is really scary. We have heard about the NDP's $21.5 billion carbon tax, but there are $56 billion worth of unfunded promises.

I want to ask the member, because he is very knowledgeable about fiscal responsibilities, where he thinks the NDP is going to get this $56 billion. When I add it up, a $21 billion carbon tax only pays for a certain amount of it. Where is it going to get the rest of that money?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things we have heard a little about here in the House, the $21 billion carbon tax.

We understand the NDP does not want to suggest that it would actually have to collect taxes for this, but I am not sure how else it would pay for all these programs.

If we look at it, I know the NDP members talk about our government looking at this in 2008, but here we are in 2012 and we have not seen that. Obviously, that was not part of our plan.

I would suggest that taxes would need to be raised to pay for all these things. It is unfortunate that what would happen is that hard-working Canadians would have to pay for all these additional taxes.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume, I want to compliment members on guarding their time in that last round. Without making any reference to the content of the questions and comments, it was an outstanding round of questions and comments.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has the floor.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could begin my speech by confidently making a statement about which I am now absolutely certain, to wit: parliamentary democracy is now a thing of the past in Canada's Parliament.

Omnibus bills, reflecting an almost obscene form of grandstanding, have become a habit in the House of Commons, like gag orders, I might add. That is why I am not all that happy about taking the floor in the House for a second time to speak about the second omnibus budget implementation bill, Bill C-45.

On the other hand, I am pleased to be able to stand up for my constituents, because I believe that it is important for them to be aware of the government's sabotage. It is sabotaging our social programs, our regions, our employment insurance, the quality of our food, our environment, and our international reputation. I could go on about its sabotage for the next 10 minutes of my speech. That is more or less what I will do, but in greater detail.

Just as Bill C-38 went beyond implementation of the 2012 budget by making many other previously unannounced changes, we find ourselves once again dealing with a bill that goes far beyond simply implementing a budget. Much too far. We said so in May when the Trojan horse bill was forced through, and we are saying it again today: this is not an acceptable way of doing things in this House, in a democratic system. I will always speak out in this House against such practices.

Bill C-45 is 450 pages long and contains clauses that concern a host of disparate measures. It amends more than 60 acts. Needless to say, the bill also assigns more power to ministers. This worrisome Conservative penchant for concentrating power is proceeding apace. Bill C-45 eliminates some commissions to allow ministers to make more decisions without consultation and without having to answer to anyone.

It is also important to speak out about the weakening of our environmental protection measures, and of our ability to ensure sustainable development for future generations. I am really concerned that they could not care less about the next generation.

Bill C-45 also destroys the Navigable Waterways Protection Act and takes the teeth out of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The Conservatives did not even allow the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to study these changes, even though they will have a major impact on our environment.

The Minister of Transport likes to repeat ad nauseam that navigable waterways and the environment are two different things, but the fact is that there are fish in the water! They need protection because they are part of our ecosystem. And while it may be true that they are two different things, in the end, they go together.

Bill C-45 also proposes major changes to the Canada Grain Act. These changes, made without consulting anyone, will have a major impact on Canadian grain producers.

I will not discuss the proposed amendments to avoid any slips of the tongue, but will say instead that the government's amendments, drawn up without any consultations, make it more difficult for producers to challenge grain classification or weight decisions made by private grain producers. It is clear that this will be very harmful to the grain trade and small producers.

The Conservatives had assured us that Bill C-45 would hold no surprises. And yet, the 2012 budget did not say a thing about this. After reducing the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and making budget cuts to AgriStability payments, the Conservatives have made it clear that they do not want to help farmers.

My riding is considered the larder of Quebec, and farming is everywhere.

Farmers in my riding are worried about the extent to which the government is ignoring and refusing to help them. And yet, they are the people who feed us all. Could they not be given at least a little recognition? That is the least the government could do for them.

Yet again, the Conservatives are trying to rush legislative measures through Parliament, keeping Canadians in the dark and not allowing them to learn more about them. In this bill, they go so far as to considerably reduce their own responsibilities. But governments have responsibilities. It seems to me that my colleagues across the way still do not know that. We have been working with this government for a year and a half, and I have yet to see them shoulder any responsibility for anything.

The government is also saying that the bill will create jobs. However, I have something to tell the House: according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the budget will lead to the loss of 43,000 jobs. Some job creation! We might return to the topic when some jobs have actually been created.

In reality, the budget would lead to a major hike in the unemployment rate, with fewer and fewer workers eligible for employment insurance. The main job creation measure in the bill is the introduction of a temporary hiring tax credit for small businesses. This is a measure we could support, because it is like motherhood. However, it only gives employers a maximum tax credit of $1,000 on their new employment insurance payments. That is not a lot. Even funnier, or even more ironic, the tax credit is available to employers for the 2012 tax year, even though 2012 has already ended. The 2012 year is ending now.

We just spoke about jobs. We might now talk about how poverty, homelessness and perhaps even housing. According to the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, 4 million Canadians, 750,000 of them children, are coping with pressing housing needs. By this we mean that their housing is too small, dirty and expensive, and that they cannot pay for it. Not only that, but between 150,000 and 300,000 Canadians currently live in the street.

Earlier, I spoke about the fact that the government must assume its responsibilities. The 2012 budget implementation bill does not contain any measures for housing or the fight against poverty. In my opinion, this is completely unacceptable. Yet, major institutions, such as the Wellesley Institute and the Canadian Federation of Municipalities have sounded the alarm several times. In the run up to the last budget, these organizations called on the federal government to invest money in housing. Obviously, nothing was done.

Housing is a crucial issue for families, people without families and seniors, a high-risk group. Seniors occupy one third of social housing units, and a third of them risked losing their housing as a result of the cutbacks the government has made over recent years. A lot of seniors and families are also at risk of losing their affordable housing because the long-term operating agreements between the federal government and housing co-operatives will not be renewed.

Once again, the government is not playing a leadership role. The NDP will focus its efforts on the real priorities of Canadian families: jobs, health care, pensions, environmental protection, the fight against poverty, agriculture, and the protection of workers. We have a plan to improve health care, to better reward those that create jobs, and to strengthen seniors' benefits. We also want to work in a transparent manner.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are continuing to demonstrate that they are more interested in imposing their agenda than in being accountable to Canadians. Worse still, they have chosen to perpetuate an unsustainable situation. In our northern country, people are living in the streets and families must choose between paying their rent and feeding their children. The country is placing no importance on the environment and is jeopardizing the health of future generations with impunity. Canada is sabotaging assistance programs for people in need and is not at all concerned about the first nations.

It is high time that the government assume its responsibilities and play a leadership role in order to make our nation a land that welcomes people and a place where people want to live.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very passionate speech. I did hear her criticize the budget, which is good. This is what the opposition should be doing. However, part of the opposition's job is to put forward an alternative but we did not really hear anything in that speech with any details.

However, what we do know is that the NDP has $56 billion in unfunded promises. To be responsible, one needs to tell Canadians where one will get the money to do that.

We have heard about the $21 billion carbon tax. We know the NDP voted against taking the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. The NDP leader has been on the record saying that he wants to raise it.

When we subtract $21 billion from $56 billion, it just does not quite add up. We know about the carbon tax and the potential with the GST, but how will the NDP pay for this and where will it get the tax dollars?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that my colleague spoke about responsibilities. Being responsible means ensuring that Canada is a place where people want to live, as I said in my closing remarks. Being responsible means protecting the environment and ensuring that Canadians are not caught in the poverty trap. Investing in social programs and the environment is worthwhile. Sustainable development is worthwhile. Having a country of healthy people is worthwhile.

This is how we intend to fund what we are proposing to Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's opening remarks, she spoke very passionately about how bad the bill is, how undemocratic it is and so forth on principle. I appreciated those comments but I have a question for her. How, from the NDP's perspective, does she reconcile that with her caucus' behaviour in terms of allowing the bill to pass so easily in committee? The NDP members voted to support limiting debate on the motion. They voted to overturn the chair. They voted to support over 1,000 times the Conservative budget. How does she reconcile her opening remarks and those facts?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals proposed 3,000 amendments to the bill. I am not saying that these 3,000 amendments were superficial, but most of them were. If they did not want to vote on those amendments, they should not have proposed them.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned earlier that 4 million Canadians had core housing needs and that between 150,000 and 300,000 of them were homeless, but there is nothing in the budget for housing. The hon. member referred to a study by the Wellesley Institute, but the Gaetz report also deals with the real cost of homelessness.

Personally, I think housing is an investment. I am convinced that my colleague agrees. Housing benefits the economy. This could be one way of paying some expenses. Therefore, perhaps the hon. member could tell us how providing housing to people benefits the economy.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some people currently spend over 80% of their income on housing. Normally, one should not spend more than 30% of his budget on housing, in order to meet other basic needs such as food, clothing and providing for his children.

If people have adequate housing and if they pay a decent amount for their rent, they will consume more, have a decent standard of living, live in dignity, and they may also be in a better position to study and work. It is a cycle. It pays to invest in social programs.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour and a pleasure to speak on the matter of our government's budget implementation bill.

I would like to begin my comments by congratulating the Prime Minister; the finance minister; my good colleague from Edmonton—Leduc, who chairs the Standing Committee on Finance and has done an excellent job in getting this through; and, of course, the two parliamentary secretaries for their excellent work in making sure that this bill got through committee and some of the treachery and traps planned for it there.

Canadians expect politicians to keep their promises, and the promises that we made to them in our previous elections are being delivered in this bill. The top priority of our government is to promote job creation and economic growth. That is our priority because of the positive results our policies have had in supporting Canadians so far. That is our priority because in a challenging global economy, we need to continue taking prudent action. It is also our priority because it is the priority of Canadians.

Since the introduction of Bill C-45, I have been hosting numerous round tables and town hall meetings in my riding and listening to the concerns of my constituents about the current landscape in Canada. I often hear calls for the reduction of unnecessary red tape, a key point in this bill.

Our government's plan to reduce red tape is quite clear. Our government is going to address specific irritants to businesses, as well as the systemic barriers that unnecessarily frustrate and burden Canadian businesses with additional delays, costs and unnecessary bureaucracy. Part of this plan includes implementing the one-for-one rule and committing to a red tape reduction action plan to reduce unnecessary and ineffective regulations, allowing small businesses to focus on growing and creating jobs.

Additionally, we know there is a need to modernize many of Canada's regulatory systems when it comes to project reviews. Since 2006, our government has been working to streamline the review process for major economic projects so that projects proceed in a timely fashion while protecting the environment. The government will propose legislation to modernize the regulatory system and realize the objective of one project-one review within a clearly defined time period.

Economic action plan 2012 also proposes $13.6 million over two years to fund the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in support of consultations with aboriginal peoples related to projects assessed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to ensure that their rights and interests are respected and that they benefit from the economic development opportunities afforded to them.

Another issue that I have heard about in my riding, of course, is the issue of job creation. Canada's well-trained and highly educated workforce represents one of our key advantages in competing and succeeding in the global economy. We know that the key to a strong future is well-trained youth. That is why we are investing $50 million over two years to assist more young people to gain the necessary skills and experiences they need.

Far too often Canadians run into barriers or disincentives that discourage workforce participation. Better utilizing Canada's workforce and making Canada's labour market more adaptable will help ensure Canada's long-term economic growth. That is why since 2006 the government has placed a strong emphasis on access to skills training, support for post-secondary education, building a fast and flexible economic immigration system and developing untapped potential in the labour market.

Economic action plan 2012 builds on this with an enhanced labour market focus and a number of targeted investments that will help respond to current labour market challenges and meet the longer-term labour market needs. We are also helping those who are unemployed get back on their feet by giving them the skills they need to find jobs in their communities.

Through economic action plan 2012, our government will invest $21 million over two years to improve efforts to connect employment insurance claimants with the necessary skills with available jobs in their communities, including through targeted information and compliance sessions. Along with providing relevant and timely job information, the government will strengthen and clarify what is required of claimants who are receiving regular employment insurance benefits and looking for work.

This bill also proposes investing $74 million over two years in new national employment insurance projects to ensure that claimants are not discouraged from accepting work while receiving those same EI benefits. This new pilot project would cut the current earnings clawback rate in half and apply to all earnings while on claim. This would ensure that EI claimants always benefit from accepting work by allowing them to keep more of what they earn while receiving EI benefits.

Economic action plan 2012 would also invest $387 million over two years to align the calculation of weekly EI benefit amounts with local labour market conditions. This new approach would reduce disincentives to accepting all available work prior to applying to the EI program, by permanently revising the way benefits are calculated.

Economic action plan 2012 would improve the integrity and fairness of the tax system by closing tax loopholes that allow some businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

The plan would also improve the neutrality of the tax system by eliminating inefficient tax preferences. These actions would broaden and protect the tax base of federal and provincial governments, helping to keep Canadian tax rates competitive and low and thereby improving incentives to work, save and invest in Canada.

Our government would also continue to provide significant support through major federal transfers in 2012-13. Federal support, for example, to provinces and territories would reach an all-time high of $59 billion, some $3 billion more than last year. Total amounts for each major transfer would see year-over-year growth in 2012-13. For Alberta, my province, major transfers would total close to $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2012-13. This long-term growing support would help ensure that my Province of Alberta has the resources required to provide essential public services. It also contributes to shared national objectives, including health care, post-secondary education and other key components of Canada's social programs.

As elected members of Parliament, we have a duty to lead by example. That is why this budget also includes an overhaul of the MP pension system, with changes that would see pensions fall more into line with the private sector by moving toward a 50-50 cost sharing model and pushing back the age of eligibility to 65. Over the next five years, these changes, along with similar adjustments to the public service pensions, would save taxpayers $2.6 billion.

These types of measures would help us stay on the right track despite ongoing global economic uncertainty. Through our economic action plan, we have helped the Canadian economy grow over 820,000 net new jobs since July 2009, the best job-creation record in the G7. This legislation would keep Canada's economy on the right track.

Our Conservative government is spending taxpayer dollars responsibly and efficiently to continue our economic success and reduce our deficit. The results speak for themselves. Since July 2009, our debt to GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7 and our deficit is half of what it was two years ago. Canada's deficit in 2011-12 was down by about a quarter from 2010-11 and by more than half from 2009-10. We have also heard praise of our government's ongoing efforts to ensure continued responsible spending of taxpayer dollars, with direct program expenses in the 2011-12 fiscal year falling 0.6 percentage points as a share of GDP from their 2010-11 level.

The admiration of Canada's economic environment is not limited to foreign governments and dignitaries. Recently, Forbes magazine ranked Canada as the best country in the world to do business, and the OECD and the IMF predict that our economic growth will be among the strongest in the industrialized world over the next two years. All three of the major credit ratings agencies, Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's, have reaffirmed Canada's top credit rating. These accomplishments are not the end of the road but a sign that our efforts are helping deliver for Canadians and must be continued.

That is why our government would continue to implement economic action plan 2012 through this budget implementation bill. As long as there are Canadians looking for work or concerned about economic turbulence beyond our borders, our job is not done. Bill C-45 is another step that our government is taking to balance the budget, create jobs for Canadians, reduce unnecessary red tape and remove the burdens of bureaucracy that slow down the progress of industry and citizens all across our country. Our Conservative government is keeping taxes low and remaining focused on jobs and growth. By doing everything we can to continue Canada's success, we are helping Canada stay on the right track for long-term growth and prosperity.

I am proud to support this bill and will continue to support the efforts of our government to improve Canada in the short and long terms.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

I would like to remind him that in 2009, as a member of the G20, Canada made a commitment to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels. Since then, nothing has happened. We are making no progress and, once again this year, accumulating more fossil awards.

What does this budget say about ending subsidies for fossil fuels? Instead of funding renewable energy, it gives more than $1.3 billion to major fossil fuel production corporations.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the questioner clearly has not read the bill. Had he done so he would understand that Bill C-45 phases out tax preferences for the mining and oil and gas sectors. It also expands tax relief for investments in clean energy generation equipment.

I sit on the natural resources committee, along with a number of my colleagues who are present here today, and constantly hear nothing but misinformation and rhetoric on these particular issues by opposition members. If those members would simply read the bill and understand what the proposed legislation is trying to do, they would have no reason to justify voting against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is something I am just not seeing in this particular bill's numbers. Therefore, could my colleague from Wetaskiwin show me what the costs would be?

The changes that have been made to the EI Act would result in the federal government losing a fair amount of capacity in some of the departments that use seasonal workers. We know that during tax season the Canada Revenue Agency staffs up. We see that after Christmas with EI processing, when that department also hires more staff. A lot of the time they are term positions, but with the new changes to EI those people will not be sustained, and all of those departments will have to bring in new staff. I would think there would be a considerable amount of training required. I believe it was the Department of Citizenship and Immigration that has a fairly fluid staff, because I have heard that it costs $15,000 per employee to staff up during peak times.

Where are we seeing that dollar value? If there is a dollar value affixed to this, could the member point to that in the budget?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the questioner has asked me a very specific question regarding staffing, which is in the purview of the minister. The reality is that Canada's public service workforce is capable and efficient at what it does. Its staff are knowledgeable and skilled.

The member should have asked me about the benefits from the changes we have proposed, in allowing workers an opportunity to take part-time work while remaining able to keep a portion of their employment insurance benefits. This would create an environment where workers will be taking work that they would otherwise have been penalized for in the past. This will give them an opportunity to contribute to the economy, maintain a level of income that is sufficient for their families, and also gain valuable experience to continue to grow and develop their careers.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's love affair with red tape and bureaucracies that generate no result never ceases to amaze me. In particular, I want to talk about the Navigable Waters Protection Act and ask my friend a specific question.

Under the old act, a rural municipality in my constituency was required to spend $700,000 on bridges across temporary waterways. The total budget for that municipality was $1.4 million. Thankfully, we were able to get that reversed.

Like my friend, I represent a rural constituency. Can he talk about his municipalities and counties' views on the changes that we have made to the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the first things I did when I was elected back in 2006 was to make the rounds of the various counties and get to know the elected officials there. The first thing I heard from them was the absolutely ridiculous amount of bureaucracy and red tape they had to go through and the costs of jumping through the hoops of these absolutely ridiculous requirements, which their ratepayers had to pay the burden of in that regulatory environment.

I am pleased with the changes that we have made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Fisheries Act and so on, so that common sense can prevail and good judgment can replace unnecessary bureaucracy just for the sake of bureaucracy. These are good changes that would save people money and get projects going.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition at all stages to the Conservatives' Bill C-45. Like most Canadians, the people in my riding are outraged by this undemocratic Conservative approach.

We are opposed to the content and to the undemocratic nature of this bill, which is very similar to Bill C-38, the other mammoth bill. Just as we opposed Bill C-38 then, we oppose Bill C-45 now. The contents of this bill will only increase social inequality in Canada. Moreover, the size of the bill, at over 400 pages, and the speed at which the Conservatives want it passed reveal the undemocratic nature of their methods.

Let us talk about the Conservatives' undemocratic methods. As I said, this bill is over 400 pages long and amends nearly 60 laws. That is why we asked the government to split the bill into a number of bills, so that each committee could deal with the amendments--some of them major—examine them carefully, hear from experts and make sure that reports on each act being amended were done in the proper form, with the necessary amendments.

It should have been done, but instead we had a pretense of consultation. A show, a masquerade. Ignoring the rules of the House of Commons itself, the Conservatives first refused to split the bill as we asked. Then the Standing Committee on Finance passed a motion to delegate its work. You heard correctly, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Finance delegated its work to a dozen committees so they could study--at top speed--the changes Bill C-45 proposes to various acts.

Personally, I was a witness to this pretense of a study, because I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. I had to participate in this pseudo-study for just under three hours. Just imagine what the result was: all is well and perfect in the best of all possible worlds. What a surprise.

The same thing happened at other committees. Furthermore, in a November 8, 2012, article entitled Bill C-45: A total sham to save face, Manon Cornellier wrote:

Committees therefore had to scramble to find witnesses who could appear with just a few hours' notice. In the end, the committees had only a day or two to hold hearings. And once again, at almost all of the committees, the Conservatives used their majority to limit the matter to just one quick hour dedicated to hearing from public servants.

There is no doubt that if public servants had been drafting the amendments to the bills, they would not have proposed these amendments, based on the needs of the various groups in question. This was all just a sham, as indicated by the excerpt from Ms. Cornellier's article that I just quoted.

As I said, the people in my riding of Drummond are outraged and are wondering what the Conservatives' real motives are for ramming these changes through so quickly, without any analysis. What exactly are they trying to hide?

One of the many issues, as I mentioned earlier, is of course environmental protection. In my riding, people really care about protecting the environment. They want to develop the riding in such a way that makes Drummond a hub and a magnet for innovation in green technology.

Clearly, however, the Conservatives' changes in Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 are weakening Canada's environmental laws and regulations more and more. In fact, Bill C-45 simply follows the same path as the Trojan horse bill, Bill C-38, introduced in the spring, by weakening environmental protections even further. For instance, it shuts down the round table on the environment and makes changes to environmental assessments.

And of course there is the Navigable Waters Act. That act is being completely trashed, and in a subjective, partisan way, I should add. I will explain what I mean by that in a moment.

Along the same line, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity is urging the federal government to think about the consideration being given to fossil fuel, as I mentioned earlier in my question. He says there must be a debate in Canada about this society-wide issue, because the increase in greenhouse gas emissions has to be included in the equation so that informed decisions can be made for all Canadians.

On the subject of our great Canadian Environmental Protection Act, I would like to point out in passing that yesterday, Canada added another fossil award to its collection at the Doha conference. That is proof that our environmental measures are a failure.

The bill also proposes two minor items in subsidies for fossil fuels, as I mentioned just now. They are going to take away a mere $10 million of the $1.3 billion they hand out every year. This is money that the people in my riding, Drummond, are handing over to subsidize billionaire oil producers and gas and coal producers, in addition to the money from the ecoEnergy program that is being diverted.

That is over $1.3 billion, nearly $2 billion, of taxpayer money that the people of greater Drummond want to see come back to their city to fund ecoenergy measures, the university, for example, the future plans for the exhibition centre and the library. They could have solar walls and green roofs, and they could use geothermal heating.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives prefer to give $1.3 billion to the oil companies, as if this were something that would support our environment and create jobs. In fact, we know very well that money invested in the environment creates three times as many jobs. So we would have three times as many jobs from that money if we invested it in green energy and the measures I referred to earlier.

The Navigable Waters Act is going to be trashed. Of the 37 heritage rivers, only 10 will be protected now. The bill reverses the responsibility, which will now rest with the public and municipalities. Municipal councillors in my riding have come to see me; they were outraged, and wanted to know what was going to happen to the Saint-François River. That river runs through greater Drummond and is no longer protected. If a project damages the environment, the municipal council will have to bring legal action to exercise its rights. Rights are often exercised once the damage is done. It is often too late to protect our environment. People are truly angry.

As well, on that point, if my colleagues are not aware, I am going to tell them: 90% of the laws for lakes designated as protected are in Conservative ridings. That is truly insulting, partisan and clumsy. I do not know what polite words I can use to describe this situation. It makes no sense. The people of Drummond are truly outraged to see how protection for our environment is being cut back once again.

I will end on that note, although I could say much more about Bill C-45, which is truly appalling. This bill makes no sense. This is an anti-democratic process that is going to hurt the environment, and hurt our economy. We could create three times as many jobs by investing in the green economy.

That is why New Democrats will continue to work hard to bring solutions to the House of Commons and stand up for Canadians.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised and shocked that the member would be making statements in the House complaining about the time allotted for study in committee when it was that member who brought forward a motion in committee, before we even started studying, to shut down the study. He is now complaining that we did not have enough time to study but he did not even want to start studying. I find that somewhat incredible and amazing.

In one paragraph, the member talked about greenhouse gases and navigable waters together. These are two completely different items, but he is trying to tie them together as if navigable waters has something to do with greenhouse gas emissions. It is amazing. He continues with misleading statements on where the lakes and rivers that are protected are found, et cetera.

I have a big question for the member. Has he ever read the Navigable Waters Protection Act? The word “environment” is not mentioned once in there. It is completely about obstruction to navigation and the navigability of waterways. If the member would please read that legislation as it stands, he would realize that it is not an environmental law.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did indeed rise on a point of order yesterday in committee to protest the way things were being done. It is undemocratic and it violates the rules of the House. The finance committee cannot transfer a responsibility to another committee, and a committee cannot report to another committee, because that is against the rules of the House. I rose in committee to address the undemocratic rules that the hon. member supported.

I mentioned two different things in my speech. First, I talked about climate change. Indeed, if we invested in green energy, we would create three times as many jobs. But the government would rather invest $1.3 billion in oil and gas companies that are already making billions of dollars. Just for the heck of it, the hon. member should try to explain that to his constituents and to Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would recognize that there is a credibility issue here.

Inside the House of Commons, when the member is in front of the cameras, he tries to give the impression to Canadian viewers that he is against Bill C-45. However, when we were in the committee room, the NDP collapsed. NDP members, well over 1,000 times, supported the Conservatives and voted against the Liberals. They wanted to see this bill rushed through. They were prepared to have the clause by clause. They voted to limit debate. How does the member reconcile the difference between the two?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we said it before: this process has been undemocratic since the beginning.

It was impossible to properly review over 60 pieces of legislation in an hour or two—barely three hours in the case of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. That is what we are fighting against, because it does not make any sense. We can play politics, but the real issue is that it is impossible to properly study this legislation in two or three hours. Bill C-45 should have been split into several bills. We could then have properly studied them in committee and we would have done a job worthy of a true democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would call what happened to the Liberal Party on May 2, 2011, a collapse. That was a collapse.

I admire the member for Drummond—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Bourassa on a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order as there is a case for relevance. I would urge the member to talk about the subject at hand, which is the budget.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I remind hon. members that comments must be relevant to the subject before the House.

The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is funny, because when the Liberals or Conservatives repeat the same thing 15 times, it essentially becomes irrelevant. Day after day and hour after hour, we ask them the same questions and get the same answers. I think that essentially becomes irrelevant.

I would not mind being featured on Et Dieu créa... Laflaque.

As I was saying, the member for Drummond does an incredible job as environment critic, and what he said about waterways is very important because it is about investment and protection.

What does the member for Drummond have to say about measures that should have been adopted to protect communities and forgotten and disadvantaged regions?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who does an excellent job in his riding, especially when it comes to agriculture.

There is absolutely nothing in this budget to protect the regions. The government could have suggested that we put the $1.3 billion back into the regions to create green jobs, jobs of the future and new technologies. That would have helped us.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are: the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, The Environment; the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, Fisheries and Oceans.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy and proud to stand today to speak to Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012.

I consistently hear time and time again from my constituents that their top priorities for our government are jobs and economic growth. I believe the same holds true for all Canadians.

Our government has listened to Canadians and job creation and continuing to strengthen and expand the Canadian economy are our top priorities. We can see that in the small things, like the title of this bill, the jobs and growth act, and we can see it in the big things, like the international praise and recognition our government has earned. We can see that in the more than 820,000 plus net new jobs created under our watch since July 2009.

Our government is delivering what we promised to Canadians: careful and competent stewardship to improve our employment rates and strengthen our economy to benefit all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Strong as our economy is, there are many external factors which we cannot control. Many of these pose a threat and the American and global economic state can affect us. However well our economy is doing, how ever many jobs we have created, it can still be jeopardized by global financial uncertainty. That is why it is crucial that we get our fine tuning right.

The budget tabled last March got it right. The first implementation act, the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, got it right. Bill C-45 gets it right.

Before the global recession hit in 2008, our government had cut taxes 140 times, saving the average Canadian household $3,100 a year. That $3,000 is being spent by Canadian families or being saved by Canadian families that they would not have otherwise. That extra money in the pockets of Canadians stimulates various economic sectors.

Before the recession hit, our government had brought our national debt to its lowest level in 25 years, paying down $40 billion. Since the recession, the government has invested substantially across Canada to ease the pain caused by the recession and to stimulate growth.

The days now are not as dark as they were in 2008 and 2009. We have to ensure we are protected against further economic decline, but we also cannot spend borrowed money forever. The balance is in the fine tuning I spoke of earlier. The government has balanced this correctly, hedging ourselves against further global downturns and growing public debt.

A prime example of our continued focus on jobs and economic growth is the renewal of the hiring tax credit for small businesses. Anyone who has driven through Mississauga East—Cooksville, the riding I represent, will know that it is full of small businesses and across our country small businesses employ about half of the workforce. However, small businesses are often the first hit and the hardest hit by economic downturns. That is why our government is so concerned with helping small businesses.

The hiring credit for small businesses offers a tax saving of $1,000 per new hire. Extending this credit incentivizes hiring new people to help reduce employment and it makes life easier for small businessmen and women across Canada to create and fill new staff positions. Last year it benefited nearly 534,000 employers. The capacity and scope of this tax credit to improve employment and help small business grow is massive, and I am proud to support its extension.

In the 1990s Canadians saw the harm and risk caused by sustained deficits. The government of the time managed to drastically reduce government spending, but it had done so at the cost to services and by cutting transfers to the provinces that pay for many services.

Our government made a pledge to Canadians that it would not cut transfer payments to provinces and it would not cut the funding that paid for health care and other services. We will reduce the deficit, but not at the cost to front line services to Canadians.

Instead, we have opted to make systemic, long-lasting reductions in the overall cost of government. These reductions will ensure that moving forward, the public service will be leaner, more streamlined and more sustainable.

The reductions come from all over the government. From simplifying regulations around grain elevators, to changes in public service pensions for new contributors after January 1, 2013, the bill would further our reductions in the actual cost of government.

I am pleased the House unanimously passed Bill C-46, which was originally a part of this bill. I heard first hand from many constituents, and I doubt that I am alone in this, that they found the benefits politicians and public servants much greater than their own, and they found this to be very problematic.

It is important that we show Canadians that we are taking the lead on cost reductions, and we have done this. It is important that we show Canadians that we respect the trust they have put in us to spend their tax dollars, and the bill does that. Our government will continue to show Canadians that we respect tax dollars.

These are just some of many reasons to support the bill.

Canadians know the benefit of tax credits like the hiring tax credit for small businesses, not least the millions of them who work at small businesses. Canadians know that jobs and continuing our economic growth is job one in these challenging times. Canadians also know that we need to balance our public sector spending to a sustainable level. Canadians know that this act reflects those needs.

When I spoke in the House regarding the first implementation act of Canada's economic action plan 2012, I was able to read out millions of dollars that our government invested in infrastructure and in research and development throughout the city of Mississauga. I know many other members can point to similar investments in the communities they represent. I was able to speak to improvements we were making with respect to foreign qualifications. These were steps forward for my community and for our country.

With Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012, we are taking further steps forward for the constituency I represent, for the constituencies each of us represents and for all Canadians.

I urge all parties and all members to support the bill.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech, though, I am consistently struck by the fact that the government's spin on the budget bill does not match reality.

I want to remind the member that while the Conservatives have claimed their budget is about job creation, the reality is that even they had to admit it would lead to 19,200 lost jobs in the public sector alone, and the PBO projected a total of 102,000 jobs lost.

Multiple witnesses before the finance committee said that Bill C-45's proposed changes to business R and D support, for example, would kill jobs and hinder innovation, which is a key factor to economic growth. Contrary to the spin, the austerity measures in the bill would be a further drag on the economy.

Would the member want to comment on the supreme irony that we find in the sense of humour of the Minister of Finance when he called this act the “jobs and growth act”.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really know what irony the hon. member is talking about. If she looks at our records, we have created over 820,000 jobs since 2009, and we will keep creating jobs. What would kill jobs is the proposed NDP carbon tax, the $21 billion carbon tax that Canadians cannot afford.

Our government has proven over the years that we create jobs and we look after Canadian families.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the member was talking about the government and trying to give the impression that it has been good at managing the economy. He talked about the deficit. What the member needs is a reality check and the reality is that when the Prime Minister took office, there was a huge budget surplus. The government that he is bragging about turned that surplus into a deficit. The Paul Martin government had a huge trade surplus. The Conservative government turned it into a trade deficit.

Does the member believe that this budget is going to turn those two things in a different direction so that we go back to a surplus on both accounts? You do not even have a Prime Minister and a Minister of Finance who agree when that balanced budget is going to be, in 2015 or—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members to direct their comments through the Chair in third-person form.

The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we look back 20-some years ago to when the party my colleague is a member of was in government, yes, it reduced the deficit, but it did it on the backs of the provinces and territories. It cut transfer payments. I remember in the 1990s in Ontario they were closing hospitals and services. We are not planning to do that. We are planning to grow the economy, transfer money to the provinces and support the entire country.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, before entering the political world, the member was a small-business man with a master's degree. He had a company that dealt with marble and created jobs. I wonder if the member could explain how the Conservative philosophy expressed in the budget would help Canadian middle-income families and businesses.

There was also some talk earlier about the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Can the member explain why the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and all the municipalities in the country support what we have done with that legislation?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the business world all initiatives and incentives given to people work to their benefit. What I was talking about in my speech was that when tax cuts put money back into Canadian citizens' pockets, that money is spent and creates new jobs and new businesses and expands businesses. This is what our policies are aimed at and these are great results for our country.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I have always considered it an honour and a privilege to rise in the House to speak to bills and to discuss matters of concern to Canadians.

Today, though, when I stand to speak to the Conservatives' latest mammoth omnibus bill, which is being jammed through the House of Commons in the fashion of the last one, I feel that I am speaking at a point when our democracy is changing and not for the better. Standing here, I feel very sad and a little angry.

The speed of the bill can only be due to one reason. The Conservatives want to move quickly so that the people of Canada do not have an opportunity to understand what the changes mean to our country. Very serious changes are being made to laws that will not be easily understood by Canadians until those laws are put in practice. I am speaking about the changes to the environmental system that have been made by the Conservatives over the past year.

I will speak for a while on the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. With the exception of three oceans, 97 lakes and 62 rivers, the law will no longer apply to projects affecting waterways. This is being done for the convenience of developers who want to move ahead. It is not being done for the convenience of farmers and fishermen. We could have had a different law that would have taken care of the little problems in the system. That would have been a law that we would have all stood up and supported.

Canadians are going to be outraged when their lakes and rivers, major waterways, are being damaged just so that a few quick bucks can be made. When we do not do a proper job on the environment, in the end all will pay, including industry and the Conservatives' friends.

In the Northwest Territories, the Conservatives removed navigable waters protection from rivers such as the Liard River, the Peel River, the Hay River and the Slave River, all of which are used today for navigation purposes. In fact, on the Hay River is the largest docking facility north of 60. The facility includes the Canadian Coast Guard base for the western Arctic region, Northern Transportation Company Limited's barging terminal and the float plane base anchorage.

Once the bill is passed, this particular river will no longer be under the protection of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. What is going on? Why did the Conservatives do this to a very important waterway for the people of the Northwest Territories?

There is oil exploration on the upper reaches of the Hay River. That is where we can go if we want to find the answer to why the Hay River was taken out of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It is the same reason that there will be no navigation protection for the Peel and Liard rivers. I am sure when a barge runs aground on one of these rivers, the owners will be happy to acknowledge their suffering is justified because the oil companies are not inconvenienced.

With the Slave River, we know very well what that is about. We know that the Alberta business interests in Calgary, ATCO, are very interested in developing a 1,500 megawatt earth-fill dam across the Slave River. They have been after this for a long time.

Eight-two per cent of the outflow from Alberta is in the Slave River, at 3,000 metres a second. This is not a farmer's stream. This is a major waterway that has supported navigation and transportation for 100 years. It is not in the bill. Why is it not there? Whose friends are being rewarded here? Now that it is not in the bill, does that mean that Alberta is solely responsible for any environmental assessment of the project?

The changes to protecting Canada's natural beauty contained in Bill C-45 are part of a broader strategy to remove any wilderness protection. There were changes to the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in the Conservatives' first massive omnibus budget bill, which they jammed through Parliament last spring. They rushed that job so much that they had to bring in amendments in Bill C-45 to try to deal with some of the problems that they created with their reckless moves with Bill C-38.

Haste makes waste. When will Conservatives learn? I do not think they will learn because their agenda is not to protect Canada. Their agenda is to exploit Canada. Fair enough, just put it on the table and say it as it is.

This is going to create so much uncertainty in industry because the current government will not be around after 2015 and we will be putting back the regulations that are required for the protection of the environment in Canada. How is that going to give certainty to industries?

In Bill C-38, they removed the prohibition against the alteration, disruption—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Western Arctic has the floor. I would ask all hon. members to please keep the noise down.

The hon. member for Western Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, another example of just how far the government is prepared to go to silence critics of its agenda occurred November 6 in the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly. At that point in time the legislative assembly members were debating a motion on whether they should review all the changes that were being made to environmental regulations in Canada and how they would affect the north. NWT MLA, Daryl Dolynny, described by Northern News Services as well known in Conservative Party circles, warned the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories that speaking out against gutting Canada's environmental laws by simply reviewing them would put in jeopardy projects such as devolution, the Inuvik-Tuk highway and the Mackenzie Valley fibre optic link.

Imagine, we had a person threatening the economic viability of our territory because of a review of environmental legislation. I am sure someone with close ties to the Conservative Party would not be making these kinds of allegations unless he had something to back it up. What is going on in this country? What is going on with our democracy?

Yesterday I spoke with the largest landowners in the NWT, the Dene, who expressed their disgust with the government's actions, which are all about making a quick buck from Canada's natural resources with no cares for the environmental damage that our children and grandchildren may have to deal with. We in the Northwest Territories have been there. We know what happens when proper environmental assessments are not done. We can see the damages. We see it in the mines and the failed projects that litter our territory from one end to the other. Those are things that could have been prevented, that could have been saved by proper environmental action.

The Prime Minister boasted that we would not be able to recognize Canada when he gets done with it. Unfortunately, with bills such as Bill C-45 and Bill C-38, this is going to be the case. We will not understand it today. We will not understand it tomorrow, but our children will understand what these people are doing today.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, where does one start? It is hard to know. What the other side has to realize is that there is a real difference between environmental performance, environmental outcomes and environmental process. That bunch is so in love with process they do not understand that almost all of Canada's environmental indicators have improved markedly under our watch: sulphur dioxide, NO₂, protected land, water quality, and so on.

As an example from the member's constituency of environmental process that has run amok, I was a young biologist in the 1970s working on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. That 34-year environmental process resulted in no pipeline being built. We know how to build pipelines in an environmentally sound way and all those communities in the Western Arctic have the distinct possibility of remaining impoverished for the foreseeable future. That is what that environmental process has done. How can he defend it?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the Mackenzie gas project has been approved. The reason that it is not being built is because the gas is not worth enough right now to put that pipeline down. If those people had gone ahead with that pipeline, it would be producing gas right now that would not be economic.

What has happened? We are waiting. Some day that resource will be developed. Maybe my grandchildren will enjoy that. Why not? Why should this generation, the me generation, take it all off the land right now? What is it about those guys? Do they not see what the future has for our children? What is wrong with you? Wake up.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would again ask hon. members to direct their comments through the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that the member makes reference to navigable waters. He makes reference to natural resources. We all agree that there are many pieces of legislation on which the budget bill would have a very significant impact. However, I want to go back to the question that I have asked before. Could the member explain to the House why the New Democratic Party did not support having clause by clause dialogue and debate on this issue in committee? Instead, the NDP members voted with the Conservatives to limit debate.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, actually, we supported the Liberals at the committee. We supported their right to a vote and the votes were taken. That is the way democracy works. That does not change the problem that we have with the bill, nor does it t change what will happen with the bill.

The Liberal Party is clutching at straws these days. I am sorry about that. It was once a great party but now it is not.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I quite enjoyed my colleague's speech.

I have noticed a pattern among government members. They seem to think that every good thing that happens is their doing, and every bad thing is someone else's. Anyone who disagrees with them is either lazy or incompetent. If every dissenting voice is like a pebble in their shoe, why not simply give the government absolute power? That would be the end of democracy, the end of parliamentary debate, the end of studies and transparency. Wait a second. That sounds a lot like what is happening right now.

I would like to hear my colleague's views on transparency, on the debate on this second mammoth bill and on all of the “parliamentary work” we have had to do.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I think back to the previous question from the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette. He talked about the remarkable improvements that the Conservative government created in the environment. The Conservatives should recognize where those laws started. They did not start with the current government. The laws that they have brought in, now that they have a majority and can bring in the types of changes they want, will really affect the environment. Prior to this, for the six years with them in a minority position, they had to work pretty hard to make any changes to our good laws. We worked hard. The opposition worked in concert to ensure that the laws that were being put forward were at least somewhat reasonable over that timeframe.

Maybe we made a mistake. Maybe if we had let them go then they would not have this majority today and we would not be suffering with this kind of nonsense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I found it remarkable that the first question posed to my hon. friend from Western Arctic by my friend from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette was to suggest that he was not paying attention to navigation but speaking more generally to the environment.

The hon. member for Western Arctic spoke directly to the Hay River situation and the fact that it was a very busy port that required regulation over navigation. I wonder if he would like to return to that point if it were not understood the first time.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we did refer solely to rivers in the Northwest Territories that we engage in navigation on. Those were removed from the act. Those were the only ones that I spoke to.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012. I am also honoured to have the opportunity to speak to this legislation and present some of the measures within Bill C-45 that I am very happy about and that I think will be of great benefit to Canada, unlike a $21 billion carbon tax, which would not be good for Canadians.

First, I want to address the comprehensive nature of the budget. The basis of economic success lies in the ability of government to address all issues facing the economy. This budget does just that. It is through legislation, such as Bill C-45, that we will work hard to ensure that we address the entire scope of issues facing the Canadian economy.

The number of threats, and I take the NDP carbon tax as an example, facing the security of our economy is not small in size. and, therefore, a plan of action should not be either. A comprehensive plan is the only way that we can ensure a secure economic future for Canada.

Before I get into some of the specific measures of the legislation, I want to take some time to highlight the economic success that has been seen by the government through previous economic action plans.

Since 2006, Canada has created over one million net new jobs and has had the best job growth rate in the G7. Furthermore, Forbes magazine has ranked Canada as the number one country in the world for businesses to grow and create jobs. Anybody who thinks that would be possible if the government had brought in a $21 billion carbon tax is living in another world.

Along with this focus on job creation, there has been an immense amount of work put into lowering taxes for Canadians. Since 2006, taxes have been cut or eliminated 140 times. The overall tax burden has been reduced to its lowest level in nearly 50 years. That is something to be proud of. I am very pleased that Bill C-45 continues this focus on lowering taxes for Canadian families through several different measures.

For example, extending the hiring credit for small businesses for an additional year will help up to 536,000 employers with additional hiring and will reduce small business 2012 payroll costs by about $205 million.

Further measures include improvements to the registered disability savings plans and increased travellers exemptions on the value of goods that Canadians can bring in duty and tax free.

In line with keeping money in the pockets of Canadians, we are also concerned about having a strong, stable and fair pension program. That is why Bill C-45 contains measures to implement a pooled registered pension plan. This would allow for well regulated, low cost, private sector pension plans to be accessible to many hard-working Canadians who have not, up to this point, had access to these important plans. Furthermore, Bill C-45 contains measures that would improve the administration of the Canada pension plan.

Navigable waters are not only a vital part of this country's trade system but they are also an essential part of the livelihood of many Canadians. I represent a great riding in Simcoe North that borders the Great Lakes and their harbours that will certainly benefit from the protections and funding for improvements that are in place in the bill.

The protections in place in Bill C-45 are of great importance. They will ensure that these vital waterways are protected from activities such as de-watering, dumping of waste and the construction of obstacles in the waterways. Further in line with protecting navigable waters is the attention that this bill puts toward strengthening environmental protections. Through amendments that will be made to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, there will be strengthened protections for the environment that will also allow for economic growth.

This issue was brought forth by a western member back in 2006-07 on the rural caucus of the Conservative Party, which I was very fortunate to be chairing at the time. It was through this caucus that changes were slowly made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. These are changes that the municipalities and organizations that represent municipalities right across this country were asking for and they will now have.

Among the major amendments is the streamlining of the environmental assessments that I talked about. This would reduce red tape for businesses by placing a two-year time limit on assessments of environmental projects. This would allow for inclusive and proper study of the environmental impacts within a reasonable timeframe. I was listening to the previous speaker, who comes from a riding where a project was held up for 25 years plus because of delaying tactics. This would eliminate that kind of thing. If it is not a good project, it should be turned down and allow the business or industry spend their money on development somewhere else, or make them go through the process, which this would do, approve it and get on with business.

Furthermore, Bill C-45 would protect our environment by expanding tax relief for investment in clean energy generation equipment and would also phase out tax preferences for the mining and oil and gas sectors. It would not be like the NDP's $21 billion carbon tax that would totally reverse that.

Finally, I am pleased to see that Bill C-45 would improve Canada's immigration system by requiring any foreign national coming to Canada to apply for an electronic travel authorization. Along with this and other measures contained within the legislation, there would be an increased amount of security when it comes to immigration in Canada. Immigration can promote new and innovative ideas that contribute to the health of Canadian economy. This can translate into new jobs and opportunities for Canadian workers.

However, we must ensure that those who come to Canada are coming for the right reasons and legally. In this regard, we must look at ways to stop those who are looking at coming here illegally, as they take job opportunities away from Canadian workers. That is exactly what this legislation would do. Bill C-45 would encourage new and innovative ideas in Canada while protecting Canadian workers by preventing those who try to take advantage of our open system by immigrating here illegally.

Canada has always maintained an open—

Am I running out of time, Mr. Speaker?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Keep going. More, more.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

More on the carbon tax.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

He already said it four times.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I hear comments from both sides, even my friends in the corner, who agree that a $21 billion carbon tax is definitely not the way to go.

Canada has always maintained, as I was saying, an open immigration system and, as such, there is a strong need for close regulation on who is entering the country and ensuring that people are in fact here legally.

The time for action is now. The global economy remains fragile, as we can see with the economy in Europe slipping back into recession and the United States, our closest economic partner, approaching a financial cliff.

Canada has been a leader when it comes to economic prosperity and we have emerged from this recent recession atop all G7 countries. However, the global economy is just that, very global, meaning that Canada is included and affected by all issues facing the global economy. We cannot simply take the wait-and-see approach to the economy that the opposition would have us do.

That is why I am pleased to support Bill C-45, a bill that would implement and enforce various measures of our economic action plan. I urge all hon. members in the House to support economic growth in Canada and Bill C-45.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.

Near the end, he said we are part of the global economy and that things are looking grim in Europe and the United States. The budget before us today would slow the economy down, however. It would slow things down because it cuts jobs and spending.

Given the new information on the situation in Europe and the United States that was not available to us in the spring, does he still believe this budget to be adequate?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, they just do not get it. The member talks about the countries that are facing problems bigger than those Canada is facing, yet he wants us to take the same approach.

The New Democrats have never seen a tax they did not like; they have never seen one they did not want to increase; and they have never seen one they did not want to add. In fact, just at our transport committee in the last week or two, the member for Trinity—Spadina proposed another 1% tax on everything to help out infrastructure. It just goes to show the New Democrats are thinking “tax, tax, tax”. We are the opposite; we lower taxes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear that the member is somewhat sensitive to tax increases for Canadians. One of the most significant increases that Canadians are going to have to pay is regarding the decision by the Prime Minister to increase the number of members of Parliament, so we would have a substantial increase at a substantial cost of $30 million plus.

Does the member believe that his constituents would rather see more politicians inside the House or more services to his constituents? Which does he think his constituents would say is a higher priority?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the easy answer is that we can always say “fewer politicians”. This is not a bad thing, but Parliament decided on an increase in members of Parliament. It is not the first time. Years ago, the number of members in this House was closer to 200 and now it is over 300. That is the way it is.

As far as the issue of services to constituents goes, there are many different ways for anybody to look after his or her constituents. However, one thing that would not help my constituents, or anybody else's in this House, is a $21 billion carbon tax.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I can tell members is that, if we got 30 more members like the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, it would be good value for Canadians.

Would my hon. colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound fill in this House on what devastation would come to communities like mine? The hon. member had the opportunity to be in my riding, which plays an important role in the Canadian economy. We have a significant forestry sector and a significant amount of agriculture, as well as a significant number of people working in the oil and gas sector. Might the hon. member enlighten this House as to what impacts a $21 billion carbon tax would have on ridings like mine?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did have the pleasure of being in the riding of my colleague from Peace River this summer. I actually worked up there when I was 17 years old, and it was great to get back and see some of my relatives who are still there.

However, with the growth from when I was there in 1973, I saw the kind of spin-off and economic benefit that the oil sands and industry in general have on his riding. It is the driver there. Of course, there are other things like agriculture and forestry, but the riding would be devastated. That $21 billion tax would affect his riding as badly as, if not worse than, any other riding.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us take care of business. I have an advantage: I have been here nearly 16 years. I have seen things from both sides. I have got along pretty well. From here, I now have a better overall view. I have to admit that I find this sad, and even unacceptable. We have a bill with something like 516 clauses that deals with a number of bills. It is introduced in catch-all form, which ultimately means that the public, and we, their representatives, do not have a chance to really shed light on each bill. So there is something that is not working in our democracy. It is called an abuse of power.

I am certainly very sad to see the contribution by the NDP, who are jeering and trying to ditch the Conservatives. Some people have said 3,000 amendments was superficial. No, it is giving democracy a chance to express itself. We are the same people who recently spent the night together. We remember that. There were several hundred amendments that time. Why did we do it? To define this government. We call that consistency. If we want to give democracy a chance to express itself and if we want to show just how much this government is abusing power and just how antidemocratic it is, then we have to play the game to the very end. When we are at a finance committee meeting and we make all the motions and propose all the amendments possible, it is to define this government.

Unfortunately, the official opposition has painted itself into a corner. The New Democrats can call the government whatever they like, but they have created a dangerous precedent. Unfortunately, the New Democrats, working together with the Conservative Party, have created this precedent that a majority party will be able to do what it wants from now on. They could have stood up and spoken out for their fellow Canadians. This is not a matter of partisanship; it is a matter of how democracy works. Unfortunately, the NDP voted with the Conservative Party.

He is signalling to me there, my young colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, but those are the facts. They are going to have to explain that inconsistency, because in a democracy, procedure is essential. This bill is not just an omnibus bill, it is not just a mammoth bill, it is not just a catch-all bill; it is a way of defining parliamentary democracy.

That is what is important, and I have said it in both official languages because I am a proud Canadian and proud Quebecker and I can speak in both official languages.

Democracy is not about making it fast. Democracy is about giving us time as legislators to make sure that we can look through every article in every piece of legislation, because our role is to enhance the quality of life and protect those who are in need. It is also to make sure that we fight inequities, to make sure that people in rural Canada are also treated as first-class citizens. However, to do that we have to know procedure. Here, my colleague put forward 3,000 amendments, but did not do so for nothing. It was to define the current government. It was to make sure that we understand what Parliament and democracy are all about.

We have an official opposition that I do not understand. We spent nights together for God's sake and now that party has totally changed.

[An hon. member]

They abandoned us.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

They abandoned us, Mr. Speaker. Those members abandoned Canadians and that is bad because it has created a precedent they will have to live with. We have a saying in French, “Power is like booze; not everybody can handle it”.

We have an issue now because we have a majority government and the official opposition has clearly said that time can be limited. I do not care if I have to stay here on Christmas Eve, because my role is to protect Canadians. My role is to make sure that I am doing my job and I will do everything to make sure that I protect them. However, now the government is using this kind of procedure.

This is doing things in haste. When that is the case, mistakes are made. When mistakes are made, they get sent to the other chamber. The other chamber has to make amendments. And then, we have witnesses tell us we have enacted bad bills. After that, we can talk about questioning our country’s constitution. And then, we can say there will be legal proceedings.

Our role means that we should not be in a hurry. Someone once said that the way to get a flower to grow faster is not to pull on it. With this kind of bill, it is essential to take the time that is needed, particularly when we are talking about the environment, about regional development, about credits, about investment tax credits, about the very definition of navigation, and all that. We can agree.

There are parts of this bill with which we agree entirely, but as a whole, there are things that we do not like and must vote for or against while holding our noses. That is not how politics works. There have been omnibus bills in the past. I was a member of the government that produced bills like that, but they were not mammoth bills including everything but the kitchen sink.

There are some things that are incomprehensible. It is true that the Conservatives love to abuse power, but how can we be expected to vote quickly on a 414-page bill containing 516 clauses?

I thank the other chamber, which has done its job. One need only think of Bill C-10 on censorship, which contained approximately 600 pages, and a tiny clause was nevertheless located. Senators did their job and this created a situation where the role of our own culture and artists was being redefined.

Why has the NDP got into bed with the government? Why are the New Democrats being all holier than thou? Tartuffe said: “cover up that bosom which I cannot endure to look upon.” My colleagues are, unfortunately, being a little hypocritical. I have a lot of respect for my colleagues, but after a year, I imagine that they must be gaining some experience, and are starting to understand how things work around here. You cannot just say things like that.

I understand that there is a party line to be towed and that they are being told that they must not associate with the evil Liberals because they oppose them, but at some point, one must set partisanship aside. If they truly want to stand up for the interests of Canadians, procedure is also important.

The problem is that this bill does not just deal with financial matters. We also have a Prime Minister and a Minister of Finance who are at odds. The Minister of Finance claimed that it was important to balance the budget, and now, they are singing a different tune. Things are changing around the world. They are spinning their wheels and that is extremely worrisome.

When we operate like that, it casts doubt on our own identity as Canadians and the way we do things.What type of country do we want to live in? We cannot just pack up on December 14 because we are eager to get home for the holidays. We were elected for a reason, and it is called parliamentary responsibility. Every time we are unable to do our work, it leads to cynicism. It is all very well to get into heated arguments and to shout out "my father is stronger than your father". The members, including the official opposition, need to explain why they voted with the government. That is what worries me as a parliamentarian.

We can no longer get to the heart of the matter because there is a time limit, and it is impossible to solve the world's problems in 10 minutes. However, people need to understand that because the official opposition allowed a majority Conservative government to do whatever it wanted, that government will do so every year. Unfortunately, our government thinks that the best way to govern is to govern as little as possible. It says that more services and less red tape are needed. What this means is that in the minds of Conservatives, a government is not a catalyst.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, and they came to see us because we had some matters that had to be dealt with. According to them, we should let things go and see how they work, and whether they work, before investing. On the other hand, governments need to play a support role. Governments are there to create an environment that is conducive to investment and to protect those who are less well off. When things begin to move too quickly and compromise democracy, people turn less and less towards Parliament; that is what you get.

Yvon Deschamps said, “what is it good for?” And people will now ask, “what are members of Parliament good for?” We are not here simply to cut ribbons and get our pictures in the local newspaper. We are the keepers of this democracy. That is what the official opposition and the government have failed to do.

We have worked hard, and we will continue to do so to protect people's interests.

The House resumed from November 29 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for their reception. I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of my riding, Sherbrooke, to speak out against Bill C-45. This is especially true considering that I also voted against a time allocation motion. I am pleased to rise here to oppose the budget put forward by this government, which is incapable of managing public funds and our economy.

I would like to elaborate on several matters. Since the bill is 450 pages long, I could address any number of subjects, many of which were not even mentioned in the budget presented in March. So when the Conservatives say that everything in today's budget reflects what was in the budget document in March, that is completely false.

This is another massive omnibus bill that makes changes to many laws. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to rush their legislative measures through Parliament without giving Canadians and their MPs a chance to examine those measures carefully.

The Conservatives say that jobs are being created. However, with this budget, we are talking about a loss of 43,000 Canadian jobs, as pointed out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who analyzed the number of jobs that would be lost as a result of the Conservatives' measures. They are talking about job creation, but I have a hard time believing it, since they are eliminating 19,000 jobs in the public service. This is quite simply a job-cutting budget.

The government is also severely weakening environmental regulations—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. There is way too much noise in the Chamber. If you want to carry on a private conversation, please exit the Chamber. If you are going to stay in the Chamber, keep the conversations to a very low voice.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they may not like listening to me because I am telling the truth. I will continue my speech despite all of the noise in the House.

I was saying that this bill severely weakens environmental legislation. That was the case with Bill C-38, the first budget implementation bill. Today we are debating the second budget implementation bill, with which the Conservatives are unfortunately continuing to weaken environmental regulations, at the expense of future generations, who will have to live with the consequences of what they are doing.

The NDP thinks that Canadians deserve much better than what the Conservatives have put forward. We will therefore oppose the bill at third reading, just as we have opposed it at the other stages. We will continue to oppose it during the vote that will probably be held tomorrow, since the Conservatives are rushing us through things. We would have liked to have much more time to examine the bill. However, the vote will likely be held tomorrow. The Conservatives left us little time to examine these 450 pages, or, if we also include the budget, these 900 pages. We received the budget in March, and the two bills were then introduced. If we add them together, that makes 900 pages of bills, for a single budget. That is completely unacceptable. Furthermore, it is completely unacceptable that the government does not respect our institutions and is ramming through such massive documents.

As I said earlier, the Conservatives have laid off 19,000 government employees. In my opinion, this is contributing to poor public administration since services have been affected. It is possible to consider all the information available and make cuts in the right areas. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have decided to act blindly and make cuts to services. In Sherbrooke, many services have been cut. Positions have been cut at Service Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency office is no longer accessible to the public at all. No one can go there. The people of Sherbrooke have spoken out against these cuts.

We had hoped that the Conservatives would be more open-minded when we tried to move substantial amendments in committee. However, unfortunately, once again, they did not demonstrate any open-mindedness with regard to this bill. This is not the first time this has happened.

The Conservatives are also making clear cuts to scientific research and experimental development. The budget implementation bill makes changes to the tax credit program. These changes reduce the tax credit rate, particularly for big businesses, and eliminate eligible capital investments. The combined effect reduces government support for businesses that use the scientific research and experimental development program, just when Canadian businesses most need to promote innovation and productivity if they want to succeed in a very competitive global economy. This will particularly affect the manufacturing sector.

The NDP's vision involves making a place for innovation in the manufacturing sector so that it can remain competitive in relation to other emerging economic sectors that, unfortunately, have a workforce that is paid far less than ours. The government's role is to promote innovation in order to remain competitive in a globalized market, ensure the survival of our businesses, and keep our good jobs here in Canada. If the NDP were in office, things would be done much differently. We would use innovation to increase competitiveness and access other markets, thereby allowing us to keep our jobs. That is the NDP's vision.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have done a terrible job of managing the Canadian economy. They have created the largest deficit in Canada's history. I am really surprised to hear them say that they are doing such a great job with the economy when they have created both the largest deficit and the largest trade deficit in Canadian history. Then the minister tells us that he is going to miss the deadline. That is further proof of bad management and bad public administration. I feel it is my duty to speak out against that here.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, there are other changes that affect environmental protection. It started with Bill C-38, three-quarters of which was about environmental protection, or rather, environmental deregulation. The Conservatives are chipping away at environmental protection. Bill C-45 is a continuation of the previous bill, particularly with its changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which will now be called the navigation protection act. This small change will mean big changes. The bill is no longer about water. The word “water” has been removed from the title of the bill.

The government is discarding the concept of protecting water and is focusing solely on navigation, even though we know the two go hand in hand. It should go without saying that protecting navigation means protecting the environment that makes navigation possible. Unfortunately, the Conservatives added schedule 2 to the bill, a list of all of the lakes and rivers that will still be protected under the new act, which will be called the navigation protection act. Only about 180 of Canada's tens of thousands of lakes and rivers will be protected. Most of our lakes and rivers will not be protected under the new act, which will be passed soon.

This means that the Saint-François and Magog rivers, which are in my riding, will no longer be protected by this legislation. People in Sherbrooke have reacted negatively to these changes. People want to know what the long-term effects will be.

In the old days, projects that could affect navigation and water bodies required the minister's approval. From now on, projects such as pipelines will not require approval. Maybe the Conservatives are trying to make sure that major pipeline projects can go ahead with no environmental restrictions whatsoever. Pipelines will be laid under, over or even along rivers.

We could also talk about major energy and power line projects that pass over rivers. In Sherbrooke, people were worried about the negative repercussions that such projects could have on lakes and rivers and the potential dangers they could pose. If a pipeline is allowed to pass over a river, needless to say, a leak would have a negative impact on the environment.

Lastly, I would like to quote someone who talked about the bill and whose name might ring a bell with the Conservatives. Warren Everson, senior vice-president of policy at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, had this to say: “The budget 2012 decision to cut a quarter of the SR and ED tax credit was, in our opinion, a step in the wrong direction.”

I talked about this earlier in my speech and I would like to emphasize the point: even the Canadian Chamber of Commerce opposes this decision. I therefore hope the Conservatives will come to their senses and support our proposals.

Unfortunately, I know that we are almost out of time, since the final vote will be held tomorrow. Perhaps the Senate will take a different approach and a more enlightened view in order to improve certain parts of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I have already introduced amendments to Bill C-45 to lessen the destructive changes being made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Will the NDP member vote in favour of my amendments to protect all navigable waters in Canada, and not only those on the short list mentioned in Bill C-45?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, consider the approach that we tried this morning.

This very morning, we tried to protect all the other lakes and rivers. My colleague, the environment critic, tried to add all the other lakes and rivers to Bill C-45, but did not succeed because the Conservatives were being very closed-minded about it.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives used procedure to reject the proposal. The NDP wanted to add these lakes and rivers. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused.

If there are other options that will help protect them, we will focus on those and definitely vote for them.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Sherbrooke, and I have a request for him. Could he talk more about the substantial amendments the Bloc Québécois presented with regard to Bill C-45?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I thank the member for his question. I did not have time to go over all the amendments from all the parties. However, I can say that we will look at them very carefully to determine if the amendments are pertinent and substantive.

We, too, are doing our part by proposing a number of amendments, and we will support them of course. I am certain that most of them are good amendments. I will have to examine the amendments more closely in order to speak to them all. Generally speaking, we have some very valid points and we hope the government will be open-minded.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech and for mentioning the famous research and development program known as SR&ED.

He rightly criticized the Conservative government's mistake of reducing tax credits that we know are going primarily to major corporations that make huge profits.

We recently received the Emerson report, dealing with the aerospace industry, a sector that is critical and very important to Quebec and other regions in Canada. This directly affects the manufacturing industry, which is part of the aerospace industry. These are good-quality jobs. Good jobs.

I would like my colleague to speak more to the damage that changes to the SR&ED program will cause.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She does extraordinary work on this file.

I had an opportunity to talk to members of the business community in Sherbrooke, who also criticized these cuts and who spoke in particular about the benefits that this could have for them. I spoke a bit about our theory. The NDP's vision is to take advantage of this desire to innovate that is seen among manufacturing companies wanting to develop new technologies to ensure that emerging countries and their workers—who are paid less than workers here—do not come and take all these jobs or to ensure that our jobs are not sent there.

When companies innovate and develop new technologies, they can remain competitive and stand out among emerging countries. That is what will enable Canada to keep good, well-paying jobs, since emerging countries will not necessarily have the technology to take on such ventures. We must take advantage of that to ensure that we remain competitive and keep jobs here in Canada.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak today to Canada's economic action plan 2012.

Canada has one of the strongest fiscal positions in the G7. Fitch Ratings, Moody's, and Standard & Poor's have all renewed Canada's AAA credit rating. Canada has, by far, the lowest net to GDP ratio in the entire G7. Due in part to the government's low tax plan, Forbes Magazine ranked Canada number one in the world for business to grow and create jobs.

Indeed, with the help of Canada's economic action plan, Canada has emerged as one of the world's top performing industrialized countries.

However, too many Canadians are still looking for work and the global recovery remains fragile. That is why economic action plan 2012 moves ahead to secure jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canada by promoting job creation and helping small businesses thrive through reducing red tape, strategic investments, supporting seniors, families and communities, as well as ensuring long-term sustainability through investing in green technology, keeping taxes low and leading the global economic recovery.

My focus today will be on the impact of budget 2012 on small businesses, families and seniors.

With regard to small businesses, our Conservative government recognizes the vital role small businesses play in the economy and job creation. That is why we are committed to helping small businesses grow and succeed.

As someone who started working in my father's wholesale hardware business at the age of 12 on Saturdays and in the summertime, I understood at a very young age the importance of small business to the big picture of Canada and jobs, and ensuring that our economy is strong.

Budget 2012 includes a number of key measures to support the growth of small businesses, like my father's business, and to promote job creation, such as extending the hiring credit for small business. This is a temporary credit of up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2011 EI premiums over those paid in 2012. This temporary credit will help approximately 536 employers defray the costs of additional hiring. These employers will take into account these savings when hiring and, in some cases, it may even make the difference between whether to hire a new employee.

For small businesses, we are also reducing red tape, implementing the one-for-one rule and committing to develop a red tape reduction action plan to reduce unnecessary and ineffective regulations. This would small businesses to focus on what they do best, which is grow and create jobs. Ultimately, reducing the administrative tax burden on small businesses does help them create jobs.

Our government is also supporting entrepreneurs, innovators and world-class research. An excellent example of how strategic investment by government in a solid, local company can make a major contribution to our economy is Electrovaya Inc. located in Mississauga South. Electrovaya is an innovative company that designs and builds the next generation of environmentally friendly lithium ion battery energy storage systems for commercial and industrial use. Our government invested $3.6 million through Sustainable Development Technology Canada to this company to help it develop and provide clean energy technology and create high-quality jobs in Mississauga.

Members may have heard about Electrovaya recently because they were part of the Prime Minister's trade mission to India. Electrovaya signed a deal to provide an Indian company with its lithium ion batteries for electric bicycles that are being sold in North America and Europe. Companies like these create good, high-paying jobs for our community, as well as innovative products to export to other nations, and they do it in an environmentally sound way to protect the future for all of us.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will have 5 minutes and 45 seconds when we resume debate.

The House resumed 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Mississauga South has six minutes remaining to conclude her remarks.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I started talking about the benefits in the economic action plan 2012 for small businesses. Next I would like to focus on the benefits for families and seniors.

For the most part, it is about our promise to keep taxes low. Unlike the high tax NDP and Liberals, our Conservative government believes in low taxes and leaving more money where it belongs, in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families. That is why we have cut taxes over 140 times since 2006, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in nearly 50 years.

We have removed over one million low-income families, individuals and seniors from the tax rolls altogether. We have cut taxes in every way government collects them: personal taxes, consumption taxes, business taxes and more. This includes cutting the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%, increasing the amount Canadians can earn tax free, providing seniors with pension income-splitting, reducing the GST from 7% to 5%, putting nearly $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family.

We have also introduced the children's fitness tax credit and the children's arts tax credit, as well as the universal child care benefit offering families more choice in child care by providing $1,200 a year for each child under the age of six. We introduced the child tax credit providing personal income tax relief of up to $320 in 2011 for each child under age 18. This Conservative government's low tax record has provided tax savings for a typical Canadian family totalling over $3,100.

Also in order to help families, we are improving the registered disability savings plan to help ensure long-term financial security of children with severe disabilities. We introduced the family caregiver tax credit, a credit of up to $2,000 for caregivers of all types to infirm, dependent relatives, including spouses, common-law partners and minor children.

We are investing in small public infrastructure with $150 million to support repairs and improvements to existing community structures. This includes investments in my community, including the Clarkson Community Centre Pool, the Lions Club of Credit Valley Outdoor Pool, David Ramsey Outdoor Pool, Lewis Bradley Pool, as well as the Lakeview and Lorne Park public libraries. Thousands of children, their parents, students and seniors in Mississauga South use these pools and libraries every day.

With regard specifically to supporting seniors, our Conservative government recognizes that Canada's seniors helped build and make our country great. That is why economic action plan 2012 introduces new measures to improve the quality of life and expand opportunities for Canadian seniors, including the Third Quarter project, an innovative online approach to help employers find experienced workers over age 50 who want to keep using their skills in the workforce, improving flexibility and choice for senior workers.

For those who do wish to work longer, economic action plan 2012 provides the option to voluntarily defer take-up of old age security benefits. Those doing so will subsequently receive a higher annual actuarilly adjusted pension on take-up. This builds on top of the tax relief our government has already provided to seniors and pensioners since 2006, including removing over 380,000 seniors from the tax roll, again, introducing pension income-splitting, increasing the age credit amount by $2,000, doubling the pension income credit to $2,000, increasing the age limit for RRSP to RRIF conversion from age 71 to 69, establishing the tax-free savings account, which is particularly beneficial for seniors, and introducing the largest GIS increase in over 25 years, helping more than 680,000 seniors across Canada.

I am also proud that we have taken steps to combat elder abuse in all its forms, including abuse awareness activities through the new horizons for seniors program and introducing legislation in March of this year to ensure tougher sentences for those who abuse seniors.

I was proud to serve on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women where our review and study of elder abuse did make this recommendation to the government for tougher sentences for those who abused our most vulnerable senior citizens.

Let me reiterate that Canada is leading the global economic recovery. Our Conservative government is squarely focused on the economy and jobs. In fact, Canada has created over 820,000 net new jobs since July 2009. Canada has, by far, the best rate of job growth in the entire G7 and has had that since 2006. Canada's unemployment rate is significantly lower than that of the U.S., a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades.

However, the global recovery remains fragile and we must secure Canada's recovery. While the NDP and the Liberals want to engage in a reckless spending spree, and maybe even a $21 billion carbon tax, our Conservative government is committed to returning to balanced budgets.

Budget 2012 focuses on jobs and economic growth, ensuring that Canada's small businesses, and families and seniors are our top priorities. I would encourage all members to support this jobs and growth bill, our second budget implementation act, and vote for Canada's economic plan 2012.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by the hon. member for Mississauga South.

As I demonstrated earlier with a very simple example, the Conservative government is completely incompetent when it comes to our economy, considering the staggering $550 billion in capital that Canadian businesses are hanging on to. This is a sign that entrepreneurs and business leaders do not have confidence in the future. They are refusing to invest their money, and who could blame them? If anyone is to blame, it is those responsible for this poor economic climate.

The fiscal imbalance, which is now huge, is another problem this government is responsible for. Approximately 80% of the tax burden falls entirely on the shoulders of individuals, while large corporations are enjoying tax breaks.

So I have a question for the member. Just how far will the government go to get out of having to support people and abandon them to their fate?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what Canadians would think if the opposition were the Government of Canada, whether they would even remotely consider investing in Canadian businesses if the NDP had its way and its high-tax agenda were implemented. Frankly, I think Canadian businesses are frightened of that prospect. They are frightened of the fact that the NDP is anti-investment and anti-trade.

Canadians deserve better than this radical opposition. Unlike the NDP, our Conservative government will not raise taxes or slash transfers to the provinces. In fact, just today PricewaterhouseCoopers said that Canada has one of the best tax systems, including for small to medium-size businesses to thrive. That is what the experts are saying. That is the confidence that Canadians businesses have in this government and how we are helping them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Mississauga South, knowing how dedicated she is to her constituents, particularly the families in her area. She has a young family herself. I know how important the services and other items are to both her family and constituents.

One of the things this budget really focuses on is small businesses. I know that in the member's riding of Mississauga South there are a number of small businesses, all of which are delighted with the direction this budget is taking and how it is going to help them become even more prosperous and to create even more jobs.

I wonder if the member could comment on the impact of this budget on small businesses in her riding of Mississauga South.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Simcoe—Grey supports small businesses and families in her riding as well. I very much appreciate her question and the opportunity to talk about how this budget helps small businesses.

In particular, I have heard many businesses talk about how the reducing red tape initiative will be helpful to them. When businesses are spending time doing that, they are not being productive and growing as businesses.

We are also expanding trade around the world, which helps small businesses. I talked about the example of Electrovaya in my community, which makes lithium ion batteries and is contributing to energy efficient green technology.

Most of all, I think that small businesses in Mississauga South and across Canada appreciate the hiring tax credit. It is very unfortunate that the NDP voted against this very worthwhile initiative.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and address the House this afternoon on the important reforms our government is making in budget 2012. Economic action plan 2012 is focused on what matters most to Albertans and all Canadians, building the right conditions for prosperity today and generations to come.

I want to highlight aspects of Bill C-45, the second budget implementation bill, that support research, create jobs and promote clean energy. Not only do these initiatives advance innovation in Canada and play a key role in achieving the priorities outlined in the economic action plan but they are also critical to who we are as Albertans and Canadians.

We know well that economic prosperity is not a given. It is the fruit of hard work and tremendous imagination. Investing in our students, entrepreneurs and researchers is our strongest guarantee that Canada's future will be bright, that we will break the confining limits of the past and open new opportunities for a long and prosperous future. Indeed, the OECD predicts that Canada's economy will lead the developed world for the next half century.

Since 2006, we have taken concrete steps to make sure that Canada is a global leader in research and innovation, and have invested nearly $8 billion in new funding for initiatives to support science, technology and the growth of innovation firms in Canada, including $5 billion for advanced research, education and training; $2 billion for post-secondary infrastructure; and $1 billion for applied research and financing.

For instance, budget 2012 directs $71 million over four years to further establish the Canada excellence research chairs to attract the world's best researchers to Canada, and over $600 million to support cutting-edge research throughout Canada via the Canada Foundation for Innovation. I am proud to say that the University of Alberta has been awarded more research chairs than any other institution in Canada.

We are confident that our government's support for research commercialization will help bridge the gap between Canadian innovations and the ability to bring these ideas to market. For instance, our economic action plan proposes $440 million to create centres of excellence for commercialization and research to help transform great ideas into concrete success in the Canadian marketplace.

Economic action plan 2012 also targets $470 million over four years to support strategic innovation projects in key sectors of the Canadian economy, including the automotive, aerospace, forestry and clean technology sectors.

Investing in Canadian research and innovation is not only fundamental to developing a robust competitive global economy; investing in innovation is not only about creating jobs and generating economic prosperity, though it does that too, but it is also the case that investing in great minds and pioneering approaches to science and technology affects every aspect of daily life in Canada. I will provide an example.

Marquis, a wheat variety developed at the sunset of the 19th century in Indian Head, Saskatchewan, led to an explosion of cereal production in Canada. The ingenuity of crossing two kinds of wheat to develop a grain that could thrive in prairie climates resulted in a wave felt in communities across the Prairies.

Great Canadian innovations have shaped the course of our history from Marquis wheat to insulin in the 1920s, the snowmobile and the electron microscope in the 1930s, canola in the 1940s, Research in Motion's BlackBerry in the 1990s, and the countless universities and businesses across Canada that are on the leading edge of research today.

While the private sector plays the leading role in research, innovation and commercialization, we know that institutions such as the National Research Council can be important partners in discovering these new engines of growth. This is why the 2012 economic action plan also proposes $67 million to support the National Research Council in refocusing on business-led, industry-relevant research.

Edmonton Centre is home to many world-class research institutions and companies at the forefront of the innovation economy. Earlier this month, I was honoured to join Ceapro, an Edmonton-based biotechnology company, to announce the signing of a letter of intent with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to collaborate in the development of a unique variety of oats. This new variety of oats will enable Ceapro to extract larger quantities of its flagship product, an active ingredient found in oats. Ceapro's team of chemists, biologists and engineers is developing cutting-edge ways of extracting natural ingredients from oats that have health benefits. These active ingredients are then used by major brands in cosmetic and therapeutic products. Ceapro's success, both as a corporate citizen and local employer, is a great example of the multiple benefits that economic innovation brings to communities like Edmonton and, by extension, to the rest of Canada.

Another example of how these initiatives are playing out in innovation capitals like Edmonton is the impressive work of a company named Synodon. Based in Edmonton, the company has developed a system that can remotely detect gas, enabling the monitoring and measurement of methane gas in the Arctic. The funding will allow this technology to be used by Natural Resources Canada to survey the vast Canadian Arctic. Synodon's proposal is one of over 60 that will be supported by the new program, Canadian innovation commercialization.

Public Works and Government Services Canada has been working with selected companies, like Synodon, to build partnerships that allow their innovations to be matched with federal government departments.

Companies, like Ceapro and Synodon, bring with them jobs and economic growth to Edmonton, to Alberta and to Canada. They also bring additional benefits. They advance the very science that the next generation of students will study. They achieve feats of human creativity that set the bar to which students, teachers, scientists and researchers aspire. Technological innovation underpins both the history and the future promise of Canadian economic development.

Budget 2012 regenerates and reinvigorates Canada's capacity to innovate and to play a leading role in global research. The first budget implementation plan, Bill C-38, outlined many of these initiatives. In addition, Bill C-45 also advances our ability to cultivate a competitive clean energy market in Canada.

For instance, through the economic action plan, the government initiated a clean energy fund. This fund is providing nearly $795 million to support research and development projects to advance Canadian leadership in clean energy technologies. This program is already off to a good start. To date, the clean energy fund is supporting two large-scale carbon capture and storage projects in Alberta totalling $150 million. The goal of the clean energy fund is to help create a variety of clean energy technologies and knowledge needed to ensure that these technologies are widely used in the future.

Our government is committed to sustainable resource development in all sectors. Bill C-45 expands the eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment to include a broader range of bioenergy equipment, and phases out the corporate mineral exploration and development tax credit, and phases out the Atlantic investment tax credit for activities related to the oil and gas and mining sectors. These shifts will create a more level playing field for taxation in the energy sector and will support a new generation of clean energy producers.

We will continue to work hard to create the necessary conditions in the economy that will bring new jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Though we are on track for the Canadian economy and Canadian families, with over 820,000 net new jobs created since July 2009, we will work as hard as ever to honour our commitment to Canadians to be global leaders in economic stewardship. Against the backdrop of a fragile global economy, especially in Europe and the United States, our largest trading partners, we will continue to make economic stability and prosperity a bedrock priority.

The people who gave me the great honour of representing Edmonton Centre expect things to get done here in Ottawa. Budget 2012 and Canada's economic action plan are doing just that. This is not the time to rest on our laurels, to sit back and let partisanship get in the way of delivering results for Canadians.

I would like to speak for a couple of minutes to the nationwide economic benefits of activity in Alberta. Contrary to some recent regrettable remarks by a couple of members opposite, which I will not bother to dwell on, it is the job of Alberta MPs to represent all that our province is and all that it has to offer to the rest of Canada. That is no different from the job of MPs from every part of this country. At the same time, we all have a responsibility to be part of a much bigger picture and that is the picture of Canada.

While the resources in any province are technically the property of that province, Alberta MPs certainly understand that our natural resources are there for the benefit of the entire country. By an accident of geography and geology, Alberta and Saskatchewan have vast reserves of oil and gas to be developed for the national good. By an accident of geography and geology, Quebec is blessed with the capacity of hydro power, British Columbia with forestry and so on across the country. None of these accidents of nature make one part of the country better or worse than any other. What they do collectively is make us the richest country in the world in terms of natural resources. We should all be proud of that and we should all appreciate what each part of our great country offers to the overall good of each and every Canadian.

We should not be practising the politics of division. We should be preaching and practising the politics of unity and sharing a common bright future in Canada that is much more than merely the sum of its parts. All members of this House were elected to strengthen the economy and lay the foundation for jobs of tomorrow.

I am proud of our government's accomplishments to date but there is more to be done. I urge all members of this House to support the budget implementation act and allow it to continue to move forward in carrying out Canada's economic action plan.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a document titled, “The Government's Response to Question on the Order Paper No. 988”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if that was a proper point of order. The time to have put that forward was in the period for routine proceedings which, by her own party's manoeuvres, was ended for today and we were prevented from putting forward petitions, reports from committees or any other routine proceedings.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In response to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, it is my understanding that the minister was merely tabling a document. This is not the answer that is being tabled. Ministers may rise at any time in the House to simply table a document. The answer that will be required will have to be tabled in the appropriate procedure at some point in the future.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague who is a member of this government, probably the most incompetent government in the history of Canada. In fact, it has run up the largest deficit in Canada's fiscal history and the largest trade deficit in Canadian history. Some 330,000 more people are unemployed today than before the recession.

I am therefore pleased to ask this question of the member, who talked about research and development. This government has made cuts to the scientific research and experimental development program, cuts that have been condemned by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Can my colleague comment on the government's decision to go ahead with those cuts to research and development? Why does he think his party did that?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to deficits and so on, our deficit is the smallest in the developed world with respect to the GDP, which is the true measure of a deficit. Of course, the number is larger than it was 50 years ago but, with inflation, that is what one would expect.

When we talk about trade deficits, part of that problem is Canada's strength. If our trading partners are weaker and not buying, that will generate some trade deficit. It is actually a measure of our strength. We are working hard with our partners in the EU, U.S. and other places to encourage them to increase their economic output and that will balance out in the longer term.

With respect to R and D, our government is focusing our R and D dollars on where they will do the most good.

If the member wants to talk about chambers of commerce, the biggest chamber of commerce in the country is in Edmonton. Believe it or not, it is even bigger than in Toronto or Montreal. I meet with it on, not quite on a daily basis but very often, and it is very impressed and appreciative of the focus that this government is putting on R and D in the places where it will do the most good.

We are not here to sprinkle a few droplets everywhere. We are here to focus on things that will matter most to Canadians, to the Canadian economy and to jobs and long-term prosperity.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada's investment in business research and development support was concentrated in the scientific research and experimental development tax credit but we will be cutting that eventually by something like $500 million a year. If we look at the announced spending that is supposed to come from those cuts to the SR and ED tax credit, they do not add up anywhere near $500 million.

A lot of companies in my riding and elsewhere rely on that tax credit. These are the innovative companies that are creating jobs that use that tax credit to develop the innovations that make Canadian workers more productive.

I would ask my hon. colleague for Edmonton Centre whether his constituents in the oil and gas technology sector who heavily rely on the eligibility for capital expenditures for the scientific research and experimental tax credit would be happy. Why is he increasing taxes on his constituents in the oil and gas technology sector by cutting the tax credit for SR and ED?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit rich when people stand up and dump on Alberta MPs, Alberta and the Canadian government in general for what they consider to be too much support for the oil and gas business. I will give the member credit for not being one of those people.

The simple fact is that we are in partnership with Canadian industry, certainly the oil and gas industry which is driving the economy of the country at this point, and I think my hon. colleague realizes that. The economic progress is a work in progress. We are going to work with all sectors of the Canadian economy and all technology sectors, as we have been doing, as I laid out in my remarks.

Nothing stays the same forever. We need to focus down the road. We are not focusing on tomorrow necessarily. We want to take care of the short-term needs but we also want to look down the road 20 to 40 years to see what Canada and our economy will look like to ensure we are planning properly for that day.

The House resumed 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to ask my colleague a question.

The government is constantly telling us that everything in the budget implementation bill was mentioned in the budget that was tabled last March. However, we are well aware that a number of things that now appear in Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures—because there was also Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget—were not mentioned in the budget tabled in this House last March by the Minister of Finance.

The Conservatives are therefore tabling two 400-page bills proposing measures that were not even mentioned in their budget last March. Does my colleague have any comments to make about that?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is correct, and I mentioned the surprises in my speech.

Canada's leading environmental organizations, including the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, Pembina Institute, Sierra Club, Canada West Coast Environmental Law, World Wildlife Federation Canada and others issued a joint statement decrying the fact that once again the federal government was making significant changes to environmental legislation without proper democratic debate.

When the government came to power, it inherited a legacy of balanced budgets but soon plunged the country into deficit before the recession every hit. It is absolutely negligent and shameful that the government would now continue to gut environmental safeguards in order to fast-track development and balance its books.

Because the government did not campaign in the last election on gutting environmental protection, Canadians should rise up, have their voices heard and stop the government's destruction of laws that protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians, our communities, our economy and our livelihood.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to make it clear for the viewing public who are listening to this, the bill is 440 pages. Exactly half of that is in English and the other half is in French. The member knows that what is said in English is said exactly the same in French. I do not know whether they know that.

Of the 220 pages, which took me two and a half hours to read, is my colleague not happy with any of it or are there parts she is happy with and would vote for? Whether it is 5 pages or 220 pages, she would not be supporting us anyway.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, omnibus bills are anti-democratic and draconian.

I will detail where we have had cuts to the environment. We have had announced cuts of 700 positions to Environment Canada, cuts of another 200 positions to Environment Canada, the gutting of environmental legislation that has protected the health and safety of Canadians for the last 50 years, and the weakening of species at risk laws and water laws. We will go from protecting 32,000 lakes down to 97 lakes.

I will talk more about Bill C-45. West Coast Environmental Law said:

giving industry the option to request that their existing commitments to protect fish habitat be amended or cancelled, or that they be let off the hook for promised compensation for lost or damaged habitat;

eliminating the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission; and,

needlessly tinkering with the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012....

We heard from a former Conservative fisheries minister earlier on Bill C-38 who said, “They are totally watering down and emasculating the Fisheries Act. They are making a Swiss cheese of it”. At the subcommittee, he said, “The bottom line is to take your time and do it right. To bundle all this into a budget bill, with all its other facets, is not becoming of a Conservative government, period”.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-45, jobs and growth act, 2012, because the measures in this bill are very important to my constituents in the riding of Kitchener—Conestoga.

Our economic action plan was built on a long-term plan called Advantage Canada. This plan has five major themes, and even through these difficult times we have advanced all five of these themes.

First is the tax advantage. Business taxes have been cut. This makes a huge difference for businesses in my riding who want to expand and provide opportunities for more jobs, which in turn makes a big difference for families in my riding. Since the Conservative government came to power in 2006, personal taxes are roughly $3,100 less for the average Canadian family of four. Tax freedom day, which in 2005 was June 26, has now been moved back to June 11. Again, these are crucial movements for families who are trying to raise young children.

Second is the fiscal advantage. We are on track to eliminate our deficit in the medium term.

Third is the entrepreneurial advantage. Canada's entrepreneurial advantage will reduce unnecessary regulation and red tape and lower taxes to unlock business investment. This idea of having one project and one review is so important. For too long, we have had all kinds of duplication on environmental assessments that has slowed down the process and added increased cost to businesses that are trying to expand. Also, the adoption of the one-for-one commitment, to reduce a regulation every time a new regulation is added, is an important aspect of cutting red tape for business.

Fourth is the knowledge advantage. Canada's knowledge advantage will create the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world. The knowledge infrastructure program, or KIP, has been amazingly important in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga. Conestoga College alone has benefited from investment from this program, which has allowed it to expand its engineering, health science and food processing faculties to increase its ability to add value-added products for our farming community.

Fifth, and finally, is the infrastructure advantage. Canada's infrastructure advantage will create modern world-class infrastructure to ensure the seamless flow of people, goods and services across our roads and bridges, through our ports and gateways and by way of our public transit. Investment in the rapid transit system in the Waterloo region and the Highway 8 bridge expansion and widening are increasing our ability to move goods and people through our region, which is also an amazing advantage for our businesses.

All five of these pillars have placed Canada in an enviable position relative to our global partners. However, the global scene is very uncertain. We are an exporting nation, so it is clear that our recovery cannot be complete until the rest of the world sorts out its fiscal and budgetary issues. Our manufacturers and farmers cannot sell their products until the rest of the world starts buying again. Therefore, while we are well positioned to take advantage of the eventual recovery, we cannot ourselves make the recovery happen.

While we are an island of stability in Canada, we do sit in a sea of uncertainty. Our role, as the government, is to ensure that the rising tides of global instability do not drown our relative prosperity. The global economic environment still poses great risks to governments, businesses, individuals and families.

I would now like to focus on a few of the issues in my region of Waterloo. My home in the Waterloo region is known for its entrepreneurial spirit. It is known for citizens who embrace risk, recognizing that risk is the door to opportunity. From the farmers whose livelihood depends on the whims of weather, to the high-tech entrepreneurs who risk their savings and sweat equity for the belief in their vision, Waterloo region's success in these troubled times is driven by the willingness of its citizens to believe in their ability to succeed and move ahead with confidence, even in the face of very great risk.

I would also like to summarize a few of Waterloo region's investments, by way of the economic action plan, in education and community and capacity building. First of all, on education, Conestoga College expanded its schools of engineering and health sciences and also instituted a brand new institute for food processing technology. The food processing technology faculty is the first of its kind to serve Ontario's second largest industry. We are known for our primary agricultural products, but I think it is important that we also recognize the importance of providing value-added products through the food processing industry. Also, there is the University of Waterloo and its Quantum-Nano Centre, new buildings with 21st century facilities for environmental studies and the Balsillie School of International Affairs.

As it relates to economic action plan investments in our communities, we have invested in new or renovated recreational facilities in Wilmot, Wellesley, St. Agatha, Breslau, New Dundee, and Kitchener and the McLennan Park and Sportsworld arena.

We have invested in social housing units across the Waterloo region, many of them being renovated and upgraded. Our airport, a crucial engine of economic growth, has made numerous improvements to enhance safety and capacity, thanks to our government's emphasis on regional airports. Our airport is a stellar example of federal investments that improve safety, efficiency and capacity, and has led to increased trade, investment and employment. We have seen our worst bridges repaired, our worst roads resurfaced and our waste water systems renewed.

As it relates to capacity building in our economic action plan funding, Canada's economic action plan founded FedDev Ontario so that southern Ontario is no longer taken for granted as the only region in Canada without an economic development agency. FedDev Ontario has built programs designed to develop the capacity of southern Ontario's unique industries. These loans have allowed businesses across my riding, from high-tech companies like Miovision, to farm gate businesses like Conestoga Meat Packers, to build the capacity they need to capture new global markets.

This is incredibly important. Instead of seeing viable businesses fail, as other countries have, because of a temporary downturn, Waterloo region's businesses are prepared to capture the opportunities that will emerge when the rest of the world adopts this government's approach of stable banks, prudent budgeting and low taxation.

All of these investments have made our community a better place to live and to develop talent. We are a more prosperous community, a better builder of small and medium size businesses and a better place to raise a family. Going forward, the jobs and growth act promises to further enhance the lives of those I am privileged to represent. The bill's passage will conclude the implementation of Canada's economic action plan 2012 and contains measures that are essential to our continued prosperity.

I would like to now focus on some of the opportunities for business and families and individuals that Bill C-45 contains as it relates to my area. First of all, there is the bridge to Detroit. When I first ran for office, in 2005, Waterloo region's business leaders told me that increasing capacity at the border crossings at Detroit was a high priority. There is over $130 billion of trade that crosses between Windsor and Detroit. That is almost 30% of all Canada-U.S. trade.

Windsor-Detroit sees more than 8,000 trucks and 68,000 travellers cross that border every day. Over the next 30 years, all forecasts say that this traffic will increase. Truck traffic is expected to triple, while other vehicle traffic will double. The solution is found in Bill C-45. It will enable the government to fund the construction of the solution to these problems. The new Detroit River international crossing would reduce congestion on both sides of the border, support the creation of jobs along the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, particularly in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, increase the competitiveness of the entire integrated North American manufacturing sector, and provide thousands of construction jobs in Windsor and Detroit, two communities that have been hardest hit by the uncertainty of global markets.

Another important initiative in Bill C-45 is the small business EI premium refund. I have referenced the needs of small businesses several times already. In high tech alone, our area enjoys one new high-tech startup business every day. Small and medium size businesses will provide the bulk of jobs created going forward. It makes sense to target hiring incentives to them. We need to provide incentives for them to hire now rather than later, when the economy has already improved.

The pooled registered pension plans are important for small and medium size enterprises because they have trouble attracting and retaining critical talent. One reason for this is that large firms are able to offer much more attractive pension plans, which smaller companies simply cannot afford to administer. These PRPPs will allow small business owners to provide pensions without the significant administrative burdens and responsibilities associated with traditional pension plans.

There are so many good initiatives in the bill, but I will have time to highlight them all. I would urge my colleagues, especially on the other side of the House, to support this bill. It will make a big difference for families in their ridings.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to ask my Conservative government colleague a question about the hiring tax credit for small business that he just mentioned. This measure applies to the 2012 tax year, the tax year that is ending in a few weeks, as we know.

We agree with this suggestion. It was even one of our main proposals during the election campaign.

Could he comment on the fact that this tax credit, granted by the Conservatives, will only apply to the 2012 tax year? In fact, hardly anyone will have a chance to take advantage of it because the tax year ends in just a few weeks.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, when it comes to taxes, it is this side of the House that has consistently reduced taxes for families and businesses through the past six years of being in government.

On the other side, all we hear, day after day, is to continue to increase taxes, even going so far as putting it right in their platform, on page 4, to include a $21 billion carbon tax, which we know would not only affect the cost of everything but would have a huge damaging effect on small and medium-sized enterprises.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga mentioned health sciences expansion and an expansion in educational facilities for students.

However, from talking to a number of people I know that one of the bottlenecks for getting people employed is the lack of clinical placements for people working in health sciences technology. Does the budget do anything for that?

On the subject of taxes, I would also ask my hon. colleague, who represents an area where a lot of innovation is happening, why his government is so willing to increase taxes on innovative companies by cutting the scientific research and experimental development tax credit?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I am going to start with the second question first.

This question has been raised many times throughout the day today. I think there is a lack of understanding of what Bill C-45 would do in totality. It is easy to focus on one little area and continue to ask questions about that area.

What my colleague does not understand is that our government has made some significant changes to how small businesses can operate their business. For example, we have removed many bureaucratic barriers for attracting foreign investment into small business. We are also adopting new programs, like the digital technology adoption projects. We are cutting red tape for small business.

Finally, on the last point of encouraging partnerships with colleges, what we see now is many of our colleges are partnering with industry. Industry brings an issue to them to help them solve it, so the engineers are working in partnership with industry. In this way, we have increased collaboration and we are actually addressing the problems that industry has instead of doing some theoretical studies about what a particular need might be.

These are all positive movements going forward.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we see one of Canada's greatest challenges is innovation. It is also good to look at what other countries are doing in the world.

The number one innovative economy is Switzerland. It has set up these things called Swiss competence centres for energy research. I know the member for Kitchener—Conestoga has the Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy at the University of Waterloo that looks into clean energy projects.

If we look down the partner list, it is true that private industry is there, but the federal government is nowhere to be seen in that partner list.

Switzerland knows the role of government can be as a facilitator between industry and academia in fostering innovation. Why does the Canadian government not see it the same way?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we believe business has a solution for many of these problems.

We cannot afford to have government involved in every little issue that business, families or communities represent. It is important that wherever we can we stay out of the way of business to allow them to solve their problems. By removing the red tape, like this budget would do, we will see a big expansion in those opportunities.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to add my remarks to those of my colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga. I know he is doing an excellent job for the people in his riding. He represents them very well, and that is why he has been re-elected several times.

I would like to begin by giving some context for Bill C-45, because it requires an awareness of the economic situation in Canada and throughout the world. Despite worldwide economic upheaval, Canada has managed to create 820,000 new jobs since July 2009. This really is a huge success. The Government of Canada made decisions that ensure businesses will continue to hire employees. In addition, 90% of these jobs are permanent, full-time jobs and 75% of them are in the private sector.

Since 2008, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system the healthiest in the world—that is five years in a row. Moreover, Canada has a triple-A credit rating, while other countries' ratings are being downgraded. This is a great success, because it reduces the cost of borrowing and keeps our interest payments down. This instills confidence and shows that Canada really is a good country in which to invest.

The 2012 economic action plan builds on these successes in several ways. First, it intensifies Canada’s pursuit of new and deeper international trade and investment relationships, including updating the government’s global commerce strategy.

Second, it implements the action plan on perimeter security and economic competitiveness and the action plan on regulatory co-operation, which will facilitate trade and investment flows with the United States, our most important trading partner.

Finally, it provides support to Canadian businesses through tariff and tax measures, along with extended domestic financing by Export Development Canada. In other words, we are trying to broaden and diversify our international trade.

For the great trading city of Toronto, my home town, international trade agreements negotiated from a position of strength enhance job opportunities, whether to manufacturing, the arts or financial services.

I will highlight some important elements of Bill C-45, which follow through on the promises of economic action plan 2012 introduced in March of this year.

One key element is the responsible development of our natural resources. We are not exactly a mining centre in Toronto in the sense of taking something out of the ground. However, there are many jobs in the city of Toronto created by the mining sector. Of the world's mining companies, 70% are based in Canada, and 50% of the world's mining exploration and development capital is raised on Canadian stock exchanges. There are roughly 800,000 people in Canada working directly in natural resources and another 800,000 indirectly supporting the mining, minerals and energy sectors. This affects Ontario manufacturing and capital markets.

I would add about 10% of employment in places like the oil sands is filled by first nations people. Over 5% of employment in the Canadian mining sector is filled by first nations people. These are important job opportunities for first nations people across the country.

It also supports small business via measures such as the hiring credit for small business, which is important in the riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. It allocates taxpayer money more efficiently, which means that our taxes can be reduced, whether income, corporate or consumption taxes, and it helps us return to a balanced budget in the medium term.

I will talk to the hiring credit for small business because it is so important for the business people in Etobicoke—Lakeshore, throughout Toronto and across the country. It is a successful measure that has benefited more than 534,000 employers in the last year. It reduces small business payments into the EI fund by about $205 million. Therefore, it is a significant measure and a shot in the arm for small businesses to hire people.

The measures in Bill C-45 protect us from global economic threats, such as the debt crisis in Europe and the fiscal cliff in the United States.

As for Europe, we are encouraged by the measures being taken by European leaders. Several European countries have taken the necessary austerity measures after years of excessive spending. We are also seeing the implementation of a legislative framework providing for a single supervisory mechanism for European banks with the support of the European Central Bank.

In the United States, we hope that the U.S. Congress will find a solution to the country's tax problems. The U.S. is still our biggest customer. It must absolutely purchase products from Canadian companies.

We hope the United States gets back on its feet financially and fiscally because it is very important to us.

Bill C-45 has one primary goal, and that is to create an economic environment that encourages investment and creates jobs. This means removing barriers to investment and growth, such as the useless, non value-added bureaucracy and red tape that we so often see in government. It also means keeping the government's finances in order by streamlining government spending so that eventually we can return to balanced budgets.

I mention that because it is important to highlight what we are not doing. We are not cutting transfers to provinces, unlike the previous Liberal government, where it balanced the budgets largely on the backs of the provinces by cutting transfers. In fact, we are increasing funding for the Canada health transfer, for example, raising it by $6 billion a year. We are looking at $29 billion this year and increasing it until it reaches $38 billion by 2017-18. I should mention that in Ontario, health care spending is only increasing by 3% a year, even though the transfer is increasing by 6% a year. Therefore, it appears the province of Ontario is pocketing the additional 3%.

The Canada social transfer will increase to $12 billion this year and the universal child care benefit will also increase to $13 billion this year. We are not cutting transfers.

I will mention one thing we are looking to do and that is to streamline public sector pensions. Contributors will pay 50% of the current service cost of the pension plan, which is fair to Canadian taxpayers because that is what those in the private sector are generally paying when it comes to their pension plans, whether it is a defined contribution pension plan or a defined benefit pension plan. For contributors who join the plan after January 1, 2013, the age of eligibility to receive a full pension will be raised from 60 to 65. Again, this aligns itself with what is out there in the real world and it ensures that these pension plans are sustainable for the long-term. We have taken similar measures on the MP pension plan, which had some imbalances that needed to be adjusted.

One of my colleagues mentioned R and D investments. That is very important for the city of Toronto, for the GTA, for the province of Ontario and across the country. A lot has been mentioned about the scientific research and experimental development, or SR&ED, tax incentive program. That is the single largest federal program when it comes to R and D. It provided about $3.6 billion in tax assistance in 2011.

However, we were recognizing in our government that spending in R and D that SR&ED was not the be all and end all. We needed to make improvements to our scientific research and development. Therefore, we chartered an expert panel, the Jenkins panel. It came with a series of recommendations. We have been following through on those recommendations in the budget and in the budget implementation act.

I want to highlight some of those changes. There has been some streamlining of SR&ED, removing some of the administration and complexity. In its place we are putting in some new measures. We are looking to expand the industrial research assistance program, or IRAP, by $200 million over two years. That is a very important measure that benefits a lot of innovative companies and it is not based on a tax credit; it is an actual injection of capital into their R and D efforts.

We are also enhancing some specific industry R and D programs with $470 million over four years to support innovation in automotive, aerospace, forestry and clean technology. It has been very important, looking at more direct investment, as opposed to just tax credits.

Another program I was very involved in, as part of my government operations committee, was when we reviewed the Canadian innovation commercialization program. It was a pilot program for two years, with $40 million over two years, that looked at helping companies get to their first level of production with new products. In budget 2012 and contained in Bill C-45, we are making that program permanent. It has been so successful. That will be a real shot in the arm.

The last thing I will mention when it comes to R and D is the creation of a venture capital fund for the BDC of about $400 million.

With all these measures in Bill C-45, I really encourage the opposition to join with us in voting this legislation forward. These are important measures for the Government of Canada and for the people of Canada. They will move us forward into the next several years.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to ask a question to my colleague, who speaks French very well. I am very happy to see someone from Etobicoke speak French so well. It is rather impressive, so I congratulate him for that. I think that is very important to mention.

I would like to talk about a recommendation made by the Toronto Board of Trade, of which the Etobicoke Chamber of Commerce is a member. In its 2012 Federal Pre-Budget Submission, the Toronto Board of Trade mentioned that it wanted to develop a national urban strategy.

In its submission for the prebudget consultations, it mentioned developing a national urban strategy that includes a national transportation strategy.

The organization made that demand in its pre-budget submission. Why did the government not implement this request by the Etobicoke Chamber of Commerce?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Every year, the Minister of Finance receives about 3,000 submissions and requests regarding the budget from people across the country. This demand was not included in the budget.

As for investment in infrastructure, in Bill C-45, the budget implementation bill, there are huge investments in infrastructure. It is not a strategy or document left on a desk somewhere; these are specific responses to Canadian cities to ensure that they have the infrastructure needed to support their economy.

Those are the measures included in the budget implementation bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the comments that the member has put on the record. I would ask him to reflect on something that was said back in 1994 by the present Prime Minister. He stated:

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

Today's Prime Minister was right, back then, in terms of the importance of keeping budget bills short, so that members would be afforded the opportunity to voice their views, give diligence and vote accordingly.

Does the member not believe that the budget bill would be a better bill if it were broken down into numerous other pieces of legislation, as has been the tradition in the past?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking about this legislation being broken up. Previous budgets and previous budget implementation bills going back to 2009 were more complex. The world economic crisis happened, so we had to respond to that.

What we have in the budget is a comprehensive set of measures that form a comprehensive whole. We cannot look at things in isolation when it comes to reducing taxes, increasing investment in other areas or streamlining regulation. All of these things have to fit together, and that is why this bill has been presented this way. This is a comprehensive and integrated plan for putting Canada's economy back on its feet in the face of some very challenging times around the world.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member briefly tied ridings like my riding of Prince George—Peace River in northeastern B.C. to downtown Toronto and mentioned how those capital markets influence the bottom line in my part of the country.

The member spoke briefly about how important responsible resource development is for places in Canada. It is obvious in places like mine, but could he perhaps tell us how important it is to downtown Toronto?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy is actually a wonderful thing. Think about it. The member for Prince George—Peace River is talking about jobs in his part of the country while Canadians working on Bay Street are putting together the legal, financial and technical expertise needed to make some of those projects come to fruition. People in Toronto work in the mining sector in the sense that they are raising capital. They get companies from around the world to list on the Toronto Stock Exchange to make those projects a reality. Canadians are world-beaters. Canadian mining companies based in Toronto are exploring around the world, making jobs happen for Canadians.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you would warn me one minute before the end of my speech.

What will history say about this government?

In the spring, the government already trashed numerous economic, social and environmental laws, by forcing the passage of Bill C-38, the budget bill, a 400-page brick we voted on for 26 hours. We presented a number of amazing amendments, but were unable to change so much as a comma. This government thinks it has the truth and the right line.

After the challenges resulting from Bill C-38 in the spring, we thought the government would make honourable amends, and this time it would allow for broader debate on the budget implementation bill. Unfortunately, that is not the case. They came back with the same kind of shenanigans: they introduced a bill that would significantly amend 62 statutes. This is again a 400-page bill that they want to have us pass as quickly as possible, and for which they have imposed a gag order. That is perhaps what this government will be remembered for the most in 10, 15 or 20 years. It will be the gag order government. Our colleagues across the way will have participated in this travesty of democracy for months.

We are talking here about a bill that amends 62 statutes. We have looked for the common thread among the statutes in the budget, but there is none. This is a way of forcing the machine to work, of putting us on the ropes, of cutting the work of Parliament down to size, and ultimately making a mockery of it.

If we look at the content, we quickly realize that the measures proposed by the Conservatives do not reflect the values of Canadians. Ironically, Bill C-45, called the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, contains no effective measures to create jobs or to stimulate economic growth in Canada.

In fact, the Conservatives claim that the 2012 budget is going to create jobs, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the best friend of people in Canada who exercise critical thinking, claims, rather, that it will result in the loss of 43,000 jobs, which will have a domino effect and have an impact on 102,000 jobs in Canada. That is the overall effect of this budget implementation bill.

In the meantime, the unemployment rate is going up, and instead of making the rules more flexible to allow working people to receive support when they are unemployed, the rules are unfortunately being toughened.

I should point out that Bill C-45 is a threat because the changes it proposes in relation to the environment show disrespect for Canadians and their awareness of environmental issues.

At a time when the world is becoming more aware of the importance of sustainable development, or in other words, our capacity to meet our needs while allowing future generations to meet theirs, the Conservative government does not understand this logic and stubbornly insists on weakening environmental regulations.

After withdrawing Canada from the Kyoto protocol, making cuts to research programs at Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and dismantling the round table on the environment and the economy, the Conservatives are continuing down the same path with Bill C-45, which once again weakens the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and guts the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

It is important to note Canada's place when it comes to environmental matters. Recently, Canada was ranked 57th of the 60 countries included in the Climate Change Performance Index. In order to find Canada, hon. members should start at the bottom of the list instead of the top. We have dropped quite far. On the international stage, many countries do not envy us when it comes to the environment.

The Conservatives will boast that they have eliminated two small fossil fuel subsidies in this budget and improved two tax credits for certain types of equipment for green energy production. Proportionately speaking, these two measures are minimal compared to the $1.3 billion in assistance that the Conservative government continues to give to the oil and gas industry each year.

Environmental protection seems to be a nuisance to the Conservatives. We have to wonder whether this is a Conservative government strategy to facilitate co-operation with big business.

We also see that power is becoming more and more concentrated in the Conservative cabinet. We saw it with the reform of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act reform, and we are seeing it with environmental reforms. We had panels of independent experts. Now, assessments will basically be subject to the minister's approval.

Bill C-45 guts the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The consequences are imminent since thousands of lakes and rivers will no longer be protected. Of the 37 designated Canadian heritage rivers, only 10 will now be protected. I checked the list for the rivers in my area—Rivière du Diable, Rivière Rouge and Rivière du Nord—but none of them are mentioned.

I hope I am going to be able to include them in that list. And I wonder when we will have a chance to put new rivers and new lakes on the list. I would like to preserve the rivers in my riding in their purest possible natural state, because they are an essential part of the beauty of the region that brings tourists there. Beautiful rivers and beautiful lakes: that is what tourists come to see.

The Minister of Transport said the objective of the act was to reduce obstacles to navigation on navigable waterways and added that navigable waterways that do not appear in the new list will be protected by other federal legislation, by the provinces and by cities. Have funds been set aside for the provinces in connection with the role they will have to play, given the additional workload they will have? We are divesting ourselves of our obligation to protect rivers and lakes. In fact, that is a responsibility that is set out in the Canadian Constitution.

I am going to quote Tony Maas, director of the national freshwater program of the World Wildlife Fund. The government is trying to make a distinction between navigation and navigable waters, for legislation to facilitate navigation.

Picking navigation apart from the waters that enable it is very much artificial [and I would say “absurd”]. The two are part of a bigger whole. Their separation is as artificial as thinking you can protect a fish without protecting its habitat....

The government puts everything in little boxes, as if things were no longer connected to one another.

Because I had prepared to make a 20-minute speech, my time is nearly up. Before beginning this last part, I am going to request the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

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: “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”, and I would like the list to include the Rivière du Nord, the Rivière Rouge, the Rivière du Diable and the Rivière Pashby, all of which are rivers that run through my riding.

I request the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The member does not have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the member's comments regarding the Navigable Waters Protection Act and I want to cite one or two examples for him about the kind of problems that can arise.

For example, a fishway was proposed for Spencer Creek in Hamilton, a small waterway that goes through a residential area in Hamilton, and the application under the Navigable Waters Protection Act took over a year to approve due to a backlog of applications. That is just for a fishway in a residential neighbourhood.

Another example was an aerial cable built by the Renfrew Hydro Electric Commission, which required approval because it crossed over the Bonnechere River near Renfrew. That took over six months to approve.

I was very intrigued by the member's comments that somehow there is a constitutional right to such delays. I wonder if I understood him correctly. Does he think these are the kinds of things that we should be regulating in Canada?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is twisting my words. The Navigable Waters Protection Act has been around for some time. It provides crucial protection to fragile marine habitats. We cannot let just anything happen.

You are playing with facts that you do not understand. Right now I am looking at how much the Fisheries Act has been modified and how much trawlers are decimating miles and miles of seabed. It will take hundreds of years to recreate favourable environments for species to reproduce.

You said that it takes time to conduct assessments. I am not saying that the process is perfect, but in this situation, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, along with the fly in the bathwater.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members to address questions and comments through the Chair, and not directly to other members.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see the New Democrats now supporting the Liberals in opposition to third reading of Bill C-45. After witnessing them vote more than a thousand times with the Conservative Party through hours and hours of committee work, I really do appreciate their coming on side with us at this stage of the game.

As the member has pointed out, there are other aspects of the bill that we need real answers to. This is just a bad bill. He tried to get unanimous support on one aspect of the bill, making reference to waterways. On my part I could talk about the electronic travel authorization that is being requested.

Does he not believe, as we in the Liberal Party do, that all in all this is just a bad bill and that the whole thing should be broken down into another legislative agenda?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, we have been suggesting splitting up this bill, because there is no common thread among it various components. It eliminates the commission on hazardous products. What does that have to do with the budget? We cannot help but wonder. I have no answer to that, but clearly, that commission gave workers handling hazardous products information about those products and how dangerous they are. Yet the Conservatives are eliminating that, which is completely inconceivable. Why did they throw everything into one bill?

My greatest fear is that this will set a precedent. It started with 60 laws. One day they will introduce a bill that amends 300 laws. They will pass the bill and MPs will have nothing left to say for the rest of the year because everything will have been said. I refuse to accept that kind of parliamentary process.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, which includes measures to deliver job creation and economic growth.

Everyone in this chamber should realize that Canada's economic health is vital for all Canadians. We have to ensure both immediate and long-term economic growth. In introducing this bill, the government is taking a pragmatic approach to strengthening Canada's economy in the middle of global economic peril.

Opposition members have opposed the jobs and growth bill with procedural arguments, suggesting for example that there has been insufficient debate on the legislation. In reality, this bill has been debated in the House and in committee for many hours. The government invited 11 different committees to study and provide feedback to the House on the bill. The government is committed to timely and open debate on legislation.

The measures in the jobs and growth bill are reasonable in light of the economic challenges that Canada faces as a result of the global economy. I suppose that the procedural arguments proposed by the opposition are necessary only because they cannot find much of anything else to oppose in the very reasonable content of this bill.

Rather than considering the opposition's exaggerations, let us consider some facts. The fact is that in these unsteady economic times, Canada has proven to be a global economic leader. We have consistently been ranked very highly by international standards. Since July 2009 alone, over 820,000 net new jobs have been created in Canada. This is the highest level of job creation in the whole G7.

The World Economic Forum has rated our banking system the world's best. The IMF and the OECD have both projected that Canadian economic growth will be among the strongest in the G7. Canada also has the lowest debt to gross domestic product ratio in the G7. The major credit-rating agencies have affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating.

Such international acclaim is clear demonstration that the government is on the right track for economic success. It is clear that global economic uncertainty continues. Collectively, we in the House are responsible for ensuring that Canada stays on track to ensure economic success for future generations. We must support economic growth and job creation.

This bill prioritizes these two goals with targeted measures to ensure a strong economic outcome for Canada. For example, the hiring credit for small businesses is a targeted measure that will have a huge impact on job creation. In extending the hiring credit for small businesses, this bill aids Canadian small businesses, which drive the Canadian economy and are vital to stability.

A hiring credit for small businesses stimulates job growth because it alleviates the cost of hiring new employees. This creates greater economic opportunities. Last year alone, 534,000 employers took advantage of the up to $1,000 payroll credit, including many small businesses in my riding of Kitchener Centre. The hiring credit for small businesses works for Canadian business and it works for all Canadians. I am proud that our government introduced it and is now moving to extend it.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses across our country, including Kitchener, has praised the hiring credit for small businesses. The CFIB has told us that the credit “makes it easier for them to continue to support Canada's economic recovery by creating jobs”.

This tax credit is a significant incentive for small to medium-size businesses to create new jobs, and its extension will be equally successful. All members of the House should be lining up to support a budget that contains such a measure.

Another example in the jobs and growth bill is the active steps taken to ensure that pension plans for federal public sector employees are fiscally responsible.

The solution to economic instability will not be found in raising taxes. Higher taxes would hinder the Canadian economy and kill jobs. This is not the avenue to pursue. Unfortunately, opposition members who oppose this bill repeatedly propose tax increases rather than job creation and economic growth. Economic prosperity for years to come will only occur through a low tax approach.

This bill not only takes the current economic climate into consideration but it is also forward-thinking. It would provide opportunities for Canadians to invest in the future. For example, in 2007, the government introduced the registered disability savings plan to help Canadians with disabilities and their families save money for long-term financial security. After much consultation, the jobs and growth act would improve upon the existing registered disability savings plan. The changes would allow more Canadians with disabilities to take advantage of the RDSP by allowing qualifying members to open an account for those who do not have a legal representative. There would be another change. As it stands, regardless of the amount withdrawn, a beneficiary is penalized for making a withdrawal from an RDSP account. Canada disability savings grants or Canada disability savings bonds received in the preceding 10 years are simply clawed back. This is unfair. This bill would provide for proportional repayment based on the amount withdrawn, a very sensible solution and one that every member in the House should support.

The bill would ensure the efficient implementation of the policies and measures introduced in the economic action plan passed in the House to support the economic future of all Canadians. Much of the content found in this bill would simply bring technical clarification to existing measures that have already passed in the House. For instance, this bill would deliver the necessary tax framework for pooled registered pension plans, which create an opportunity for all Canadians to participate in a structured pension plan for the first time ever. This is another way that the jobs and growth act would effectively support families and communities to provide for their long-term economic future.

Responsible resource development measures are yet another way in which the bill responds to our very real economic peril. Responsible resource development maximizes the potential of our resource sector, thus creating high-value jobs while enhancing environmental protection. Tighter, more effective regulation of development necessary to a growing population is essential for a growing economy. Environmental regulation should provide a clear framework to ensure measurable environmental outcomes, not requirements that have the effect of obstructing development without improving environmental outcomes. That is one of the goals of this bill.

It has been observed that a wise man will make more opportunities than he finds. During these times of economic uncertainty, it is important to be aggressive in creating initiatives to strengthen the economy. In this jobs and growth act, the government is being proactive about creating economic opportunities. The act's promotion of interprovincial trade, improvements of the legislative framework governing Canada's financial institutions, facilitating cross-border travel, the removal of red tape and the reduction of fees for Canadian grain farmers are just a few more examples of proactive measures that have the potential to really stimulate economic growth.

I very confidently support the jobs and growth act which would deliver job creation and economic growth. The targeted measures included in this act would ensure long-term economic strength to the benefit of my constituents in Kitchener Centre and all Canadians.

I call on all members of the House to join together in supporting these measures, join in leading Canadians safely through the stormy seas of global economic uncertainty that surrounds us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing a lot of talk about delays as though they were a bad thing. However, no one is talking about the reason for these delays. They are forgetting to say that constructive work is being done behind the scenes.

We rarely, if ever, hear our Conservative colleagues talk about the fact that these waterways, these rivers and lakes, are like a body with different connecting parts. I am thinking of the Richelieu River, which is the heart of my riding. Many rivers that are no longer protected connect to it.

What is more, the Montreal-Portland pipeline passes under the river. Signs to that effect are placed along the length of the river. This infrastructure has been there since 1960. Given that the environmental regulations that the member opposite seems to think serve only to cause delays did not exist at the time, we now have aging infrastructure that could leak oil and gas into the bottom of the river when the flow of oil is reversed.

I would like to know how the members opposite can have such a lack of understanding of the consequences, impacts and domino effect that the absence of these protections will have on our waterways.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member raises a good question, and it really does highlight the difference between this side and the other side.

We are not interested here in delay for the sake of delay. We are interested here in trying to improve environmental outcomes. For example, the government recently demonstrated its commitment to strengthening environmental protection by refusing consent to the Cenovus Energy project at Canadian Forces Base Suffield National Wildlife area in Alberta simply because it was not justified in the circumstances. There is no automatic green light when there are environmental issues.

On the other hand, we have the case of an aerial cable that was built by the Renfrew Hydro Electric Commission, and it required approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act because it crossed over the Bonnechere River. It met all the standards for transmission lines over navigable waters, but it still took six months to approve that project with no measurable environmental outcome whatsoever.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting how the member tries to rewrite history to a certain degree.

A couple of years after Paul Martin left the Prime Minister's Office, we were into this huge global crisis, and he is trying to take credit for Canada being a global economic leader.

The reality of the situation is that the banking industry is a world leader because Prime Minister Chrétien and his cabinet resisted bank mergers during the 1990s.

In terms of converting a trade surplus and a budget surplus into deficits, Paul Martin had the surpluses and the Prime Minister converted them into huge deficits.

This particular bill has very little to do with the actual budget. It is only a small portion of it that is actually critically important to the budget. My question to the member is: Why did the government choose to have such a huge budget bill when in fact most of it is irrelevant to the actual passage of the budget itself?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend accuses me of rewriting history, but I happened to be around in the 1988 to 1992 election period when, in fact, the Liberal Party expressed its strong opposition to the GST. Talk about rewriting history. As soon as Mr. Chrétien was elected, he immediately reneged on that promise and the Liberal Party was gung-ho for the GST. It took a Conservative government to at least reduce the rate from 7% to 6% to 5%.

My colleague's comments make it clear that he did not get the point of my 10 minutes of talking about the fact that this budget implementation bill is necessary to stimulate jobs and growth. We need to be able to turn; we need to pivot on a dime, because of the economic crisis all around us. That means we have to have responsible resource development, we have to have investments in the knowledge economy and we have to have exactly what this budget implementation bill provides.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today once again to express my strong opposition to Bill C-45, the second omnibus budget bill that the Conservatives have introduced since the beginning of this Parliament.

I am deeply disappointed that, for the 31st time, the Conservatives have decided to silence a number of members. They will not have the opportunity that I have right now to speak out against this bill, which is going to have a major impact on their constituents. All the same, I am pleased to have a chance to defend the interests of the constituents of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier who are opposed to Bill C-45.

The government claims that this bill does nothing but implement measures already set out in the budget that was adopted last March and that it contains no surprises. We all know that this statement is totally false and that it is simply an attempt to mislead Canadians. This massive bill, with its more than 400 pages, contains many measures that were never announced when the budget was tabled and places even more power in the hands of Conservative ministers, something that we all want to prevent.

Right from the start, the NDP has deplored the fact that Bill C-45 is another attempt by the Conservatives to undermine hundreds of pieces of legislation without consulting with anyone and without having to account to anyone. The Conservatives are once again doing exactly the same thing they did the last time they introduced a budget bill, when they ripped holes in the Fisheries Act without consulting with fishers’ communities, when they made huge cuts to the employment insurance system, as if it belonged to them, without consulting the businesses or the workers that contribute to it, and when they made cuts to old age security and to health care transfers to the provinces. It is unbelievable that the same thing is happening again here in the House.

Despite our opposition and the opposition of thousands of Canadians throughout the country, the Conservatives are refusing to listen to reason and are forcing us to swallow a bill that will drastically affect the quality of our environment and the quality of Canadians’ lives today and well into the future. Even worse, the Conservatives are trying to hide the truth from Canadians by rushing the bill through as quickly as possible, without allowing members to give serious consideration to all the impacts that Bill C-45 will have on Canadians.

In the speech I gave in the House on this subject a few weeks ago, I mainly talked about matters of procedure and the anti-democratic nature of this bill. Since then, unfortunately, nothing has changed. We have seen this since the beginning of their mandate: the Conservatives have absolutely no scruples when it comes to limiting their opponents’ speaking time and flouting the democratic principles that have been at the heart of our parliamentary system since Confederation.

Bill C-45 is no exception to these new rules that the Conservatives want to impose on Parliament. The NDP has repeatedly asked this government to split this massive bill, so we can examine it in detail in committee and propose the amendments that are needed to make this bill acceptable, but of course the Conservatives have refused. Yes, a few committees were assigned to examine certain aspects of this bill, but given how little time the government allowed them to do their job, they were unable to hold reasonable and reasoned debates, and the vast majority of the witnesses who were called to appear were chosen by the Conservative government. We can all agree, therefore, that this process was neither very serious nor objective.

Obviously, the committee review was simply an attempt by the government to create an appearance of transparency and to silence the opposition, and nothing more. However, when we do exactly what this government is hoping Canadians will not do, and analyze Bill C-45 carefully, we can clearly see that a genuine examination of the provisions of this bill and the actual amendments is called for, because too many of these measures may well have disastrous consequences for the environment and our country's economy.

I am thinking, for example, of the changes made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which will become the Navigation Protection Act. Already, we have a good idea of what this government wants to do with it: forget about the fish, the environment, the flora and fauna, and focus on boats and navigation. That is all that counts. Once it is passed, Bill C-45 will eliminate the idea of protecting waterways from the act, and will no longer automatically require an environmental assessment when infrastructure is constructed on virtually all of the waterways in Canada. Once more, this shows what contempt the Conservatives have for protecting our environment.

If Bill C-45 passes as is, only 3 oceans, 97 lakes and 62 rivers in all of Canada will be protected and over 90% of those are in Conservative ridings. That raises some questions.

We must also remember that the provinces and municipalities will now be forced to protect waterways in their jurisdiction, even though they do not have the resources to do so. Of course, the government did not allocate additional resources—logistical or financial—to help the municipalities and provinces carry out this new task, now that the federal government is downloading its responsibilities.

Such measures could be catastrophic for a riding like mine, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which has 2,258 lakes, rivers and streams. There is Jacques-Cartier River, which some may recall is currently contaminated with TCE. This government still refuses to acknowledge the crown's responsibility in the matter. There is also Sainte-Anne River, which crosses my riding on the Portneuf side; and Lac Saint-Augustin, one of the most polluted lakes in Canada that now, thanks to this government, will be even less protected than it was to begin with. There is Lac Simon, near Saint-Raymond-de-Portneuf; Rivière Montmorency, a rather large river in the region; Rivière aux Pommes, which goes through Neuville and the riding of Portneuf; and there are many more. I could name 2,258.

All these waterways play a vital role in my region's economy, which depends on industries such as tourism and recreational fishing.

We often hear the Conservatives say they are strong advocates for hunters, for obvious reasons, appalling reasons that I will not bother to repeat here in the House. However, we never hear them speak out on behalf of fishers. Recreational fishers come to my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier to take advantage of our ZECs, controlled harvesting zones. These people help drive the economy in my region. They come to enjoy the beautiful landscapes and natural resources that Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is famous for. With this bill, there is nothing left. Developers can build a dam or a bridge anywhere they like, to the detriment of all the industries that depend on these waterways, but too bad. The bill introduced by the Conservatives does not contain any measures to do anything at all, apart from the fact that the provinces and municipalities can seek their own recourse.

How can the government justify its decision to stop protecting lakes and rivers in my region and across Canada to my constituents and to all Canadians? It is absolutely inconceivable.

Bill C-45 poses another major problem. I am talking about the changes to support measures for businesses conducting scientific research and experimental development. Many of my colleagues have already talked about this issue. I am glad they did, because this is a crucial part of the budget that needs to be changed.

So, quite simply, they decide to eliminate these measures and they also get rid of eligible investment costs. What they are really doing is cutting $500 million from this program and increasing taxes for businesses. The Conservatives will never present it to us this way, but this is exactly what they are doing. They are creating an increase for the small and large businesses that drive the economy. This is hardly very consistent with their message that they are champions of the Canadian economy. It is obvious that they are not.

Technology, productivity and innovation are essential elements that allow our businesses to compete on the international marketplace, and to compete with emerging countries, which will be setting up good R&D programs for their businesses.

Our businesses will simply leave and it is the manufacturing sector, which is still very significant in the Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier area, that will be directly affected by this ill-considered decision.

I would like to end quickly by saying that unless the bill is amended to reflect the priorities of Canadians, I will have to oppose it. I am going to take advantage of the fact that I still have some speaking time left to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion.

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) as the addition of the navigable waters listed is deemed to be in the public interest, the governor in council may make regulations adding these to the schedule, as soon as practicable after the day this act is assented to, by indicating, with regard to lakes, their approximate location by latitude and longitude and, with regard to rivers, their approximate upstream and downstream points, with the description of the water body and, in the event that more than one water body bears the same name as listed hereinafter, it selects the one to be added to the schedule:

The list includes Raymond Lake, Salt Lake, Reindeer Lake, St. Augustin Lake, Creek Lake, Rat Lake, Kasba Lake, Aurora Lake, Anderson River, Tadek Lake, Morell Lake, Larocque Lake, Campbell Lake, Newland Lake and Thomas Lake.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There is no consent.

Before we go to questions and comments, just a reminder to all hon. members that we have five minutes for questions and comments. I note there are many members who wish to pose questions to the member who just spoke, so I would ask members to keep their questions and responses succinct so more members will have the opportunity to participate in the question and comment period.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, within this massive, unprecedented budget bill one aspect proposes to establish electronic travel authorizations. That means if individuals are from a country where a visiting visa is no longer required, or they are not American citizens, they would have to tap into the Internet to get pre-approved before coming to Canada. Very little debate, if any, has actually occurred in the House on that issue.

Does the member agree with the Liberal Party that this is one of the reasons why we need separate pieces of legislation as opposed to one massive bill of this nature in order for us to provide due diligence?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for his question. He often speaks in this House, and so I am not surprised that he has a question.

As I have said on many occasions and as a number of my colleagues have also said, omnibus bills are undemocratic and do not allow us to focus on each element that we want to discuss.

This subject seems to stir emotions. I hope that my Conservative colleagues are reacting because they believe that omnibus bills are totally unacceptable.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the common cowardice of the person in a position of strength who abuses their power is the privilege of the government. For the umpteenth time, the government is unfortunately invoking closure. Let it take advantage of its position of strength. The immorality of this gesture will weigh heavily on it.

I really liked the speech by the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier on this subject, as is often the case. The bill is quite lengthy and covers a lot of ground. In some ways, it is a draft.

I would like her to expand a bit on the problems with an omnibus bill that makes changes to many things, without any prior review and without respect for the people of Canada.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beauport—Limoilou for his excellent question that will allow me to continue the point I started earlier.

A number of Conservatives have already asked in the House how NDP members could be opposed to a budget that includes a tax credit for small businesses. Although I must say that this is an excellent tax credit, it will end in about 20 days. They will blame us for all kinds of things like this, when what we oppose are the big measures, such as the gutting of the Navigable Waters Protection Act or the changes to support measures for research and development.

We cannot examine these issues and truly understand the effects they will have, since the government does not give us a chance to do our job, to examine the figures and call in the witnesses who deserve to be heard. I am talking not only about government witnesses, but also witnesses from all segments of society.

I could go on about this, but my time is running out. A number of my colleagues can continue to explain to the government all the problems with the omnibus bills it is introducing and how undemocratic they are.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague, who was very eloquent, as usual.

Bill C-45 is ironically entitled the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, but I do not see a single effective measure to create jobs or stimulate economic growth.

We know that the tax credits that were given to small businesses are short and long term and are insignificant.

Support for research and development was cut. Where is the national strategy to create jobs for the 1.4 million Canadians who are still looking for work?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one might find such a strategy in the NDP's platform, but certainly not in the Conservatives' budget implementation bill.

It gets worse. Based on what is being proposed, 102,000 more jobs could be lost and not just in the public service. This is a problem. The government is not creating jobs; jobs disappear faster than the government can create them.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in support of Bill C-45, a bill that would strengthen Canada's opportunities at home and abroad.

We on this side of the House are very proud of what has been accomplished since the worldwide recession in which Canada has been a leader in both the G7 and G20 and will continue to do so for some time due to our strong economic environment and our robust natural resource sector. It is with this in mind that I would like the folks to know what seems to be missed by the opposition, that being all of the benefits that the bill would provide to Canadians.

The registered disability savings plan holds benefits for thousands of Canadians. For instance, there would be greater access to the RDSP savings for small withdrawals. It would also give greater flexibility for parents who have children with disabilities in that RESPs can be rolled into RDSPs if the plan shares a common beneficiary. This is a great move forward because each year, unfortunately, some parents must face great despair when a child is injured and faces years if not a lifetime of rehabilitation. This, in a small way, is to recognize that savings transferred from an RESP to an RDSP will be of benefit in the long term.

Amending the Income Tax Act to accommodate PRPPs is yet another great option that is now available for those companies that, under normal circumstances, could not offer a pension plan to their employees. So many small businesses across Canada will be able to offer pension benefits which, in my opinion, will work toward employee retention. When employees see that their employers are looking at ways to ensure their longevity at a company, it can only prove as a benefit for all involved.

I will switch now and speak to the Fisheries Act because the opposition seems to focus in on it.

Under the Fisheries Act, fines collected under section 40 would be directed to the environmental damages fund. This fund money would be used for proactive initiatives to advance protection of Canadian fisheries. I find it interesting that the opposition parties do not mention this very proactive move by our government to ensure that the environmental damages fund stays well-funded. They will always focus on the doom and gloom and how the destruction of our environment is inevitable, even when Canadians know that we have some of the strongest environmental standards in the world.

More evidence of this is found under section 136 of the Fisheries Act, which says that “No person shall”:

(c) damage or obstruct any fishway constructed or used to enable fish to pass over or around any obstruction;

(d) damage or obstruct any fishway, fish stop or diverter constructed or installed on the Minister’s request;

(e) stop or hinder fish from entering or passing through any fishway, or from surmounting any obstacle or leap;

(f) damage, remove or authorize the removal of any fish guard, screen, covering, netting or other device installed on the Minister’s request; or

(g) fish in any manner within 23 m downstream from the lower entrance to any fishway, obstruction or leap.

Fish are not to be obstructed.

Our government recognizes the importance of fish spawning and the ability for fish to get to their natural spawning grounds. We also respect the inherent right of first nations for social or ceremonial purposes or for the purposes set out in a land claims agreement.

Following on with first nations, I am pleased that changes to the Indian Act would make it easier for first nations to have designated land on reserves. This is huge for first nations as it would allow for economic development in a more efficient manner. By making these amendments, it will allow first nations to work at the speed of business. Making decisions in a timely manner is what first nations want.

That brings me to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Let us be perfectly clear that this is not about weakening environmental standards. This is about recognizing that not every waterway in Canada must be subject to rules regulating boats, vessels and ships. In my constituency, two major waterways will fall under this new act, as they should, the Columbia River and the Kootenay River. They are two of the most used river systems in western Canada, both for recreation and electrical generation.

Let me flesh this out a little more so Canadians understand what this is. The assessment factors include, first, the characteristics of the navigable waters in question; second, the safety of navigation; third, the current or anticipated navigation in the navigable waters; fourth, the impact of the work on navigation in the navigable waters, for example as a result of construction, placement, alteration, repair, rebuilding, removal, decommissioning, maintenance, operation or use; and fifth, the cumulative impact of the work on navigation in the navigable waters.

We have gone further. We also put in regulations with regard to depositing and dewatering to ensure that the safe travel of water vessels is paramount.

I have given an overview on some items found in Bill C-45. As one can see, our government continues to put the interests of Canadians first. We are the only party that recognizes the importance of protecting the environment, all the while ensuring that our natural resource sector moves forward to ensure that Canadians will be able to afford the services they have today and into the future.

I would like to invite anyone to ask any questions.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his remarks. Unfortunately, I do not share some of his views.

As far as environmental matters are concerned, does he believe we can get the toothpaste back in the tube?

Given that 99% of lakes and rivers will no longer be protected and that the impact on ecosystems is measured in the medium and long terms, it will be incredibly difficult to correct the situation once the damage is done.

What does he think of the fact that future generations may have to deal with polluted rivers and lakes?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the environmental standards this government is putting forward, I believe most Canadians recognize that we are trying to ensure that Canadians in the future have something to look forward to. They also understand that we are going to allow Canadians to utilize our waterways to the best of their abilities, but also recognizing that we have to move forward with economic generation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for his speech, but on one particular point I was astounded. That was when he led by boasting about the disability tax credit, which the Liberal leader in question period today explained to the House and Canadians why in fact this is such a terrible policy.

The reason it is a terrible policy is that one only benefits from that tax credit if one is a disabled person with sufficient taxable income. We all know that many disabled people have very little if any taxable income, and therefore those who need it the most receive the least, and often they receive zero.

How can the hon. member boast about a policy, the disability tax credit, when he really should be expressing shame for such an unfair measure?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member also been listening to my statement, he would have heard that one can transfer RESP moneys to the RDSP, which is very important for those families who have young children who, unfortunately, been in a car accident and have a lifelong disability. I believe it is important to recognize that children will benefit from this proactive policy decision made by our government in this bill.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from British Columbia for his hard work in his two decades with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and for serving as mayor in his community, as a small business owner, and understanding the importance of working in the community.

Could the member elaborate and share with the House the timeliness of getting this budget through?

We want to create jobs, grow our economy and provide long-term prosperity for our businesses. What would the small business tax credit mean for small business owners across Canada?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a small business owner, I recognize that the credit would give me the ability to invest back into my company. It would give me the opportunity to allow my employees to work better within the company.

All the things we provide to small business only grow small business. It is the economic driver that pushes this country. Anything we can do for it, we will.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP would have done much more for small business.

We proposed to reduce taxes from 11% to 9% for small business. We were going to provide up to $4,500 for new hires, a one-year rebate on employer contributions to CPP and EI and retention bonuses of $1,000 in non-refundable tax credits, which would have created 200,000 jobs for Canadian families. Furthermore, we would have extended the accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible machinery and equipment for primary use in Canada, which would have had the effect of promoting productivity gains in our manufacturing sector.

We cannot support the bill simply because it does not go far enough. We have very credible propositions to give to the government, but they fall on deaf ears, unfortunately.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question there, but I can give 800,000 reasons why we have done a good job, which is the number of jobs we have created since 2008. I think that is far more important than the 200,000 he is talking about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would politely ask you to please let me know when I have one minute left.

Looking at the clock, I am starting to believe that we may yet end on a high note this Monday evening, debating amendments that would actually help everyday people.

It took me a while to read the whole bill. It is indeed a massive document. We were given plenty to read back in June, and now even more, but that is okay; we like it. We are not quite so fond of the content, however.

That said, I will concentrate on what was said in the House today, particularly by my Conservative colleagues. There was a lot of talk about encouraging investment and creating the ideal economic environment for small and medium businesses. Much has also been said about the way these investments and economic conditions will help everyday Canadians.

I find this all very interesting. In fact, as an MP, I am very busy helping this time of year organizing food drives, attending Christmas dinners and preparing Christmas baskets, and so on.

Over the past few weekends, I have had a chance to take part in many food drives around my community and lend a hand to the organizations in charge either by making a run, coordinating the runs or preparing Christmas baskets.

Yesterday, for example, I took part in the food drive at the Saint-Basile-le-Grand volunteer centre, in my hometown. The response rate was lower this year than it has been in previous years. However, the centre coordinator, Mrs. Laurin, told me she was hoping for a good turnout despite the bad weather, because she has seen an increase in the number of people who use the food bank put on by the volunteer centre, which helps people in need.

There have been many national reports to that effect and I also hear many people in the field talk about this. I will therefore elaborate on the relevance of these remarks and facts.

As I just said, I often hear that the budget itself and the omnibus budget implementation bill will help people in need. However, it seems that people need more and more assistance and that the needs increase every day, every month and every year.

I am not talking about the Parliamentary Budget Officer or some major international economic organization. With all due respect to them, I am not talking about those who assess the national or international situation. I am talking about people in my riding who work every day in the field, in extremely difficult situations. I am talking about people who are in a better position than anyone in this House or at any university to comment on this.

This is what they are saying and it is exactly the same thing people are saying at all the food drives I have been to, that there is a huge increase in the number of people using food banks. If that is what economic prosperity looks like, then we have a huge problem. That is one of the reasons we must oppose Bill C-45 and the budget itself.

I will be speaking again about another issue that we have discussed many times: the Richelieu River. As I have said in many of my questions and comments today, it is one of the most important, if not the most important file for the riding's MP.

The Richelieu River is one of our region's ecological, economic and heritage assets. Towns were built around the river for economic reasons. The Richelieu River is an important heritage asset that also has environmental value for the people of the region.

This is once again relevant to my work as an MP, because I have been thoroughly briefed on the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

In recent years, I have had the opportunity to work on this issue together with elected municipal officials. We tried to find a compromise between the freedom to travel at high speeds in a boat, which is enjoyable in the summer, and preventing the erosion of the shoreline, while allowing other users of the river—for example, the Otterburn canoe and kayak club—to safely enjoy the river that belongs to everyone, in the eyes of this MP, everyone in the region and in the House. It is a community asset.

When working on this issue, I familiarized myself with the act. It is most certainly very complex. Contrary to the claims of the Minister of Transport, the act was designed not only to protect vessels and the navigation of our waters, but also all of the river's ecological systems. I hope that those in power, the country's government, realize that the government does not operate in a silo.

The various interests that affect these different files are very interconnected. That is exactly what we are seeing here. I think it is unfortunate and a bit dishonest for the Conservatives to say that, since this affects transport and navigation, it has no impact on the environment. After all, the reason this law was created in the first place was to ensure that we are able to derive economic benefit from our waterways without putting the ecology and heritage of the various rivers, lakes and other bodies of water at risk.

I find the situation in northern Quebec, for example, more problematic, since one riding covers 53% of Quebec's land mass. If we look at a map, there are many waterways and lakes. We do not even need to know the exact number. Yet, there is a problem with the numbers when it comes to the percentage of waterways in Quebec that will continue to be protected after this bill is passed. It does not add up. That is why we are legitimately and logically wondering why the numbers are so unbalanced.

I asked the question a number of times without getting an answer. An ecological system is just that: a system. It is a living system, like the human body. I am thinking of the Richelieu River in my riding. A number of other rivers contributed to the flood in my riding. There was the Rivière l'Acadie in Carignan, for example. These rivers are all connected. Although it is not in my riding, the St. Lawrence River is also nearby. Many rivers connect to it and we are wondering whether the Conservatives truly believe that an incident in one of these waterways will not affect the connecting rivers. It is a system. There is a domino effect that cannot be ignored. This is one of the major problems that I see.

I could say a lot more about all the pages of this bill, but I will stop there. In closing, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion with regard to the protection of waterways:

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:

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: Burbanks Lake, Mud Lake, Selwyn Lake, Horn Lake, Lac Nesbitt, Redout Lake, Staple Lake, South Nahanni River, Lac D'Aoust, Sled Lake, Lac Basile, Yellowknife River, Healey Lake, Sunny Lake and Loon Lake.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my opposition to Bill C-45 and thank you for your patience.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the member for Chambly—Borduas have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There is no consent.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do find it somewhat interesting that New Democratic members are standing up, speaking and then moving a motion for some sort of an amendment. However, when we were in committee, what we saw was a different New Democratic Party. We saw a New Democratic Party that voted over 1,000 times with the Conservatives. We saw a New Democratic Party that voted to limit debate in committee.

My question to the member, now that the New Democratic Party has decided to once again join the Liberal Party in opposition to Bill C-45, is why did he not want to have this sort of debate in committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that we have absolutely no intention of joining the Liberal Party. I want to inform my constituents of that fact, because otherwise, I would never be re-elected. If there is one party that supported the government on several occasions and used the same tactics while it was in power, it is the Liberal Party, which introduced omnibus bills and dipped into the employment insurance fund, among other things.

I would also like to say that we opposed Bill C-45 as soon as we knew about its content, for the reasons mentioned by my colleagues. Moreover, I know very well that my colleges at the Standing Committee on Finance have done an incredible job, and I have a lot of respect for them. I have no doubt about the work that they have done, and I am sure that we will continue to oppose any budget of this kind.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, colleagues across the way say they want to create jobs, but they are against trade agreements and foreign investments that create jobs, opportunities and growth for Canadians.

I spent nine years on city council in Kelowna. One of the things with the Navigable Waters Protection Act was that it created a very difficult time for our community development. There was bureaucratic duplication.

I would like to quickly read this into the record. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities sent out a news release that said the following:

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities welcomes the federal government's commitment to make the Navigable Waters Protection Act work better for our communities and make it more affordable to build basic infrastructure.

Why does the NDP oppose local governments across Canada? Why does it not support our communities in creating jobs and growth?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not dare to speak for the ridings of other colleagues, but I will certainly speak for mine. I am a member of the chambers of commerce in my riding. Regarding investment, I can say that those chambers of commerce are quite happy about what the NDP is proposing in terms of investment and economic policy.

As for navigable waters, I mentioned some rivers in my riding and talked about their environmental value, but they also have an economic value. The government provided no help to deal with floods. Help came from the community, and we saw how important it is to have a framework in place for our bodies of water in order to ensure the well-being of our community. That is why the community wants to keep those protections, and why I wish to oppose Bill C-45.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague. Earlier today, I, too, tried in vain to ask the House for unanimous consent to add the rivers in my riding to the list of protected rivers. The Conservatives refused. I would like to ask my colleague why the Conservatives are refusing to protect my riding's rivers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately do not have the answer. Just like my colleague, I tried to ask this question and to figure it out. If the constituents of my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord had the answers, they would not have voted for a member who has better proposals with respect to environmental protection and the economy. That is the important thing. There is nothing that says we cannot protect the environment and have good economic conditions at the same time. That is what we are proposing, but it is not in the budget.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, would the member like to comment on the recent statement of the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the government's projection of revenues is in fact $4.7 billion lower than his projection, that the budget will be balanced by 2014-15 and that the $5.2 billion cutbacks in services and employment, with 19,000 employees, built into the budget are not necessary at all?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Not only do we have figures from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, but it seems that even the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance cannot get their stories straight. How far does this lack of consistency reach when it comes to the budget and the cuts? Perhaps the cuts are not needed. On this side of the House, we have never believed that such sweeping cuts were necessary.

People who work in the public service are worried because of the uncertainty, as are the people who use these services. They are having to use food banks and ask for help from local organizations, which are doing the work the government should be doing because it receives people's tax dollars. Why are local organizations being saddled with more work when the government is quite capable of providing this assistance?

The House resumed from December 3 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

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

As Canadians know, our government's top priority is creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We have ensured that we have provided initiatives that will build a strong economy and foster job growth. We are dedicated to supporting Canadian families and communities, protecting our environment and supporting business and development.

We invested over $63 billion in targeted stimulus and investment that helped to protect Canada from the worst global recession. It is no wonder that Canada has been envied by countries around the world, as we have weathered the economic slowdown.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry but I am having a terrible time hearing the hon. parliamentary secretary's remarks. I know that we are just finishing one vote and going on to another but I cannot follow what he is saying and I would like to be prepared to ask questions.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. There are a lot of conversations going on. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism has the floor and I would ask members who wish to carry on other conversations to perhaps depart to their respective lobbies.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin again then. I am honoured to speak today to Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act.

As Canadians know, our government's top priority is creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We have ensured that we have provided initiatives that will build a strong economy and foster job growth. We are dedicated to supporting Canadian families and communities, protecting our environment and supporting business and development.

We invested over $63 billion in targeted stimulus, an investment that helped to protect Canada from the worst global recession. It is no wonder that Canada has been envied by countries around the world as we have weathered the economic slowdown much better than other countries.

Our government understands that the global recovery remains fragile. There are still a lot of Canadians looking for work and that is why economic action plan 2012 moves ahead to secure jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canada.

We are supporting entrepreneurs, innovators and world-class research. We are acting on the Jenkins report, announcing $1.1 billion to directly support research and development, and $500 million for venture capital.

Prior to becoming the member of Parliament for Willowdale, I was an entrepreneur. I started five businesses and had staff in these businesses ranging from 5 people to 400. These measures are important to Canadian entrepreneurs.

Innovation in science and technology is important to our government and that is why we will invest $37 million annually to Canada's granting councils.

We know that it is important to improve conditions for business investment and that is why we believe in responsible resource development. We are ensuring that major resource projects are not bogged down by the regulatory system that one project receives only one review in a clearly defined timeframe.

In undertaking the most ambitious trade expansion plan in Canadian history, we know it is important to growing our trade relations with countries that offer markets in which we need to expand.

As a former entrepreneur, I know all too well the importance of having good business conditions. In extending the hiring credit for small business, we want to encourage additional hiring and lower total business payroll taxes by $205 million.

This government knows that it is important to keep Canadian families strong, and that is why economic action plan 2012 introduced several key measures to help Canadian families. They include: first, improving the registered disability savings plan to help ensure the long-term financial security of children with severe disabilities; second, improving first nations water infrastructure with over $330.8 million to ensure safe and clean drinking water on first nations reserves; third, investing in small public infrastructure with $150 million to support repairs and improvements to existing community facilities; fourth, promoting more active lifestyles with continued support for participation and its community-based physical activity and fitness programs; and fifth, enhancing the victims fund to ensure victims of crime have an effective voice in the federal justice and corrections system.

Those build on top of the strong action our Conservative government has taken to support families since 2006.

I will give the House other examples of what we have done to help Canadians. We have cut taxes over 140 times since forming government. We cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We removed over one million Canadians from the tax rolls. We increased the amount Canadians can earn tax free. We reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, putting nearly $1,000 back in the pocket of an average family. We introduced the universal child care benefit, offering families more choice in child care by providing $1,200 a year for each child under the age of 6. We introduced the family caregiver tax credit, a credit of up to $2,000 for caregivers of all types of infirm dependent relatives, including spouses, common-law partners and minor children. We introduced the child tax credit, providing personal income tax relief of up to $320 in 2011 for each child under the age of 18.

We introduced the children's fitness tax credit, promoting physical fitness among children through a tax credit of up to $500 in eligible fees for programs associated with physical activity. We introduced the children's arts tax credit of up to $500 in eligible fees for programs associated with children's artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities.

We brought in the landmark tax free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since the RRSP.

We doubled the in-study income exemption to $100 a week, allowing full-time students to earn more money without affecting their loans.

We eliminated the marriage penalty for one-earner families by increasing the spousal amount to the same level as the basic personal amount.

We introduced the registered disability savings plan to help families with children with disabilities.

In addition, families are benefiting from other new targeted measures, like the first-time homebuyers tax credit, the expanded homebuyers plan and the public transit tax credit.

I know that my constituents of Willowdale work hard for their paycheques and they believe in lower taxes. I am proud to be part of a government that supports low taxes and leaving more money where it belongs: in the pockets of hard-working Canadians and job-creating businesses. That is why we have cut taxes over 140 times since 2006, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in nearly 50 years. We have removed over one million low-income families, individuals and seniors from the tax rolls altogether.

We have cut taxes in every way government collects them: personal taxes, consumption taxes, business taxes, excise taxes and much more. This includes cutting the lowest personal income tax to 15%; increasing the amount Canadians can earn tax free; providing seniors with pension income splitting; reducing the GST from 7% to 5%, putting nearly another $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family; introducing the child fitness tax credit and child art tax credit; bringing in the landmark tax free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since the RRSP; reducing the small business tax from 12% to 11%; and lowering business taxes to 15%, as passed in Parliament in 2007.

Indeed, our Conservative government low tax record has provided tax savings for typical Canadian families totalling over $3,100.

Due in part to the government's low tax plan, Forbes Magazine ranked Canada number one in the world for business to grow and create jobs.

Our economic action plan 2012 builds on our Conservative government's low tax record, including extending the hiring credit for small business for an additional year and providing business with a credit of up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2012 employment insurance premiums over those paid in 2011. This new tax credit will help up to half a million employers with additional hiring, reducing small business' 2012 payroll costs by about $205 million.

Supporting Canadian students is also a priority for this government. Seneca College is located in my riding of Willowdale. I was honoured recently to join the Minister of State for Science and Technology in the announcement of a grant to bridge innovation and commercialization. We know that Canada's students need to succeed in the global economy with the help of the best education possible. That is why, since 2006, our Conservative government has provided much needed support for our students.

I will now share with the House some of the measures we are taking to prepare our youth for the challenges of the 21st century. We are investing more than $10 billion annually in students and education, including more than $3 billion in transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education and over $7 billion in direct support for students and their families.

We are investing $2.5 billion per year to help students to deal with the cost of education through grants, scholarships and basic programs.

We have established the Canada student grant program, which is providing up to $250 per month of study to low-income students and up to $100 per month to middle-income students.

We are providing $140 million per year to encourage more young Canadians to pursue apprenticeships, including the new apprenticeship incentive grant and apprenticeship completion grants. We created the new apprenticeship job creation tax credit to encourage employers to hire new apprentices.

We have lowered the in-study interest rate for part-time Canadian student loan recipients from prime plus 2.5% to zero, bringing them in line with full-time students.

We have increased the family income threshold for part-time Canada student loan and Canada student grant recipients, bringing the eligibility thresholds in line with thresholds used for the full-time students.

We have invested $9 million in the north to expanded territorial colleges' literacy and numeracy programs, including in remote communities.

However, in the economic action plan 2012, we are doing more to ensure Canadians students are even better equipped and better integrated into the workforce. We are increasing support for youth employment opportunities. We are doubling graduate internship to innovative firms. We are clarifying eligibility for federal loan forgiveness.

I am proud of the measure that this government has taken. I know that these initiatives will be good for my constituents in Willowdale and for all Canadians. I am proud to stand in support of the economic action plan. I ask members of the House to support this plan today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member opposite thinks it is reasonable and responsible that, under Bill C-45, less than 1% of Canada's waterways will be protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which will be called the navigation protection act from now on.

Before this bill, all waterways in Canada were automatically protected by the government, which was responsible for the common good. From now on, less than 1% of our waterways will be protected.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to distinguish between the two types of waterways. There are navigable waterways and other waterways. Navigable waterways are designed to increase commerce across Canada. Throughout our history, Canada has created navigable waterways such as the Welland Canal and the Rideau Canal system for the primary purpose of trade and commercialization in this nation.

As for natural waterways, yes, those will be protected under the Environmental Protection Act.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's good articulation of the speaking notes from the Prime Minister's Office. However, I think he missed a couple of points.

For instance, the government, headed by the Prime Minister, has said that it wants to increase the retirement age for seniors from 65 to 67. The member missed that talking point. He also missed the one that I really like, that the Prime Minister and the government have decided to increase the number of members of Parliament when the vast majority of Canadians do not want more MPs.

While we are seeing those types of priorities, we are also seeing severe cuts to our civil service, and there are issues affecting services for the unemployed and pensioners. There is a litany of cuts.

Why did the member overlook some of those more significant measures that the Prime Minister has taken to the detriment of all Canadians?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising those issues, because there are so many points proposed in our economic action plan that I cannot possibly articulate them all at this time.

Increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67 is in line with what is happening internationally. The fact is that Canadians generally have much better health these days and, based on actuarial reports, they are living longer.

With respect to the civil service cuts, this is a process where we have increased efficiency in how we do business. Therefore, we are able to survive with a smaller civil service.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his remarks, and I recognize, of course, that he deals with the area of multiculturalism.

I am very concerned about the aspects of the bill that work against our inclusive culture as a nation, particularly the new requirement that even visitors on vacation in Canada would have to fill out a form and receive permission from the Minister of Immigration before they are to allowed to come here as tourists on vacation.

Has the hon. parliamentary secretary reviewed that within his department to consider its implications for multiculturalism?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's border needs to be secure. In this increasingly globalized world, it is very easy for visitors from all around the world to come to Canada. We are still a very generous and open country. However, we need to put a modicum of pre-arrival security checks in place to ensure that our borders are secure, such as with the United States within the framework of the North American security perimeter.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-45, which as anyone who is watching knows, is the Conservative government's second omnibus budget implementation bill. Judging by the bill's 414 pages and 516 clauses amending over 60 different pieces of legislation, it is clear that the Conservatives just do not get it and, I fear, never will.

Despite the recent Liberal motion condemning omnibus legislation and Canadians' overwhelming opposition to Bill C-38, the government's last omnibus budget implementation bill, the Conservative government introduced yet another undemocratic omnibus bill.

When Canadians worry about the way the government is writing legislation, ministers throw their hands up in the air and tell Canadians not to concern themselves with process. However, Canadians are concerned about process. They understand that the process of elections, the process of debate, the process of accountability, the process of parliamentary study and consultation are the roots of Canadian democracy and go hand in hand with the success and stability of our economy. When the Conservative government tells worried Canadians not to concern themselves with process, Canadians sit up and take note.

In the face of unyielding abuses of power by the Conservative government, Liberals continue to fight for democracy and our economy and, in doing so, for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. For example, Liberals introduced a successful motion to separate the changes to MPs' pensions from the budget implementation bill so that these important changes could be fast-tracked through Parliament. We were pleased that the government worked with us on this particular issue.

In an attempt to ensure proper debate and consultation on Bill C-45, we requested that many unrelated measures be presented in separate stand-alone legislation. While the Prime Minister rejected Liberal calls for a more democratic approach, we were nevertheless encouraged that at least he agreed to allow Bill C-45 to be studied by 11 separate standing committees. Unfortunately, it became clear that the government's permission for the bill to be studied by committees was nothing more than a public relations ploy.

Tragically the government's refusal to split this enormous bill meant that only the finance committee had the order of reference from the House, meaning that only that committee could amend this legislation. For instance, had the fisheries committee discovered an error in division 4, which amends consequential provisions relating to the destruction of fish habitat under the Fisheries Act, the fisheries committee would have been unable to correct the legislation.

Bill C-45 is flawed and that is why Liberals introduced over 3,000 amendments at committee. It was our hope that some of these amendments would find bipartisan support so that we could have the best legislation possible. Unfortunately, the Conservatives proved yet again that when it comes to working together, they have no interest in doing so.

Many Canadian families are still feeling the harsh effects of the economic downturn and are struggling to make ends meet. I know that in my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's people were hoping that the Conservative government would surprise them and show leadership for a change by introducing a budget implementation bill that would help to create jobs. Unfortunately, Bill C-45 does very little to help create jobs and does even less to help struggling families feeling the burden of the growing gap between the rich and low and middle income Canadians.

Under the Conservative government, the Canadian economy is struggling. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is predicting a slower rate of growth that will cost the Canadian economy $22 billion every year. Even the Minister of Finance is predicting a slower growth rate and has stopped being so bullish about his deficit targets, embarrassingly conceding yet again that he will not meet his own deficit targets.

While the bill is known as an implementation bill, it may be more accurately described as a budget correction bill. Bill C-45 is tasked with cleaning up Conservative legislative mistakes in Bill C-38. For example, some of the measures that it seeks to correct include errors in the amended Fisheries Act regarding the travel of fish species in or through bodies of water, as well as fixing poor drafting of the new environmental assessment law's transition provisions and the unclear ministerial approval process for specific investments by public investment pools.

Part of the problem with omnibus legislation is that its sheer size and scope prevents Parliament from properly scrutinizing it and making sure that it actually achieves the desired outcomes. That is what we have been asking for, an opportunity to work with the government and all parties in the House to make sure that we have the best piece of legislation we can possibly have for Canadians who elect us to do just that.

When we combine the more than 400 pages of Bill C-38 with the Conservatives' penchant for limiting debate and ignoring facts that do not fit their ideology, it is not hard to understand why Bill C-38 had so many mistakes. These mistakes now have to be corrected.

Instead of the government presenting Canadians with legislation focused on jobs and the economy, it is attempting to correct mistakes that it should not have made in the first place, mistakes that are now taking up the time of the House of Commons when we should be debating other important pieces of legislation. This should have been dealt with and not have come back here so that members of Parliament again have to stand and point out the errors of the Conservative government. Had the government split the bill, as the Liberals requested, the government would not have had so many sloppy mistakes.

Furthermore, many of the measures introduced in the most recent omnibus bill, Bill C-45, do not belong in a budget implementation bill because they have nothing to do with the process of implementing a budget. The Minister of Finance's claim that all measures introduced in Bill C-45 were in the budget is simply not the case. For example, changes to the definition of aboriginal fishery were not in the budget and do not impact acts under the finance department. Changes to land designations in the Indian Act were not in the budget. I note that both of these changes to legislation affecting first nations peoples were done unilaterally, without consultation, and in fact violate the constitutional responsibility to consult aboriginal peoples. That is a blatant failure of the government, the failure to consult with Canadians from coast to coast to coast on issues that impact every facet of their lives on a daily basis. Still, the government just goes straight ahead and does what it wants to do without consulting those who will be most directly impacted.

Another interesting example of a measure that was not in the budget but appears in the budget implementation bill is the suspension of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. Not only is the elimination of that board not in the budget, the budget actually promised the exact opposite. Page 146 of the budget states that “Over the next few years, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB) will continue to set the rate...”. Bill C-45 eliminates this board and centralizes the rate setting responsibility in the hands of cabinet.

In addition, the board set the employment insurance rate and was supposed to invest employment insurance surpluses, but under the Conservative government, so many people had been without work that the board has never had a surplus to invest.

Instead of addressing the harsh fiscal realities of many Canadians, Bill C-45 continues the Conservatives' reckless abuse of power. Cutting important job creation tax credits, like the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, the Atlantic investment tax credit and the corporate mineral exploration and development tax credit will not help our economy thrive.

I cannot support a piece of legislation that does more to harm jobs than to create them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. Excessive use of time allocation motions is undemocratic. This massive omnibus bill, which will make major changes to various aspects of bills, was not introduced democratically with respect to discussion by Canadians or members of the House.

I would also like to say that, despite the Conservatives' claims that this budget will create jobs, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that this budget will result in the loss of 43,000 Canadian jobs. This budget will lead to higher unemployment.

My colleague touched on that. Can she comment further?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of time to look at a budget bill this size and the various clauses it contains, and anyone who takes the time to go through it clause by clause realizes that the intention of the government is not to help create jobs but to cut jobs. That is precisely what we are seeing throughout the country.

If we look at Service Canada, for instance, we see so many job losses just in that organization alone. On the other hand, we see job cuts in public service personnel who respond to issues with respect to employment insurance. We see jobs cut from veterans offices. We see job cuts across the board, and people are being directed to Service Canada. However, the reality is that the government is cutting resources at Service Canada as well, so Canadians are being impacted not only by the loss of jobs but the loss of public services that they are entitled to and have been used to receiving. Now the government is telling them to go online, forgetting that a lot of people, particularly in rural communities, still do not have access to computers to go online. Then they are told to go to a Service Canada office, where they will find fewer employees to deal with the issues with which they need help.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate.

I would like to ask my colleague and friend from Random—Burin—St. George's about one of the most devastating cuts to services in Newfoundland and Labrador, the closure of the marine search and rescue sub-station in St. John's, which impacts all of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is the closure of the one in Quebec City as well.

I know the member has worked hard with the individuals who were displaced, and I am wondering if she has any thoughts on that.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Avalon, who is more than well versed in what has transpired in Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to cuts to search and rescue. In fact, the closure of the maritime rescue sub-centre in St. John's struck a blow not just to everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, because that search and rescue centre provided service for anyone who travelled on the North Atlantic.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are continuing to fight the good fight, but the Conservative government turns a blind eye and pretends not to hear the outcries from those who know precisely what will happen. Unfortunately, as a result that closure, there is going to be a tragedy that may well convince the government of the need to reinstate that maritime rescue sub-centre.

Quebec City has been given a reprieve and the centre is not closing, but it is not because of the good wishes of the Conservative government. The reality is that it could not find competent French-speaking personnel to be part of the Trenton rescue centre. It is not because the government does not want to close Quebec but because it really does not have a choice at this point.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of the jobs and growth act, 2012, which implements key elements of economic action plan 2012.

When we introduced the plan back in March, we highlighted its importance in taking decisive action to ensure our economy would create good jobs and sustain a higher quality of life for our children and grandchildren, including measures to help the environment.

When it comes to the environment, Albertans care deeply about the natural beauty of our province and about protecting it for future generations. When my family and friends come to visit, I love to show them the beauty of Kananaskis, Banff and Jasper. However, the concerns of Albertans with respect to the environment can be seen in many other ways besides our pride in our national parks.

For example, more and more Albertans are looking into thermal heating solutions. I paid extra to install the technology in my new home. As Albertans, we are not afraid to put our money where our mouth is. However, the key factor is balance. That is exactly how I would describe the measures contained in this bill.

In my remarks today I will focus on elements of today's legislation that expand the eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean, green energy generation. Not only would this measure help protect Canada's natural environment; it would support our government's top priority, that being jobs and growth.

Before I speak to that in greater detail, I will speak to the larger economic action plan 2012.

This is a low-tax plan that will build on the strong economic foundations we have built since forming government in 2006. It is a plan that has ensured and will continue to ensure that we avoid the problems facing other countries.

Creating jobs and long-term economic growth is key to our success, not to mention that it is the reason we first introduced Canada's economic action plan. Central to our strategy is our government's low-tax plan for jobs and growth, a policy that has made Canada one of the best places in the world to invest. Not only that, but our economy has created more than 800,000 net new jobs since July 2009, of which 90% are full time.

What is more, all of the major credit rating agencies, such as Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's, have renewed Canada's AAA credit rating.

The plan includes a bold tax reduction plan that has branded Canada as a low-tax jurisdiction for businesses to invest—and the best place to do business, according to Forbes magazine.

Indeed, we are making it easier for Canadian businesses to successfully compete in the global economy and more attractive for others to invest in this country, with the end goal being more and better jobs for Canadians and a healthy, thriving economy.

We must now stay the course with our low-tax plan to protect the economy and create jobs, a plan that has made Canada the envy of the world.

In the words of German Chancellor Angela Merkel:

Canada's path of great budgetary discipline and a very heavy emphasis on growth and overcoming the crisis, not living on borrowed money, can be an example for the way in which problems on the other side of the Atlantic can be addressed. This is also the right solution for Europe.

Nevertheless we know that, when looking to the future, it is important to find a balance between economic and environmental priorities.

Canada is an energy superpower, with one of the world's largest resource endowments of both traditional and emerging sources of energy. More and more, the rest of the world looks to Canada as a secure and dependable supplier of a wide range of energy products.

Since 2006, our government has taken significant steps to establish our country as a global clean energy leader, including through regulatory actions, investments in technology and innovation, and broad-based incentives.

This past March, acting on the advice of the witnesses who appeared before the House of Commons finance committee's prebudget consultations and on the advice of the committee report, which recommended that “the federal government continue to use tax incentives to promote the development and use of renewable energy”, economic action plan 2012 proposed to support these sectors through the tax system by expanding eligibility for the CCA, accelerated capital cost allowance, for clean energy generation equipment.

For the purpose of today's bill, let me quickly describe for Parliament and for Canadians watching at home the technical details behind the accelerated CCA for clean energy generation contained in part 1 of the bill.

The existing measure applies to a broad range of specified equipment that generates or conserves energy by using a renewable energy source, using fuels from waste or making efficient use of fossil fuels.

Through today's legislation, our Conservative government proposes to expand this incentive. Currently, waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment produces heat using waste sources.

Today's legislation proposes to expand the eligibility of the accelerated CCA for clean energy generation equipment to allow waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment to be used in a broad range of applications, including space and water heating. For example, wood waste could be used as an alternative to heating oil for space and water heating in a shopping centre.

District energy systems transfer thermal energy between a central generation plant and a group or district of buildings by circulating steam, hot water or cold water through a system of underground pipes.

We propose to expand the accelerated CCA for clean energy generation equipment by adding equipment that is part of a district energy system that distributes thermal energy primarily generated by waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment.

For example, in a remote community, a district energy system that uses heat generated by waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment could provide an alternative to equipment that uses only fossil fuels.

And finally, today's legislation proposes to add the residue of plants to the list of eligible waste fuels so that it can be used in waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment.

The residue of plants, such as straw, corn cobs, leaves and similar organic waste produced by the agricultural sector, can be used in a number of ways, including the production of heat, electricity, biofuels and other bio-products.

Our government believes that investments in our energy future will be essential to realizing economic opportunities, creating employment and enhancing the Canadian advantage.

It is through measures like expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy equipment that we will balance environmental protection and economic growth.

Economic action plan 2012 recognized, for example, that to effectively compete and succeed globally we need to maximize the value that Canada draws from its natural resources, while protecting the environment at the same time.

I am proud that the measures contained in today's bill will help further unleash the potential of Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to innovate and thrive in the modern economy, to the benefit of all Canadians for generations to come.

In doing so, our Conservative government will reinforce Canada's comparative advantages and ensure the sustainability of public finances and social programs for future generations.

I would therefore encourage all members to support this bill and economic action plan 2012, to support Canada's economy, and to cast their vote for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my government colleague a question about research and development. We know that major changes were made to tax credits for scientific research and experimental development following the Jenkins report.

There are some particularly troubling elements in Bill C-45, including the fact that the government will cut tax credits for certain industries that really need them right now by $500 million. These credits will be converted into grants. Winners and losers will be chosen by the government.

The second element we do not like is the fact that capital expenditures will no longer be eligible for tax credits. This will cause significant harm to some industries, such as those in the manufacturing and natural resource sectors, because they need to set up pilot projects.

I would like to know whether the member is comfortable with the fact that the government is planning to decide who wins grants and who loses rather than provide tax credits. Why will capital expenditures, which were not mentioned in the Jenkins report's recommendations, no longer be eligible for tax credits?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that this government has a record of having the maximum tax deductions in the history of Canada.

The government believes in balancing its approach, attracting business and creating jobs by reducing taxes. That is the record of our government. I suggest my colleague go back and study this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, he articulated that a 21-page budget document was not appropriate to be passing as it was affecting too many pieces of legislation. That is what he argued just a number of years ago. However, today the current budget bill far exceeds that 21-page document.

The current budget bill is hundreds of pages and affects numerous pieces of legislation. It is somewhat hypocritical for the Prime Minister to say that it is not okay to have a 21-page budget bill, but when he is Prime Minister, he presents this massive document which is, in essence, a historical precedent for budget bills never before seen in the House of Commons.

Why has the Conservative majority government decided to sneak through so many changes in legislation through the back door with this budget?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question, but I laughed when I heard my colleague from the Liberal Party ask it.

There is nothing groundbreaking in this. Indeed, the Liberal government's last budget implementation bill in 2005 amended dozens of different pieces of legislation. A wide range of legislation was amended, including everything from the Auditor General Act, the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, the Department of Human Resources Development Act and many more. I suggest my Liberal colleague go back and check his own records.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some concern that I rise to speak here today. I said I am concerned, and that is the right word to describe how I feel about Bill C-45, because it will have a huge impact.

The bill is over 400 pages long and amends dozens of existing laws. It is a real statutory juggernaut, if not a monster. Its repercussions will be felt for a very long time all across Canada. Instead of letting us study this bill properly, the government has imposed a gag order. That is what frightens me. How are we supposed to do our jobs if we cannot debate the bill?

I was elected to represent the people of Alfred-Pellan. How can I voice their opinions and concerns if our study of Bill C-45 is reduced to a bare minimum? It makes no sense. I would even say that this brutal way of imposing legislation on Parliament goes against common Canadian values. Canada has always been a place of debate, discussion and compromise. It is unfortunate that this government does not promote those values.

The being said, I would like to take the next few minutes to clearly explain what I dislike about this bill. My main concern has to do with the environment. Indeed, Bill C-45 seems to use every available means to gut the environmental protections that we are so proud of. As we know, Canadians have traditionally cared about respecting the environment. This has generally been the consensus, but for the past few years, ever since the Conservative government came to power, that consensus has been called into question. My Conservative colleagues do not seem to be concerned about nature. They want to put development before protection. This is a very dangerous approach that will prove ineffective in the long run.

For instance, Bill C-45 guts the protection of navigable waterways in Canada. Quite some time ago, we decided as a society that it was important to protect the lakes and rivers that we all care so much about. Thousands of waterways were thus protected by the legislation. Before developing a project like a bridge, wharf or pipeline, a proper assessment had to be done.

Is there an environmental hazard? Will species at risk be affected? What impact would an accident have on the environment? This is the type of question that made the Navigable Waters Protection Act so important. It responded to a logical requirement: it made people stop for a moment before developing without thinking. The pros and cons of a project were considered. If everything seemed fine, then the project went forward. If not, then it was back to the drawing board. This was the right way of doing things. It was an acceptable compromise between development and respect for the environment. Unfortunately, Bill C-45 is ruining all that.

Over 99% of the 33,000 bodies of water that were once protected will now be abandoned. Only a handful of rivers and waterways will still be protected under the new navigation protection act. As for the rest, it will be a wild west scenario. Companies will be able to build, develop and destroy without question. They could build a pipeline, bridge or wharf without any problems. They will build first and then have second thoughts later if things happen to go awry. The wisdom and critical judgment that were at the very heart of our values have gone out the window.

In short, the Conservatives are giving the keys to Canada's wilderness to big business. Too bad for the balance between the economy and nature, too bad for first nations, too bad for communities that care about their natural heritage and too bad for the environment. All that is being sacrificed for the sake of economic development.

My colleagues and I hope that Canada's economy grows. What we do not want, however, is for the economy to develop to the detriment of the environment. What good is making a buck if we have to destroy everything to do it? Bill C-45 is bad news for the Canadian wilderness. And yet, the beauty of that wilderness is one of the things for which we are recognized throughout the world.

If we ask people from other countries and tourists what they like about our country, they often answer that it is the wilderness and the wild open spaces. Canada has the longest coastline in the world. We have breathtakingly beautiful lakes and rivers. By doing away with the environmental protections for these waterways, Bill C-45 damages that reputation. This bill is a frightening step toward a damaged and spoiled wilderness.

I have discussed this with many of my constituents, and some environmental groups have also talked to me about it. What do they think? They are ashamed of their government. They do not understand how it can just dismiss the balance that Canadians worked hard to achieve over the past few decades. They feel like they are going back in time. The provinces and territories are also concerned about Bill C-45. By putting an end to the protection of waterways, the federal government is abdicating its responsibilities. It is abandoning all of this and letting the provinces deal with it on their own.

This means more responsibilities for the provinces without the additional funding they need. They are merely being told to deal with it. Is that the government's so-called open federalism? For the good of our federation, I hope not.

Another aspect of Bill C-45 concerns me. Earlier, I spoke a little about the economy. Upon reading the bill, I had a question: where is the government's plan to stimulate job creation?

I looked through the 400 pages and unfortunately found nothing. Of course, the government's response will be that abolishing the environmental protection of rivers will stimulate the economy. That is so cynical that I do not even want to respond. However, I must, and I will repeat that economic development does not have to happen at the expense of nature. There is a way to strike a balance. Bill C-45 will eliminate the balance in our laws.

From what I can gather, the government has only one job creation strategy: development at any cost. Not only is this despicable from an environmental point of view, but it is also counterproductive. All kinds of measures could be implemented right now to stimulate the economy and create jobs. My colleagues and I keep proposing measures right here in the House, and none of them will result in an environmental disaster.

I am thinking, for example, of reducing the obscene credit card fees charged to small and medium-sized companies. Why has the federal government not taken action on this? It is a matter of putting the major banks in their place by preventing them from abusing SMEs, which are job creators. This is simple and effective, and it would put more money in the pockets of honest business owners to help them hire people.

Giving tax breaks to small and medium-sized companies that hire would be another way to stimulate job creation. All economists agree that SMEs are essential to making Canada's economy run smoothly. They are the ones we should be helping, not the big oil companies and banks that are making money. The government does not seem to realize that. When it must choose between multinational companies that earn billions of dollars and small businesses, it chooses the big guys. Unfortunately, that does not make much sense.

We must be careful. We cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. No one, especially not me, is opposed to the existence of big companies. They also contribute a lot to our society. Once again, this is a matter of balance. As with protecting the environment, we must find a happy medium. Under Bill C-45, this happy medium will no longer exist. The government will replace it with a scale that is tilted to the right, and always more to the right.

That is why I strongly oppose the quick passage of Bill C-45. Its repercussions are much too significant and its targets are much too poor to receive my support. I urge all my colleagues to think carefully before supporting this bill. If they examine it closely they will see that it is headed in the wrong direction.

There is little time left for debate. I am very happy and grateful to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-45. However, I want to reiterate that it is extremely sad that this bill is being passed at lightning speed. It is also very disappointing that this omnibus bill was not properly studied in committee and that the few committees that did have a chance to study it did not have enough time to do so. Some of them had only one day for their study, even though this bill is over 400 pages long. It is extremely sad to see just how much our democracy is being undermined.

As a final point, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion.

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: Sunken Lake, Thonokied River, Bear Head Lake, Shark Lake, Coyne Lake, Ontadek Lake, Frame Lake, Rufus Lake, Barnston Lake, Great Bear Lake, Anderson River, Tuitatui Lake, Hornaday River, Bedford Lake and Basile Lake.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There is no unanimous consent.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under successive Conservative governments, the economy has repeatedly been pitted against the environment. Laws have been weakened and repealed to fast track development, putting the environment and the health and safety of Canadians at risk. The Conservative government should recognize that our children are being exposed to unsafe environments and should meaningfully address this challenge. The government should put health, and particularly children's health, back in the environment debate. Simply put, our future depends on it.

I would like to ask the member when the debate changed from protecting the environment to safeguard human health and wellbeing to gutting environmental protection to streamline expansion and growth. Is it not time we made human health, and particularly our most vulnerable, our children, a consideration in the environmental debate?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Etobicoke North for her question and comments. This all reminds me of a householder I sent out a few weeks ago in Alfred-Pellan to the people of Laval. The document addressed some environmental concerns and, more specifically, Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol.

My colleague might be surprised to learn that dozens, if not hundreds, of my constituents wrote to me about this, explaining how upset they were about Canada's withdrawal from all these environmental programs and about the destruction of our environmental laws. They noted that the Conservatives are not thinking about future generations and wondered why this government is acting this way. My colleague's comments are therefore very relevant, and it is important that the government across the way realize this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my colleague's speech. She had a lot to say about the environment. A very happy event is approaching for her and her loved ones, but what legacy will we be leaving for future generations if the government undermines environmental legislation and takes away research and development sector subsidies that are crucial to the development of green energy?

There is nothing in this bill for wind or solar power, absolutely nothing for the development of hydrogen-powered vehicles, and nothing to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from the auto industry either. China and the United States now have greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles coming off the assembly line. Canada has done nothing. What impact will this have on future generations?

How sad it is to see the government undermine the economy like that. Sometimes, all it takes to stimulate job creation is support for local economies. But the government is not doing anything in this budget.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for sharing his totally legitimate concerns and comments with us.

What does this bill have to offer future generations in terms of environmental standards? Unfortunately, it contains no environmental standards to protect future generations. As I mentioned, the official opposition and my Liberal colleagues are not the only ones worried about this problem. Many of the people of Laval, who care deeply about their environment, are worried too.

People at the eastern end of Laval are strongly attached to their bodies of water. Two navigable rivers cross the riding: the Rivière des Mille Îles and the Rivière des Prairies. People in that lovely part of the country really want all of their bodies of water, which they are constantly trying to raise awareness of, to remain protected and to be in better shape for future generations.

I was talking about this to the Conseil régional de l'environnement de Laval, with which the four Laval MPs work very hard. The organization is shocked at the extent to which the government is abandoning future generations and at how little attention Bill C-45 pays to sustainable development and the environment.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak today about our government's priorities: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

The Minister of Finance is doing a terrific job with our financial policies and has helped create well over 800,000 new jobs since the global economic recession. This has made Canada the envy of the world and the G8. We will continue to become more competitive as we invest in infrastructure, science, innovation and tax reduction while reducing barriers to trade. We have initiated the most ambitious trade expansion plan in Canadian history. We are strengthening our ties with the U.S., opening trade agreements with India and the European Union, building our growing trade relationship with Asia and much more.

Expanded trade benefits the resource communities I represent and the ones the members opposite want to destroy with their policies. In my constituency, many export crops are grown. Probably the most important is canola. Indeed, my riding is the number one canola-producing constituency in the country. Farmers, jobs and value-added industries depend very strongly on this trade.

This is a government that has continually lowered taxes. It has cut taxes over 140 times. Budget 2012 spends Canadian taxpayer dollars responsibly, with the goal of balancing the budget and ensuring that a strong plan is in place to create jobs.

We are working to strengthen the financial security of workers, businesses and families and to create good jobs and long-term prosperity from coast to coast to coast. To do this, we will extend by one year the hiring tax credit for small business. This has helped many small businesses in my own constituency. Many businesses in my constituency export to the United States and around the world. I hope that the NDP and Liberals opposite do not disregard the importance of these small job creators by continuously attacking the resource sector that works hand in hand with the small businesses that need the oil, gas, lumber and metals they produce to make their goods and fuel their businesses.

We will invest in upgrades to infrastructure to maintain safe rail service, renew the Canadian Coast Guard fleet and improve facilities at our borders. Furthermore, we will increase funding for skills training for students, older workers and Canadians with disabilities. We are also working to reform Canada's immigration system.

In terms of our responsible resource development program, in 2010, Canada's natural resources sectors employed more than 760,000 workers across the country. Right now the mining and energy sectors alone represent 10% of the Canadian economy and 40% of our exports. In the next 10 years, more than 500 new projects, representing over $500 billion in new investment, will be proposed for Canada. The potential for job growth is simply enormous.

Since 2006, our government has been working to streamline the review process. Our efforts have already made a difference, without any negative environmental impact whatsoever. Currently, companies undertaking major projects must navigate a complex maze of regulatory requirements, long approval processes, and most importantly, unpredictability. That is why our government is acting, in Canada's economic action plan 2012, with our plan for responsible resource development.

Responsible resource development streamlines the review process for major economic projects by providing predictable timelines for project approvals. It prevents long delays that kill potential jobs and stall economic growth by putting valuable investment at risk. Responsible resource development will create good, skilled, well-paying jobs in cities and communities across Canada while continuing to maintain the highest possible standards for protecting the environment. Again, emerging economies, such as Asia, are burgeoning markets for our natural resources.

I serve on both the fisheries and the environment committees of the House. I would like to talk a bit more about these two areas and the importance of the sustainable use of our resources and how government can play a productive role working with the conservation community and resource industries.

In terms of fisheries, our government is introducing changes that will focus on fish and fish habitat protection rules. These changes solidify our government's commitment to protecting recreational, commercial and aboriginal fisheries and the habitat that supports them. We are adopting a sensible and practical approach to managing real and significant threats to fisheries and the habitat that supports them while minimizing the restrictions on routine, everyday activities that have little or no impact on the productivity of Canada's fisheries.

The old laws were indiscriminate and meant that all bodies of water where fish live or could possibly live, or might live in another time, are subject to the same rules and evaluation regardless of size and environment, and most importantly, are in line with their contribution to a fishery that people actually use. We have heard Canadians tell us about farmers being prevented from cleaning out their irrigation canals, municipalities being delayed in repairing infrastructure and doing routine maintenance, businesses not being allowed to clear flooded fields and campsites and cottage owners prohibited from keeping up their properties, all because of the existing rules that lack common sense.

The new changes would focus the rules by drawing a distinction between vital waterways that support important fisheries in Canada, and unproductive bodies of water, like drainage ditches and irrigation canals, as well as identifying and managing real threats to the fisheries, including direct impacts on fish, habitat destruction and aquatic invasive species.

The fisheries minister would also have tools to establish clear new and accessible guidelines for Canadians to follow for projects in or near water. Regulatory standards actually do not exist at this time for routine low-risk projects, such as building boat launches or docks. The minister could now identify ecologically significant areas that require enhanced protection. Currently, all areas are treated the same under the law. As a fisheries biologist myself, I agree with focusing our efforts on bodies of water that have fisheries important to people and local communities.

These changes would also allow the government to enforce the conditions associated with Fisheries Act authorizations. At present, DFO cannot enforce the conditions. We would align infractions under the Fisheries Act—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could you indicate what the quorum count is currently? Are there enough members in the House for a quorum?

And the count having been taken.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Seeing sufficient quorum for the debate to continue, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, Canada's families deserve the cleanest air, water and environment possible and the trends are good for Canada's environment. That is why, since 2006, our Conservative government has made major investments to preserve our environment and protect the health and wellbeing of Canadian families for today and tomorrow. The list includes $1.1 billion for the eco-energy retrofit homes program; $1 billion for a priorities, such as green energy generation and transmission infrastructure; $1 billion to support pulp and paper mills to reduce their emissions and become leaders in the production of renewable energy from biomass; $1 billion in support of clean energy research; $200 million to help address the health and environmental risks posed by dangerous chemicals through the chemicals management plan; $100 million to support clean energy generation in Canada's forestry sector; $68 million to clean federal contaminated sites; $38 million to reduce the risk of invasive plant and animal species; $35 million to support climate and atmospheric sciences research; $27 million to improve Canada's weather services; over $18 million to support reporting on key environmental indicators, such as clean air, clean water and greenhouse gas emissions; $16 million to protect and clean the Great Lakes, and I could go on and on. The list is absolutely enormous.

Economic action plan 2012 builds on our Conservative government's impressive record of supporting a cleaner and more sustainable environment. We are committed to providing continued support to clean up Canada's lakes, including Lake Winnipeg and Lake Simcoe, and providing expanded tax relief for clean energy generation.

Economic action plan 2012 supports families and communities, strengthens health care in rural and remote communities and, of great importance to my constituency, strengthens access to broadband in rural areas. Moreover, in Manitoba, as the country knows, flooding is a significant issue. Economic action plan proposes up to $99.2 million over three years to assist the provinces and territories with the cost of permanent flood mitigation.

We are also increasing access to support for business innovation, and federal transfers to provinces and territories are at a record high. I have a lot more information to provide, but I see that my time is up. I would say that I am very proud to be part of our government that is focusing on ensuring that Canada remains economically strong.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his speech and tell him that, yesterday, I was in Conservative ridings in the area of Saint-Georges-de-Beauce and Lac-Mégantic to tell the people there that Lac Mégantic and Rivière Chaudière will no longer be protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

What a surprise. The people there were not aware that this was happening. I therefore encouraged them to find out about what the Conservatives are up to. Why are Lac Mégantic, Rivière Chaudière and Rivière Saint-François in my riding being abandoned while hundreds of lakes and rivers in Conservative ridings—at a rate of 90%—are being protected?

Why this unfairness? Why do the people of Drummond, Lac-Mégantic and Saint-Georges not also deserve to have their waterways protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I enjoy serving with the hon. member opposite on the environment committee.

The old Navigable Waters Protection Act was about navigation, and we have changed it based on the misapplication of the act. It is now the navigation protection bill, and its job is to protect navigation.

Under the old regime, minuscule and very small bodies of water were often listed as navigable waters. Indeed, in my own constituency, one rural municipality was building three crossings across intermittent streams, and the Navigable Waters Protection Act was brought to bear. The bill for the bridges they were being told to build was $700,000. The total budget for the municipality was $1.4 million. That is how ridiculous the application of the act was in the past.

We are introducing common sense.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the pieces that is being proposed in the budget bill is to put in place another tier for visitors coming to Canada. In essence, after this budget bill passes, we will have created a tier for people coming from countries from which we will now require a visitors' visa; a tier for American citizens, who will now be the second type of visitor we get; and a third tier, which is virtually unknown, for anyone from a European country such as England, and also for countries like Australia, who will now have go onto a website and get permission before he or she can actually come to Canada.

These are significant changes. When I asked the question in committee, there was no idea or sense of what the implementation cost would be or anything of that nature.

Does the member not recognize the value of having that whole debate in a separate piece of legislation where due diligence could be applied?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, and indeed all of Canada knows, immigration levels to Canada are at a record high. Again, we are experiencing a shortage of skilled workers that our emerging and growing economy needs.

How we manage our borders is of critical importance to Canadians and our economy. There are many people, of course, who want to enter our country and we know that we have to be very careful to ensure they are screened. As the son of immigrants myself, I know the contribution that immigrants make to our country, but it is very important that we control our borders.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the expertise he has brought to bear in the environment committee.

Yesterday, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country brought up his experience as a former city councillor in discussing this budget. The FCM has said that it supports the changes to navigation proposed in Bill C-45. I, too, am in support of those.

I just want the member to know that the Penticton Indian Band has also reiterated its support for it. The costs that the Navigable Waters Protection Act would impose on their community and economic development by forcing them to build a bridge at a different height, despite the fact that the Okanagan Channel has not been navigable by any boat for the past 50-plus years, just shows that this act needs to be changed.

The opposition continues to oppose the bill for no practical reason. I would just like to hear the member's thoughts why that is.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the reason the opposition members are opposing all of our environmental, resource, and navigation regulations and our new acts and laws is simply that they are in love with the process. Notice how the members opposite never talk about environmental results. They never talk about how our environment is improving. They never refer to environmental indicators. For them it is always about process, process, process. How about focusing on results?

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

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

“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:

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: the Alsek River, the Arctic Red River, the Bay du Nord River, the Bloodvein River, the Bonnet Plume River, the Boundary Waters-Voyageur Waterway, the Rainy River in Thunder Bay, the Clearwater River, the Coppermine River, the Cowitchan River, the Hayes River, the Hillsborough River, the Kazan River, the Kicking Horse River, the Main River, the Margaree River, the Mattawa River, the Missinaibi River, the Seal River, the Shelburne River, the Soper River, the South Nahanni River, the St. Croix River, the Tatshenshini River, the Thames River, the Thelon River, the Three Rivers and the Upper Restigouche River.”

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There is no consent.

Resuming debate. I would tell the member for Newton—North Delta that there will be approximately eight minutes available in the time allocated for debate this afternoon on the question that is before the House. I will give her the usual signal ahead of that time so she will know how much time remains.

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-45 because, once again, we have before us another reiteration of an omnibus bill. Instead of respecting parliamentary democracy and dealing with issues and different aspects separately, whether it be the environment; changes to EI, labour laws or immigration; protecting our waterways; or pensions; the government has buried all of those issues into this omnibus bill, thus preventing us as parliamentarians from having an in-depth debate.

When MPs are elected, it is stressed how important it is for us to do our due diligence and provide oversight on the budget but the Conservatives keep moving time allocation. Here we are at report stage and once again my colleagues across the way, with an absolute lack of respect for parliamentary democracy and elected parliamentarians, have shut down debate, more or less saying that because they have a majority they can be the bullies that they are surely proving to be.

It is not only members of the NDP who think that way. If there were no time allocation, I could stand here for the whole day and there would be others who would speak and support the position we are taking.

With respect to Bill C-38, Andrew Coyne, who is not exactly a Liberal commentator, wrote the following, which also applies here:

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.

...there is something quite alarming about Parliament being obliged to rubber-stamp the government’s whole legislative agenda at one go.

From the emails received by many colleagues with whom I have spoken, we can see that this is of major concern, not only to members in the House but also to those who care and cherish our parliamentary democracy. Our citizens are wondering what the government has to hide and why it is not debating key issues in Parliament on their own merit instead of burying them in a new piece of legislation that is the size of a phone book and a phone book larger than those in many of the cities in Canada.

The mantra we also hear, which is a learned kind of refrain, is that the NDP voted against it. I am proud to be standing here speaking against the legislation because it would not do what the Conservatives purport it would do. They say that the bill is all about job creation but we know that is another misleading comment and a kind of mantra used to try to stop what I would call proper discourse on key issues.

The Conservatives claim that the budget is about job creation. However, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared before committee he said that the budget would cost 43,000 Canadians their jobs. That does not seem like a job-creating budget. The budget would actually lead to a loss of jobs. I am not the world's best mathematician, nor will I pretend to be, but I understand what losing 43,000 jobs would mean. I also understand that it is not just the people who will lose their jobs but also the communities in which they live that will lose. When one person loses a decent paying full-time job, it has an impact on the whole community. It has an impact on the business community, on our health care and on all of our institutions. I predict that the job losses will be a lot larger.

The Conservatives claim that they have encouraged jobs by giving tax breaks to small businesses. That tax break will expire before the budget is passed. It is only a minimal $1,000 and it is only there for the year 2012. What a misleading piece of propaganda the Conservatives exude.

It will not be with pleasure, but I will be proud to stand in the House and speak against a budget that attacks the basic Canadian values of our environment, our pensions, our jobs and so on.

At this time 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: 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 the 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, Calder Lake, Rusty Lake, Drybones Lake, Contwoyto Lake, King Lake, Tukweye Lake, Sandy Lake, Dissension Lake, Mid Lake, Hook Lake, Crooked Lake, Tsu Lake, Duckfish Lake, Marion Lake and Cotterill Lake.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Newton—North Delta have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 12:14 p.m., pursuant to an order made Monday, December 3, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

Before completing debate at report stage of Bill C-45, I wish to explain the process to the House.

Since the motions in Group No. 1 have already been proposed, I will only refer to the motion number when putting the questions on the motions in that group.

With respect to the motions in Group No. 2, they will be put to the House in the usual manner. When the House is ready to proceed with the putting of the motions of said group, I will only refer to the motion number.

To this end, I have asked that copies of the report stage section of today's notice paper be placed on each member's desk for ease of reference.

I would like to point out that this is the same process that was used last June at report stage of Bill C-38.

We shall now proceed to the putting of the question on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Louis Plamondon]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is not in the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour. Because the motion was moved in the past, the member who moved the motion does not necessarily have to be present in the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 22, 25, 26, 34 to 38, 61, 63 to 65, 95, 96, 99 to 106, 108 to 110, 114, 115, 139, 142 to 147, 155, 157 to 160 and 162.

The next question is on Motion No. 7.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 7 is deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 9, 11, 18, 32, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 74, 97, 111 to 113, 116, 131, 136, 138 and 140.

I will now put the motions in Group No. 2 to the House.

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

moved:

Motion No. 163

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Motion No. 164

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 165

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Motion No. 166

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 102.

Motion No. 167

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 103.

Motion No. 168

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

Motion No. 169

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Motion No. 170

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 106.

Motion No. 171

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

Motion No. 172

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Motion No. 173

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 109.

Motion No. 174

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 175

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Motion No. 176

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 112.

Motion No. 177

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 178

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Motion No. 179

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

Motion No. 180

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Motion No. 181

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 182

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 183

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 184

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 185

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 186

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 187

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 188

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 189

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 190

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 191

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 192

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 193

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 194

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 195

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 196

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 197

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 198

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 199

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Motion No. 200

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 201

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 202

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 203

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 204

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 205

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 206

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 207

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 208

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 209

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 210

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 211

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 212

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 213

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 214

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 215

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 216

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 217

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 218

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 219

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 220

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Motion No. 221

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 222

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Motion No. 223

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Motion No. 224

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 225

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Motion No. 226

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 227

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Motion No. 228

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 229

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 230

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 231

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 167.

Motion No. 232

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Motion No. 233

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 234

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 235

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Motion No. 236

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 237

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 240

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 174.

Motion No. 242

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

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

,

seconded by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 243

That Bill C-45, in Clause 175, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 27 on page 204 with the following:

“or any of its members in accordance with any treaty or land claims agreement or, consistent with inherent Aboriginal right, harvested by an Aboriginal organization or any of its members for traditional uses, including for food, social or ceremonial purposes;”

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

moved:

Motion No. 245

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motion No. 246

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Motion No. 248

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 178.

Motion No. 249

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 179.

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

, seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 253

That Bill C-45, in Clause 179, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 208 the following:

“(3) The exemptions set out in subsection (1) apply if the person who proposes the construction of the bridge, parkway or any related work establishes, in relation to any work, undertaking or activity for the purpose of the construction of the bridge, parkway or any related work, that the work, undertaking or activity

(a) will not impede navigation;

(b) will not cause destruction of fish or harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat within the meaning of the Fisheries Act; and

(c) will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of a species listed in the Species at Risk Act.

Motion No. 254

That Bill C-45, in Clause 179, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 208 the following:

“(3) The exemption set out in subsection (1) applies if the person who proposes the construction of the bridge, parkway or any related work establishes, in relation to any work, undertaking or activity for the purpose of that construction, that the construction will not present a risk of net negative environmental impact.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 278

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Motion No. 279

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Motion No. 280

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Motion No. 281

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 183.

Motion No. 282

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 286

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Motion No. 287

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Motion No. 288

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Motion No. 289

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

Motion No. 292

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 219.

Motion No. 293

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 220.

Motion No. 294

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 221.

Motion No. 295

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 222.

Motion No. 296

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 223.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 297

That Bill C-45, in Clause 223, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 26 on page 239.

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

moved:

Motion No. 299

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 224.

Motion No. 300

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 225.

Motion No. 302

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 226.

Motion No. 303

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 227.

Motion No. 304

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 228.

Motion No. 305

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 229.

Motion No. 306

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 230.

Motion No. 307

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 231.

Motion No. 308

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 232.

Motion No. 309

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 233.

Motion No. 310

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 234.

Motion No. 311

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 235.

Motion No. 312

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 236.

Motion No. 313

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 237.

Motion No. 314

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 238.

Motion No. 315

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 239.

Motion No. 316

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 240.

Motion No. 317

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 241.

Motion No. 318

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 242.

Motion No. 319

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 243.

Motion No. 320

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 244.

Motion No. 321

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 245.

Motion No. 322

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 246.

Motion No. 323

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 247.

Motion No. 324

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 248.

Motion No. 325

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 249.

Motion No. 326

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 250.

Motion No. 327

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 251.

Motion No. 328

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 252.

Motion No. 329

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 253.

Motion No. 330

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 254.

Motion No. 331

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 255.

Motion No. 332

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 256.

Motion No. 333

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 257.

Motion No. 334

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 258.

Motion No. 335

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 259.

Motion No. 336

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 260.

Motion No. 337

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 261.

Motion No. 338

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 262.

Motion No. 339

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 263.

Motion No. 340

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 264.

Motion No. 341

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 265.

Motion No. 344

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 266.

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

,

seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 345

That Bill C-45, in Clause 266, be amended by adding after line 6 on page 260 the following:

“(9) For greater certainty, any prescribed information given to the Agency in relation to any persons on board or expected to be on board a conveyance shall be subject to the Privacy Act.”

Motion No. 346

That Bill C-45, in Clause 266, be amended by adding after line 6 on page 260 the following:

“12.2 Within six months after the day on which regulations made under subsection 12.1(8) come into force, the impact of section 12.1 and those regulations on privacy rights must be assessed and reported to each House of Parliament.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 347

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 267.

Motion No. 348

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 268.

Motion No. 349

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 269.

Motion No. 350

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 270.

Motion No. 351

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 271.

Motion No. 352

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Motion No. 353

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 273.

Motion No. 354

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 274.

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

,

seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 355

That Bill C-45, in Clause 274, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 262 the following:

“(3) The council shall, within four months after the end of each year, submit to the Minister a report on the activities of the council during that year.

(4) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days after the day on which the Minister receives it.

(5) The Minister shall send a copy of the report to the lieutenant governor of each province immediately after a copy of the report is last laid before either House.

(6) For the purpose of this section, “sitting day” means a day on which either House of Parliament sits.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 356

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 275.

Motion No. 357

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 276.

Motion No. 361

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 277.

Motion No. 362

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 278.

Motion No. 363

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 279.

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

,

seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 364

That Bill C-45, in Clause 279, be amended

(a) by replacing line 3 on page 265 with the following:

“47. (1) The Minister may, following public consultation, designate any”

(b) by replacing lines 8 to 15 on page 265 with the following:

“specified in this Act, exercise the powers and perform the”

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

moved:

Motion No. 365

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 280.

Motion No. 366

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 281.

Motion No. 368

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 282.

Motion No. 369

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 283.

Motion No. 370

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 284.

Motion No. 371

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 285.

Motion No. 372

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 286.

Motion No. 373

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 287.

Motion No. 374

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 288.

Motion No. 375

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 289.

Motion No. 376

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 290.

Motion No. 377

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 291.

Motion No. 378

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 292.

Motion No. 379

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 293.

Motion No. 380

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 294.

Motion No. 381

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 295.

Motion No. 382

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 296.

Motion No. 383

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 297.

Motion No. 384

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 298.

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

,

seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 385

That Bill C-45, in Clause 302, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 8 on page 271 with the following:

“9. (1) Except in instances where a province is pursuing any of the legitimate objectives referred to in Article 404 of the Agreement, namely public security and safety, public order, protection of human, animal or plant life or health, protection of the environment, consumer protection, protection of the health, safety and well-being of workers, and affirmative action programs for disadvantaged groups, the Governor in Council may, by order, for the purpose of suspending benefits of equivalent effect or imposing retaliatory measures of equivalent effect in respect of a province under Article 1709 of the Agreement, do any”

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 386

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 307.

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

moved:

Motion No. 389

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 308.

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

,

seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 390

That Bill C-45, in Clause 308, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 272 with the following:

“national in respect of whom there is reason to believe that he or she poses a specific and credible security threat must, before entering Canada, apply”

Motion No. 392

That Bill C-45, in Clause 308, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 273 the following:

“(1.02) The Minister shall cause a copy of each proposed regulation made under subsection (1.01) to be laid before each House of Parliament, and each House shall refer the proposed regulation to the appropriate committee of that House.

(1.03) A regulation may not be made before the earliest of

(a) 30 sitting days after the proposed regulation is laid before Parliament,

(b) 160 calendar days after the proposed regulation is laid before Parliament, and

(c) the day after the day on which each appropriate committee has reported its findings with respect to the proposed regulation.

(1.04) The Minister shall take into account any report of the committee of either House. If a regulation does not incorporate a recommendation of the committee of either House, the Minister shall lay before that House a statement of the reasons for not incorporating it.

(1.05) A proposed regulation that has been laid before Parliament need not again be so laid prior to the making of the regulation, whether it has been altered or not.”

Motion No. 393

That Bill C-45, in Clause 308, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 273 with the following:

“system or officer, and any personal information relating to the authorization may only be disclosed in accordance with the Privacy Act.”

Motion No. 394

That Bill C-45, in Clause 308, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 273 the following:

“(1.02) No private security company shall be involved in the collection, dissemination, retention or disposal of private information obtained for the purposes of the electronic authorization system referred to in subsection (1.01).”

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

moved:

Motion No. 395

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 309.

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

, seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 396

That Bill C-45, in Clause 309, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 273 the following:

“(4) Within six months after the day on which the regulations relating to electronic travel authorizations referred to in subsection 11(1.01) come into force, the impact of such authorizations on privacy rights must be assessed and the assessment reported to each House of Parliament.”

Motion No. 397

That Bill C-45, in Clause 309, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 273 the following:

“(4) Regulations relating to electronic authorizations referred to in subsection 11(1.01) shall not be made earlier than two years of the coming into force of this subsection to allow for consultation with the tourism industry and other interested parties to assess the potential impact of the regulations on that industry.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 398

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 310.

Motion No. 399

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 311.

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

,

seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 400

That Bill C-45, in Clause 311, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 273 with the following:

“subsections 11(1) and (1.01), other than those for which an authorization is issued by the system and those”

Motion No. 401

That Bill C-45, in Clause 311, be amended by adding after line 33 on page 273 the following:

“(1.01) This section ceases to have effect with respect to electronic travel authorizations referred to in subsection 11(1.01) at the end of the fifteenth sitting day of Parliament after December 31, 2016 unless, before the end of that day, the application of this section is extended by a resolution passed, by both Houses of Parliament, that this section continues to be in force.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 402

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 312.

Motion No. 404

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 313.

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

, seconded by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 405

That Bill C-45, in Clause 313, be amended by deleting lines 15 to 24 on page 274.

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

moved:

Motion No. 407

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 314.

Motion No. 409

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 315.

Motion No. 410

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 316.

Motion No. 411

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 317.

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

, seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 415

That Bill C-45, in Clause 317, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 277 the following:

“(7) Section 2 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 2(1) and is amended by adding the following:

(2) For the purposes of this Act, when considering if a decision is in the public interest, the Minister shall take into account, as primary consideration, whether it would protect the public right of navigation, including the exercise, safeguard and promotion of that right.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 419

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 318.

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

, seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 422

That Bill C-45, in Clause 318, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 279 the following:

“(f) the importance of that navigable water to Aboriginal people for traditional and other uses. ”

Motion No. 423

That Bill C-45, in Clause 318, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 279 the following:

“(4.1) For the purposes of this Act, a bridge, boom, dam or causeway is deemed to have been determined by the Minister to be a work that substantially interferes with navigation.”

Motion No. 426

That Bill C-45, in Clause 318, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 279 the following:

“(10) All works that the Minister has determined under this section are likely to substantially interfere with navigation are deemed to be physical activities designated by regulations made under paragraph 84(a) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and linked to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.”

Motion No. 428

That Bill C-45, in Clause 318, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 280 the following:

“(2.1) If the Minister did not require from the owner the deposit of information and publication of a notice under paragraph 5(6)(b), the Minister must require from the owner the deposit of the plans of the proposed work, of a description of the proposed site and of any other information specified by the Minister in the local land registry or land titles office or in any other place specified by the Minister and the publication of a notice containing the information in the Canada Gazette and in two newspapers published in or near the locality where the proposed work is to be constructed.

(2.2) The notice referred to in subsection (2.1) shall invite any interested person to provide written comments to the Minister within 30 days after its publication.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 438

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 319.

Motion No. 440

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 320.

Motion No. 442

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 321.

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

,

seconded by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 443

That Bill C-45, in Clause 321, be amended by deleting lines 23 to 30 on page 288.

Motion No. 445

That Bill C-45, in Clause 321, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 290 with the following:

“(a) designating any works, other than bridges, booms, dams and causeways, as minor works;”

Motion No. 446

That Bill C-45, in Clause 321, be amended by replacing lines 11 and 12 on page 290 with the following:

“navigable waters, in whole or in part, other than a river that is part of the Canadian Heritage Rivers System or that provides habitat for any wildlife species at risk set out in Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act;”

Motion No. 448

That Bill C-45, in Clause 321, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 290 the following:

“(2.1) Before making any order under paragraph (2)(a), the Minister shall assess the likely environmental effects of those works.

(2.2) Before making any order under paragraph (2)(b), the Minister shall take into account

(a) the ecological value of that navigable water;

(b) the utility of that navigable water for the purposes of fishing and hunting; and

(c) the importance of that navigable water to Aboriginal people for traditional and other uses.

(2.3) The Minister shall post a summary of the assessments made under subsections (2.1) and (2.2) on the Internet site of the Department of Transport.”

Motion No. 449

That Bill C-45, in Clause 321, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 36 on page 290 with the following:

“28.1 (1) The Minister must table, in each House of Parliament, every order that he or she proposes to make under paragraphs 28(2)(a) and (b).

(2) Each proposed order that is tabled before a House must, on the day it is tabled, be referred by that House to an appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may conduct inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed order and report its findings to that House.

(3) A proposed order that has been tabled pursuant to subsection (1) may be made

(a) on the expiration of 30 sitting days after it was last tabled in either House; or

(b) if, with respect to each House,

(i) the committee reports to the House, or

(ii) the committee decides not to conduct inquiries or public hearings.

(4) For the purpose of this section, “sitting day” means a day on which either House sits.”

Motion No. 454

That Bill C-45, in Clause 321, be amended by deleting lines 22 to 43 on page 291.

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

moved:

Motion No. 455

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 322.

Motion No. 456

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 323.

Motion No. 457

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 324.

Motion No. 458

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 325.

Motion No. 459

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 326.

Motion No. 460

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 327.

Motion No. 461

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 328.

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

, seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 463

That Bill C-45, in Clause 328, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 294 the following:

“RIGHT OF ACTION

39.01 An individual whose right of navigation in respect of any navigable waters has been interfered with, or will likely be interfered with, may bring a claim for relief in public nuisance without the consent of the Attorney General and without establishing special damages.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 464

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 329.

Motion No. 465

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 330.

Motion No. 466

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 331.

Motion No. 467

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 332.

Motion No. 469

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 333.

Motion No. 470

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 334.

Motion No. 471

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 335.

Motion No. 472

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 336.

Motion No. 473

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 337.

Motion No. 474

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 338.

Motion No. 475

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 339.

Motion No. 476

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 340.

Motion No. 477

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 341.

Motion No. 478

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 342.

Motion No. 479

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 343.

Motion No. 480

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 344.

Motion No. 481

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 345.

Motion No. 482

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 346.

Motion No. 483

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 347.

Motion No. 484

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 348.

Motion No. 485

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 349.

Motion No. 486

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 350.

Motion No. 487

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 351.

Motion No. 488

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 352.

Motion No. 489

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 353.

Motion No. 490

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 354.

Motion No. 491

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 355.

Motion No. 492

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 356.

Motion No. 493

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 357.

Motion No. 494

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 358.

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

, seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 495

That Bill C-45, in Clause 358, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 309 with the following:

“reinspection of the grain, to the grain appeal tribunal for the Division or the chief grain”

Motion No. 497

That Bill C-45, in Clause 358, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 309 with the following:

“appeal is given to the grain appeal tribunal for the Division or the chief grain inspector for”

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

moved:

Motion No. 498

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 359.

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

, seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 499

That Bill C-45, in Clause 359, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 309 with the following:

“41. (1) If an appeal is taken, the grain appeal tribunal for the Division or the chief grain”

Motion No. 500

That Bill C-45, in Clause 359, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 309 with the following:

“(2) The decision of the grain appeal tribunal for the Division or the chief grain inspector”

Motion No. 501

That Bill C-45, in Clause 359, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 309 with the following:

“conferred on him or her under subsection (1) provided that it is demonstrated that the delegate has no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of the appeal.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 502

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 360.

Motion No. 503

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 361.

Motion No. 504

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 362.

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

, seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 505

That Bill C-45, in Clause 362, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 310 with the following:

“provide a security, in the form of a bond, for the purpose of”

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

moved:

Motion No. 506

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 363.

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

, seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 507

That Bill C-45, in Clause 363, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 310 with the following:

“provided a security as required by subsection”

Motion No. 508

That Bill C-45, in Clause 363, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 310 with the following:

“provided a security as required by subsection”

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

moved:

Motion No. 509

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 364.

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

, seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 510

That Bill C-45, in Clause 364, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 311 with the following:

“believe that any security provided by a licensee”

Motion No. 511

That Bill C-45, in Clause 364, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 311 with the following:

“provided by a licensee, and the security may be”

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

moved:

Motion No. 512

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 365.

Motion No. 513

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 366.

Motion No. 514

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 367.

Motion No. 515

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 368.

Motion No. 516

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 369.

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

, seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 517

That Bill C-45, in Clause 369, be amended by replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 313 with the following:

“terminal elevator shall submit grain received into the elevator for an official weighing, in a manner authorized by the”

Motion No. 518

That Bill C-45, in Clause 369, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 314 with the following:

“authorized by the Commission who has been demonstrated to have no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, in the grain and chosen”

Motion No. 519

That Bill C-45, in Clause 369, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 314 with the following:

“authorized by the Commission who has been demonstrated to have no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, in the grain and chosen by”

Motion No. 520

That Bill C-45, in Clause 369, be amended

(a) by replacing line 40 on page 314 with the following:

“the grain appeal tribunal for the Division or the chief grain inspector for Canada for a”

(b) by replacing line 44 on page 314 with the following:

“prescribed portion of them, to the grain appeal tribunal for the Division or the chief grain”

Motion No. 521

That Bill C-45, in Clause 369, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 315 with the following:

“section provided that it is demonstrated that the delegate has no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, in the decision.”

Motion No. 522

That Bill C-45, in Clause 369, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 316 with the following:

“70.2 (1) An operator of a licensed”

(b) by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 316 with the following:

“third party or cause it to be officially”

Motion No. 523

That Bill C-45, in Clause 369, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 316 with the following:

“Commission and chosen by the operator. A third party may not be authorized unless it is demonstrated that it has no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of the weighing or inspection.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 524

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 370.

Motion No. 525

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 371.

Motion No. 526

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 372.

Motion No. 527

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 373.

Motion No. 528

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 374.

Motion No. 529

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 375.

Motion No. 530

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 376.

Motion No. 531

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 377.

Motion No. 532

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 378.

Motion No. 533

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 379.

Motion No. 534

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 380.

Motion No. 535

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 381.

Motion No. 536

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 382.

Motion No. 537

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 383.

Motion No. 538

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 384.

Motion No. 539

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 385.

Motion No. 540

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 386.

Motion No. 541

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 387.

Motion No. 542

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 388.

Motion No. 543

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 389.

Motion No. 544

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 390.

Motion No. 545

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 391.

Motion No. 546

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 392.

Motion No. 547

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 393.

Motion No. 548

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 394.

Motion No. 549

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 395.

Motion No. 550

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 396.

Motion No. 551

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 397.

Motion No. 552

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 398.

Motion No. 553

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 399.

Motion No. 554

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 400.

Motion No. 555

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 401.

Motion No. 556

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 402.

Motion No. 557

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 403.

Motion No. 558

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 404.

Motion No. 559

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 405.

Motion No. 560

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 406.

Motion No. 561

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 407.

Motion No. 562

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 408.

Motion No. 563

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 409.

Motion No. 564

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 410.

Motion No. 565

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 411.

Motion No. 566

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 412.

Motion No. 567

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 413.

Motion No. 568

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 425.

Motion No. 569

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 426.

Motion No. 570

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 427.

Motion No. 571

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 428.

Motion No. 572

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 429.

Motion No. 573

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 430.

Motion No. 574

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 431.

Motion No. 575

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 432.

Motion No. 577

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 433.

Motion No. 578

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 434.

Motion No. 579

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 435.

Motion No. 580

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 436.

Motion No. 581

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 437.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 582

That Bill C-45, in Clause 437, be amended by deleting lines 25 to 34 on page 341.

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

moved:

Motion No. 583

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 438.

Motion No. 586

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 439.

Motion No. 587

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 440.

Motion No. 588

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 441.

Motion No. 589

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 442.

Motion No. 590

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 443.

Motion No. 591

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 444.

Motion No. 592

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 445.

Motion No. 594

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 446.

Motion No. 595

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 447.

Motion No. 596

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 448.

Motion No. 597

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 449.

Motion No. 598

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 450.

Motion No. 599

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 451.

Motion No. 600

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 452.

Motion No. 601

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 453.

Motion No. 602

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 454.

Motion No. 603

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 455.

Motion No. 604

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 456.

Motion No. 605

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 457.

Motion No. 606

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 458.

Motion No. 607

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 459.

Motion No. 608

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 460.

Motion No. 610

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 461.

Motion No. 611

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 462.

Motion No. 612

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 463.

Motion No. 613

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 464.

Motion No. 614

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 465.

Motion No. 615

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 466.

Motion No. 616

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 467.

Motion No. 617

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 468.

Motion No. 618

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 469.

Motion No. 619

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 470.

Motion No. 620

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 471.

Motion No. 621

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 472.

Motion No. 622

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 473.

Motion No. 623

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 474.

Motion No. 624

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 475.

Motion No. 625

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 476.

Motion No. 626

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 477.

Motion No. 627

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 478.

Motion No. 628

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 479.

Motion No. 629

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 480.

Motion No. 630

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 481.

Motion No. 631

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 482.

Motion No. 632

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 483.

Motion No. 633

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 484.

Motion No. 634

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 485.

Motion No. 635

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 486.

Motion No. 636

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 487.

Motion No. 637

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 488.

Motion No. 638

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 489.

Motion No. 639

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 490.

Motion No. 640

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 491.

Motion No. 641

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 492.

Motion No. 642

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 493.

Motion No. 643

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 494.

Motion No. 644

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 495.

Motion No. 645

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 496.

Motion No. 646

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 497.

Motion No. 647

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 498.

Motion No. 648

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 499.

Motion No. 649

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 500.

Motion No. 650

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 501.

Motion No. 651

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 502.

Motion No. 652

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 503.

Motion No. 653

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 504.

Motion No. 654

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 505.

Motion No. 655

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 506.

Motion No. 656

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 507.

Motion No. 657

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 508.

Motion No. 658

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 509.

Motion No. 659

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 510.

Motion No. 660

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 511.

Motion No. 661

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 512.

Motion No. 662

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 513.

Motion No. 663

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 514.

Motion No. 664

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 515.

Motion No. 665

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 516.

Motion No. 666

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Schedule 1.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I will now put the question on the motions in Group No. 2.

The question is on Motion No. 163. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the Motion No. 163 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 164 to 219.

The next question is on Motion No. 220. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the Motion No. 220 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 221 to 229.

The next question is on Motion No. 230. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the Motion No. 230 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 231 to 236.

The next question is on Motion No. 237. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 237 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 240, 242, 245, 246 and 248.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The question is on Motion No. 249. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it. The recorded division stands deferred.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 278 to 282.

The question is on Motion No. 286. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion 286 stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 287 to 289.

The question is on Motion No. 292. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 293 to 296, 299, 300 and 302 to 308.

The question is on Motion No. 309. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 310 to 339.

The question is on Motion No. 340. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 341, 344, 347 and 348.

The question is on Motion No. 349. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 350 to 354, 356, 357, 361 to 363, 365, 366 and 368 to 384.

The question is on Motion No. 385. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The next question is on Motion No. 386. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it. The recorded division stands deferred.

And five or more members having risen:

The next question is on Motion No. 389. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay. The recorded division stands deferred.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 395, 398, 399, 402, 404 and 407.

The question is on Motion No. 409. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The next question is on Motion No. 410. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it. The recorded division stands deferred.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 411, 419, 438, 440, 442, 455 to 461, 464 to 467 and 469 to 486.

The next question is on Motion No. 487. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 488 to 494, 498, 502 to 504, 506, 509, 512 to 516 and 524 to 564.

It being 2 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, December 3, the House will now proceed to statements by members, followed by oral questions.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington

The House resumed 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 2.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will now continue to put the questions on report stage motions under Group No. 2.

The question is on Motion No. 565. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 565 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 566 and 567.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to give the Minister of Health an opportunity to get her facts straight for once. OxyContin was approved in 1996. I was—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. As members know, correcting the record, getting facts straight and things like that should be reserved for a future question period or other parts of debate, not through points of order.

The question is on Motion No. 568. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.