Bill C-45 (Historical)

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

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

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

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012, which is legislation to implement the next phase of Canada's economic plan.

Our plan will help Canadian workers and their families. It will help them by creating a pro-growth environment that will create jobs and long-term prosperity from coast to coast to coast. The measures in today's act are key to achieving this goal.

Indeed, the bill before us today includes wonderful initiatives to grow our economy, create jobs, support Canadian families and communities when they need it most, promote clean energy and enhance neutrality in the tax system, while at the same time taking into account the taxpayers' ability to pay.

So far, our action plan is working very well. Since July 2009, for instance, over 820,000 jobs have been created in Canada. That is the strongest job creation record in the G7, and 90% of the jobs created are full-time. But that is not all.

The World Economic Forum states that our banks are the soundest in the world. The OECD and the IMF predict that our economy will be among the leaders of the industrialized world over the next several years. Our net debt to GDP ratio remains the lowest in the G7, by far. All three of the major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poors, have reaffirmed Canada's top credit rating.

Only recently, respected head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, told The Globe and Mail the following:

Canada is...faring relatively well because of its fundamentals...and the way in which it has been properly supervised and regulated and organized over the course of the last few years.... Canada is doing a lot better than other advanced economies.

However, as we all know, it is not enough to simply maintain Canada's advantage among the major advanced economies. As we have said all along, Canada is not an island. We are not immune to global weakness from beyond our borders. There is no question that Canada will be impacted by ongoing global economic turbulence, especially from our biggest trading partners in the United States and Europe. That is why we must move quickly to implement the pro-growth, job-creating measures contained in economic action plan 2012 by enacting today's legislation.

For instance, today's act would help build a strong economy and create jobs by extending the job-creating hiring credit for small business, which will benefit over 500,000 employers and help them to create jobs. It would also promote interprovincial trade, improve the legislative framework governing Canada's financial institutions, facilitate cross-border travel, remove red tape and reduce fees for Canada's grain farmers. Supporting Canada's commercial aviation sector is a priority in this legislation.

This legislation also supports families and communities by improving registered disability savings plans, helping Canadians save for retirement by implementing the tax framework for pooled registered pension plans, improving the administration of the Canada pension plan and strengthening the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It would also promote clean energy, enhance neutrality of the tax system by expanding tax relief for investment in clean energy generation equipment and phasing out tax preferences for the mining and oil and gas sectors. It respects taxpayers' dollars through changes, such as, taking landmark action to ensure the pension plans for federal public sector employees are sustainable and financially responsible and by closing tax loopholes and eliminating duplication.

It is true that the jobs and growth act, 2012 is comprehensive and ambitious. As we all know, the challenges that our economy face are neither small nor one-dimensional. In a fast-paced and uncertain global economy, where we face increasing competition from rapidly growing emerging markets like Brazil and India, we must move quickly to implement vital economic reform. However, as is becoming all too familiar, we have heard the same tired complaints from opposition members. They say, “Let us not move forward on economic reform. Let us not support the economy”. They say, Let us play partisan politics instead”. I say shame on them.

At a time of global economic turbulence, the opposition's amateurish political games and desperate delay tactics to block our government's continued support for the economy will do nothing but hurt Canadians. Make no mistake about it.

We are proud of economic action plan 2012, and we are proud of today's act. We are not afraid to debate it.

In addition to the many hours of debate in this House, our government led a comprehensive study of this bill. No fewer than 10 House committees, in addition to the Standing Committee on Finance, took part and held hearings on various parts of the bill. Over the past few weeks, those committees heard from countless witnesses who shared their opinions with parliamentarians and the public.

I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank the committee members and chairs, especially the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc, for all of their hard work.

I would especially like to thank the members and chairs of these committees for completing their study in a timely manner to ensure that swift implementation of job-creating measures to secure our economic growth happen here.

In my time remaining, I will speak specifically to those job-creating measures, which become increasingly important with each passing day.

As I mentioned before, the global economy is all too fragile, as recent headlines can attest. Only two weeks ago, we learned that Europe entered a second recession. South of the border, the United States is edging closer to its so-called fiscal cliff. It is at times like this that our government must stay focused on the economy. This is when we must turn our attention to the needs of everyday Canadians in communities across the country so that they can continue to rely on a strong Canadian economy to support their families and grow their businesses.

We must stay the course with our plan for jobs and growth, which is widely considered to be a model for the world. It is this fiscal discipline that has served us so well, earning us the lowest net debt to GDP ratio in the G7. Indeed, this has been recognized time and time again by international leaders. Only recently, German Chancellor Angela Merkel praised our government's approach, saying:

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.

I am so glad that the Minister of Foreign Affairs agrees wholeheartedly with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

It is this emphasis on growth I would like to highlight in my discussion of today's act, and in particular, the hiring credit for small business to help small employers all across Canada defray the cost of hiring new workers.

I am pleased to tell Parliament and all Canadians how well the credit has been received by Canadian small business owners. For example, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, representing over 100,000 Canadian entrepreneurs, explains exactly how the hiring credit helps their members:

The Hiring Credit for Small Business...is a popular measure among all SMEs but is particularly important among growing firms as it helps them strengthen business performance.

In fact, small businesses liked the credit so much in 2011 that they asked for it again in 2012, saying, and once again I will quote the CFIB:

The 2011 EI Hiring Credit was very helpful to CFIB's members, particularly the smallest businesses.... This is a relatively inexpensive measure that benefits businesses across the country.

Unbelievably, not only has the NDP voted against this measure time and time again, but shortly after the introduction of the jobs and growth act, 2012, the NDP finance critic actually came out against the bill's extension of tax relief for small business, oddly calling the hiring credit for small business “an across-the-board cut for small business”.

Let us forget about the NDP finance critic's odd reasoning. I want to explain exactly what his party opposed not just once, but twice.

As indicated in Canada's economic action plan, this measure allows for a credit of up to $1,000 against a small employer's increase in its 2012 EI premiums over those paid in 2011. For the benefit of Canadians watching at home and my opposition colleagues, I will take a moment to explain how this credit works.

Say, for example, Bill and his wife Linda own a small café and that, last year, they hired five employees. Their business's payroll was $125,000 and they paid $3,108 in EI premiums. This year, more customers are visiting their café and they have expanded. They hired a new employee, which raised the business's payroll to $150,000. With the hiring credit for small business, they will receive a credit of $732, which will cover the increase in EI premiums for their new employee, which will help them create a stable job in their own community.

To make things even easier, the Canada Revenue Agency will automatically calculate the hiring credit when Bill and Linda file their 2012 tax return. They will not even have to apply, which will enable them to avoid endless red tape and delays.

I would remind my opposition colleagues of the evidence we heard at committee that the credit is working and is having a tangible impact on the ability of small businesses to hire more workers.

Only recently, Corinne Pohlmann, vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, told me and other members of the finance committee that:

It's not always easy for every single small firm to hold onto every employee they bring on. We always say small businesses are the first to hire and the last to fire. They'll do anything they can to hold onto their people. We saw that through the recession very clearly.... [T]he way the EI hiring credit is now, it has also been useful for a lot of the very small companies.

If an issue affects small business, it touches 60% of Canadian workers and has a major impact on job creation, especially in a period of economic recovery. With that in mind, our government has long recognized that small businesses are the engine of job creation in Canada, employing hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

We are proud of our consistent record of support for this fundamental sector of our economy, this year and every year since we formed the government. That is why, since 2006, we have lowered the tax bill of small businesses to help them succeed, even when the opposition has tried to stand in our way.

The NDP talks about supporting job creation, but let us take a moment to actually examine the record.

We reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, but the NDP voted against it. We increased the amount of income eligible for the lower small business tax rate from $300,000 to $500,000, but the NDP voted against that too.

While the New Democrats have never met a tax they did not like, they could take a lesson or two from the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Canada's largest industry and trade association, with over 85% of its members representing small and medium-sized businesses. Despite what the opposition might have us believe, the CME explains:

Over 110,000 companies pay corporate taxes and...90 per cent of those businesses are small and mid-sized enterprises.

These are the companies on Main Street...in which most Canadian workers are employed. When businesses keep more of their profits, they have more money to expand [and] hire more people

We on the government side understand this, which is exactly why we are here debating the jobs and growth act, 2012 and the extension of the small business hiring tax credit. I urge all members to carefully consider the measures in this act, including other measures to grow our economy and create jobs, to provide support to Canadian families and communities when they need it the most, to promote clean energy, and to enhance the neutrality of the tax system.

While hope springs eternal that the New Democrats might come to their senses, their rejection of the small business hiring tax credit and other job creation measures in the jobs and growth act, 2012 is just another sign that their tax-and-spend agenda is out of touch with the priorities of small-business owners and hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her comments, but I have to correct the record.

First, let me say that the NDP has long proposed a tax credit for small business hiring. We have also proposed reducing small business taxes by 2%. She has erroneously stated that we are opposed to these measures, but she has accurately said that there are measures we support that we have voted against.

Let me just clarify that briefly by quoting the Prime Minister, the leader of her party, who said, in 1994, to the then Liberal government, which was doing exactly the same thing as this government with an omnibus bill:

I just regret that we are proceeding with this omnibus approach to legislation which, because it lumps in things we support and things we do not support, unfortunately deprives us of the ability to support the government in votes where that would be appropriate.

That is exactly the situation here. Can this member explain why her government is undermining democracy with this omnibus budget bill and denying members the right to vote for individual clauses and pieces of legislation we support?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this government suggested that we send portions of the bill for study to more than 10 other committees. When we count the finance committee, that is 11 committees that studied the bill. Eleven committees agreed that the measures in the bill would help us preserve jobs, create jobs, move toward long-term prosperity and ensure that our economy grows.

Unfortunately, the NDP continues to vote against all these measures. NDP members can say what they like, but when it counts most is when they stand up to vote for these measures. Each and every time they have had that opportunity, they have disappointed Canadians and have voted against every single one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to note that the parliamentary secretary was boasting about how wonderful the hiring credit was. I would just like to ask her if she is aware that it contains flaws that actually punish small businesses. For example, it contains a hidden 7¢ EI premium hike. In addition, if a company is near the $10,000 limit, it can be penalized if it hires more workers or if it increases the wages of its workers.

These deficiencies were made very clear in committee, and the Liberals proposed amendments that would have fixed these deficiencies, yet the government rejected them. Why did the Conservatives not correct these deficiencies, which serve only to punish the small businesses she is claiming to help?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the member has erred. Approximately 536,000 businesses took advantage of the hiring credit for small businesses the first time around. They continued to ask the government to put forward an extension of the hiring credit.

I find it odd that the Liberals would even stand to ask questions at this time, given what they did in committee to try to block all of these measures from going forward by putting forward 3,000 frivolous amendments. Hours of time were wasted. Money from taxpayers' pockets was spent on frivolous, wasteful time spent. What did they put forward as amendments? They were trying to ensure that tax loopholes were not closed. They were trying to protect people who take advantage of the tax system.

That member ought to go back to his caucus and figure out why it is they are trying to protect those who take advantage of our generosity and our tax system.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition has promoted a job-killing carbon tax. Clearly, for small and medium businesses, that would be the demise of our economy.

I wonder if my colleague would speak to some of the initiatives in a little greater depth, such as reducing taxes for small and medium enterprises, the pooled registered pension plan, and other incentives that help small businesses thrive.

I wonder if she would address some of those issues in a little greater depth and talk about what this government is doing to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses thrive in this country.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his insightful question, and I want to say how proud I am of his interventions here in the House. He has been very influential as we move forward, bill after bill, to try to protect jobs and create growth here in this country.

I have to say that when it comes to small businesses, it is this government that has done the most to ensure that they prosper. In fact, as I look at some of the initiatives in the budget implementation act that, unfortunately, the opposition did not support, I think very clearly about our youth and the troubles they have had and the $50 million we put toward the youth employment strategy that is so key to ensuring that our youth progress and become the leaders of tomorrow. They are willing to do that now. They need some support. Unfortunately, the NDP and the Liberals continue to deny them access to those kinds of funds, whereas we on this side of the House are prepared, very quickly, to move those things forward through the bill.

I would ask that the opposition today vote in support of those kinds of measures, including the other job creation measures in the budget implementation act.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was much in that speech that talked about the platitudes of standing up for business and economic development that I disagree with, but I would like to focus on just one aspect.

To reduce the small business tax rate over the last six years by 1% was a step in the right direction, but a really feeble step. The step in the wrong direction was the reduction of the large corporate tax rate similar to the United States at well over 30% down to 15%, with no criteria for job creation or investment in Canada. When we look at the facts, most of the dollars that have been given away to those large corporations have gone to the ridiculous salaries of CEOs and moving money to offshore tax shelters. The real investment has been in the United States not in Canada.

When will you either raise the rates back up to something comparable to the U.S. or ensure there is real criteria for real economic development in Canada?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members to direct their comments and questions through the Chair.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I draw the contrast between that member and this side of the House. We can obviously see the member is in favour of higher taxes. He would vote in favour of higher taxes at any opportunity that presented itself. We on this side have lowered taxes over 140 times, which leaves an average family in Canada with $3,100 extra in its pocket.

Let us talk about some of those things that we did so small business could thrive. We provided $110 million per year to the National Research Council to double support to small businesses through the IRAP program, something that was very well received. We provided $95 million over three years and $40 million per year ongoing for the Canadian innovation commercialization program. We provided $14 million to industrial research and development internship so PhD students could also take part in ensuring the economy grew.

These are measures we put forward along with 140 tax decreases. I wish the member would get on board and help us.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has not dealt with some of the things in the budget that do not belong in a budget. I am talking about the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which strips environmental protection from some 30,000 lakes and rivers in the country. This follows hard on the heels of the government's elimination, or almost elimination, of any environmental assessments required by Bill C-38, which was also a budgetary bill.

Could the minister explain how a handful of small lakes in Muskoka, which do not have any navigation on them except for a few pleasure boats that belong to people with large and expensive cottages, are protected under the act, but other similarly large lakes in Quebec and other places in Canada lose their protection.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is not present so I hope the parliamentary secretary's answer will suffice in this case.

With regard to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, that member and his party have asked this question a number of times and, for whatever reason, they do not seem to understand that those bodies of water are already protected under the Environmental Assessment Act. There are a number of acts that protect different bodies of water across the country, but the Navigable Waters Protection Act is designed to protect shipping and navigation. That is what it is about and that is what it is focused on. Our government will move forward to ensure there are no delays in growing our economy in this area.

I would ask my colleague to really think about what I have said, because to mislead Canadians in thinking the Environmental Assessment Act does not cover those bodies of water is really not quite fair.

[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 as follows: the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, Privacy; and the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to, once again, express the official opposition's strong objection to Bill C-45, the second budget implementation bill that we have seen this year.

In the spring, Bill C-38 attacked old age security, forcing people to wait two more years to claim their benefits. It attacked employment insurance and health care transfers and turned back the clock on environmental regulation. Now, with Bill C-45, it shows the Conservatives have not learned their lesson. They did not listen to Canadians, who were outraged by that first Trojan horse budget bill.

Bill C-45 continues on the path set by this spring's budget bill, further weakening our ability to protect the environment and ensure sustainable development for future generations. It would completely gut the Navigable Waters Protection Act. We have heard about the loss of protection for 40,000 lakes and 2.5 million rivers. In addition, it would further erode the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The disturbing Conservative trend toward the concentration of power also continues in Bill C-45. The bill would dismantle a series of commissions and give more power to ministers to make decisions without accountability.

However, there are new problems too. The combined effect of the Conservatives' proposed changes to the SR&ED tax credit, the research and development tax program, will be to reduce government support for business research and development at a time when Canadian businesses most need to increase innovation and productivity to succeed in an increasingly global economy. These changes are also likely to drive firms to move their R and D activities to other countries with better incentives.

The New Democrats are also concerned by the proposed changes to public service pensions that will create a two-tiered work force in which younger people will have to work longer for the same retirement benefit. These changes come in the context where the Conservative government is failing to take action on youth unemployment and crippling student debt, while also making young people, especially, work longer in the future to qualify for old age security benefits.

The bill talks about jobs, but let us be clear. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that this budget bill will cost 43,000 Canadians their jobs. When combined with previous rounds of cuts, the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects a total of 102,000 jobs lost.

As a result of these job cuts, economic forecasters have been revising their projections for the Canadian economy downwards. In fact, on the day Bill C-45 was released, the Minister of Finance suggested a downgrade would be announced in the fall economic update. Sure enough, the minister announced, during the November fall break, that the government would fall short of its own deficit targets.

Worse still, Conservatives have failed to outline any contingency plan to deal with the slowing growth and increasingly negative fiscal indicators. In the third quarter, Canada's GDP grew only by 0.6%, even lower than the Bank of Canada projected rate of 1%. Ongoing volatility in the global economy poses a significant risk to Canada's future economic growth.

The official opposition New Democrats believe strongly that the federal government should take action now to safeguard the Canadian economy against outside risks, such as an escalation of the eurozone crisis, which is back in recession, or a worsening of the American economy.

There are internal risks as well. Ultra-low borrowing rates, which have remained unchanged for more than two years, are fuelling unprecedented household debt.

Increased inequality is one of Canada's greatest challenges.

Most Canadians' real wages have remained stagnant for several years now. In fact, the average income of Canadians has increased by only 5.5% over a period of 33 years.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, income inequality is growing faster in Canada than it is in the United States. Much of this growing inequality can be attributed to an increase in the revenues of the richest 1% of the population. Canadians who belong to that 1% have increased their share of the nation's total revenue from 8.1% in 1980 to 13.3% in 2007.

In fact, Canadians in that 1% are responsible for nearly one-third of total income growth between 1997 and 2007. This growth occurred at the expense of other income groups.

Youth unemployment is still a major crisis. Unemployment for youth is at 15%, up 1% from last year, and there are 70,000 fewer youth jobs than one year ago. Food bank use increased again last year and is up 31% compared to pre-recession levels for youths. Nearly one in five food bank users is currently or was recently employed. That is from the Food Bank of Canada.

In 2009 a report from the UN rapporteur for adequate housing found that Canada had been lagging in its commitments for social housing and to end homelessness. With three million Canadians living in housing insecurity, Canada remains the only G8 country in the world without a national housing strategy.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are focused on austerity measures that will act as a further drag on our economy. Multiple witnesses confirmed at the finance committee that Bill C-45's proposed changes to the SR&ED program would kill jobs and hinder innovation, which is a key factor in economic growth. Even worse, innovation is the best solution to Canada's two decade long productivity slump and the cuts to SR&ED will only further weaken Canadian productivity growth.

That is not just New Democrats saying that. Let us hear from Warren Everson of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce who confirmed at the finance committee, “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”.

Let us hear from Martin Lavoie of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters who raised similar concern at the industry committee this November. He said:

Thus far, $633 million will be withdrawn and $333 million reinjected annually. That is a ratio of two to one. Will other measures eventually be announced? I do not know and we cannot really rely on that. What we are also hearing from our members...is that we cannot base our future investments on what we do not know. What we do know is that SR&ED will be reduced. We do not know whether there will be new types of direct sectoral investment.

How can businesses plan for job creation and investment with the government's piecemeal approach?

The Conservatives have no comprehensive plan to create jobs. Instead, Bill C-45 is another one of these 400-page budget bills that lumps together a large number of unrelated measures. It modifies, amends or repeals over 60 other pieces of legislation and contains an entirely new act, the bridge to strengthen trade act, on the Detroit-Windsor bridge, which we would like to support, but it is lumped in with many other measures that we do not support, hence our opposition to this omnibus budget bill.

The NDP did everything it could to study the bill at depth at committee and improve it. However, on every occasion, the Conservatives refused to work with the official opposition. While New Democrats worked hard to ensure that the content of Bill C-45 received full examination and that substantive amendments were proposed to the bill, we saw our Liberal colleagues join with the Conservatives in order to support stricter time allocations for the finance committee. We did not agree with that.

The committee did vote on every substantive amendment, every submitted amendment to Bill C-45 during the clause-by-clause study. However, it was clear that the Conservatives would not consider any amendments to Bill C-45, even despite compelling witness testimony that some of the measures in the bill would have significant consequences for Canadians and the Canadian economy.

While the Liberals and Conservatives have used the committee process to play partisan games, New Democrats remain dedicated to giving Bill C-45 much needed scrutiny and debate on behalf of all Canadians.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives continue to show that they are more interested and invested in ramming through their agenda than in staying accountable to Canadians, and Canadians are taking notice. Let me just offer some other points of view.

Stuart Wuttke of the Assembly of First Nations noted at the fisheries and oceans committee:

—my appearance today does not qualify as consultation with first nations. The Assembly of First Nations is a political organization and the first nations themselves are the individual rights holders of aboriginal rights and treaty rights. A robust consultation will be required by the Government of Canada with first nations across Canada....

Clearly, that has not happened.

Tony Maas of the World Wildlife Fund Canada raised a similar point at the transport committee, in saying:

I am a believer in participatory democracy. While I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the committee today, I do not claim to be, and should not be considered, a representative voice for conservation organizations or for others whose navigation rights and waters may be negatively impacted by the changes in the proposed bill.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that Bill C-45 is yet another massive omnibus bill making amendments to a wide range of laws, and once again the Conservatives are trying to ram legislation through Parliament without allowing Canadians and their MPs to thoroughly examine it. Of course, we are seeing the sad spectacle of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whose position was created by the current government, being forced to take the government to court to get basic information that he and, therefore, parliamentarians need to do our jobs. It is unbelievable that we are in this situation.

The NDP did everything in its power to have this bad bill split, but the Conservatives refused to do so. We then tried to thoroughly examine it in committee, but the Conservatives did not accept any of our amendments. Finally, we tried to delay the final vote because we still had hope that we could convince this short-sighted government to improve this monster bill.

Canadians deserve better. However, the Conservatives systematically refuse to listen to them and to work with the official opposition to pass laws that would make Canada a better place to live in instead of destroying our country little by little.

Our New Democrat team opposes budget 2012 and this implementation bill unless it is amended to focus on the priorities of Canadians, really creating good-quality jobs, not just putting the word “jobs” in the title of a bill; protecting our environment; strengthening our health care system; protecting retirement security for all; and ensuring open and transparent government. These are the priorities that Canadians tell us they care about. We have consulted throughout this process in our ridings, in our communities and across Canada and this is what Canadians have told us. They have serious concerns about both the process of this omnibus budget bill and the specific content contained therein.

With that, I therefore move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, because it:

(a) weakens Canadians' confidence in the work of Parliament, decreases transparency and erodes democratic process by concentrating changes to over 60 pieces of legislation in one omnibus 400 page bill under the guise of a budgetary bill;

(b) continues to roll back Canadian environmental protection measures by gutting the Navigable Waters Protection Act and further weakens the Fisheries and Canadian Environmental Assessment Acts;

(c) fails to provide substantive measures to create good Canadian jobs and stimulate meaningful long-term growth and recovery;

(d) reduces much needed job-creating tax credits for Scientific Research and Experimental Development; and

(e) creates a two-tiered workforce in the public sector that discriminates against new hires.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when listening to the member opposite, I was thinking back to when I had a chance to speak with Preston Manning. He had discussed the success of his father, Ernest Manning, in the province of Alberta. He said that the best policy they had was the fact that the NDP kept being elected in Saskatchewan, which of course drove all of the economic activity into the province of Alberta.

This is the same type of situation, I believe, that we have here. The member felt it was a fact that MPs did not really have a chance to look at this. However, if she had attended, as I did, the six and a half hour technical briefing that took place, maybe then she would be able to see just how each and every one of the amendments to the different acts need to be included, so that they match the jobs and growth budget we presented earlier.

Looking at all of those types of things and the concern that we keep our economy growing, I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that all the opposition has been talking about has been increased taxes. They demonstrated their concerns when we reduced the GST from 7% down to 5%, and talked about how they would increase taxes, using a carbon tax.

What does the member think is going to happen if their policies are enacted?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question was.

Let me just correct my colleague opposite. Of course, I was at the technical briefing and heard the officials from Finance and other departments, who were kept there until the wee hours of the morning.

However, what we have objected to and what the Prime Minister objected to when he was in opposition is the practice of lumping together so many different changes to laws that have nothing to do with the budget.

Why would the government not allow the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act to go to the appropriate committee where MPs who are specialists in that field can call witnesses and actually debate and vote on those changes? That would be transparency.

There are sections in this bill that, if the government would carve them out of the legislation before us and table them separately, the opposition would vote for today. Why will the government not do that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat taken aback by the member. At times, people have no shame and the New Democratic Party really has to start looking at itself in the mirror.

The member said that the Liberals supported the Conservatives at committee. It is very important for people to realize that there has only been one political party in the chamber that has consistently objected to and fought against Bill C-45, whether in debate in the House or in committee, or back at report stage and third reading, and that has been the Liberal Party.

The member voted for time allocation at committee and voted to limit debate in the chamber. She and other New Democrats voted with the Conservatives over a thousand times, like two peas in a pod helping the Conservatives ram the bill through—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I would remind the hon. member that we are in questions and comments. I realize there are 10 minutes for questions and comments, but in order to accommodate all members who may wish to comment, I would underline that we usually ask members to think about allocating one minute for their question and one minute for the response. That way there is time for all members to participate.

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find the member's non-question a little sad, frankly, because it bears no reflection on reality. I was vice-chair of the finance committee and will remind him that we voted on every single amendment that was proposed to the finance committee. We took the time to vote on every amendment. The New Democrats supported the vast majority of the substantive amendments proposed. Frivolous amendments are another story.

Let me remind the member that it was because of the finance committee that every single amendment was voted on, unlike the proposal that the member supported, which would have seen many of those amendments die and never make it to a vote.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Parkdale—High Park for all of her hard work at the finance committee and her diligence in holding the government to account as the critic for finance for the official opposition.

As the critic for agriculture for the official opposition, I know that a piece of that omnibus legislation on the Canada Grain Act was sent to committee. That is a very important act for grain growers across this country. When it was sent to committee, it was told basically, “Here it is, have a look, send it back, thank you very much”.

Does the member agree with me that the part of the bill dealing with Canada Grain Act should have been a separate piece of legislation sent to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, that the committee should have dealt with it as a separate act and sent it back to the House with recommendations and amendments after hearing witnesses who actually had a chance to testify fully? Does she agree it should have been separate legislation that members could have voted on in the House one way or the other, yes or no, regarding the particular changes proposed to the Grain Act?

Could my colleague from Parkdale—High Park comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a real and substantive question. Yes, the changes to the Canada Grain Act were proposed without consultation and will have a significant impact on grain producers. Clearly, it should have been a separate bill sent to the agriculture committee. Witnesses could have been heard, questions asked by parliamentarians and the result, hopefully, would have been a bill and, ultimately, a law that grain producers and MPs of all parties could have supported.

The reason New Democrats have been so tough in opposing this legislation is that the government has refused to allow that process and has denied democratic opportunity for MPs elected to represent their communities. Neither the grain producers nor the MPs from rural areas have been heard on this.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, once again the member was saying that MPs were not involved in these types of things. The last question had to do with the Canada Grain Act. Of course, there have been major consultations involved in this. They talked about inward inspection and all of these other kinds of changes. However, these are things that have been asked for by the agriculture community in western Canada and throughout Canada for such a long time.

When the member makes statements that are not particularly as closely aligned to what has happened in the House of Commons and committee, I am curious as to how she squares all of that.

I will go back to the question I asked earlier when we talked about the GST. What does she feel the NDP is doing? Was the reduction in the GST wrong in her mind and that of the NDP?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member feels so confident that the changes being made to the Canada Grain Act are constructive, positive and will be warmly welcomed, why is the government afraid to allow these measures to be included in a separate bill that would go to the agriculture committee where it can be properly examined and properly voted on? Why are the Conservatives afraid to do that?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. member for Markham—Unionville know that he has 20 minutes allowed for his speech but, in accordance with an order taken earlier this week, I will need to interrupt the debate at 15 minutes past the hour.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been asked to provide a copy of the minutes from the blues that clearly demonstrate that the NDP did in fact want to have closure in committee. I would ask the House for leave to table this document that clearly shows that the NDP wanted closure on this bill in committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the member for Winnipeg North have the unanimous consent of the House to table the documents?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill. As everyone knows, the Liberals will be voting against the bill for many reasons.

I would like to begin by raising a point that I have not yet heard discussed during this debate: the fact that this government is creating a culture of fear.

By that I mean that the government is proposing to fire some 20,000 public servants but some 100,000 public servants have received notice that they might be fired. The effect of that is to create a culture of fear in 100,000 Canadian families. This is a mean-spirited and heartless way to carry out reductions in employment. It causes fear in so many more people than actually will be affected. When we were in government, we were not strangers to expenditure review, but at no point did we arrange the loss of employment in such an unnecessarily cruel way. More often than not, we did it by attrition. Sometimes that was not possible, but we never sent notices to five times the number of people who could lose their jobs to the effect that they might lose their job. That is a particularly reprehensible part of this legislation.

There is a second thing I do not like about this legislation. Canada depends on innovation for productivity growth. Canada's record on private sector expenditure on R and D has been weak compared with that of most other western countries. That is one of the reasons that our productivity growth has been low for decades and why the growth and living standards of the Canadian middle-class has been suffering.

One would have thought that a sensible government might inject measures to promote innovation and research and development expenditures, but the Conservative government has done just the opposite. It reduced by a very significant amount the SR&ED tax credit. The SR&ED tax credit is an extremely valuable tool to encourage research and development, and innovation and productivity growth but, for some inexplicable reason, this has been cut.

There was a proposal, which I do not think is in the budget, to give less in tax credits but more in direct grants to companies. That is a very weird idea coming from a Conservative government because that implies that the government has the wherewithal, the knowledge and the brains to distinguish between winning companies and losing companies. If one were a Conservative, would it not make more sense to use the tax credit, which is neutral and does not imply that government knows best, and let the market and the entrepreneurs decide which companies are winners and which are losers?

This approach taken by the Conservatives is reminiscent of what one might expect from an NDP government, which might well think that government knows best, but instead we have this rather paternalistic approach to how we should run this economy coming from the Conservative side of the House. Maybe that means we need to get back to the Liberals.

There are many other weaknesses in the bill. It would dramatically weaken the laws on waterways and other things. However, I will spend a little time on why I think it is a badly constructed bill. Whether we agree with all the content is one thing, but it is constructed in a sloppy way, which probably reflects the fact that when a government tries to have so many pages of legislation in so little time it is likely to make mistakes.

I will describe three of the mistakes that lead me to think that this is not only a bad bill but also a sloppy bill that will probably need further corrections down the road.

The first point, which I mentioned earlier in a question, is the hiring credit where the government slips in a 7¢ EI premium hike where, in the case of companies that are near their limit, they will be penalized by either hiring more people or paying higher wages. This is a complete slip-up unless the government deliberately set out to hurt small businesses. This is something the government should not have wanted to do. It is an unintended negative consequence of this bill, which is why we brought in an amendment at committee to fix it. However, the government declined to support our amendment.

That is the first mistake the government made. And that is the first reason this bill is poorly constructed, I think.

The second bad thing about the construction of the bill refers to the negative impact on Canada's mining industry. I do not always agree with the Conservatives but I do not think they deliberately set out to destroy Canada's mining industry, so I would say that this is another unintended consequence, because one of the items in the bill would have a potentially serious negative effect on the mining industry.

To make this point, I want to quote from a letter from the Toronto Stock Exchange and the TSX Venture Exchange dated November 14, 2012, which explains clearly the grounds for this concern. The section of the bill concerns tax avoidance and specifically something called foreign affiliate dumping. This is not a quote from the NDP. It is a quote from the Toronto Stock Exchange on why it claims the bill is flawed. The letter reads:

We believe that the Proposed Rules, in their current form, cast too wide a net and risk impacting or diminishing legitimate and entirely appropriate activity by hundreds of publicly listed companies on our markets. Should the rules be introduced without further appropriate amendment, Canada's world-leading position and reputation as a market for resource issuers may be negatively impacted by creating inefficiencies in accessing capital and harming corporate valuations.

Based on our preliminary research, we estimate that in excess of 700 publicly-traded Canadian corporations with operations in a foreign jurisdiction could potentially be inadvertently and inappropriately impacted by the Proposed Rules....

We are extremely concerned that decades of effort to give Canada global leadership in a critical sector of capital markets activity can be impacted by the unadjusted implementation of the Proposed Rules.

That is very clear language. This bill would unintentionally harm some 700 publicly traded Canadian corporations in a sector of the economy, the mining sector, which has been in the past critical to Canada's prosperity and will continue to be critical to our prosperity going forward.

I will read one other quote on this same subject, a letter from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, dated October 13, 2012. It reads:

Given the substantial quantum of money required to bring a mining project into production, the proposed provisions will result in an unacceptable level of additional tax risk being added to the undertaking of the development of the project, making it less attractive for foreign investors to invest in such CRICs and consequently adoption of the foreign affiliate dumping proposals as currently drafted will make it extremely difficult for Canadian juniors to finance large projects.

The Conservatives had these letters. They had their own financial analysts. Are they too proud, is there too much hubris to admit that in all those hundreds of pages they might have made one or two slip-ups? There was ample time to fix it. We brought it to their attention but they chose not to fix it. They went blindly ahead with a project that was fundamentally flawed and will wreak serious damage onto one of Canada's key industries.

I can count at least three ways in which the bill is badly constructed.

First of all, this bill is poorly constructed because of the credit I just explained a few moments ago. Second, it is poorly constructed because it is bad for the mining sector, as I just explained. Third, given that the Conservatives made many mistakes in the last bill and those mistakes had to be corrected in this one, I have no doubt that we will continue to find mistakes in the next few months or the next year, and once again, Parliament will be forced to make changes to it.

Let me conclude by saying that I reject this culture of fear when possible dismissal letters are sent to a hundred thousand families and only 20,000 people need to be laid off. This is totally unnecessary and mean-spirited, especially as we approach Christmas. It is also entirely inappropriate for a country like Canada, which has suffered from low innovation in research and productivity, to slash the SR and ED tax credits.

Finally, I would contend that technically this is a badly constructed bill. It could have been amended in simple ways to fix these fundamental deficiencies. However, the Conservatives, perhaps through hubris, perhaps through wanting to amend nothing whatsoever, refused to even consider such amendments. As a consequence, we have flaws in the hiring credit legislation, which will damage some small businesses in the country. We have flaws in the foreign affiliate dumping legislation, which will do serious harm to Canada's mining industry.

Also, given the flawed and sloppy nature of the drafting of the bill, and given that errors were contained in the previous budget implementation bill that had to be corrected this time around, we can be sure that six months from now or one year from now we will see a new bill fixing the errors, perhaps the ones I have mentioned, perhaps many more, that will undoubtedly be contained in Bill C-45.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's comments. He would know that the funding to SR and ED, which was a program that certainly many would argue had some value, has been much better focused through other programs. Innovators actually get more of the funding and the funding is also spread to a broader community, so taxpayers are getting good value for money spent on innovation. I think the member knows that.

As well, the member does understand that our budget implementation bill is a good bill. He does not want to say it because he is a Liberal, but in listening to him, a lot of the undertones indicated that. He recognizes that a lot of what we are doing had to be done. I am sure he will back me up on this completely, when he answers.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a pretty strong nose if he could smell support coming from me in the comments that I made.

It is interesting. He is the one who should have made this point, because my answer was similar to a comment he made on what I had to say the other day. I said that he is a Conservative and why should the Conservatives stand up in the House and talk about the government creating 800,000 jobs, when it was the private sector. He kind of acknowledged that I was right.

Today I accused this Conservative government of behaving like NDPers. Instead of giving people tax credits, which are neutral, it has shifted to the government choosing winners, in transferring money directly from the government to individual companies. Therefore, rather than me being a Conservative, I think he is starting to behave like a Liberal.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before the bill to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act was introduced, environmental studies were carried out to determine the impact of new construction.

Federal and provincial studies were never carried out at the same time. In fact, when the federal government carried out a study, the provincial government did not, and vice versa.

Now that the federal government will no longer be carrying out studies, the provinces will automatically have to do them, if they have a program that allows them to do so. Therefore, some provinces will not be doing them.

I would like the member to explain why the Conservatives have decided to transfer expenditures to the provinces, or why they have decided to transfer environmental responsibilities to the provinces.

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

In general, the government has a very positive attitude about provincial responsibilities. Thus, it is not very surprising that it is giving the provinces more responsibilities.

Personally, I am not against a more efficient environmental system. There is no need for duplication of effort. However, I do not want less regulation. I want the regulations to be more effective and more stringent. The regulations proposed by the Conservatives are less stringent and weaker than before. That is one of the reasons why we oppose this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, December 3, 2012, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

[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:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #570

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment lost.

The question is on the motion. 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 yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Vote #571

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)