Finance Committee on Feb. 24th, 2009

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

First I'll move that Bill C-10, in clause 312, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 289 with the following:

except those requiring contributions from other levels of government, a sum not exceeding five hundred million

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. Would you like to speak to the amendment?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'd love to speak to this amendment.

You have heard from my colleague the finance critic for the NDP the general reasoning for this amendment throughout Bill C-10. You will understand that our concern is with the requirement on the part of the federal government to engage in cost-sharing arrangements with municipalities and provincial governments. You've heard that this places an unanticipated and most likely intolerable burden on our municipalities and provincial governments at a time when investment in infrastructure, and in this case particularly investment in housing, is so critical.

If there is ever an item or a matter pertaining to infrastructure and investment that will stimulate the economy and help people through the worst times of an economic recession, it is housing. I don't need to tell you, Mr. Chairperson, how much we've missed having a national housing policy in this country. Your government has made an attempt to start to put some money back after the Liberals basically destroyed any kind of national housing policy.

Let me take you back to 1993, when we dealt with the cuts. The 1995 budget, in particular, dealt with the cuts of the then Liberal government under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the finance minister, Paul Martin. So many programs were gutted in order to deal with an economic downturn. In particular--I won't go into this too much--we noticed the biggest cut in the history of this country in terms of health and social policies. By the way, that was to a tune of about $6 billion, and we are just now beginning to catch up, just now beginning to be back where we would have been back in 1995, without even considering the increase in the cost of living. Less noticed than the areas of health and education was the move by the federal Liberals to actually exit the field of housing completely, leaving Canada one of the only countries in the advanced industrial world that does not have a national housing policy. That's an embarrassment.

What we have said in this budget is that there must be a return to a national housing policy. While we acknowledge the small steps taken by the Conservatives, by this government, we are very worried that the amounts themselves are so small that they will not create the critical mass needed to turn around a deteriorating housing situation in this country, and that the moneys available once more require matching contributions by the municipalities and provincial governments at a time when either they are already stretched to the limit or when some provinces have started to make investments--such as my own. The Manitoba NDP government has started.... I shouldn't say they've started; it's been over a long period of time that it's been making significant investments in housing, and it desperately needs the federal government at the table--not negating or minimizing the work that's already been started, but supplementing and complementing that work.

So it's really critical, in our view, that the moneys that are available for housing, however small they may be, are there without necessarily requiring matching contributions by provinces and municipalities. You should know, especially when it comes to the area of social housing, that many have commended the federal government for beginning, for taking a small step towards covering social housing. But if you look at the amounts, you'll know they will address hardly the tip of the iceberg in terms of social housing needs in this country. And I hope you've heard from social housing coalitions about the importance of this area and just how minimal this is. So it's more important in that context to ensure that the money flows freely to support and complement provinces and municipalities and does not impose further restrictions on them.

In the case of the Manitoba NDP government, we are working actively to try to advance housing when it comes to people living with mental illness. And there are some projects under way, but there are so many more needs. So it would be absolutely counterproductive for the government to come forward with a proposal that says that the money set aside for a project dealing with housing for people with mental health problems has to be included in the overall amounts. It doesn't make sense when there is such a huge need.

This recommendation is actually a way to speed up the investment of money in housing so it's not hampered and tied up by municipal requirements and provincial government planning but, in fact, can flow quickly without all that bureaucracy and paperwork. It will ensure not only that are housing needs met but that we can actually stimulate the economy because we have moved quickly and expediently to address what is considered to be one of the most fundamental issues in terms of the present recession, or what some would call an economic depression.

Mr. Chair, I don't know how much you've heard from my colleague who spoke before me, Tom Mulcair; I hope I'm not repeating any of the arguments. I hope the Liberals understand the importance of this amendment, because they bear some responsibility for the cutbacks to housing in the first place. Secondly, they have expressed a desire to see the money flow quickly and to not repeat the pattern of the past in which, as they acknowledge, 95% or 96% of federal investment dollars did not flow or were not spent.

Here is another way to make sure we meet a very serious need as quickly as possible. And I can tell you, coming from an older neighbourhood in the north end of Winnipeg, that in the twelve years that I've been around--and I've witnessed the cutbacks of the federal Liberals, and now the very slow movement of the Conservatives--housing has been deteriorating rapidly. We're talking about old housing stock that needs a rapid injection of funds to help homeowners repair homes, to help non-profit housing corporations build new homes, and to help organizations involved in the aboriginal community, the disabled community, people dealing with mental illness, and seniors in particular. All of those groups need to have access to these funds.

In many cases, the provincial governments are ready to work with those organizations. There is goodwill in terms of the federal, provincial, and non-profit communities, and I would hope that we can advance this money and these issues as quickly as possible. And I hope that the federal Liberals, especially, will recant their past sins and agree with us that it's time to work together to develop a national housing policy. The way we do it is by spending this money, which some would consider a paltry amount of money, and getting housing stock revitalized and our economy stimulated.

Thank you. I hope that's been a fulsome explanation of my amendment.

Did you miss me?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That was very fulsome, yes. Thank you for your intervention.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1)

(Clause 312 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

(On clause 313--Maximum payment of $200,000,000)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On clause 313, we have NDP-6.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, would you like to move that?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I move that Bill C-10, in clause 313, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 290 with the following:

except those requiring contributions from other levels of government, a sum not exceeding two hundred million

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The amendment is in order.

Would you like to speak to that?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson, nowhere is the matter of inadequate housing so clear as when it comes to seniors. I'm sure all of my colleagues around this table have heard from our valued senior citizen members who feel that housing is not there when they need it. Nowhere is there more of a requirement to invest in housing than when it comes to seniors.

So this amendment deals specifically with the housing issues that I've raised before, but it specifically deals with the matter of senior citizens. So I would like you to look at page 133 of the Conservative budget, Canada's Economic Action Plan, where it refers to housing for low-income seniors, where it says that in fact investments are needed and should be, have to be, cost-shared with the provinces and the territories.

Again, Mr. Chairperson, we're going to put in place an unnecessary roadblock. We're going to slow down the flow of this money at a time when it's critically needed, when senior citizens are living in poverty. I am not saying all senior citizens live in poverty. I'm saying some of the greatest poverty we face as a nation is among our senior citizens, who have given so much to this country. In fact, some of the greatest poverty rests with our veterans, who have made sacrifices for this country. So it seems to me that if we honour those people, our seniors who built this country and our veterans who fought for it, then we ought to at least ensure that this money is available when they need it for quality housing. Why do we allow for any kind of bureaucratic process to slow down the flow of this money?

I would hope that my colleagues in the Bloc and the Liberals would agree with this at least. They may not have agreed with other amendments, but here is something that hits so close to home in terms of people who deserve to be treated with respect and who deserve prompt government action, who have waited a long time for the federal government to say yes, let's get involved in housing to some extent.

In fact, I remind my colleagues around the table that after the Liberals abdicated this field of housing, period, the only housing money that flowed among the federal, provincial, and municipal governments came as a result of Bill C-48 which, as you will all know, was the legislation pioneered by the NDP that diverted money-- billions of dollars from corporate tax breaks--to areas like housing, urban transit, aboriginal communities, and the environment. So the only money that has flowed from the federal government over the last...I don't know how many years of any substance and significance has been that money.

Provinces have tried to invest that money, have tried to put it in trust, have tried to spread it out, and they have said very clearly to the federal government that they need the support of their federal partners on housing, especially when it comes to seniors' housing. We have huge line-ups and waiting lists, whether we're talking about independent living arrangements or supported arrangements. That kind of situation has to be met on an urgent basis, and so by specifying that we do this in accordance with Treasury Board rules and in accordance with the plan laid out by the federal government whereby it has to be cost-shared with provinces and territories, we're cutting off our nose to spite our face. We're denying the very people we set out to help.

This budget was supposedly there to help people in times of need. Who is hurt more than anyone else in times of economic recession? The elderly, people with disabilities, the poor, those who don't have huge savings with which to withstand the economic blows of the present times, those who have been hurt by some of these fraudsters out in the marketplace ripping off people and seniors. We're talking in the House right now, as we speak, about whether or not we need a national securities commission.

So here we have an opportunity to act. Here we have an opportunity to make the money flow quickly. I hope that my Liberal friends at least will support us on this one. I know they're propping up the Conservatives. I know that they've ceded 50 votes in favour of the Conservatives. They don't seem to blink when you sing happy anniversary to them for their fifty-third vote in favour of the Conservatives. I know it's hard for them, and they're holding their noses, and they're doing it out of political expediency, not for the good of this country. We know all that. But surely on this one issue they could at least support something as rational and progressive as this measure, which would be to allow money to flow quickly to senior citizens and to meet the housing needs, which in turn will help stimulate the economy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope I made my case effectively.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We're on amendment NDP-6.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1)

(Clause 313 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

(On clause 314—Maximum payment of $25,000,000)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have amendment NDP-7.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, the amendment is in order.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that clause 314 of Bill C-10 be amended by replacing line 17 on page 290 with the following: except those requiring contributions from other levels of government, a sum not exceeding twenty-five million

You will note on page 290 of Bill C-10 that this is the clause that deals with housing for persons with disabilities, a matter very close to my heart and on which I could wax eloquent for hours, but I won't. I will keep this down to a few minutes, but I do want to emphasize it, because it is a very serious matter.

My colleague from the Bloc just reminded me that I should help explain what the amendment actually does.

What it in fact does is take out the sentence that comes in the way of the rapid flow of money to the group in question, in this case people with disabilities. It takes away the words “in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board”, because those are the words that allow the government to continue down this path of demanding that the money be cost-shared, or that the money available be met equally by provinces or municipalities.

We have argued from day one that that is inappropriate on all counts. We have referred to the past experience of the federal government on this matter of allocating money for investment in serious infrastructure and other programs, only to see the money not flow because of all of these requirements of matching funds and bureaucratic red tape and federal government interference.

The Liberals have said this is a major issue. They're the ones who in this committee and in Parliament have waxed eloquent about the failure of federal dollars to flow for infrastructure projects. In fact, they've said themselves that in the past 96% of federal dollars have not flowed.

My colleague Mike Wallace asks me whether I believe them. Yes, I do believe them. In fact, time and again we've seen good projects sitting on the shelf, gathering dust while the need keeps growing, because of all of these requirements.

What we're simply saying is, let's allow the money to flow. Yes, set broad conditions; obviously set conditions when it comes to the targeted group that the policy is directed to, in this case people living with disabilities, for whom the need is huge and who feel totally left out of the government's plan to deal with the economic recession. They acknowledge that a few steps have been taken and that there have been some important programs, but nothing that meets the need at all of people living with disabilities.

I don't know about my colleagues, but I've had all kinds of letters—maybe it's because I am the critic for persons living with disabilities in my party—from individuals asking how it is that, under this budget, a middle-class or a wealthy person can get money to build a deck on their cottage, but that they can't get their home retrofitted to make it accessible for people with disabilities. Or they wonder, “How is it that I'm basically living hand to mouth in totally deplorable housing conditions—in a rooming house, with no standard of care, with no proper, decent living conditions—and there are no programs for me to access?” The issues are real. People living with disabilities—as is the case with seniors—are more vulnerable than most people at times of economic recession. They don't have the savings; they don't have the backing; many of them don't have relatives around looking after them. They're on their own. They fall between the cracks.

The small steps that are taken in this budget are not to be dissed; they are important. I don't think they're nearly enough. If you look at the amounts on page 136 of the government plans, housing for persons with disabilities—$25 million in the first year, $50 million in the next, and $75 million in the next—it's pretty small potatoes in the scheme of things, but it's better than nothing.

But then to have that tied up in red tape without certainty that it will flow and to require that it be matched doesn't make sense. Where will the flexibility happen? How will it happen? If a provincial government such as Manitoba is engaged in a particular project dealing with housing for people with disabilities because they've had the vision or the fortitude to move in that direction and have made it a priority, and along comes the federal government and says, “We've got some money, but you've already started that project, so you're not going to get any help,” why doesn't the federal government say, “Okay, province, you look after 100% of the cost of that project and we will look after 100% of the next project”? Why not? Why not, to ensure that the money flows and we can get somewhere in terms of this big need?

I hope I've answered the question of the Bloc in terms of what the amendment does. I hope I've made the case about how important this issue is. I hope there will be support at least on this particular matter. It is critical and it is important to remove these obstacles to the quick flow of money for housing needs of people with disabilities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, I'm going to call the question.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 314 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 315—Maximum payment of $100,000,000)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have amendment NDP-8. The amendment is in order.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I move that Bill C-10 in clause 315 be amended by replacing line 28 on page 290 with the following:

except those requiring contributions from other levels of government, a sum not exceeding one hundred million

I have to explain this one because it's very critical. My colleagues need to understand just how serious this issue is and why we're making the amendment. This is not frivolous or vexatious. We are simply trying to get the money flowing as quickly as possible. However small or paltry it may seem in terms of overall housing needs in the north, the little bit of money that is here for the north has to flow quickly. I would hope that you will all talk to some of your colleagues from the north to know how important that is.

I had the privilege this past summer--and I can't speak from experience on the Yukon or the Northwest Territories--of travelling throughout Nunavut: Iqaluit, Pond Inlet, Pangnirtung, and Resolute. If there is one observation my colleagues and I made from that absolutely incredible voyage, it was of the need for an immediate injection of funds in housing. I wish I could give you a slide show of the housing conditions and just show you how difficult the circumstances are for folks.

You've probably heard, and I am sure my colleagues on the Conservative side have heard, from the Minister of Health, the member for Nunavut. They appreciate the money. I know there was a big fanfare and a big announcement made this past week. The money that is part of this budget has already been announced, obviously. Fine, go ahead and announce it, but after all the hoopla and after all the press coverage, maybe it would be a good idea just to flow some of that money without obstacles, without matching funds, without requirements that the hard-strapped governments of the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut have to match the funds.

I just received a letter from the folks we had met with in Iqaluit about housing, saying, if you can do anything, get this money going. Our territorial government does not have the wherewithal. It's stretched. They put that money into housing. You can't expect them to simply take the money that's available and require it be spent on a project already committed as opposed to something new that the province or territory wants to see happen.

How in the world, when it comes to the north, can we be this blind to the need and this caught up in red tape and bureaucracy? I do not know how to impress upon my colleagues the need in the north. I assume you've all seen it, heard from colleagues, or understand it. Then surely you understand that in the north, where the climate is difficult, where housing is so critical, when the temperatures can drop so low, when the climate is so volatile, we must at least provide an immediate flow of money for housing.

I don't know how else to make this point. I don't know how the Liberals can sit here and not support this. I don't understand how this isn't driving people to action. We are only looking at the Yukon and Northwest Territories receiving $50 million each, and $100 million for Nunavut, for housing that is in a crisis, for a housing situation that is reaching crisis proportions and where there is no greater apparent need for social housing.

For goodness' sake, if you talk about the distinctive needs of the territories, as this document does, then treat it with distinction, treat it as distinctive, flow the money, flow it quickly. Don't put in place roadblocks, don't put in place these requirements. Do what's right. I implore my Liberal colleagues to do that. I hope the Bloc will support it this time. And maybe my Conservative friends, who probably have talked to their colleague the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq and realize the significance of this, will support this motion, because it's that important.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll call the question on amendment NDP-8.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1)

(Clause 315 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll have a vote on clauses 316 to 320. I don't have any amendments for those clauses.

(Clauses 316 to 320 inclusive agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

(On clause 321)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have amendment NDP-9.

Mr. Mulcair, if you'd move it, it is in order.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chairman, we're going to move back to clause 317, even though our first amendment in the section on navigable waters is.... Our first amendment proposed is on clause 321. We will be calling for a recorded vote on clauses 317, 318, 319, and 320 before going to clause 321.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We've already voted for all of those clauses.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I'm sorry, I missed that one. You can keep going.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, amendment NDP-9.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

NDP-9 is at clause 321, Mr. Chairman. It provides that lines 11 to 24 on page 294 are to be deleted. Those lines, as you can see from consulting them, are as follows:

5.1. (1) Despite section 5, a work may be built or placed in, on, over, under, through or across any navigable water without meeting the requirements of that section if the work falls within a class of works, or the navigable water falls within a class of navigable waters, established by regulation or under section 13.

(2) The work shall be built, placed, maintained, operated, used and removed in accordance with the regulations or with the terms and conditions imposed under section 13.

(3) Sections 6 to 11.1 do not apply to works referred to in subsection (1) unless there is a contravention of subsection (2).

It goes on:

322. (1) The portion of subsection 6(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

And then that's the end of the English amendment.

Essentially, Mr. Chair, this is the heart of the Conservative attempt to gut the essence of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This is a statute that we've had the benefit of in Canada for over 100 years. Essentially, what we're doing here is opening up completely to ministerial discretion the possibility of excluding classes. Now, what's particularly pernicious is that there's no explanation of what the details of that would be.

Now, this is interesting, because historically the Conservatives have always pleaded that parliamentarians should know, when they're coming before a parliamentary committee, what the actual shape of the regulatory changes would be so that they know what they're voting on. Now, of course, that's obviously a principle that applied to the Conservatives when they were in opposition but no longer applies to them when they're in power. We see here that the possibility is going to be enacted, if this goes through, to remove all protection for navigable waters, because we have no control over what the shape, scope, size, and relative importance of those exceptions would be. So they're asking for a blank cheque. Of course, they're confident that because it's their guy who's getting the blank cheque, no foul.

We don't view it that way. We think that the Navigable Waters Protection Act has been there for a reason, that Canada has done relatively well compared to a lot of other countries in terms of protecting its waterways. We've been anything but perfect; we've had serious problems, especially in the southern part of this country, but all things considered.... I can talk for the state of things in Quebec. There are over 5,000 rivers in Quebec. As incredible as it might seem, there are over one million lakes in Quebec. Canada possesses an extraordinary richness in terms of the world's freshwater reserves. We have close to one-fifth of the world's fresh renewable water, although some people contest the definition of “renewable” in the sentence I've just spoken.

On the world stage we're very lucky with regard to fresh water, and a lot of analyses lead people to believe that because of global warming, because of demographic changes and increased desertification, we might be heading for a time when water will become increasingly important to be protected. That's why it's so galling to see the Conservatives, backed by the spineless Liberals, removing this protection for Canada's watercourses.

It was interesting to be here last night. I'm sure there was no untoward intention on the part of the Conservatives, but it was a shame that it was between 8:30 and 10 o'clock last night that all of the environmental groups were in here to speak against this atrocious attempt to remove protection of Canada's navigable waters. What was interesting is that there were about 200 people in the hall, representing everything from canoeing and kayak associations to people who work as water keepers and people working on rivers from across Canada, but most of them were from Ottawa, from Toronto, a lot of them from this province we're in right now, Ontario. People across Canada share the concern of what the Conservatives are up to here.

Essentially, we would delete the lines in question, the lines that would provide this new rule-making power that would essentially give a minister, especially the one who's there now, the ability to simply gut the protection that's provided for navigable waters in Canada.

Mr. Chairman, we move that Bill C-10, in clause 321, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 24 on page 294.

This amendment has to do with section 5.1, which would be added to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Every time we talk about this act, we tend to forget that its name is not the Navigable Waters Act, but rather, the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Here is what the Conservatives would like to add and what we would like to remove:

5.1 (1) Despite section 5, a work may be built or placed in, on, over, under, through or across any navigable water without meeting the requirements of that section if the work falls within a class of works, or the navigable water falls within a class of navigable waters, established by regulation or under section 13. (2) The work shall be built, placed, maintained, operated, used and removed in accordance with the regulations or with the terms and conditions imposed under section 13. (3) Subsections 6 to 11.1 do not apply to works referred to in subsection (1) unless there is a contravention of subsection (2).

Since the amendment mentions an exemption to section 5, it is worthwhile to read that section to see what it is all about. This provision is the heart of the act, it's a general provision that reads as follows:

5. (1) No work shall be built or placed in, on, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless (a) the work and the site and plans thereof have been approved by the Minister...

At the present time, Canada has a general system for protecting navigable waters. By adding subsection 5.1, we would be completely destroying this protection by giving the minister the power to allow exemptions or exceptions. In other words, the government could make this protection of Canadian navigable waters, which has existed for more than 100 years, completely meaningless. We think that this is a scandal.

We have to look at this against the backdrop of other information that came out in recent weeks about the government's clear intentions. The Minister of Transport, Mr. Baird, who appeared before this committee, did not try to deny it. Some information did leak out, and Louis-Gilles Francoeur, of the Devoir, was the first to put this information on the front page of the newspaper. The federal government intends to also tinker with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Apparently their goal is to change the threshold. In the future, any infrastructure project worth less than $10 million would not have to have an environmental assessment. From an environmental point of view, this is absurd. Obviously, in such a case, the important thing is not the value of the infrastructure project, but rather, the environmental value of the ecosystem. Even if you add fill to a precious wetland in order to build infrastructure worth $9.9 million, that doesn't change in any way the fact that you have back-filled the wetland. This is a totally absurd way of seeing the issue, but that's how the Conservatives see it.

Let's take a look at what they are getting ready to do with the assistance of the unprincipled Liberals. They are serving up this dish, which they call the economic crisis. The crisis is real. They are presenting this dish, and they are making a stew with all the old fashioned extreme-right ideas that had been kicking around for decades. First they are going to tinker with the provisions of the act and take away the right of women to have equal pay for work of equal value. Then, they are going to attack the rights of unionized workers and social rights. They are stripping their employees of the right to bargain collectively. They serve it all up on a plate, and they say that if we don't do something about the economic crisis, the world will come to an end, and the sky will fall. They are saying that dealing with the economic crisis is the absolute top priority. They are using this concoction to bring in their far-right programs with the support and the guilty complicity of the Liberals.

And now they are attacking the environment. This is what we are dealing with. They are using an economic crisis as an excuse, saying that the funds for the projects have to go out. Last night, a senior official came to give a political speech. He said:

we're going to have a tiering.

What is interesting is the fact that it is not included in the budget. He might know the content of the regulations, but it certainly is not included in the amendments that are before us.

Senior officials are implicitly telling us that they are aware of upcoming changes in that area, whereas the elected representatives, who are supposed to be independent and make the laws governing this country, are shunted aside.

When they were in opposition, the Conservatives tore the shirts off their backs every time a bill included too many regulatory powers. All of the shirts in the Conservative caucus have been torn to bits. The Conservatives always asked why they should vote on provisions without knowing what would be in the regulations. It was one of their hobby horses, one of the great principles for which they fought without respite. But curiously, now that they are in power, that principle has been tossed away. However, the Liberals do not have that problem because they never had any principles in the first place. When they were in power, they did the same thing. Today, they are the opposition, and they still support the Conservatives.

But the NDP, Mr. Chairman, will stand up for its principles and oppose the outrageous actions of the Conservatives. They are trying to take advantage of a real economic crisis to insidiously pass their extreme right agenda, which stands against equality, in particular the equality of women, which stands against the environment and future generations, which stands against social and union rights, the unemployed, the most disadvantaged and poorest members of our society. In short, they stand against everything which has been built over entire decades in Canada. They are trying to do this even though they are a minority government, and they are succeeding because the Liberals are too weak to stand up to them.

The first amendment we are proposing to the Navigable Waters Protection Act would reinstate the protection which has always existed under section 5, that is, in the general provisions. We cannot let unelected officials do the work of the government, that is, the executive, as far as this matter is concerned.

As members of Parliament, we are also here as legislators. We therefore have the right to know what those provisions contain. Since we do not know what the government's real intentions are, no parliamentarian worthy of that title can support the Conservative amendment. Since last night, we know that senior public servants know more about the government's real intentions than do the lawmakers themselves. I find that unacceptable. Therefore, I am in complete disagreement with what is happening. I hope that other members of Parliament will support us and defeat the amendment to weaken the protection of navigable waters.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Last evening, we also heard representations from groups which travel along the navigable waterways of Quebec and Canada. Based on what we heard, it is very clear that the bill should never have been included in the budget. I completely agree with my NDP colleague: the budget is being used to adopt ideas and an ideology which have nothing to do with the budgetary process.

Given the fact that this should never have been included in the bill in the first place, it is clear that we will support the NDP amendment, which aims to restrict the scope of the proposed changes. If the amendments were adopted, there would be negative repercussions. The amendment would give the minister extraordinary powers, which is something that should never happen. This goes against the principle of holding consultations first with citizens and all those who travel along our waterways.

For those reasons, we support the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll vote on amendment NDP-9.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 321 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)