House of Commons Hansard #21 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was passport.
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
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 of Etobicoke North, Agriculture; the hon. member for Yukon, Arctic Sovereignty.
The hon. member for Outremont.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Madam Speaker, the bill makes it contingent that to have the money flow on infrastructure, municipalities and provinces must match the funds. I have heard a series of people from the Liberal party say that the municipalities and the provinces do not have those funds.
The NDP proposed a change to ensure that the money would flow. It would not have required a single dollar more, it was not a confidence motion and it would not have changed the budget, but it was ruled admissible in committee.
Those members voted against it. They do not have any principles. It is not a question of legislative purism to evoke rights. There once were a certain number of people in the Liberal Party of Canada who believed in rights. I remember famously Clifford Lincoln saying that rights were rights were rights and always would be rights.
There is a new young member from the Liberal Party whose father brought in the Charter of Rights. They have the word “liberties” in their title, but the Liberal Party no longer represents any principles and it does not understand the notion of rights.
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member for Outremont hold forth on things like ideology and his need to contain the Conservative ideology.
He has a higher duty in the House to find relief for people who need help. No member in the House is sacrosanct or immune from that responsibility. The House has gone on for a time. Some of that time may be required. Issues may need to be resolved, but there is also that responsibility.
By not mentioning the salient difference between a $5 billion cut in November and an $18 billion stimulus package in January, the member fails to inform his constituents and others that this is the essential difference that we need to find a way on which to agree. We need to get jobs out there for people who do not have them. Fix these problems, assert the principles, but find a practical means to do that.
I appreciate the member may have found some frustration in doing that, but how he is going to help us get those jobs happening in a timely manner—
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Madam Speaker, let us talk about principles, shall we?
The budget bill claims that there will be $4 billion in savings from as yet identified government cutbacks, this from a government that increased program spending by $40 billion a year, or almost 25% in less than three years. It also claims that there will be unidentified sales of assets. That is supposed to be stimulus spending. How will that provide any stimulus to the economy?
The problem with the intervention from the person who just spoke from the Liberal Party is he is trying to give himself a clear conscience as he votes against women's right, the environment and social and collective bargaining rights. He deserves none.
He is the embodiment of the cynicism in the Canadian population with regard to the political class generally. He is not just letting his constituents down; he is failing the party that he represents, as party that once believed in rights and clearly no longer does.
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the next collection of proposed amendments, specifically on the subject of navigable waters. I know that quite a number of my colleagues are concerned, some of them very concerned, so I will illustrate very briefly the nature of those concerns.
First, I might refer to my colleague, the member for Outremont, whose assumption about Liberal voting motives was entirely incorrect. He seemed to believe that our voting the budget bill through was motivated by the removal of the political financing component, which was present in the November economic statement. However, I would point out for my NDP friend that while economics is not the strong point of the NDP, never is, never has been, the motive of my party to support the budget is entirely and 100% economic.
If we go back to the November economic statement, there was what could be called negative fiscal stimulus. There were $2 billion to $4 billion of cuts in that statement and on those grounds alone it was entirely unacceptable.
Let us flash forward to the January budget. Inadequate though it was in many ways, and I will get on to that in a minute, at least it put $18 billion of stimulus into the economy at a moment when the economy was in great need. The NDP might not understand the difference between a stimulus of minus $4 billion and a stimulus of plus $18 billion, but that shift alone was sufficient for members on the Liberal side to support the budget. Right now Canada is in the middle of an economic crisis and we need to get that money out the door.
Returning to the subject of the amendments, my concerns and the concerns of my colleagues, some of whom are more knowledgeable than I, is that under these the minister of transport can declare any waterway in the country unnavigable. In so doing, he or she thereby bypasses a possible trigger for environmental review. Some of my colleagues are concerned that this will water down or weaken environmental protection in general, specifically for navigable waters.
The Liberal Party put limits on this. At hearings, the Liberal Party was successful in getting committee agreement on time limits and sunset clauses so these measures, if adopted, would not be permanent. I might point out that under the suggestion from our party, we devoted an evening of hearings recently in the finance committee to those who were concerned about navigable waters.
If we go to the most fundamental point, the concerns with this amendment is that it potentially interferes with a right going back to Roman times, and that is the right of all Canadians to travel unimpeded on all waterways. For many Canadians, this is a right about which they are passionate. Sometimes it might be a view held by urban types who are avid canoeists, but also many rural people, including the Conservative base, fishers, anglers, rural people who also care deeply about navigable waters.
This is the nature of some of the concerns that my party and my colleagues have expressed in terms of these amendments.
Some members may ask why the Liberal Party is voting against this amendment and voting for the passage of the budget. The reason is very simple. Canada is in the middle, hopefully the middle, possibly the beginning, but we do not know the end, of a major recession. Today statistics showed that our gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of last year fell at a greater rate than at any time in nearly 20 years.
The government has done nothing to support the economy. For months the government was in a state of denial. The Prime Minister back in September said that if we were to have a recession, it would have happened by now. Today, if there is one thing we have learned is that statement was entirely wrong.
The government has delayed and delayed. It delayed through calling an election. It delayed through its disastrous November statement. It delayed through proroguing Parliament. Finally, we have a budget before us. We are saying it is time to get the money out of the door because so many unemployed Canadians and future unemployed Canadians need support. We need those infrastructure programs. We need those other injections of money to support the economy at this very difficult time.
We believe Canadians want politicians, all of us in this chamber, to focus single-mindedly on the economic crisis that, unfortunately, has engulfed the world, and the world includes Canada. That is why, notwithstanding concerns we have in the area of navigable waters and concerns that we have in many other areas of the budget, we have nevertheless decided to support the budget for the one and only one simple reason. The economy needs help. The budget, inadequate, reprehensible though it is in many ways, does move in the direction of providing that help, and that is why we support it.
However, we are not giving the government a blank cheque. Our leader has announced that the government is under probation and that there will be a series of quarterly reports, which will hold the government to account. We, and presumably other opposition parties, will see whether it has done what it said it would do in getting money out the door. We will see how the economy evolves and judge whether the actions the government has proposed have been sufficient or whether more actions are needed. We also will judge it according to the five criteria that our leader has established with regard to the budget and economy.
First, does the budget have adequate measures to support vulnerable Canadians?
Because it is always the most vulnerable who are most likely to feel the negative effects of a recession.
Second, does this budget give us the means to create jobs today? Will the funds promised for infrastructure be spent appropriately? Will this budget create jobs for the future?
In our opinion, this budget is inadequate because it contains almost nothing for science, for education, to help students, or for innovation and research. In fact, there have been cuts to research. So in terms of creating jobs for the future, this budget is inadequate.
Lastly, there are two more criteria. Is the budget regionally balanced? Do we have a guarantee that deficits will not be permanent?
We will judge the budget, the economy and the government according to those five criteria. Over time we will make a judgment as to whether additional measures are required and we will watch like hawks to see the government gets the promised money out the door.
There are many bad parts of the budget. Navigable waters may be one. The government's action on pay equity is another. Many Canadians, not just big business but small business, object to putting through fundamental changes to the Competition Act with essentially no debate. Whatever the merits of the content, the process is egregiously bad.
As I have said at least once, as politicians today in the midst of arguably the worst economic crisis in a generation, our minds must be focused on job number one, which is to support the Canadian economy. That is why, despite all the warts and inadequacies of the budget, the Liberal Party will support the budget.
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. Liberal colleague. On one hand, he is promoting the need to adopt budgetary measures as soon as possible to stimulate the economy, but on the other hand, he acknowledges that the budget contains some rather negative measures. If I understood his speech correctly, these measures would have led him to vote against it in other times. I would like him to explain how it is that he is more or less willing to go back on his previous commitments in order to support such a budget. Indeed, we know that, among the projects that are supposed to begin immediately, there is a very good chance that those involving navigable waterways could cause considerable damage to the environment.
How can he reconcile these two situations? He is for environmental measures, but at the end of the day, he is in favour of this budget and the environmental measures go out the window. I do not understand.
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, in politics as in life, we have to make choices and set priorities. For us and for the vast majority of Canadians today, since we are in the midst of an economic crisis, the priority must be the economy, government support for the economy and for protecting and saving jobs. My colleague will agree with me that in Quebec, as in the rest of the country, there have been huge job losses, and economists predict that more jobs will be lost in the future. Even though some other aspects of this bill are unsatisfactory, we have to strike a balance and make a choice. For us, notwithstanding the negative aspects of this bill, the priority must be to support the economy. That is why we support this bill.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member has said that his top concern in how we will vote on the budget is that many people are out of work and that many people in Canada have the right to have well-paid work.
He also admits that he does not know much about environmental assessment. Let me take the opportunity to inform him that the very purpose of an environmental impact assessment is to address impacts that communities downstream may suffer. The whole purpose of the process is to identify those impacts and to order those who will cause those impacts to mitigate them so that people egregiously impacted do not have to bear that cost. It is a very direct financial implication.
Perhaps he could address the fact that he thinks it is just fine that we use this backhanded way of amending a very critical federal law that is intentionally meant to make sure that those who bear the brunt of the impact do not bear the cost.
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I said I knew nothing about environmental assessment. I think I know a certain amount, but I would be the first to acknowledge that there are those in my party who are experts in this area and certainly know more than I do, just as I think I know more than some of my caucus colleagues in certain other areas, such as economics. It is not a statement that I am totally ignorant, but a statement that I am not expert in this area.
I would make the point that thanks to Liberal efforts when this proposed legislation was in committee, we did manage to put time limits and sunset clauses on these activities. I certainly could not rule out the possibility of a bad decision, but if a bad decision were taken taken under this bill, and with the discretion of the ministers in the government, at least the decision would not have a permanent impact, because there would be a time limit. There would be a sunset clause, and that would at least mitigate any damage done.
The other point, at the risk of being too repetitious, is that job one has to be to get the dollars out to support the economy and support jobs, and that is why we support--
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order.
Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain.
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the amendments put forward by the NDP to eliminate the amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Last week, a number of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance said they disagreed completely with the government's plan to introduce such changes in the Budget Implementation Act, 2009. The arguments we heard were quite commendable, in my opinion. The witnesses explained that many infrastructure projects will no doubt be carried out without an environmental assessment. We know that infrastructure projects that involve navigable waterways affect the environment, and not just for one, two or three weeks. Eventually, we will create problems that will do permanent damage to the environment.
Building a bridge where there should not be one, rather than making changes to a structure to take into account the specific environmental conditions and the navigability of these waters, will lead to major problems in future. In the name of development, and to the detriment of the environment, projects will go ahead that, one day or another, will be counterproductive. People are saying that we have to move quickly even if we contravene the Environmental Protection Act. It will be future generations who are affected and who will pay the price. Yet, to be productive globally, corporations must increasingly look at the big picture.
The second reason why the Bloc Québécois will support these amendments is because it is obvious that the Conservative government knew that the Liberals would support this budget implementation bill. They took advantage of this and included a series of measures that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget process. I am referring to pay equity as well as navigable waters. It makes absolutely no sense for the Conservative government to have included in the budget implementation bill a clause to amend this act.
The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities carried out important studies of amendments that could be made. This issue should have gone back to that committee. These amendments do not belong in the budget implementation bill. That is the second reason why the Bloc Québécois will support the NDP amendment to eliminate these changes.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, at this stage in considering Bill C-10, we are looking at amendments proposed and discussed earlier. The particular focus of these amendments relates to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which is contained in part 7 of the bill.
As I mentioned in some questions and comments earlier, this bill is very much about the economy. In fact, everything is about the economy. The amendments proposed now, while arguably rational, were or are calculated to distract from the economic aspects of this bill.
I will admit that I too had prepared amendments in relation to this particular aspect, and to some other aspects, of this bill. I did not proceed with them on the order paper, because my party is of the view that the economy and Canadians who are now at financial risk in the economy deserve greater attention from all of us in the House than do some of the more technical aspects of this bill.
However, in discussing these amendments, I want the record to show that I have some degree of discomfort with the methodology adopted by the government in its decision to include as part of the stimulus package amendments to this very old piece of federal legislation.
It is there for very good reasons. The Navigable Waters Protection Act assures federal jurisdiction for shipping on our navigable waters, an area that continues to be of huge importance to us. These changes are arguably needed in the act, but why has the government chosen a stimulus package and placed technical amendments in the updating of a very old statute in a bill like this?
There actually is a reason, and I think I can see it. It is that the government has seen that there may be some infrastructure investment in bridges, wharves, canals, navigation buoys, levees, dams, docks and other types of structures. These could be the targets of infrastructure spending. Some of the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act might delay or stall the investments in these works.
There are two aspects to this piggybacking of the Navigable Waters Protection Act in the stimulus package: the measures being put forward for adoption may arguably speed up investment, but they may directly or indirectly reduce the potential for protection of aspects of our navigable waters. Most of us around this place will have an eye for that, and we understand it. It is not as if we do not have environmental protection legislation out there. It is not as if we do not have real scientists, engineers and architects preparing this stuff. However, at the end of the day it is very important that we not lose sight of the proper way of doing things with respect to the environment, with respect to access of our citizens to these waters and with respect to the recreation industry. A lot us have received information from the Canadian Rivers Network. That perspective is very legitimate.
The policy aspect of a minister doing end runs around environmental protection legislation and other legislation that might provide for the public interest but that might also delay investment in a stimulus package is a very important consideration. We are not inviting our government here to be stupid, but we are nervous that the legislation will provide some fast-tracking that places the public interest at risk.
In addition to that, there are clauses in the bill that have actually removed the right of Parliament to review the government and ministerial activity after it has taken place. I cannot for the life of me figure out why the government has done this. We may regard this as just technical, but I do not regard it as technical.
There are actually seven clauses in the bill. I will put them on the record right now: clauses 244, 275, 279, 287, 292, 328 and 453. Each of those clauses purports to remove from Parliamentary scrutiny the administrative regulatory action of a government minister or the governor in council. Some of those involve the Navigable Waters Protection Act and other provisions involve other aspect of legislation in the stimulus package. That is simply unacceptable.
Some may say that the impact was inadvertent because the real purpose of putting these provisions in the bill was to avoid the slowing down by the regulatory process at the front end, the prepublication, the consultation, et cetera. Not only is the government trying to remove that pre-enactment scrutiny but it also has the impact of preventing Parliament from reviewing the regulatory actions to begin with, and that involves a whole slew of regulatory activity, which includes orders and exemptions, certificates, rules and directions.
Bill C-10, in these clauses, authorizes either the governor in council or ministers to take these acts and then says to Parliament that these are not statutory instruments and it cannot look at them after. That is absolutely wrong.
It is more than likely that someone from the other place will read some of the debate and more than likely that someone in the other place, that is the Senate, may take an interest in this issue. But at some point, these particular Bill C-10 enactments, including these provisions involving the Navigable Waters Protection Act, will have to be turned around. They will have to be fixed.
I cannot continue comfortably here in the House without trying to do something to fix this. It is now a question of a number of members in the House holding their noses while we pass this economic stimulus package. I cannot stress enough the stupidity of tagging onto economic stimulus legislation a whole lot of contraband in the back of the ambulance. It is not the right place to do it.
I recall another bill in a previous Parliament, also Bill C-10 coincidentally, where, in making a change to the Income Tax Act, this particular government thought it might want to test the waters on what many regarded as a censorship issue. That was just as dumb. We should not be using finance and economic stimulus legislative enactments to deal with other issues like updating the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This should happen in a piece of stand alone legislation.
The bill also has amendments involving the Competition Act. Those amendments should also be stand-alone legislation so the House can truly sink its teeth into it. The problem now is, and I hope Canadians realize it, that we have one bill with all of this in it. The main thrust of the bill is economic stimulus, but we have all of these other add-ons in the back of the truck and a lot of these add-ons, we do not like.
The amendments here are, in part, calculated to get rid of some of that extra baggage, but we are in a situation now, if we are to get the stimulus package moneys through Parliament, authorized, out on the street and creating jobs, we have to pass the bill the way it is now. I regret that, but that is a political reality.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, in essence, what we have before us in the amendment to which the hon. member for Outremont spoke, and I seconded, is a matter of both substance and process.
It is a matter of process in that the members of this House either support a Bush-type way of making law in Canada similar to the way that it was formerly done in the United States where they would secrete amendments to significant laws in things like a budget bill or they believe in openness and transparency. Either the members of this House believe in supporting the kinds of open transparent processes of developing environmental law in Canada that have gone on, or they do not.
There has been in place in Canada, since the enactment of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, a process called the regulatory advisory committee. It is a process where representatives of industry, provincial governments, the federal government and the public come forward to talk about whether changes needed to be made to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its associated acts, like the Navigable Waters Protection Act, CEPA, the Fisheries Act, or whether they believe that we should simply sneak it into a bill where there is no opportunity for transparency and participation. Either this Parliament believes in the laws that we pass and are in effect or we do not.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act very clearly prescribes that there will be review of the act within five years to be delivered by a committee of the Senate or a committee of Parliament. Do we believe in what that law says, or do we not?
The government across the way is following a completely different procedure outside the scope of what the law provides. A review of our Environmental Assessment Act is going on somewhere today, and we do not know where. It certainly has not been referred to the parliamentary committee on the environment where it is supposed to be referred.
What about the substance of the budget? What the budget is doing is taking various actions that it would like to do to amend significant law and policy in Canada, and just slip it through in a budget bill.
So, either the members of this House believe that substantive matters should come before this House and be openly debated and, in turn, turned over to the parliamentary committees and provide the opportunity for all affected parties, whether they are industry, whether they are municipalities, whether they are provincial officials or federal officials, to come forward and discuss proposed amendments to those laws, make decisions and recommendations which would then come before this House where a decision would be made, or they do not.
In this case, if the members do not support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Outremont, then either they believe that we should not follow the democratic traditions that are supposed to rule this House where significant amendments to laws come before this House, or they do not.
What is the Navigable Waters Protection Act? It is not a historic law, but it is a very significant law. It is not just whether we paddle a canoe down a river. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was the subject law in one of the most precedent-setting Supreme Court of Canada decisions on the environment in Canada; that is, the Friends of the Oldman River Society case. What had happened was a dam was being built in southern Alberta and the federal government had not come forward and done its proper environmental assessment before that dam was approved and so, affected farmers and affected citizens had to go to the court, yet again, to force the federal government to enforce its laws on the books.
What did the Supreme Court of Canada hold? It is a precedent-setting decision: both the federal and provincial governments have authority over the environment.
So, it is very clear that we as legislators, we as members of Parliament, have an important responsibility here, similar to the provincial legislators. It is critical that we enact strong laws for the protection of the environment. It is also important that we make sure that those laws are being effectively enforced.
What has happened in this process? The government nefariously puts through a very substantive amendment to a critical law that is upheld to be a constitutional federal authority without referring it to the House in the normal way, through the five-year review of CEAA, which would allow for it to be reviewed thoroughly by the parliamentary committee, the public, industry, municipalities, and the provinces. Do we think that is inappropriate? Absolutely. It must be removed from the bill.
However, this is not the first time this matter has been raised by the Conservative Party. There was a precursor to this. It was the NDP that raised this when the fiscal update was raised in the fall. In that fiscal update, the government not only slammed women's rights and the rights of government workers to strike, it also said that it was going to remove red tape so that we could fast-track economic development and not have delays of things like environmental impact assessments.
The other parties in the House did not appear to pick up on that. Well, this was the next step forward, which we suspected was coming, that the government had a long-term plan that it was going to undermine environmental laws in Canada. This is exactly what it has done by slipping this through a budget bill and making it very difficult for the parties to try to move forward on dollars to support Canadians who are out at work and at the same time protect the environment.
What is the purpose of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act? It is not minor. As I mentioned earlier in a question to one of the members, it is absolutely critical that we have a process were we identify well in advance what the impacts might be on people downstream of some kind of barrier in a navigable water. Either we order that they be mitigated or that the person who is doing those damages or that barrier to the navigable water pays for those impacts and not the person who is impacted.
It is very critical. It goes to the heart of who should pay. It is the polluter who should pay. Canada has signed on to that international principle. So we need to uphold the laws that we put into effect to implement that provision.
What do we believe in? Do we believe in piecemeal amendments to our environmental laws, or do we believe in the holistic approach, working co-operatively with the provinces?
More than a decade ago, the federal and provincial governments agreed on the harmonization accord. The whole purpose was to come together with the public and industry to talk about ways that we could move forward in a coordinated approach to keep down the costs and keep it effective.
Nobody is hurt more than an affected community by having separate environmental reviews. The public has to spend its own resources to hire lawyers and experts to deal with those potential impacts. There are agreements between the federal government and the provinces which are working very well.
Why, one might ask, is it necessary for the government to come forward in this nefarious way to remove one of the key triggers for federal environmental assessments? There are three, one is federal spending. Clearly, we are talking about federal spending here. The other is the federal law list. Clearly, the Navigable Waters Protection Act is on that law list after discussions with the provinces and industry and the public, and any federal licences or approvals.
What are we doing? We are going to say, well, projects under a certain value do not have to be assessed anymore. The last I looked at that legislation, it is all about taking a look, as the hon. member for Outremont very clearly pointed out. It is all about assessing how significant the impacts are going to be of that development, not about the cost of the development itself. It is completely the wrong trigger point for deciding whether or not there should be an environmental impact assessment.
I would also point out to the House that just because the act is triggered does not mean that there is an extensive, long, drawn-out public hearing. In fact, in very few cases does the federal government even call for a federal hearing. In most cases, there is simply what is called an initial assessment. There is a review by the appropriate agencies to see, should this act be triggered and should we require the proponent to do more work.
What are we doing? Through this backhanded amendment, we are simply saying there is no need to look at all, apart from the fact we may be violating a constitutional obligation to at least consult in advance and accommodate impacts on first nations.
This amendment, which the government says is just very minor, just to fast-track development, is in fact extremely nefarious and undermines the basis of what we are supposed to be doing in Canada, which is saying that the environment and economy are inextricably linked.
The government is saying it is in sync with the Obama administration. Nothing could be further from the truth by trying to fast-track through this kind of an amendment in a nefarious way. Contrary to what the Conservatives have asserted, that they will have an open and transparent government, through a budget bill, they are nefariously trying to make a significant amendment to a critical environmental law.
For this reason I speak strongly against this provision in the budget, and support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Outremont.
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Speaker, if we take sustainable development in its simplest expression as being government's obligation to take care of future generations to make sure that they have the right to the same standard of living and the same environmental standards that we have, could the member for Edmonton—Strathcona tell us what she thinks this is saying about the Liberal Party of Canada? It would support a measure in a budget that will not only saddle future generations with a financial burden but will do nothing to leave them a legacy that they can use in terms green, sustainable energy, for example.
Instead, we are going to depreciate and destroy the environment by removing the protections of the Navigable Waters Protections Act, and by removing environmental assessment. Could she tell us what that means with regard to Gro Harlem Brundtland analysis of what it is to have an obligation to take into account the effects on future generations, what we call sustainable development?
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, indeed this is not a minor provision in the budget bill. It goes to the very heart of what this Parliament believes in. We believe that the environment and the economy are inextricably linked and that we need to be making sure that whether they are fiscal measures or whether they are new laws or policies, they have actually had an environmental or green screen.
In this case, what is being said is that we need to fast-track economic development and we need to create jobs, but let us just throw out environmental considerations. What that is doing is ensuring that we do not have a sustainable economy into the future, unlike what the rest of the planet is working toward.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks. She has very clearly flagged a problem in Bill C-10, but the problem is going along with the bill as additional baggage.
She has talked about principles and the environment, which almost everyone in this place would subscribe to, but could she please address the fact that the Prime Minister has told Parliament that if there is any change to this bill, there will be an election. Is she prepared to tell Canadians she would prefer to go to an election now rather than deliver a stimulus package? That is the choice we have to make.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I did not run in an election and get elected by my constituents simply because I want to get elected. I told the people of Edmonton--Strathcona that I was running because I was going to bring the federal government back to Alberta. I am sick and tired of members standing in this House and making excuses for why we are not going to apply the rule of law, which is the law that is passed by this Parliament, to Canada, so that we ensure the protection of communities.
It is all about whether or not we believe in the rule of law and in actually asserting our powers and enforcing Canadian environmental law in Canada.
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona gave an excellent response to that last question.
I just received an email from a constituent in my riding, Tony Rodgers, who is working with an outdoor network of 25 hunting, angling and fishing groups across Canada. They have come together to work on decoupling the Navigable Waters Protection Act from Bill C-10. They have asked me to stand in this House and speak out against this issue.
Has the member received similar demands from members of her riding and also from environmental groups, angling and hunting groups around Canada? Is she getting this kind of response?
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, indeed the member is receiving inquiries from concerned citizens in Nova Scotia. I have been receiving questions and hearing concerns from people right across Canada.
People are deeply concerned about this. People in Canada have given of their time and effort voluntarily to participate in the development of effective Canadian environmental legislation. They are absolutely furious that significant changes have been made to this law in underhanded ways.
Yes, I am hearing from people and that is why I stood today in the House to speak.
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I really miss my good friend, Rahim Jaffer, in this House.
We are into the second series of amendments on Bill C-10. Bill C-10 is a 528 page document.
There are parts of this bill that we are not comfortable with. As my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, clearly pointed out, if we try to amend or change the bill, that will trigger an election.
My constituents keep telling me that these are difficult and trying times but what do I tell John MacDonald, the unemployed auto worker? Do I tell him that we do not care that he is unemployed, that we do not care that he cannot pay his mortgage, that we want to go to an election? We know how principled people are, and I am going to get into that as well. The member for Outremont talked about principles. This is the arena where we sometimes have the opportunity to talk about those principles, so let us put them on the table.
Part of these amendments have to do with the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The last thing I want to do is to go to Rice Lake and say that we cannot do this and we cannot do that. I do not want my constituents to be prevented from canoeing in certain areas that they use for recreational purposes. It is a difficult situation. However, as my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River said, maybe improvements are being made to the marina, or a bridge or other infrastructure related to the area and we do not want that to be impeded.
Earlier on the member for Outremont talked about the Liberals having no principles. In order to appreciate where we are today we have to go back in history, because he is saying that we have no principles because we will not defeat the government on the budget. This Liberal team today is putting Canadians first and not our vested interests. That is why we are putting some water in our wine. There are areas in the budget that we do not agree with. There are flaws, if I may describe them as such.
I want to give the member for Edmonton—Strathcona a history lesson, because she is newly elected. I want to give the member for Outremont a history lesson as well. If we try to make amendments, it has been clearly spelled out that this will be a confidence vote and it will trigger an election which Canadians do not want, and more important, cannot afford.
What Canadians have told us repeatedly, what my constituents have told me repeatedly, and we are here to speak on behalf of our constituents, is they want us to do what we can to stimulate the economy, to bring back those jobs that have been lost.
In my province of Ontario hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost. The auto industry is hurting badly. The city of Toronto cannot repair its roads. It is having to impose levies and increase taxes continuously.
Seniors in my riding are hurting because they live on fixed incomes. They are not income generators. When we impose on their pensions by $10 a month, that is a lot for a senior. When students want to go on to college and university but they cannot afford it because tuitions have gone up, that impedes Canada's future.
The member for Outremont talks about principles, but let me remind him and the member for Edmonton—Strathcona of budget 2005. Members of the New Democratic Party, the principled party supposedly, came to us when we were in government. It was a good budget. We covered every area, but they said they wanted amendments to it in order to support the budget. They wanted more money for housing, to which we agreed. They wanted more money for urban transit, to which we agreed. They wanted more money for the environment, to which we agreed. They wanted more money for post-secondary education, to which we agreed.
It was a historic moment for the old democratic party; after all, it has been called the New Democratic Party for the past 60 years. Someone might ask why I am picking on the New Democratic Party and not the Conservative Party. We have the Conservative government today thanks to the NDP members. I hope the member for Edmonton—Strathcona and the member for Outremont are listening. Members of their party were in cahoots with the Conservative Party and they defeated the Liberal government prematurely and all those programs went down the drain.
Let us fast forward to today. There is x amount of money on the table, money that we agree with, money that was discussed by my colleagues earlier, money that needs to get out there as soon as possible. Imagine if we were to stand here as the Liberal Party and defeat the government. We would be back to square one. We would be into an election. We might get the same result, or a minority Liberal government. It would take three months to do it at a cost of over half a billion dollars. Meanwhile the John MacDonalds of the world would still be unemployed. Who is principled here, I ask the NDP?
John MacDonald is sitting there unemployed, worried about how he is going to put food on the table and there are a bunch of politicians who cannot get their act together. Well, we Liberals have our act together and we are saying that for the good of the country, for the good of Canadians, we will put some water in our wine. The day will come to address some of the draconian initiatives that have been put in the budget and which really do not make sense. There is no need for those types of initiatives in this budget. I can hear President Obama say that we are going to address the economy, but there is a caveat here and a caveat there.
I am really puzzled with the NDP's position. The member for Outremont talks about principles. The member for Outremont used to be minister of the environment in the Quebec National Assembly. He made a comment that he was in favour of selling Canadian fresh water. If he is here, he can stand after I finish my speech and deny that. Who is more responsible and more principled here?
The first conference I had the honour and privilege of attending was in New York. I attended with the then environment minister, Sergio Marchi. It was at the UN and was on sustainable development. We all know what sustainable development means, but I was very impressed. The minister hosted a reception and there were representatives from all over the world. They put Canada right at the top. I felt so proud to be a Canadian and representing Canada. They told me that Canada had it right, that Canada was on the right track.
Environmental issues are not something for which we can flip a switch and they are solved. It is an ongoing process. Things that did not happen 20 years ago are happening today. Technologies that did not exist then exist now. Yes, it is more costly. Yes, we have to make changes to legislation, et cetera.
In closing, I wish that members of the NDP would finally get their act together, be responsible and do the right thing. Let Canada move forward positively.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I always enjoy listening to one of my favourite Liberals in the House of Commons and a long-time member. I have one very simple question for the Liberal Party.
Liberal members stand in the House and criticize the government for the budgetary process, for what is not in the budget and for everything else but what do they give us? They have put the Conservatives on report. They are telling the Conservatives that if they do not deliver the goods they will write a letter and tell everybody about it.
They had an outstanding opportunity and if they had pushed harder I am sure they could have made changes. The member and his party must be getting the emails and questions about the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This could have a very devastating effect on the future of our waterways in the country.
Instead of a report card system, why would the Liberals not have pushed for something as significant as changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act which would have protected the integrity of our natural water systems?
Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2009Government Orders
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, one would ask why a member of Parliament would have an interest in waterways? We have the beautiful Scarborough Bluffs that are part of Lake Ontario. People go canoeing and boating. I am only an hour's drive from Rice Lake where I used to go fishing as a young boy. We do have an interest.
We come here as hon. members and we are described as hon. members. We should at least give the government the benefit of the doubt and give it the opportunity for the benefit of Canadians.
I will go back to when the NDP brought forward its wonderful proposals that we agreed with and supported. Having agreed with the NDP, it renegued on Canadians. What we are saying is that we want to give the government the opportunity but should it not meet its commitment, should it not keep its word, he can be assured that we will keep the government to account.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, that begs the question as to how will the Liberal Party will keep the Conservatives to account. What will the Liberals do? Will they stamp their feet, raise their arms and call the Conservatives bad people or will they actually have the courage to stand up?
We know they just celebrated their 50th anniversary, 50 confidence motions in a row of supporting the government. What will the Liberals do if the Conservatives tell them to go pound sand, that they do not care what the Liberals have to say because this is what they will do?
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will tell him exactly what the Liberal Party will do. The Liberal Party will do what its constituencies want it to do, what Canadians will tell it to do. He can be assured that the message will be clear that if the Conservative government does not do what it is supposed to, Canadians will punish it accordingly, as they punished Brian Mulroney.