Debates of Oct. 25th, 2012

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. gentleman's concern. In the first half of my remarks today I went into considerable detail about why the procedure being followed here was mistaken. It does jamb Parliament. It limits the opportunity for debate and for serious consideration and, at the end of the day, it calls for all of these subject matters to be voted on together in a single vote. The government has indicated that it does not have to be that way.

Why does the government not fix this problem that it is causing for itself by insisting on the omnibus procedure? The government has already agreed that some things can come out of Bill C-45. That was demonstrated by the reforms to MPs' pensions. The bill can be severed. That has been demonstrated by what was done with the pension provisions.

The government has also indicated that the subject matters can be considered in different committees. It all does not have to go to finance committee. It can be divided up among eight, ten or twelve different committees of the House and the committee that has the expertise in a particular subject area can examine that portion of Bill C-45. That too is progress and it demonstrates that we do not have to have the omnibus procedure.

The government needs to go the one extra step and say that after the committees have done their consideration, the House can vote on these topics not all in one lump, but one by one, so the vote result can be clear and honest.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45 is a huge bill. My colleague went through quite a number of areas where the federal government would be really eroding its ability to provide services to people. There are serious implications on Canadian society in receiving services from the government.

The member for Wascana may have touched on the changes to the Canadian Grain Commission, but he did not deal with them in detail. The Canadian Grain Commission has put Canada on the map in assuring that high quality grain gets to market. It gives some protection services to farmers and has enhanced our reputation abroad. Even changes to the Canada Grain Act are in this omnibus budget bill, which is clearly wrong.

Would the member care to comment on the impact that could have on the farm community and Canada as an export country shipping abroad?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in all of the intense debates over the last 25 years about the contentious issue of the Canadian Wheat Board, I often said that an even more crucial matter was the Canadian Grain Commission. The Grain Commission is that agency in our grain marketing system that guarantees quality to our customers and guarantees honesty in weights, measures and grades to farmers. The trend that is evident in this bill is a trend toward making the whole Grain Commission process voluntary, optional and entirely at the farmer's expense. We think that trend is wrong. Any agency or organization like the Grain Commission, after the better part of 100 years in service, can be upgraded, improved and modernized, but this is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If we couple the elimination of the grades, standards and the guarantees of proper quality that the Grain Commission provides with the loss of the Canadian Wheat Board, the government is in the process of putting prairie agriculture back to about 1910.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to some of the historic revisions that went on. When we talk about employment insurance, Canadians at home watching this remember when a Liberal government took billions and billions of dollars out of the employment insurance system in order to balance the books. The member talked about programs for post-secondary education, health care and others. It is this government that has put money into those programs. During economic tough times, this government was able to find extra money to put into health care and made changes to the employment insurance system. The Liberals are the ones who took billions of dollars out of health care and employment insurance and now they say that this government is mismanaging.

The member talked about the IMF. The IMF has praised Canada. Yes, it has concerns. The OECD and the rest of the world is looking at Canada as the right way to manage an economy, yet the member wants some kind of revision not only of the past but the present.

Why does he not acknowledge the fact that there are improvements needed in many respects? We need only to look at the employment insurance plan to see how it has benefited women who can now apply for employment insurance when they are pregnant or for people who own businesses. There have been improvements to employment insurance to cover people who did not have such coverage before because they were single employers and ran their own businesses.

A lot of good things have happened and why the member does not at least acknowledge that is beyond me.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the difficulties that were faced by the government in the 1990s were very severe. The IMF was quite literally knocking on the door saying that Canada was about to hit the wall. Therefore, some serious decisions had to be made at that time. The praise coming from the IMF today is largely based on the courageous decisions that were made in the 1990s, and the IMF has said that. There was a $40 billion deficit that had to be dealt with.

The former leader of the hon. member's party, Preston Manning, said that the cuts should be deeper. He argued for the cuts to go further. The transfers to provinces that had to be reduced temporarily back in that period of time were all fully restored by the year 2001 and reached an all-time record level by 2003.

On the employment insurance premiums, the consolidation of the fund with the books of the Government of Canada was a specific recommendation by the Auditor General of Canada. The Liberal government followed the auditor general's advice and, at the same time, cut EI premium rates every year for 12 consecutive years, resulting in a saving to employers and employees of 40%, the exact opposite of what the Conservative government—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Leduc.

I am certainly pleased to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-45, which is our second budget implementation act. As members are aware, the budget was introduced last spring and, as is the typical practice of the House, there are usually two pieces of legislation that turn this aspirational and directional document into legislation. Today we are considering the second important implementation bill.

The opposition has taken a very simplistic view of this process. The opposition members are busy counting pages rather than reading them. They are focused on worrying about the number of statutes as opposed to looking at the current context and the unique challenges that we face as a country.

Canadians want their government to focus on results. They expect us to work hard to ensure that this happens. I want to provide a small example, using MP pensions. Since I was elected in 2008, I have heard regularly and frequently from constituents that they felt the current plan was unfair to the taxpayer.

As a government, we committed to make a change where parliamentarians would pay their fair share. We need to look at this in a little more depth. This represented one line in the budget, but it took 22 pages in the BIA to make the change. To be frank, I do not think Canadians care about how many pages it would take. What they care about is the outcome. They expect legislators to know how to make it happen.

I would like to note the comment of Speaker Parent when the issue of budget scope was debated in 1994. He said:

In conclusion, it is procedurally correct and common practice for a bill to amend, repeal or enact several statutes. There are numerous rulings in which Speakers have declined to intervene simply because a bill was complex and permitted omnibus legislation to proceed.

We are aware that an important plan is necessary. Our government knows we must make changes to ensure Canada's long-term future, a future focused on prosperity, jobs and growth, a future that will help further unleash the potential of Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to innovate and thrive in a modern economy to the benefit of all Canadians for generations to come.

As has been said often in the House, Canada is the envy of the world. We were well-positioned to face the great recession and fared better than most countries. We have over 800,000 net new jobs, most of them in the private sector and most of them full-time.

Our plan is working but we must do more. That is why the economic action plan is so important. There are many challenges ahead that range from a continual fragile global economy to a significant demographic challenge with an aging workforce.

I would now like to give a few examples and focus in on what the BIA 2 will do. We are looking at responsible resource development. It absolutely is critical to ensure environmental protection, but at the same time have some balance.

When I was mayor of a small town, we took incredible pride in the protection of some of our important fish habitats, but we were also tried to put in a walking trail. We had a walking trail, with a tiny footbridge, that had to go over a creek that was wet very infrequently. It was considered a navigable water. The amount of bureaucracy and paperwork involved was stunning. A canoe never went in that water. There was never any navigation in that water. The process we had to go through with Transport Canada in order to put in a small footbridge that would support the recreation and well-being of the community was absolutely stunning.

This is where we need to create better balance in terms of what we are looking at, focusing important resources in areas that are going to be most important.

Another place I would like to look at within this BIA is the expanding opportunities for the aboriginal people to fully participate in the economy. I am really particularly proud of Tk'emlúps Indian Band which has shown real leadership in moving forward for a good economy for its people and using their land in ways that the band approves of but provides challenges.

The Auditor General has identified the designation and leasing processes to be the cause of unnecessary lengthy approval times for projects on reserve.

I have seen that up front, whether it be a number of the bands as they are trying to move forward wanting to do some very important things and the months of delay with the bureaucracy again getting in their way. The legislation has important amendments that would take away some of the government's patriarchal land ownership rulings and let the bands move forward in terms of some important economic opportunities.

We recognize that having a social safety net that supports Canadians must be there for future generations. We cannot leave a legacy of debt that will suffocate our children and we must return to a balanced budget in the medium term, again an important focus of what we are doing right now.

Expanding trade and opening new markets for Canadian business is critical. Our prosperity is ultimately linked to reaching beyond our borders for economic opportunities. I will look at the forestry industry in British Columbia where the new markets in China have seen us through a very difficult time and helped buffer the U.S. recession because our pulp mills and our forestry workers were able to keep working and have looked at a significant increase in terms of trading with China.

Our government also understands the importance of a fair and equitable tax system and that is why this bill includes a number of important measures to improve on certain tax credits and other issues. Overall, these measures would improve access to some very important tax programs. I will talk briefly about the RDSP,which has been very well received. We will simplify the process to open RDSPs for individuals who have reached the age of majority and lack contractual competence. We would reduce the repayment of the Canada disability savings grant and Canada disability savings bonds in certain cases. We are introducing changes to the minimum and maximum withdrawal rules. We are allowing a tax-free roll-over of registered education savings plan investment income into an RDSP. We are temporarily suspending the termination of an RDSP following cessation of eligibility. I could go on and on but essentially these are technical changes that would provide a vast improvement to the program. If it takes a lot of pages, I ask that the opposition members read the pages and support the legislation.

I will contrast our low tax plan focus on jobs and growth with that of the NDP. On page four of the NDP platform, there is a $21 billion carbon tax that would be used for a myriad of government social programs that range from housing to food. We need to be clear that this is a tax that would raise the cost of everything from gas to heating bills and it should be contrasted—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to my friend from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo who truly is my friend. I recognize that speaking notes are prepared by people other than my hon. friend but we are talking about Bill C-45 and it does not include any mention of any NDP election platform, nor is this proper in debate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands will know that members, in the course of their comments, can explore any number of ideas with which they can refer or relate to their comments in the course of their speech. I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary will be well into summarizing toward the end of her comments, in any case, and I am sure she will get around to the question that is in front of the House.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I just wanted to contrast that with British Columbia's approach, which was at least a revenue neutral tax shift. According to yesterday's National Post:

“...a new report from the NDP-linked Broadbent Institute...contained a prescriptive chapter on “fair taxes” that, if implemented, really would send the cost of everything rocketing skyward”. So with a socialist form of carbon tax and the NDP economic policies that would cripple our business and competitive advantage, the official opposition members just do not understand the damage they would do ultimately to pay for the programs that we treasure.

I urge all members of this House to support this technical piece of legislation that ensures many of the important measures in budget 2012 are enshrined into action. Now is the time to ensure the sustainability of our public finances and social programs for future generations. International experience shows the importance of taking action now. Building a strong economy has to be our number one priority. With the ongoing global economic turbulence, especially in Europe and the United States, we have to act now. Delaying needed and fiscal reform will only serve to put our financial house in jeopardy.

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

Mr. Speaker, this massive omnibus bill contains a huge number of bills, amendments and initiatives that we cannot support.

The NDP could support some small elements here and there, including the extension of the tax credit for small and medium-sized businesses to encourage hiring, but we do not think that this goes far enough. The NDP's plan went much further in this regard and even offered these businesses the opportunity to receive an additional tax credit if they were able to retain their employees for a year. Yet, the government decided on a one-time initiative to extend the tax credit for just one year. Unfortunately, there is still some uncertainty as to what will happen next year.

Given that all the parties in the House would easily support these small elements, does the hon. member believe that it would be possible to separate them from the bill so that we can quickly debate them? Since everyone would be in agreement, we could pass them and really focus on the main points of this bill—points on which there is opposition and for which we have positive recommendations to make to amend this bill properly.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition members are very confusing at times. At one point they are saying that we should withdraw things, take them out. The next minute they are complaining about not having enough time to debate them.

Obviously, with the MP pensions we were able to move forward. There was a decision by all parties that it did not require further debate.

However, we have a budget. We have a plan and it is an important plan. It is very important that we look at it in the context of our economy, our long-term future and our long-term success. The economy not one statute or one program. It really needs to be looked at as a whole government approach, which is what a budget is.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on her speech on this important bill, Bill C-45.

I have heard some complaints from opposition members about the size of the bill. I would like to point out that in reality there are 24 sections. They complain about the number of pages but half of them are in French. One can choose a language, English or French, and that reduces the size.

Some of these 24 sections consist of only one clause. For example, the EI change is only one clause. The Fisheries Act section consists of four important clauses that would actually protect fish and that talks about fines for people who put fish at risk.

Ten committees will look at the clauses in the bill to ensure committees can apply their expertise and ensure they are satisfied.

I would like the member to comment on the hysteria that some are exhibiting. This is a jobs and growth bill, and that is exactly what it is intended to ensure.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I need to repeat the comments that I opened with. The opposition members seem to be more focused on counting than reading and they need to be focused on reading.

Again, I need to use the example I used before. One line regarding MP pensions translated into 22 pages in the budget implementation act and the opposition felt comfortable moving that forward without any further debate at all.

I encourage the members to attend the technical briefings. I continue to be a little disappointed in terms of the number of MPs who attend these briefings. The briefings ensure they understand the importance of the legislation in front of them.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. However, this House should be reminded that this is another omnibus bill that covers many laws. It is imperative that the bill be debated in this House and also studied in committee.

My question concerns the Navigable Waters Act. Can our colleague tell us what compensation the provinces will receive to defray the cost of their new responsibilities?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk about the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I think my example said it all. It was creating a lot of bureaucracy for what was, in this case, a little creek that did not need that bureaucracy associated with it. We were focused on navigation, which is what it is. It is not about environment. Navigable waters is about navigation.

I think what we will find is that it would remove an incredible amount of time and bureaucracy in terms of moving forward. The municipalities are very enthused about having this legislation changed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

It is very important legislation that deals with a lot of specific technical changes, such as changes to the registered disability savings plan, which was introduced by this government and is a benefit for families to deal with some of the costs related to a person in the family with a disability. It also deals with changes to the Indian Act, which is something that was presented to the finance committee by the member for Macleod. A member of the Kamloops Band presented the idea with respect to changing the ownership on reserves. This would be a real step forward and it is something I will return to later in my remarks. There are number of measures in this comprehensive legislation.

As chair of the finance committee, I thought I would provide some context for members of Parliament and Canadians in terms of the process that we go through to arrive at budget implementation acts.

The process actually starts at the finance committee each fall. In fact, it starts in June when the finance committee sends out a notice asking Canadians to give us their thoughts on what should be in the next budget in the upcoming budgetary cycle. Canadians respond and, over the last two years, in dramatic numbers. This year we have had nearly 800 submissions from organizations and individuals from across Canada giving us their thoughts on what should be in the next budget.

This year we tried a slightly different process. We put five questions on the public website and asked Canadians to respond to those five questions. We put all the responses online. This is the second time we have done this as a committee. We want to be very transparent in terms of the input the committee is receiving.

The deadline for submissions was in the summer. We then had the submissions translated and put online. Members of the finance committee from all parties are now working diligently to go through those submissions.

In addition to that, we are doing what the committee has done for over a decade now, which is to hear from individuals and organizations before the committee. We will hear from approximately 120 organizations and individuals. We will have a very good dialogue with members of Parliament in terms of what should be in the next budget.

This is a very broad process and there is no topic that cannot be raised at the finance committee in prebudget consultations. However, following some of the discussions last year on the first budget implementation act, there was the thought that maybe we should narrow our focus at the finance committee but members from all sides said no, that it should be a very broad public consultation process. Anyone should be able to come and say anything in terms of where the country should go because fiscal matters are incredibly broad. We hear from environmental groups, health groups, aboriginal groups, small business organizations and chambers of commerce across the country, anyone bringing forward any type of measure. This is not simply related to tax, financial or fiscal information. It is very broad. It is a fantastic discussion and I think members from all sides enjoy the debate.

That then leads to the committee deliberating on what should go into the report that it will table in Parliament in December. Obviously, that report is public and Canadians can compare the submissions that came into the committee to what the committee decided in terms of what it wants to recommend to the government for the next budget. The Minister of Finance then takes the report under consideration and presents the budget typically in February or March.

I would remind members that the budget document is the primary document that the government presents to Parliament each and every year and it is a very broad document. Here are some of the sections in the budget that the minister tabled in March.

With regard to entrepreneurs, innovators and world-class research, the budget proposes to support the research and innovation that is happening in this country, as well as education and training at the universities and colleges across the country.

Improving conditions for business investment deals with a lot of the changes to SR&ED and acts on the Jenkins report, which the government commissioned and which I think it was a report that was fairly well received in all quarters.

The budget also deals with investing in our natural resources; expanding trade and opening new markets for Canadian businesses; keeping taxes low for job creators; strengthening business competitiveness; financial sector advantages; and investing in trade infrastructure and opportunities, which involves human resources in terms of investing in the skills that Canadians have.

On infrastructure, there is the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, but all the infrastructure is funded first through finance.

On expanding opportunities for aboriginal peoples to fully participate, obviously we have a committee and a minister that deals with aboriginal peoples but that is all funded through the budget first.

Supporting families and communities, investing in communities, protecting Canada's natural environment and wildlife, and the sustainable management of public finances are all included in a very large budget document, but the budget document itself, as a policy document, is somewhat specific. In certain areas it outlines in general where the government would want to go with respect to items like responsible resource development, the deficit reduction action plan and returning to balanced budgets over the medium term. Various officials then draft legislation to deal with the budget. They typically do two budget implementation acts, one in the spring and one in the fall. They are very comprehensive pieces of legislation.

In terms of the deficit reduction action plan, which is a policy that was endorsed by Parliament after the budget was introduced, all of the specific items under that action plan are then put forward in the two implementation acts which, in my view, is the way it should be happen. The overall policy should be in the budget, but the specific items, which are what we dealt with both in the act in the spring and then partly in this act, actually deal with everything that is in the deficit reduction action plan.

Some people have asked if they would be able to vote. Our colleague across the way from the official opposition asked legitimately if they could vote on each and every section. In fact, they can at committee. As the member knows, we vote on each and every clause at committee and the official opposition and the Liberal Party can choose to support or oppose that specific clause on the record. We can have recorded votes on any specific clause at committee and the member could say they voted in favour of that clause but still oppose the bill at third reading. That is certainly an option for the members opposite. It is important to know that process.

I want to return to one specific item that was raised by Manny Jules, someone whom I think has been a real trailblazer in trying to improve economic development and the economic opportunities for aboriginals within this country. I believe it was three years ago, and I am looking at the member for Macleod and hoping I am correct in my timeline, that the finance committee actually met Mr. Jules.

We went to a former residential school, which has now been turned into offices, and he described to us the challenges that first nations people have in owning property on reserves. He said there have been some steps forward in this area, but we need to do more to change the legislation to ensure that aboriginal people have the same full opportunities on reserve, frankly, that other Canadians have in terms of ownership of property.

It was a very interesting idea. I thought members of all parties listened to the idea very carefully and in varying degrees, I think they all thought it was a good idea that should be followed up. It has been looked at. It was endorsed by the finance committee in a report. While it is technically under aboriginal affairs, it actually did end up in the budget and it is therefore in a budget implementation act.

This is the way the process has worked for years. This is not something the Conservative government has invented. This is, in my view, the way the process should work. It should go back to an idea presented to a parliamentary committee. That committee puts it in a report. It goes in a budget and then it goes into a budget implementation act. There is a thread through that entire process that I think we have to draw attention to.

In terms of some of the other changes in the implementation act, I know members at committee will take them very seriously. They will go through all the items. In terms of registered disability plans, something that we introduced as a government, many of the people who have used the benefit have said there are ways in which the program could be improved.

People talked about the navigation act. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, municipalities in my area and other areas across this country have said to the government that it has to amend this act in terms of municipalities and their own growth and investment so that they can move forward.

These are responses to things we hear at committee, which are later put in the budget and then come into the budget implementation act.

I want members to go through that whole process. At committee they can do a very thorough study. The government has indicated it is very open to other committees studying the legislation. I heard the member for Wascana say he saw that as something he would certainly welcome.

It is my understanding that we could have any other committee study a piece of the bill and report it back to the finance committee. The finance committee members can then vote yea or nay to any specific clause or provision of the bill.

I look forward to comments from the other side but I do hope they take into account the whole process that occurs, with the policy idea originating here and ending up in a budget implementation act at the end.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am currently a member. I found it interesting that he mentioned that, on this committee, members can generally vote on each clause of a monster bill such as this one. He is correct in stating that we vote on each clause. However, that is just one of the steps. There is first reading, which does not require a vote. At second reading, we debate the bill and vote. Then there is report stage, and another vote. Finally there is third reading, which is also subject to a vote.

Each time we must vote as a block. I am sure that the member will agree with me that it is the last vote, at third reading stage, that gets the public's attention. It is also the vote to which government members refer when they say that the opposition voted against a particular measure. If they would just check what happened in committee, they would see that we quite often vote in favour of good measures.

The member spoke about process. The Minister of Finance says that there are no surprises in the budget implementation bill because all the measures were already in the 2012 budget. However, there is no mention of abolishing the Grain Appeal Tribunal, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. So—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sorry to interrupt the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, but his time has expired.

The member for Edmonton—Leduc.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who serves and works very well on the finance committee. In fact I think he made some of my arguments for me in the sense of the process.

First reading, as we all know, is simply an introduction of the bill in the House. Second reading is a broad public policy debate and a vote in general on the principle of the bill as to whether members support it or not. Then at committee stage we go through the bill clause by clause.

We generally start with officials that go through each and every clause of the bill. Members can ask questions. We hear from witnesses who may support or oppose any one of those clauses. Then there are votes on each and every one of the clauses themselves and any member can ask for a recorded vote on any clause. If the member himself wants to vote against the bill in its entirety but support certain clauses, it is on the record. It is public and usually televised. The member could then refer to how he voted any time he wants to.

The bill comes back at report stage, as he pointed out, and there is opportunity for further amendments that could not have been moved at the committee. Then there is a vote on the third and final reading and it goes through the process in the Senate. I think that is a very good process.

In terms of certain items, the deficit reduction action plan, which I referenced in my speech, was a general policy put forward by the government and embraced by Parliament, which said that we wanted to reach a balanced budget in the medium term. The work the Treasury Board committee did on the deficit reduction action plan is now resulting in certain changes that are in the budget implementation act. The start of it was the deficit reduction action plan.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the enthusiasm that members have for their comments and questions. I would just ask, particularly when we are in a five-minute question period that follows a 10-minute speech, that hon. members keep their comments and responses as brief as they can. We can see the interest that members have in questioning the various speakers.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on January 1, the EI premiums are going to be hiked for small businesses something like $400 million. The government is offering a tax credit for small businesses to offset that but it is only $200 million. I would like to ask the chair of the finance committee if he would support doubling that tax credit for small businesses so that his fellow Conservative members would not have to vote for a tax hike on small businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my response brief but it is a fairly technical question. We do not want to do what the previous government did, which was to take EI premiums and use them for general revenues and move toward a balanced budget on the backs of entrepreneurs and people who are paying EI premiums. That is why we want to move to a system that is self-sustaining over the short, medium and long term.

With respect to the hiring credit, I hope the member and his party consider voting for this budget implementation act specifically because of the extension of the hiring credit, which was one of the main things that small businesses and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business asked for in their presentation to the finance committee.

We have also restrained the increase, though, in terms of trying to find a balance between the premiums that are going in and the moneys that are going out from that. It is not a specific fund, but trying to equalize that was also a recommendation made by small businesses. We have to balance every single suggestion, such as the one that the member made, but another suggestion from small businesses was to move to a balanced budget over the medium term.

One of the strongest recommendations of the CFIB each and every year is that the government must move toward a balanced budget and live within its means. We owe it to people living in Canada today and to future generations. We have to balance any increase in terms of a hiring credit or anything else against that need to balance our budget over the medium term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-45, Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, even though, clearly, it does not come close to meeting the targeted objectives.

I know the government members do not like talking about procedure. We cannot avoid talking about it, because that is how we can evaluate this government's good governance.

We are opposition members; of course we examine the government's initiatives, particularly those like Bill C-45. We look at the elements that we do agree with, as well as the elements that we oppose. And we suggest ideas that we think could help the government get back on track regarding certain elements that we believe are headed in the wrong direction.

We have a majority government that can decide whether to accept or reject the proposed recommendations. However, based on what happened when the previous mammoth budget bill was introduced in June 2012, we know that this government has no respect for this process, which is absolutely crucial to the good governance of Canada, and particularly of our economy, which is having difficulty right now and needs our attention.

We are dealing with a 450-page budget implementation bill, which is not to be confused with the budget itself. This bill amends, adds or repeals 64 different laws. Thus, this one bill affects 64 different pieces of legislation.

I heard my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc say that this is a completely normal process. I imagine that is why the Conservatives did what they did in June. That must also be why they introduced a bill that was 800 or 900 pages long in 2009, when stimulus was needed for the economy during the recession.

This is not normal. According to media commentators, constitutional experts and parliamentary experts, our parliamentary system was not designed for this. At present, the government is using a single bill to address a good number of issues that, in many cases, have nothing to do with the budget, were not mentioned in the budget and could have very easily been introduced in a separate bill. We have been sitting since the middle of September. Many initiatives that were not introduced could have been introduced at that time in order to be examined separately. Instead, they are all included in this monster bill.

The government often says that we should not just focus on numbers, such as the number of pages and acts, and that we must read the bill. But we must do both. We cannot do away with process, because democracy itself is a matter of process. This government seems to have profound contempt for the democratic process and the parliamentary process. We need only think of the fact that the Prime Minister's Office decided to prorogue Parliament, not as part of the normal process to transition to a new legislative agenda, but simply to protect itself and avoid a defeat on a confidence vote in the House. We need only think of the gag orders or time allocation motions, such as the one we saw this morning for Bill C-45. I cannot even count how many we have had since the last election. Obviously, there is also the use of omnibus bills like the one before us today.

Omnibus bills are not the right approach. Unfortunately, that is what the government has decided to use in this case. We find that deplorable because our economy is cause for concern right now. We have told the government many times. Economic indicators clearly show that we are in a period of uncertainty. The latest unemployment statistics are one example. Despite the creation of 52,100 jobs, the unemployment rate increased by 0.1% in September 2012. Between 2000 and 2009, Canadian productivity increased on average 0.6% a year, but the average for all OECD countries was 1.5% per year. So we are lagging behind right now.

The government claims that it is taking measures, such as Bill C-45 and Bill C-38, and that the economy is its top priority, but at the end of the day, we have to wonder if it is headed in the right direction.

I would like us to consider two situations. The first has to do with productivity, which is more or less stagnant right now. Since 2006, the government has tried different measures to increase productivity, but nothing is working.

A good indicator of productivity is research and development. In the budget and in Bill C-45—for once there is something in the bill before us that actually has to do with the budget—the government introduced changes to the way companies are allowed to do research and development. Instead of issuing tax credits, the government has chosen to provide companies with direct research and development subsidies.

Unfortunately, there are two problems with this approach that the government has not yet addressed. The first problem is that these measures leave the door wide open for the government to pick winners in every industry. The second is that a lot of money has been lost in the process. Consequently, there will be no increases in amounts allocated to research and development or in corporate assistance for research and development. Canada will ultimately lose out as a result, and our productivity will not improve. This is a recurring problem.

There is another problem with the overall reduction in corporate income tax. The government usually argues that the general corporate income tax measure, which was extended in the last budget, is a measure that allows businesses to invest. However, there are two problems with that. When the Conservative government came to power in 2006, the corporate tax rate was 22%. Starting next year, it will be 15%. Every percentage point cut results in a reduction in revenue, which varies from $2 billion to $4 billion, depending on the year. The government is foregoing an enormous amount of tax revenue through this measure, in the hope, of course—since this is the argument of the government and many economists—that businesses will reinvest the money and create employment.

What have we seen so far? Businesses are sitting on approximately $500 billion, half a trillion in unused cash or dead money. This money is not being reinvested. It is currently lying in coffers waiting to be used, and it is not benefiting the economy in any way.

Another aspect that has to be considered in evaluating the success of these measures is whether the money has in fact been reinvested. If we look at Canadian statistics on reinvestment, we see that net real investment has stagnated in the past 10 or 15 years. So the government is making massive tax cuts and losing the tax room for various programs and services that help Canadians, but we are not seeing any significant increase in investment. Private sector businesses are sitting on a considerable amount of cash that could be invested in economic growth but is not.

The government has to ask itself some questions about this situation. It has to ask itself why the methods it is using do not seem to be working. Yet, we are seeing no such introspection on the government's part. This is a major problem. We know the definition of insanity.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping that things will change.

That is what the government is doing. Eventually, the Conservatives are going to have to revise their economic ideology to allow the Canadian economy to achieve its potential. Right now, it most definitely is not.

As I told the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, there are many things in Bill C-45 that were not in the budget. The Conservatives can do all the mental gymnastics they like, but there are things that were not in the budget, contrary to what the Minister of Finance told the House.

A number of these elements are important enough to warrant separate debate.

Take, for example, the elimination of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. It was created by the Conservatives, but never did much of anything. In fact, its only function was to set employment insurance premiums. Once again, a board created for a very specific purpose will be abolished, even though it could have been useful to the government. In the end, even though the government went to the expense of creating it, the board will be shut down, which will result in more power being concentrated in the hands of the minister. That is another example of the use of discretionary authority, which is becoming a habit with this government.

Who is going to cover the cost of abolishing the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission? Workers. These are not trivial matters. We are talking about monitoring hazardous materials that many Canadian workers handle in chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing. With a stroke of the pen, and with no mention of it in the budget, this commission is being eliminated.

There was also no mention in the budget of abolishing the Grain Appeal Tribunal. The government is trying to make us believe that one measure in the budget, written in very imprecise and vague language, covered this. That is not the case. If a budget is headed in a certain direction and budget items, offices and agencies must be eliminated, then this should be set out in the budget so we can vote on these elements. That is not currently the case.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer raised two very troubling issues that touch on what we are experiencing with Bill C-45. First, he said—and parliamentary experts agree—that members do not have the information in hand that they need to make decisions about the budget.

In April, we voted for the 2012 budget, but we did not have all of the information. The government was talking about eliminating 19,200 public service jobs and making $5.2 billion in cuts. However, we had no idea where these cuts would be made, and where these jobs would be eliminated, or which sectors would be affected. The information is trickling out as we go along.

That was why the Parliamentary Budget Officer demanded that the government be more transparent in the budgetary process by compelling the departments and agencies to report on their cuts. In doing that, he sought to determine what services would be cut and whether Canadians needed those services. Where will those cuts be made? What objectives does the government want to achieve by making those cuts? What will the consequences be?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is unable to obtain that information, in spite of the Federal Accountability Act, which the Conservative government asked us to pass in 2006. We fully supported that act. However, the government decided to contravene its own act in order to prevent the Parliamentary Budget Officer from analyzing the impact of budget 2012.

Honestly, I have to say that if the Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot obtain that information, members will have no access to it either and will not be able to conduct a proper debate on budget 2012 and its impact.

We are studying Bill C-45, and we are clearly feeling the impact of budget 2012, for which we have yet to obtain all the information.

Bill C-38 very significantly watered down the environmental assessment process, the Fisheries Act and protection of fish habitat. Bill C-45 will have very significant consequences for the environment, among other things.

Now with respect to the repeal of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, that act concerns the environment, despite what the government claims. It is trying to create a smokescreen by saying the act concerns only navigation. That is not true: it refers to the protection of navigable waters, including waters where one can navigate in a canoe. This is a rigorous process that the government is in a hurry to water down in order to repeal certain provisions that the lakes and rivers development sector does not like.

This is a big problem and will have major consequences, like the massive watering down of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the amendments to or massive watering down of the Fisheries Act. Some aspects of Bill C-45 also concern the Fisheries Act. We were surprised when we read the division of that bill that concerns the Fisheries Act, because most of the provisions correct the errors and excesses of the previous budget implementation bill, C-38, which was passed in June of this year.

We introduced numerous amendments that would have eliminated those errors and excesses, but the government disregarded them. I recall that the government would not agree to any amendments during the study by the Standing Committee on Finance or in the House. Now, a few months later, the Conservatives realize the opposition may have been right on certain points and they are quickly changing things so that no one realizes it. That is what is happening now.

Because of the major repercussions that will result from these important amendments, they really belong in a bill if that is the direction the government truly intends to take, and should be treated separately and given close scrutiny.

There is a great deal of expertise in ocean science, oceanography and biotechnology in the Lower St. Lawrence. In fact, the Université du Québec à Rimouski was rated the best research university by the Toronto magazine RE$EARCH Infosource for its work in this field. The University of Quebec at Rimouski has the capacity for this work because of the networking done by the Technopole Maritime du Québec.

Within the institutional community, UQAR, with its oceanography department and ISMER, its ocean sciences institute, has solid linkages and networks with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Maurice Lamontagne Institute. The UQAR is also linked to private sector organizations like the Centre de recherche sur les biotechnologies marines. The problem is that the massive budget cuts and the dilution of environmental measures put forward in Bill C-38, and reintroduced in Bill C-45, will cripple a region that has succeeded over a 25- to 30-year period in developing internationally recognized cutting-edge expertise. The Maurice Lamontagne Institute’s department of ecotoxicology and the department that studies fish habitat are about to be shut down. The libraries and archives, the only French-language sources serving the university and researchers in the region, are also being closed.

All of these measures, which were not in the budget but derived from it, and about which the Parliamentary Budget Officer would like further details, will diminish the capacity of Rimouski and the lower St. Lawrence to make their mark as international leaders. Is that really what the government wants?

This government should do some soul-searching and look at the measures being put forward in the various budgets tabled and their budget implementation bills. It must seriously consider whether Canada is moving forward or backward.

All of the Canadian and Quebec stakeholders I have heard speak about this issue have a strong feeling that Canada is moving backward. We are deindustrializing and putting all our eggs in one basket, as we used to do when free trade was almost solely with the United States. At least we have been begun to diversify the countries we trade with.

We are putting all our eggs in one basket once again in terms of industries and relying more than anything else on natural resources. This sector is certainly important, but from an economic growth standpoint, it has become the only sector we can rely on. We need to make sure that other sectors in which we could play a leadership role are supported by this government, but there are no signs of this in Bill C-45.

That is why we will oppose Bill C-45 at this stage. We are against the process being proposed and against the content which, although it does contain some interesting ad hoc measures here and there, is definitely not a panacea for the Canadian economy.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a little trouble with what the hon. member has said.

If the member is arguing that fisheries and forestry departments, or others, require funding, what is the difference between these departments finding their funding in a document of 45 pages or a document of 450 pages? The number of pages in the budget does not change the amount in the budget.