Debates of Oct. 29th, 2012

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question but I am not quite sure what she was asking. It seemed to me that she was saying there was taxation on fringe benefits for workers.

We certainly go on record as supporting full employment and supporting workers. We do not have any problem with that principle.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would remind hon. members that it is questions and comments. Members sometimes pose questions but other times choose to make a comment instead.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I refer to a comment from my hon. colleague. He said that he could say emphatically that changing the age from 65 to 67 for old age security would definitely not have an effect on seniors.

First of all, we know that the old age security program is sustainable without making changes to it at the moment, as the Auditor General told us. What about those seniors who, at age 65, are collecting old age security and the guaranteed income supplement?

Seniors have to be at a low-income level to collect GIS, which has a $15,000 a year impact. Over a two-year period, that $30,000 is of enormous significance to them. I wonder what the member has to say to those low-income Canadians who would be affected by this change.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that there is time now to plan for the future. That time should be spent with individual people looking at financial responsibility in the future. We are bringing in the changes over a span of time that will give people a chance to put together their own financial world. If we are going to sustain this program, we have to do something to make it realistic, and two years is realistic.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Palliser for his great intervention on Bill C-45, which follows through on the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act.

Having been an educator, one of the things we need to do is continually focus on providing resources for post-secondary education in terms of skilled workers. In this new world, it seems most countries are in financial despair and yet Canada is strong and healthy. What we are doing in our budget for post-secondary education to help us maintain that through our skilled workers is of significance.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the issue my hon. colleague raises is very important as we have to fund our health and our educational programs.

I would refer the House to page 53 of Bill C-45. Members can see that there is $105 million over two years to support forestry innovation, $995 million over three years to support the Canadian innovation commercialization program, and it goes on and on.

I do not hear people mentioning these dollars, which we put together in the budget. It seems to have gotten by a lot of folks. I would also refer members to page 136 on expanded opportunities for aboriginal folks and to page 135 on improving insurance programs and information on jobs.

It's an easy read. If members have trouble, I taught reading in an elementary school for awhile and I could help them out.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver East is rising on a point of order.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Etobicoke North is the next to speak, so I hope she will bear with me for a moment.

I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any order or usual practice of the House, clauses 269 to 298, related to changes to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act be removed from Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-47; that, Bill C-47 be entitled “an act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act”; and that, Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that, the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Health; that, Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that, Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that, the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

I am proposing this motion so that the Standing Committee on Health can properly study Bill C-45 as it relates to hazardous materials and make amendments. Mr. Speaker, we want to do our job in our committee and I ask that you seek unanimous consent.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member for Vancouver East have unanimous consent to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Etobicoke North.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to represent and serve the good people of Etobicoke North, where I was born and raised, and to fight the shameful cuts to the environment to be found in Bill C-45.

The government's record on the environment is atrocious, as recognized by its bottom of the barrel environmental performances. The 2008 climate change performance index ranked Canada 56th of 57 countries in terms of tackling emissions. In 2009 the Conference Board of Canada ranked Canada 15th of 17 wealthy industrialized nations on environmental performance. In 2010 Simon Fraser University and the David Suzuki Foundation ranked Canada 24th of 25 OECD nations on environmental performance.

The government learned nothing from last spring's hue and cry against the omnibus budget implementation bill, Bill C-38: concerned Canadians, demonstrations across the country, the 500 organizations that joined the Blackout Speak Out campaign to stand up for democracy and the environment, 3,200 pages of correspondence and extensive international criticism.

The voices of Canadians concerned about democracy, the environment and the health of our children and grandchildren has once again fallen on deaf ears.

This past week the government tabled the anti-democratic and draconian Bill C-45, its second omnibus budget implementation bill. The bill would alter the Indian Act and reduce protections contained in the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act, foundational Canadian laws to steward a sustainable environment, clean water and health oceans. It would also weaken the Canada Labour Code in ways that were not even hinted at in the budget. In total, the bill takes aim at some 60 pieces of legislation.

Bill C-45 hides big changes to environmental laws, subverts democracy and weakens protection of water and ecosystems. West Coast Environmental Law describes the lowlights of Bill C-45 as follows.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act of 1882, considered Canada's first environmental law, has been changed to the Navigation Protection Act and dramatically limits the number of waterways protected. Of the roughly 32,000 lakes in Canada, just 97 lakes and 62 rivers will now be protected.

This means the construction of bridges, dams and other projects would be permitted on most waterways without prior approval under the act. It is important to note that the original budget says nothing about restricting federal controls over lakes and rivers. Astoundingly, however, pipelines are directly exempted from this law. Under the act, pipeline impacts on Canada's waterways will no longer be considered in environmental assessments.

According to Ecojustice's executive director Devon Page:

Simply put, lakes, rivers and streams often stand in the path of large industrial development, particularly pipelines. This bill, combined with last spring’s changes, hands oil, gas and other natural resource extraction industries a free pass to degrade Canada’s rich natural legacy....

It is important to remember that when the government came to power it inherited a legacy of balanced budgets but soon plunged the country into deficit before the recession ever hit. It is absolutely negligent and shameful that the government would now gut environmental safeguards in order to fast-track development and balance its books.

Other lowlights of Bill C-45 include giving industry the option to request that its existing commitments to protect fish habitat be amended or cancelled, or that it be let off the hook for promised compensation for lost or damaged habitat. It would also eliminate the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, an independent body charged with making science-based decisions to protect Canadians from toxic chemicals and hazardous materials in the workplace.

Bill C-45 needlessly tinkers with the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 to correct obvious drafting mistakes made during the ramming through of Bill C-38. Changing the same bill twice in one year underlines the value of debating specific bills through appropriate committees.

Jessica Clogg, the executive director and senior counsel for West Coast Environmental Law, stated:

So much for the federal government’s promise that the bill would focus on budget implementation and contain no surprises.

The Bill C-45 ‘budget bill’ is a wolf in sheep’s clothing that will have major implications for the environment and human health.

John Bennett, executive director, Sierra Club Canada, said:

Today’s killing of the Navigable Waters Act, along with further gutting of what’s left of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and Fisheries Act, will inhibit the ability of Canadians to protect their natural environment for their children, grandchildren and future generations.

He went on to state:

This assault on the environment is deeply offensive and undemocratic. I don’t remember the Prime Minster campaigning in the last election on a platform of laying waste to the Canadian landscape.

Many of Canada's leading environmental organizations, including the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, Environmental Defence, Équiterre, Greenpeace, Nature Canada, Pembina Institute, Sierra Club Canada, West Coast Environmental Law and WWF Canada, issued a joint statement decrying the fact that, once again, the federal government is proposing to make significant changes to environmental legislation without proper democratic debate.

The government has repeatedly abused Parliament by ramming through outrageous omnibus bills. For example, two years ago the government introduced the 880-page omnibus bill, a grab bag of bills that the government wanted to pass quickly. In fact, it was half of the entire workload of Parliament from the previous year. As a result, the government was severely condemned for turning the legislative process into a farce.

Most recently the government introduced Bill C-38, the 400-plus page omnibus budget implementation bill. Through the bill, the government sprung sweeping changes on our country, affecting everything from employment insurance, environmental protection, immigration and old age security, to even the oversight that charities receive. None of these changes were in the Conservative platform. They were rushed into law by “an arrogant majority government that's in a hurry to impose its agenda on the country”.

According to one newspaper, omnibus bills are “political sleight-of-hand and message control, and it appears to be an accelerating trend. These shabby tactics keep Parliament in the dark, swamp MPs with so much legislation that they can’t absorb it all, and hobble scrutiny. This is not good, accountable, transparent government.”

The government's actions reek of hypocrisy. In 1994, the right hon. member for Calgary Southwest and today's Prime Minister criticized omnibus legislation, suggesting that the subject matter of such bills is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles, and that dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent the views of their constituents on each part of the bill. The right hon. member is now using the very tactics he once denounced. It is a shame that he changed his tune when he was elected to the highest office in the land.

Canadians should be deeply concerned by yet another of the government's end runs around the democratic process and the potential for even more destruction of critical habitat and greater pollution. The government did not campaign in the last election on gutting environmental protection. Canadians should therefore rise up, have their voices heard, and stop the Prime Minister's destruction of laws that protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians, our communities, economy and livelihoods. Canadians are entitled to expect much more than they are witnessing today in the protection of our environment and democratic values, which our beautiful country was built on.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned gutting the Fisheries Act, changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and numerous other environmental protection measures that were significantly impacted, both in Bill C-38, and again in this budget implementation act. She also speculates that the government wants to fast track its major industrial agenda, such as, the Enbridge pipeline project in British Columbia.

Could my hon. colleague comment on that?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we had a former Conservative minister responsible for the current Fisheries Act, who came to talk about the last budget implementation bill when it was put through the finance committee. He stated:

This is a covert attempt to gut the Fisheries Act, and it's appalling that they should be attempting to do this under the radar.

He also said:

They are totally watering down and emasculating the Fisheries Act...they are making a Swiss cheese out of [it].

At the finance committee, he reported:

The bottom line...is to take your time and do it right. To bundle all of this into a budget bill, with all its other facets, is not becoming of a Conservative government, period.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I met with a group of manufacturers, and they gave me a booklet, Our Future, talking about an action plan for Canada, driving investment, creating jobs, growing exports. They have a record of generating a lot of money toward our economy: $166 billion in GDP, $280 billion in exports.

Throughout the booklet they demonstrate that manufacturing matters, and they talk a lot about productivity. They talk a lot about investment, but they also talk a lot about streamlining regulations.

In one area they were talking about a recent study on macroeconomic impacts of federal regulation. The manufacturing sector concluded that 2,183 unique regulations have been imposed upon the manufacturing sector, with regulation-imposed costs across the entire sector. They say that the output could be reduced by $200 billion to $500 billion.

I want to know if the member has met with the manufacturers, the CMC, to talk to them about streamlining regulations. The CMC believes that science-based research is important, but it is important to streamline regulations.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of questions in there. I did hear at the end about science-based policy. This is a government that has a war on science, a war on the environment.

The government has cut the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory in the far north, which looks at ozone, at climate change. This year we have had the greatest melting, ever, of sea ice in the high Arctic. Last year, an ozone hole was discovered that was two million square kilometres.

Why would the government cut a research station at a time when major environmental changes are taking place?

We also are seeing the potential loss of the Experimental Lakes Area, 58 lakes which are unique in the world, doing ecosystem-based research. We are also seeing the potential cut of the Kluane Lake Research Station. These research stations could be kept open for about $1.5 million to $2 million.

There is a war on science. There is a war on the environment. The government should be striking a balance between the economy and the environment; they are two sides of the same coin.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House today and to speak on Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012.

This important bill continues the path laid out by our government in the spring to support job creation, economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians in the short and long term.

It would be easy for us to become complacent with the relative stability and success of the Canadian economy in comparison to many of our global partners. We could continue to brag about Canada being a world leader in job growth, financial stability and a strong presence in the world. However, in doing so, we would be doing ourselves no favours.

The global economy remains fragile, especially in Europe and the United States, our largest trading partners. Canada is not immune to such global economic challenges coming from outside of our border, and careful steps must be taken to ensure our economic recovery does not stall or begin to falter.

The steps being taken in Bill C-45 will ensure that Canada remains on the right track. In my home riding of Brampton—Springdale, and in the city of Brampton as a whole, over 80% of businesses are designated as small or medium, with fewer than 50 employees.

Under this bill, the highly successful hiring credit for small businesses would be extended for one year. The hiring credit of up to $1,000 against the increase in EI premiums paid by employers helps small businesses hire the workers they need to expand and grow their operations. More importantly, it helps small businesses create jobs for those living in their community.

I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of entrepreneurs operating small businesses in my riding who have benefited first-hand from the hiring credit for small businesses. They are among the 536,000 employers nationwide who are eligible for this credit. Each of the entrepreneurs I have met has spoken highly of the credit, which has eased some of the additional costs of bringing new staff onboard.

The positive effect of the new jobs, created in part by the credit, goes beyond just helping employers expand and grow their businesses. Each job created represents an individual receiving a new employment opportunity, one more person who is given a chance to return to the workforce. When unemployment is low and Canadians have access to well-paying jobs to support their families, the entire country benefits.

This bill also trims much of the unnecessary red tape faced by small business employers, allowing them to focus on managing and growing their businesses. It simplifies the calculation for statutory holiday pay, eliminating the multitude of different formulas used to achieve the same end.

This budget reduces the tax compliance burden for small businesses and makes a number of significant administrative improvements at the Canada Revenue Agency.

This bill will also implement our government's plan to facilitate and improve interprovincial and cross-border trade. The implementation of the agreement on internal trade will build a stronger economic union between the provinces and eliminate barriers to internal trade and labour mobility by incorporating enforceable penalties against governments for failures to comply.

The 2006 census reported that manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, and retail trade were the three largest industries in Brampton. Many of the firms in those industries are heavily involved in the cross-border transport of material and goods, with much of that trade coming across the U.S. border in Windsor.

The Windsor-Detroit corridor is Canada's most important trade artery and the busiest Canada-U.S. commercial border crossing, handling almost 30% of the Canada-U.S. surface trade. An efficient and secure trade corridor is essential to the economies of the U.S. and Canada.

The Detroit River international crossing would facilitate the movement of people and goods between Canada and the U.S., by ensuring that there is sufficient border-crossing capacity to handle the projected goals in cross-border trade and traffic in the Windsor-Detroit trade corridor.

It would also provide a much-needed crossing alternative at the busiest Canada-U.S. commercial border crossing and create thousands of jobs and opportunities on both sides of the border. This bill would allow for the project to be fast-tracked. It would clarify a number of governance issues and ensure continued efficiency, security, safety and mobility at the Detroit-Windsor border crossing, while ensuring that appropriate environmental mitigation measures are met and in full compliance with federal law.

To continue to help families, we are improving the registered disability savings plan. Parents who have saved money in an RESP for a child with a disability would be able to transfer investment income earned in an RESP to a registered disability savings plan on a tax-deferred rollover basis, if the plan shares a common beneficiary and if the beneficiary can reasonably be expected to be prevented from pursuing post-secondary education due to his or her disability.

The bill would also implement plans to help Canadians save for retirement by laying out the tax framework behind the pooled registered pension plan implemented this spring. These plans would provide accessible large-scale and low-cost pension options to employers, employees and the self-employed. Our government is also improving the administration of the Canada pension plan, clarifying guidelines on contribution for certain benefits, determining minimum qualifying periods for delayed applicants for a disability pension and clarifying recognition of divorces granted outside of Canada for the purposes of credit splitting.

Bill C-45 would also close a number of tax loopholes, phasing out subsidies and tax credits for oil, gas and mineral exploration. However, it would expand tax relief for investment in clean energy generation equipment, encouraging investment in more efficient means of energy.

When we stood in this place in the spring, our government had helped the Canadian economy create more than 700,000 net new jobs since July 2009. With the job numbers reported by Stats Canada at the beginning of this month, that number now stands at more than 820,000 net new jobs since July 2009, most of which are full-time positions in the private sector.

Budget 2012 would keep us on the right track to return to balanced budgets in the medium term, keep taxes for individuals and small business low, and create jobs and economic prosperity in the long term.

Bill C-45 is the next step in the process of Canada's economic recovery and plan for future growth. I encourage all members in the House to support the bill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member his view on the two-tier pension system that the bill before us would create, as well as the fact that younger workers entering the public service would simply not have the same kind of pension as their parents, and the way in which that truly disadvantages a whole generation of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind all members on the other side of the House that this budget was put together having consultations with thousands and thousands of Canadians, small businesses, other organizations and stakeholders. It actually gives an opportunity to individuals who are self-employed, who did not previously have a pension plan that they could use when they were able to retire at a later age.

As a matter of fact, when I talk to my constituents and other Canadians when I am travelling, one of the things I hear is that Canadians in general applaud the efforts the government has taken in addressing issues that needed to be addressed.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brampton—Springdale for a great overview of some of the initiatives in our jobs and growth plan for prosperity. It hearkens back to our initial 2006 advantage Canada, where we focused on tax relief, on red tape reduction, on supporting innovation through post-secondary education and so much more that he mentioned and at which he did a great job.

I want to emphasize that since that 2006 economic plan, we have not only tabled budgets but successive budget implementation acts, which means that we have had days and days of debate in the House and now, with this particular budget implementation act, we are actually going to have multiple committees take a look at it. This is going to be a robust debate on these initiatives, where democracy is really going to flourish. At the same time, we need to make sure these initiatives get enacted, so we support this economy and do not have the kind of experience as has happened in Europe and south of the border.

How important is it to get these initiatives in place so they can get working to stimulate our economy and continue to create jobs for Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for a wonderful question and for working hard on behalf of his constituents and representing them well in the House.

As I mentioned previously, the government and members on this side of the House are always, on a daily basis, talking to Canadians, looking for ways, listening to their issues, listening to their concerns, considering how they can be better addressed and how we can better represent and serve them and their best interests. The government continues to do a great job.

It was no accident that the government has played a very important role by introducing these economic action plans and has created more than 820,000 net new jobs, especially when we see the other parts of the world where countries and other economies are still suffering. We still have a lot of work to do in Canada, but we are on the right track. We are serving Canadians, and that is what we are here to do and will continue to do. I would encourage all members on the other side of the House to support this budget. It is a wonderful piece of legislation.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are wondering where all those jobs are. My constituents are asking why it is that the government has decided it is going to beat up on them. It is a shame that the government again shows such lack of faith in Canadians. It is a shame that the government feels it is a waste of time to engage Canadians in the discussion as to what is good for them and what they feel they need. It is a shame the government is so afraid of dissenting opinion, dissenting voices that say they might have a different way of doing things or maybe even a better way.

Is it not the function of this place to offer that dissenting opinion, to offer an objective opinion that differs, maybe, from the government's? My opinion, which I think I share with the rest of my colleagues in this House, is it is not a situation of “it is my ball so you play by my rules”. In this House, the government, the official opposition and the other opposition parties are elected to represent Canadians, to represent their voices, not to rubber-stamp what the government members feel is the ideal way to do things.

As far as Bill C-45 is concerned, this budget implementation bill, the Conservatives seem to want to make Canadians believe that everything they are talking about in this bill was in the budget, while it was not. The budget is a series of numbers and calculations. However, what the government is missing is that it is not only what one achieves but how one achieves it. This is what I will focus on today.

I remember, upon first entering this House, one of the first questions asked after the throne speech was how the Conservatives were going to achieve these goals that they had set for themselves; how they were going to balance the budget by 2014; how they were going to make these cuts; who was going to be affected by these cuts. The response we got was silence.

We kept asking those questions and kept getting silence, until we came across Bill C-38, the Trojan horse bill that, under the guise of a budget bill, included over 200 changes that gutted the Environmental Protection Act. How is that a budget? It went on to horrify Canadians with the sweeping changes that the Conservatives made in Bill C-38, with nary a word of consultation, at least not with the other side. Maybe there was consultation with friends, consultation about how this bill would help friends of the Conservatives, but again, not with the people of my riding.

We saw changes to the EI Act, which hurt more than they helped. We saw changes to health care. We saw changes, as I said, to the Environmental Protection Act. I would venture a guess that not a whole lot of people sat there and said it would be a good idea to just destroy the Environmental Protection Act.

So now we have Bill C-38's evil little brother, Bill C-45, which continues the work that the government proudly stands up and says is a good thing.

As I said earlier, there are some good things in this bill, and members have heard many of my colleagues stand to request unanimous consent on motions to separate out some of these good things in the bill, which have all been refused. Why?

If they are good things, why not set those aside and move them forward? Instead, we get the party line, that “If you fight me, you fight my gang”, as they say in Montreal.

We are here to do a job for Canadians and it is important that we listen to Canadians. On this side of the House we are also the voice of Canadians. Yet we have another time allocation motion limiting the discussion of the bill and all the very intricate aspects of this monster bill to just a few days.

We have been told that the Conservatives have graciously agreed to allow some of these things to go off to committee, but we all know what happens in committee. Not a lot gets through as far as amendments are concerned. To us, it seems to be more of a publicity stunt when the Conservatives say they will let things go to committee, because Canadians want to know that their interests are being held to a high standard. That is not happening with the bill.

How we do things is extremely important to Canadians. There is a lack of transparency, a lack of letting Canadians know what is going on before it happens. What is the point of saying what is going on after the fact? Why are we voting on a bill that has serious problems rather than addressing those problems through consultation before it becomes a bill and by tweaking it in committee in an open and transparent way?

It does seem that the government is afraid of dissenting opinions, dissenting opinions that help balance out what we are giving to Canadians. Is it not our obligation to make sure that when a bill gets to the point of ascension, it is done knowing that it has been vetted in a proper way and the best way for Canadians?

We NDP members have been accused of using tactics to slow down the process. We have been told that we do not vote for good things for Canadians. I would like to clear that up. We do vote for good things for Canadians when we are given the opportunity, but when we are thrown an omnibus bill that has serious issues, wrapping up those little jewels, for lack of a better way of putting it, is problematic.

It is a shame that the government decides that it wants to play politics with Canadians' lives rather than putting forward legislation that helps Canadians, and putting forward legislation in a positive way, in a way that is fitting for this House, and not using tactics like time allocation and overpowering our committees, but letting the voice of all Canadians and this whole House, which represents the voice of all Canadians, have an opportunity to be heard and to put forth an idea that might make this bill a little more palatable.

We have heard many times about the Prime Minister, who spoke out against omnibus bills, but when asked he has no answer for us as to why he has used these multiple times.

I ask this House, the government, to think about the how this is being done--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member has completed his allocated time.

I would remind hon. members to watch the chair from time to time to see how the time is going along. It gives us a chance to keep members in the loop that way.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned on a number of occasions that the government was afraid of honest debate. I have to admit that I have not lost any sleep at all regarding the debate on the budget implementation act. Again, it is one portion of the entire budget that was tabled.

I remind Canadians that when we have an economic plan that has multiple budget implementation acts, it means there will be many days of debate here in the House and at committee, which are continuing now. In fact, multiple committees will look at this budget implementation act.

I would ask my hon. colleague what his concerns are with the bill. He mentioned “concern” multiple times, but not specifically. Is it the tax reductions that he is concerned about? Is it the fact that Canadian citizens would have less money taken out of their pockets and that pensions would be fairer for public servants? What aspects exactly is the hon. member talking about?

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my concern is that the bill's format does not allow for true democratic discussion. Hiding little jewels in a monster bill that guts acts and laws that have nothing to do with the budget is sneaky to say the least.