Debates of Oct. 30th, 2012

Oral Questions

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Does the hon. member wish to respond? The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I retract any unparliamentary language, although in his statement the House leader had his own untruth so I think the game continues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind the hon. member that I have tabled before the House a copy of the platform under which he ran, in which there was a $21.5 billion—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. We are getting further into debate here.

The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.

Veterans Transition Action Plan

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the veterans transition action plan that I mentioned in question period and that I announced this morning here in Ottawa.

Oral Questions

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the point made by the government House leader, I think what he is drawing attention to is the fact that, this fall particularly, there has been a tendency in the Standing Order 31 statements to drift pretty far away from what was the original intent of Standing Order 31, into a realm where there is, quite frankly, an exchange of insults across the floor of the House. That lowers the tone of the House and it creates a tendency toward disorder in the House, as members can see from the reaction on both sides.

I would simply encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to exercise greater discipline in terms of the content of these motions so they do not become disrespectful and, at the end of the day, do not cause the House to become disorderly.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. member for that. Orders of the day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Jobs and Growth, 2012

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to continue my speech. Ironically entitled the “Jobs and Growth Act”, Bill C-45 completely lacks measures to create jobs and stimulate growth in the long term for Canadians. In fact, the budget plans for unemployment to rise. The tax credits provided in the bill to small businesses are small and only for a very short time period. Additionally, Bill C-45 cuts support for business research and development. This does not seem to make any sense at a time when Canadian businesses need to increase innovation and productivity to be able to succeed in our knowledge based local economy and the ever changing global economy. Moreover, the changes in the bill will hurt the manufacturing sector, which provides many good jobs to my constituents in Scarborough--Rouge River, as firms will be more likely to move their R and D activities to other countries with better incentives.

What we need is a long-term Canada-wide strategy to create good jobs for the 1.4 million Canadians who are still unemployed, not a budget bill that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated will cost 43,000 Canadians their jobs, with a projected total of 102,000 jobs lost when combined with the previous rounds of cuts. It is simply outrageous.

The changes in Bill C-45 to public service pensions creates a two-tiered workforce where younger people will have to work longer for the same retirement benefits. Along with little action on crippling student debt and youth unemployment, younger Canadians cannot rest assured that the government is looking out for their best benefits.

Moreover, statistics show that women are overrepresented in Canada's public service, so the government's proposed changes to public service pensions will disproportionately and negatively affect women across the country. Additionally, changes to the method of calculation for payment for holiday work in Bill C-45 will negatively affect those who change jobs often, and those who work part-time or on a commission basis. Once again, these are predominantly youth, newcomers and women, who usually do not have many other options than to take on these more precarious forms of employment.

Canadians want us to take action to protect our environment and grow a sustainable economy for the future, yet the Conservatives are shamefully focused on gutting environmental protection regulations.

Bill C-45 continues down the road of this spring's Trojan horse budget by further weakening our ability to protect our environment. The budget implementation bill guts the Navigable Waters Protection Act and further erodes the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. If one were to do a search for the word “navigable” on the online version of the budget, the word “navigable” does not even appear once. The word does not appear in the budget, yet it is all over the implementation bill of the same budget. The changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act will leave thousands of waterways without protection and result in fewer environmental reviews by Transport Canada.

While the removal of “waters protection” from the name of the act and the change in the name to the “Navigation Protection Act” may appear very simple, it is quite revealing of the government's intentions. This name change demonstrates to Canadians just how out of touch the Conservatives are when it comes to the environment, as well as their lack of concern about Canadians' call for its protection and the need to build a sustainable economy.

In addition, the bill makes little effort to support clean energy generation equipment. There are two minor expansions of tax credits for certain types of equipment. However, these are hardly noteworthy, totalling just $3 million in the next fiscal year.

Bill C-45 is one more nail in the coffin when it comes to environmental protection by the government. Under the Conservatives, Canada's environmental ranking has dropped to among the worst in the world. The 2011 climate change performance index ranks Canada 57th out of 60 nations surveyed, well behind G8 countries like the U.K., France and Germany, which all scored in the top 10.

I am outraged by the bill and Canadians are outraged by the actions of the government. I have received countless emails from constituents demanding that we oppose this bill. While families and communities are struggling, the bill certainly shows the government's priorities with the tens of millions of dollars spent on propaganda and advertising while at the same time Conservatives are telling Canadians there is just not enough money for employment insurance and old age security. With all of these flaws and more, it is no wonder that we, along with Canadians across the country, oppose this bill.

The NDP will always be proud to stand up for transparency and accountability. We actually listened to our constituents and consulted Canadians across the country. We will proudly stand up for environmental protection. We will also continue to be the leader in the House in standing up for retirement security and health care. We stand up for Canadians, and Canadians deserve something much better than what the government is offering.

New Democrats are committed to fighting for the real priorities of Canadian families: jobs, health care, pensions and protecting our environment. We have a plan to support these priorities by improving health care services; rewarding the job creators; encouraging our youth; fighting climate change; and supporting seniors, not attacking their benefits.

I urge the government to take these concerns into consideration as well as the concerns of Canadians from coast to coast to coast and accept amendments to this bill or split it and have its components studied by all committees.

There are over 400 pages in this budget implementation bill. Let us actually have some time to study the bill.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2008, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities did an exhaustive study of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Among the witnesses were seven provinces and two territories who spoke up and said that they agreed with Transport Canada. They stated on May 6, 2008, that “a total rewrite of the act is something that is well worth doing”. They further stated:

At a minimum, we [the provinces and territories] believe, the changes should eliminate the need for a project proponent to first ask Transport Canada if the act applies to a given stream....

Then they went on to define that a bit further.

This is the approach they were asking for. How does the member opposite respond to the provinces and territories who wanted this type of regime for deciding when and where navigation permits should be given for a project?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague again proves my point that if the government wants to talk about the Navigable Waters Protection Act, then it should include it in its budget. We know that the word “navigable” was not included in the budget presented by the minister in March, yet this budget implementation bill has navigable all over it. How is it that the government is being truthful, honest and transparent to Canadians when it is changing the Navigable Waters Protection Act in a budget implementation bill whereas the budget itself does not even talk about that act?

My suggestion to the government through the member is to be open and transparent with Canadians. If the transport committee had expert witnesses who said we should talk about the Navigable Waters Protection Act, then let us do that, but let us do it openly and transparently, not the secret backdoor way.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what the Liberal Party demonstrated on this particular omnibus bill is that it is in fact divisible. If the government had the will, it could divide it into a number of different bills. We saw that when it agreed with the Liberals that at the very least it should bring out the MPs' pension portion. We appreciate that it has done that, but we would ultimately argue that there is a lot more that could be done in that way.

When the Prime Minister was in opposition back in 1994 he stated:

Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent the views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.

That was a 21-page bill, not a multi-hundred page bill, and now the Prime Minister's opinion has changed.

I ask the member if she might want to reflect on the massive size of the bill. If the government really wanted to do a service to the House of Commons today, the best thing it could do would be to recognize how massive the bill is and break it down into a number or series of legislative proposals. That way there would be due diligence given to every major issue on which the bill is attempting to make changes. Would she not agree with that?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his pertinent question, because the government has proved it is willing to split the bill when it brought out the pensions portion from the bill. The NDP has requested time and time again the unanimous consent of the House to do that exact same thing and to break up this humongous bill of over 400 pages.

The debate is now under time allocation, so we do not have the opportunity as members of Parliament to have the full debate necessary to go through these 400 pages. It is our fiduciary duty to our constituents to ensure that there is adequate and appropriate debate in this House, and that is exactly what the government is ensuring will not happen.

The government is muzzling scientists and parliamentarians. It is muzzling everyone. The government is not allowing us as members of Parliament to perform our fiduciary duty to our constituents.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the jobs growth act which would implement key provisions for our 2012 economic action plan.

The legislation would serve to implement additional measures of the 2012 budget in order to continue to grow Canada's economy, fuel job creation and secure Air Canada's long-term prosperity.

First, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance as well as the departmental officials for their great work at the technical briefing of the bill. What we heard from officials at the technical briefing were clear and precise details outlining the department's rationale for each of the fiscal issues that make up Bill C-45. It was six hours well spent.

While I consider my riding of Red Deer, I reflect on its people and its prominence in the province of Alberta. Not only are its people innovative and hard working, but our riding is centrally positioned along Alberta's transportation corridor and acts as a vibrant industry service hub, and agriculture is one of those critical industries. It has been and continues to be vital to our community of Red Deer and I am proud to be part of a government that recognizes that Canada's agriculture industry is a key economic driver, not only for rural communities but for our nation as a whole.

Today I am pleased to recognize the exciting future that is in store for Canada's grain sector with the introduction of Bill C-45.

Earlier this year, western Canadian wheat and barley farmers were released from the shackles of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. After 75 long years of being legally prohibited from selling their own grain, they are at last able to reap the benefits of their hard work.

In conjunction with new freedom for western wheat and barley growers, today's bill, the jobs and growth act, proposes much needed legislative amendments to the Canada Grain Act in order to streamline and update the operations of our century-old grain commission.

I would also like to speak about the Red Deer Chamber of Commerce which presented to its national policy convention a resolution that encouraged marketing freedom for western Canadian wheat and barley growers, and it was passed by that organization.

Farmers' interests are best served when unnecessary costs and regulations are eliminated and when farmers can deliver grain into a competitive and efficient grain handling system. It has been 40 years since the Canadian Grain Commission was last updated to meet the needs of farmers, so it is definitely time for us to remove red tape and unnecessary regulations for grain growers.

Bill C-45 removes the requirement for inward inspection and weighing by the Canadian Grain Commission. This proposed change will eliminate over $20 million annually in unnecessary costs from the grain handling system; costs that have been downloaded onto farmers.

The original purpose of inward inspection and inward weighing was to ensure that grades and weights were recorded at each stage as grain moved through the system. The service was established when primary elevators, terminal elevators and transfer elevators were owned by different companies. Grain companies needed a system of checks and balances to follow the grain as it weaved its way through the system. The Canadian Grain Commission was required to act as a third party to ensure that this happened.

However, there have been many changes in the industry, which now call in question the need for the Canadian Grain Commission to inspect and weigh every shipment of grain that is unloaded at terminal or transfer elevators. These services are no longer required in a business environment where a prairie grain elevator is often shipping its own grain within its own terminal system. These inspections are redundant and unnecessary.

The shippers will be able to request third party inspections, but as for who provides these inwards services, that would be best determined by those involved in the transaction. The shipper and the elevator operator will also have the right to appeal to the Canadian Grain Commission for binding determination of grade and dockage if there is a disagreement.

There has been some criticism from across the way on these changes and I sometimes wonder whose interests opposition members are looking after. However, our government has consulted extensively with farmers on how to modernize the grain handling system and we are pleased to have the support of industry for these changes.

Richard Phillips, executive director of the Grain Growers of Canada, in a press release dated October 23, said:

Under the current system, we see duplication of services with grain company staff and grain commission inspectors both inspecting the same tens of thousands of railcars every year...This change will certainly reduce unnecessary overlap. The Grain Growers have always pushed hard to reduce red tape and regulatory burdens for our grain sector and so we fully support this change.

The industry agrees that this is the way forward to modernize the Canadian grain handling system and to provide an efficient competitive environment for farmers to operate in.

The other important change that is designed to benefit farmers is the introduction of insurance-based producer-payment protection. A key role of the Canadian Grain Commission has been to protect primary producers from the risk of industry participants going belly up. The commissioner requires that all elevators post a bond in an amount equal to the value of the grain that they are handling. The current payment protection program adds significant costs to western Canadian producers, but it is not cost effective and the costs of the program are ultimately borne by farmers.

Unfortunately, we have seen that despite the licensing regime, the bonding system does not necessarily protect producers from the financial failure of grain elevators. If an elevator is bonded, the security held by the Canadian Grain Commission is insufficient in some instances and producers are left with a loss if a company goes under. Unfortunately, all that this requirement has done is tie up a significant amount of operating capital in the industry without protecting farmers.

Bill C-45 would change this by allowing an insurance-based program that would reduce costs to the grain sector and reduce risks to producers. Grain elevators and dealers would continue to be licensed and providing security would continue to be a requirement of becoming licensed. However, an insurance-based program would reduce risks to farmers as an insurance program would guarantee that farmers would not left without payment.

As I have already said, these amendments reflect extensive consultation with industry and are supported. The Western Canadian Wheat Growers stated in its press release of October 22 of this year that it applauded changes to the legislation that would provide greater flexibility in how payments to farmers were secured. It has recognized that replacing the traditional bonding system with an insurance system could provide farmers with better coverage at a lower overall cost. Kevin Bender, president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, who happens to also be a constituent of mine, said, “the amendments represent a good first step toward modernizing the Canadian Grain Commission”.

The Canadian Grain Commission is essential to our country's system of grain handling, but it has been very difficult for the commission to keep up with changes in the industry both in Canada and abroad. The result has been a restrictive approach in regulating Canada's grain industry.

It is the Conservative Party, a party that has many farmers sitting in the House, of which I am one, that fights for this industry. It is this Conservative government that has followed through on studies and consultations with the grain industry to come up with the important amendments that we see today.

We received feedback from the grain sector during the 2006 Compass review, the recent Rail Freight Service Review, the Canadian Grain Commission's 2011 user fees consultation and the commission's engagement with stakeholders earlier this year. We have listened and we are acting.

There are a few things that I want to summarize so people recognize the significance of the points that are being made.

First is the removal of the inward inspection. The farmers deliver the grain. If they wish to confirm the quality, they bag it, tag it and send it to the Canadian Grain Commission. Then they know what they are going to be paid for because the weights have already been determined. That is the end of their transaction. That is the beauty of what we have had without the Canadian Wheat Board.

The grain companies are the ones that own it. They then move it through their system and by not forcing farmers to continue the inward inspection, there are no more extra costs added to the movement of the grain within the grain companies. Based on that, it means that they will not be downloading extra charges. It has been mentioned that there are tens of thousands of rail cars are being continually inspected and the cost of that ends up going to the farmer.

The second point that I have heard others talk about is the Grain Appeal Tribunal. With the removal of inward inspections, the need to arbitrate, therefore, becomes unnecessary. This has nothing to do with the producers. Remember they no longer own the grain. Their transactions were completed at the grain elevator. The discussion is between the Canadian Grain Commission, company X and company Y, not the farmers.

It is this Conservative government that is helping farmers by putting the Canadian Grain Commission on a track to keep pace with the industry in the 21st century. The status quo is not acceptable for grain producers in Canada. Therefore, I urge all members in the House to support these important legislative amendments.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I note the member is from Red Deer and was elected in 2008. Now that we are talking about the budget, I notice something is missing.

When you campaigned, I am sure, from door to door in Red Deer, you probably took your platform with you. In the 2008 Conservative platform—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would remind the member to address his comments to the Chair, not to individual members of Parliament.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, page 23 of the Conservative platform says, “Prohibiting the Export of Raw Bitumen to Higher Polluting Jurisdictions”. It says, “A re-elected Conservative Government will prevent any company from exporting raw bitumen”.

I do not see that in the current budget. Could the member explain why that has not been included and why he has broken his promise to his constituents?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when we take a look at the types of things and the extra amount of work that has been done in the budget process, I am extremely proud of the people who have worked on it.

Again, I am not sure whether we want to get into carbon tax discussions. I had the opportunity to know Ernest Manning who was premier of Alberta many years ago. He was once asked “What is the magic bullet that you have here in Alberta that has allowed you to be so successful?” He said that it was the election of the NDP governments in B.C. and in Saskatchewan as it drove all of the capital to Alberta. They still have all of the opportunities and they have all of the resources there.

We are looking at this situation. Of course the biggest concern people have, especially in Saskatchewan where I have some great friends who have come to Alberta, including my mother who was part of that group, is that it took the human capital as well.

We are looking at these kinds of situations. Every budget we have has to look forward to the future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about the Canadian Grain Commission. I think a number of Prairie farmers are quite concerned about the future of the Grain Commission.

I would very much appreciate it if the member could expand on where he sees the Grain Commission four or five years from now? What will it look like?

A great deal of trust that many farmers had was lost because of the way the government dealt with the Canadian Wheat Board. Many are looking at the government and are somewhat fearful in regard to the Canadian Grain Commission. That is why I pose the question in terms of four or five years from now.

Does the member see a healthier Canadian Grain Commission with strong regulation? How does he envision the Canadian Grain Commission four or five years from now?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome any opportunity to speak about the grain industry and especially the types of moves and things we have done with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, changing the monopoly and giving it the opportunity to move from the single desk into a dual marketing system. Amazing things have happened in western Canada.

I know people are taking pictures of their trucks as they enter with the first grain off the fields and are able to sell it as number one wheat, get the cheque and go home with it. These are the kinds of things happening.

Part of my answer is there has been a fair amount of fear-mongering that was presented at that time, about trying to cut the Canadian Wheat Board out and everything else, which was never true. The situation we have now shows that we are moving forward. The Canadian Grain Commission is part of that. It is an integral part of that.

To answer the question specifically, I see it moving forward with the industry. It is an important part. People are asking what is going to happen to the quality of grain. Let us remember that it is not the Canadian Grain Commission, it is the great farmers of Alberta, great farmers of Saskatchewan and the great farmers throughout the country who produce the quality grain that we need.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to speak about Bill C-45. This is not the first time that the Conservative government has introduced this omnibus bill. The Conservatives introduced it in the spring and they are introducing it now. It is the second part of the budget. How many laws does this 400-page bill contain?

First, the bill prevents parliamentarians from representing their constituents. In my opinion, in a democratic country and a supposedly democratic Parliament, when election day comes and Canadians choose representatives in Ottawa, it is so that those representatives can do something. First, parliamentarians have the right to talk about a bill. Second, they have the right to examine it. Third, they have the right to vote on it.

I would say that this Conservative government is a reform government because that is really what it is. The Conservative Party used to be a progressive party but such is no longer the case. This majority government is introducing bills that are setting back democracy.

I do not understand how Conservative members can feel comfortable with this situation. Even the public is starting to stand up and say that it does not make sense that their elected representatives are no longer allowed to do anything because of the Conservative—or the reform—government. Democracy is suffering.

I do not have much time so I would like to give some examples right away. Ten minutes is not a lot of time. In fact, two minutes have already passed and I have only eight minutes left.

Let us look at employment insurance. This is an issue that is close to my heart, and I will explain why. In my riding, there are a lot of seasonal jobs. Seasonal workers do not exist. There are only seasonal jobs.

In July, there were five demonstrations in my area: one in the riding of Miramichi, three in the riding of Acadie—Bathurst and one in Madawaska—Restigouche, the riding of the Minister of State for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. This is the same minister who said that people should have to have a grade 12 education to be eligible for employment insurance benefits. He is also the one who told his constituents that there are still people out there today, in 2012, who would prefer to collect employment insurance benefits so that they can go hunting instead of going to work. What an insult to workers!

On the weekend, I participated in a demonstration that deeply touched me, and I will tell you why. More than 2,000 people participated in this demonstration. When Acadians and anglophones from New Brunswick marched on the J. C. Van Horne Bridge in Fredericton, they saw aboriginal peoples from Gaspé and francophones from Quebec marching towards them. It was called the meeting of the peoples. We told the Conservative government that it was not heading in the right direction with employment insurance reforms.

In this budget, the Conservatives could at least have changed some of the regulations. What they are doing is cruel. We talk about cruelty to animals. What they are doing to workers who have lost their seasonal jobs in the fisheries, forestry sector or tourism, is cruel.

Every week, those very people have to present themselves to employers and ask if there are any jobs. Women over 60 are calling me to say that they have to go into stores to ask about being hired, otherwise the government will cut their employment insurance benefits. They are being humiliated even though they have worked their entire lives in a fish processing plant, for example.

In my riding, no matter if the person lives in Caraquet, Shippagan, Lamèque, Miscou, Tracadie-Sheila, Inkerman, Saint-Simon, Maisonnette, Anse-Bleue, Grande-Anse, Saint-Isidore or Paquetville, there is simply no work.

The government boasts that it has created 820,000 jobs, but it does not talk about the jobs it has eliminated. For example, it eliminated jobs at the Canada Post call centre in Fredericton and replaced them with jobs that pay $12 an hour and no benefits. The government does not talk about that.

They humiliate people and scare them by making cuts to the employment insurance program. I get calls from employers who tell me that they have no jobs to offer. They have a small store with two employees. They get 50 to 300 people every week who come in asking for a job. They say that the government is hurting their businesses. These are not customers coming to buy from them; they are people looking for a job.

We see the way the government is acting. It is forcing people down home to go elsewhere to look for jobs. I understand what the Conservatives are saying. They are saying that if people are on EI, they are supposed to be looking for jobs.

However, they live in an area where unemployment is up to 20%, because the fish plant has closed down and tourism and forestry have closed down for the winter, because that is what we have at home. They are telling those workers to look for jobs three times a week, and if not, they will cut their employment insurance.

Store owners are calling our office saying that they do not have jobs, and when these people go to their establishments, they are hurting their enterprises. It is not that they do not like them, but they are not buying in their establishments. As a matter of fact, they are putting signs in their windows now, stating that they are not employing anybody. As matter of fact, some of them are saying that they are going to start charging $15 for each person who wants to have the owner fill in the form human resources wants. Some of them are saying that they are going to start charging $20 for the forms human resources wants them to sign.

Just imagine that. They have already lost their jobs. They are only getting 55% of their wages, and they have to travel around the Acadian peninsula looking for jobs that do not exist. Imagine the amount of money they are spending just on gas, and that is money they do not have. How can the government say that it has put that in place to help people find jobs where they did not know that a job existed?

I invite the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to come down to the peninsula to Acadie—Bathurst, Miramichi or Madawaska—Restigouche any day to see if there are jobs. The jobs are not at home. In her bill she is saying that they have to look an hour away from home. Does she understand where they are living?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have been listening for the last few minutes. I think the member is debating Bill C-38 and not Bill C-45 at this particular moment. I would ask you to ask him to be relevant to Bill C-45.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I see that parts of the bill certainly are relevant to the EI changes. If the member wants to respond to the objection, I will let him have a few minutes.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not mind responding if it does not take any of my time, because it is a point of order.

I will not lose time. Thank you.

Employment insurance is what I was talking about, if he was listening, on the other side. I said that what was missing in the bill were changes for the workers. That is relevant to the bill, because it is a money bill. Workers will be losing money. To me, it is relevant.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I will take that with agreement. Again, there is only so far one can go with that. I already made that comment once before, a few weeks ago. However, I will allow the member to continue. He has roughly two and a half minutes.