Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2012

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy is actually a wonderful thing. Think about it. The member for Prince George—Peace River is talking about jobs in his part of the country while Canadians working on Bay Street are putting together the legal, financial and technical expertise needed to make some of those projects come to fruition. People in Toronto work in the mining sector in the sense that they are raising capital. They get companies from around the world to list on the Toronto Stock Exchange to make those projects a reality. Canadians are world-beaters. Canadian mining companies based in Toronto are exploring around the world, making jobs happen for Canadians.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you would warn me one minute before the end of my speech.

What will history say about this government?

In the spring, the government already trashed numerous economic, social and environmental laws, by forcing the passage of Bill C-38, the budget bill, a 400-page brick we voted on for 26 hours. We presented a number of amazing amendments, but were unable to change so much as a comma. This government thinks it has the truth and the right line.

After the challenges resulting from Bill C-38 in the spring, we thought the government would make honourable amends, and this time it would allow for broader debate on the budget implementation bill. Unfortunately, that is not the case. They came back with the same kind of shenanigans: they introduced a bill that would significantly amend 62 statutes. This is again a 400-page bill that they want to have us pass as quickly as possible, and for which they have imposed a gag order. That is perhaps what this government will be remembered for the most in 10, 15 or 20 years. It will be the gag order government. Our colleagues across the way will have participated in this travesty of democracy for months.

We are talking here about a bill that amends 62 statutes. We have looked for the common thread among the statutes in the budget, but there is none. This is a way of forcing the machine to work, of putting us on the ropes, of cutting the work of Parliament down to size, and ultimately making a mockery of it.

If we look at the content, we quickly realize that the measures proposed by the Conservatives do not reflect the values of Canadians. Ironically, Bill C-45, called the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, contains no effective measures to create jobs or to stimulate economic growth in Canada.

In fact, the Conservatives claim that the 2012 budget is going to create jobs, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the best friend of people in Canada who exercise critical thinking, claims, rather, that it will result in the loss of 43,000 jobs, which will have a domino effect and have an impact on 102,000 jobs in Canada. That is the overall effect of this budget implementation bill.

In the meantime, the unemployment rate is going up, and instead of making the rules more flexible to allow working people to receive support when they are unemployed, the rules are unfortunately being toughened.

I should point out that Bill C-45 is a threat because the changes it proposes in relation to the environment show disrespect for Canadians and their awareness of environmental issues.

At a time when the world is becoming more aware of the importance of sustainable development, or in other words, our capacity to meet our needs while allowing future generations to meet theirs, the Conservative government does not understand this logic and stubbornly insists on weakening environmental regulations.

After withdrawing Canada from the Kyoto protocol, making cuts to research programs at Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and dismantling the round table on the environment and the economy, the Conservatives are continuing down the same path with Bill C-45, which once again weakens the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and guts the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

It is important to note Canada's place when it comes to environmental matters. Recently, Canada was ranked 57th of the 60 countries included in the Climate Change Performance Index. In order to find Canada, hon. members should start at the bottom of the list instead of the top. We have dropped quite far. On the international stage, many countries do not envy us when it comes to the environment.

The Conservatives will boast that they have eliminated two small fossil fuel subsidies in this budget and improved two tax credits for certain types of equipment for green energy production. Proportionately speaking, these two measures are minimal compared to the $1.3 billion in assistance that the Conservative government continues to give to the oil and gas industry each year.

Environmental protection seems to be a nuisance to the Conservatives. We have to wonder whether this is a Conservative government strategy to facilitate co-operation with big business.

We also see that power is becoming more and more concentrated in the Conservative cabinet. We saw it with the reform of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act reform, and we are seeing it with environmental reforms. We had panels of independent experts. Now, assessments will basically be subject to the minister's approval.

Bill C-45 guts the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The consequences are imminent since thousands of lakes and rivers will no longer be protected. Of the 37 designated Canadian heritage rivers, only 10 will now be protected. I checked the list for the rivers in my area—Rivière du Diable, Rivière Rouge and Rivière du Nord—but none of them are mentioned.

I hope I am going to be able to include them in that list. And I wonder when we will have a chance to put new rivers and new lakes on the list. I would like to preserve the rivers in my riding in their purest possible natural state, because they are an essential part of the beauty of the region that brings tourists there. Beautiful rivers and beautiful lakes: that is what tourists come to see.

The Minister of Transport said the objective of the act was to reduce obstacles to navigation on navigable waterways and added that navigable waterways that do not appear in the new list will be protected by other federal legislation, by the provinces and by cities. Have funds been set aside for the provinces in connection with the role they will have to play, given the additional workload they will have? We are divesting ourselves of our obligation to protect rivers and lakes. In fact, that is a responsibility that is set out in the Canadian Constitution.

I am going to quote Tony Maas, director of the national freshwater program of the World Wildlife Fund. The government is trying to make a distinction between navigation and navigable waters, for legislation to facilitate navigation.

Picking navigation apart from the waters that enable it is very much artificial [and I would say “absurd”]. The two are part of a bigger whole. Their separation is as artificial as thinking you can protect a fish without protecting its habitat....

The government puts everything in little boxes, as if things were no longer connected to one another.

Because I had prepared to make a 20-minute speech, my time is nearly up. Before beginning this last part, I am going to request the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-45, in clause 321, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 291 the following: “The addition of the navigable waters listed below is deemed to be in the public interest and the governor in council shall, by regulation, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the day on which this act receives royal assent, add those navigable waters to the schedule”, and I would like the list to include the Rivière du Nord, the Rivière Rouge, the Rivière du Diable and the Rivière Pashby, all of which are rivers that run through my riding.

I request the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The member does not have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the member's comments regarding the Navigable Waters Protection Act and I want to cite one or two examples for him about the kind of problems that can arise.

For example, a fishway was proposed for Spencer Creek in Hamilton, a small waterway that goes through a residential area in Hamilton, and the application under the Navigable Waters Protection Act took over a year to approve due to a backlog of applications. That is just for a fishway in a residential neighbourhood.

Another example was an aerial cable built by the Renfrew Hydro Electric Commission, which required approval because it crossed over the Bonnechere River near Renfrew. That took over six months to approve.

I was very intrigued by the member's comments that somehow there is a constitutional right to such delays. I wonder if I understood him correctly. Does he think these are the kinds of things that we should be regulating in Canada?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is twisting my words. The Navigable Waters Protection Act has been around for some time. It provides crucial protection to fragile marine habitats. We cannot let just anything happen.

You are playing with facts that you do not understand. Right now I am looking at how much the Fisheries Act has been modified and how much trawlers are decimating miles and miles of seabed. It will take hundreds of years to recreate favourable environments for species to reproduce.

You said that it takes time to conduct assessments. I am not saying that the process is perfect, but in this situation, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, along with the fly in the bathwater.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members to address questions and comments through the Chair, and not directly to other members.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see the New Democrats now supporting the Liberals in opposition to third reading of Bill C-45. After witnessing them vote more than a thousand times with the Conservative Party through hours and hours of committee work, I really do appreciate their coming on side with us at this stage of the game.

As the member has pointed out, there are other aspects of the bill that we need real answers to. This is just a bad bill. He tried to get unanimous support on one aspect of the bill, making reference to waterways. On my part I could talk about the electronic travel authorization that is being requested.

Does he not believe, as we in the Liberal Party do, that all in all this is just a bad bill and that the whole thing should be broken down into another legislative agenda?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, we have been suggesting splitting up this bill, because there is no common thread among it various components. It eliminates the commission on hazardous products. What does that have to do with the budget? We cannot help but wonder. I have no answer to that, but clearly, that commission gave workers handling hazardous products information about those products and how dangerous they are. Yet the Conservatives are eliminating that, which is completely inconceivable. Why did they throw everything into one bill?

My greatest fear is that this will set a precedent. It started with 60 laws. One day they will introduce a bill that amends 300 laws. They will pass the bill and MPs will have nothing left to say for the rest of the year because everything will have been said. I refuse to accept that kind of parliamentary process.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, which includes measures to deliver job creation and economic growth.

Everyone in this chamber should realize that Canada's economic health is vital for all Canadians. We have to ensure both immediate and long-term economic growth. In introducing this bill, the government is taking a pragmatic approach to strengthening Canada's economy in the middle of global economic peril.

Opposition members have opposed the jobs and growth bill with procedural arguments, suggesting for example that there has been insufficient debate on the legislation. In reality, this bill has been debated in the House and in committee for many hours. The government invited 11 different committees to study and provide feedback to the House on the bill. The government is committed to timely and open debate on legislation.

The measures in the jobs and growth bill are reasonable in light of the economic challenges that Canada faces as a result of the global economy. I suppose that the procedural arguments proposed by the opposition are necessary only because they cannot find much of anything else to oppose in the very reasonable content of this bill.

Rather than considering the opposition's exaggerations, let us consider some facts. The fact is that in these unsteady economic times, Canada has proven to be a global economic leader. We have consistently been ranked very highly by international standards. Since July 2009 alone, over 820,000 net new jobs have been created in Canada. This is the highest level of job creation in the whole G7.

The World Economic Forum has rated our banking system the world's best. The IMF and the OECD have both projected that Canadian economic growth will be among the strongest in the G7. Canada also has the lowest debt to gross domestic product ratio in the G7. The major credit-rating agencies have affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating.

Such international acclaim is clear demonstration that the government is on the right track for economic success. It is clear that global economic uncertainty continues. Collectively, we in the House are responsible for ensuring that Canada stays on track to ensure economic success for future generations. We must support economic growth and job creation.

This bill prioritizes these two goals with targeted measures to ensure a strong economic outcome for Canada. For example, the hiring credit for small businesses is a targeted measure that will have a huge impact on job creation. In extending the hiring credit for small businesses, this bill aids Canadian small businesses, which drive the Canadian economy and are vital to stability.

A hiring credit for small businesses stimulates job growth because it alleviates the cost of hiring new employees. This creates greater economic opportunities. Last year alone, 534,000 employers took advantage of the up to $1,000 payroll credit, including many small businesses in my riding of Kitchener Centre. The hiring credit for small businesses works for Canadian business and it works for all Canadians. I am proud that our government introduced it and is now moving to extend it.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses across our country, including Kitchener, has praised the hiring credit for small businesses. The CFIB has told us that the credit “makes it easier for them to continue to support Canada's economic recovery by creating jobs”.

This tax credit is a significant incentive for small to medium-size businesses to create new jobs, and its extension will be equally successful. All members of the House should be lining up to support a budget that contains such a measure.

Another example in the jobs and growth bill is the active steps taken to ensure that pension plans for federal public sector employees are fiscally responsible.

The solution to economic instability will not be found in raising taxes. Higher taxes would hinder the Canadian economy and kill jobs. This is not the avenue to pursue. Unfortunately, opposition members who oppose this bill repeatedly propose tax increases rather than job creation and economic growth. Economic prosperity for years to come will only occur through a low tax approach.

This bill not only takes the current economic climate into consideration but it is also forward-thinking. It would provide opportunities for Canadians to invest in the future. For example, in 2007, the government introduced the registered disability savings plan to help Canadians with disabilities and their families save money for long-term financial security. After much consultation, the jobs and growth act would improve upon the existing registered disability savings plan. The changes would allow more Canadians with disabilities to take advantage of the RDSP by allowing qualifying members to open an account for those who do not have a legal representative. There would be another change. As it stands, regardless of the amount withdrawn, a beneficiary is penalized for making a withdrawal from an RDSP account. Canada disability savings grants or Canada disability savings bonds received in the preceding 10 years are simply clawed back. This is unfair. This bill would provide for proportional repayment based on the amount withdrawn, a very sensible solution and one that every member in the House should support.

The bill would ensure the efficient implementation of the policies and measures introduced in the economic action plan passed in the House to support the economic future of all Canadians. Much of the content found in this bill would simply bring technical clarification to existing measures that have already passed in the House. For instance, this bill would deliver the necessary tax framework for pooled registered pension plans, which create an opportunity for all Canadians to participate in a structured pension plan for the first time ever. This is another way that the jobs and growth act would effectively support families and communities to provide for their long-term economic future.

Responsible resource development measures are yet another way in which the bill responds to our very real economic peril. Responsible resource development maximizes the potential of our resource sector, thus creating high-value jobs while enhancing environmental protection. Tighter, more effective regulation of development necessary to a growing population is essential for a growing economy. Environmental regulation should provide a clear framework to ensure measurable environmental outcomes, not requirements that have the effect of obstructing development without improving environmental outcomes. That is one of the goals of this bill.

It has been observed that a wise man will make more opportunities than he finds. During these times of economic uncertainty, it is important to be aggressive in creating initiatives to strengthen the economy. In this jobs and growth act, the government is being proactive about creating economic opportunities. The act's promotion of interprovincial trade, improvements of the legislative framework governing Canada's financial institutions, facilitating cross-border travel, the removal of red tape and the reduction of fees for Canadian grain farmers are just a few more examples of proactive measures that have the potential to really stimulate economic growth.

I very confidently support the jobs and growth act which would deliver job creation and economic growth. The targeted measures included in this act would ensure long-term economic strength to the benefit of my constituents in Kitchener Centre and all Canadians.

I call on all members of the House to join together in supporting these measures, join in leading Canadians safely through the stormy seas of global economic uncertainty that surrounds us.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing a lot of talk about delays as though they were a bad thing. However, no one is talking about the reason for these delays. They are forgetting to say that constructive work is being done behind the scenes.

We rarely, if ever, hear our Conservative colleagues talk about the fact that these waterways, these rivers and lakes, are like a body with different connecting parts. I am thinking of the Richelieu River, which is the heart of my riding. Many rivers that are no longer protected connect to it.

What is more, the Montreal-Portland pipeline passes under the river. Signs to that effect are placed along the length of the river. This infrastructure has been there since 1960. Given that the environmental regulations that the member opposite seems to think serve only to cause delays did not exist at the time, we now have aging infrastructure that could leak oil and gas into the bottom of the river when the flow of oil is reversed.

I would like to know how the members opposite can have such a lack of understanding of the consequences, impacts and domino effect that the absence of these protections will have on our waterways.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member raises a good question, and it really does highlight the difference between this side and the other side.

We are not interested here in delay for the sake of delay. We are interested here in trying to improve environmental outcomes. For example, the government recently demonstrated its commitment to strengthening environmental protection by refusing consent to the Cenovus Energy project at Canadian Forces Base Suffield National Wildlife area in Alberta simply because it was not justified in the circumstances. There is no automatic green light when there are environmental issues.

On the other hand, we have the case of an aerial cable that was built by the Renfrew Hydro Electric Commission, and it required approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act because it crossed over the Bonnechere River. It met all the standards for transmission lines over navigable waters, but it still took six months to approve that project with no measurable environmental outcome whatsoever.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting how the member tries to rewrite history to a certain degree.

A couple of years after Paul Martin left the Prime Minister's Office, we were into this huge global crisis, and he is trying to take credit for Canada being a global economic leader.

The reality of the situation is that the banking industry is a world leader because Prime Minister Chrétien and his cabinet resisted bank mergers during the 1990s.

In terms of converting a trade surplus and a budget surplus into deficits, Paul Martin had the surpluses and the Prime Minister converted them into huge deficits.

This particular bill has very little to do with the actual budget. It is only a small portion of it that is actually critically important to the budget. My question to the member is: Why did the government choose to have such a huge budget bill when in fact most of it is irrelevant to the actual passage of the budget itself?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend accuses me of rewriting history, but I happened to be around in the 1988 to 1992 election period when, in fact, the Liberal Party expressed its strong opposition to the GST. Talk about rewriting history. As soon as Mr. Chrétien was elected, he immediately reneged on that promise and the Liberal Party was gung-ho for the GST. It took a Conservative government to at least reduce the rate from 7% to 6% to 5%.

My colleague's comments make it clear that he did not get the point of my 10 minutes of talking about the fact that this budget implementation bill is necessary to stimulate jobs and growth. We need to be able to turn; we need to pivot on a dime, because of the economic crisis all around us. That means we have to have responsible resource development, we have to have investments in the knowledge economy and we have to have exactly what this budget implementation bill provides.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today once again to express my strong opposition to Bill C-45, the second omnibus budget bill that the Conservatives have introduced since the beginning of this Parliament.

I am deeply disappointed that, for the 31st time, the Conservatives have decided to silence a number of members. They will not have the opportunity that I have right now to speak out against this bill, which is going to have a major impact on their constituents. All the same, I am pleased to have a chance to defend the interests of the constituents of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier who are opposed to Bill C-45.

The government claims that this bill does nothing but implement measures already set out in the budget that was adopted last March and that it contains no surprises. We all know that this statement is totally false and that it is simply an attempt to mislead Canadians. This massive bill, with its more than 400 pages, contains many measures that were never announced when the budget was tabled and places even more power in the hands of Conservative ministers, something that we all want to prevent.

Right from the start, the NDP has deplored the fact that Bill C-45 is another attempt by the Conservatives to undermine hundreds of pieces of legislation without consulting with anyone and without having to account to anyone. The Conservatives are once again doing exactly the same thing they did the last time they introduced a budget bill, when they ripped holes in the Fisheries Act without consulting with fishers’ communities, when they made huge cuts to the employment insurance system, as if it belonged to them, without consulting the businesses or the workers that contribute to it, and when they made cuts to old age security and to health care transfers to the provinces. It is unbelievable that the same thing is happening again here in the House.

Despite our opposition and the opposition of thousands of Canadians throughout the country, the Conservatives are refusing to listen to reason and are forcing us to swallow a bill that will drastically affect the quality of our environment and the quality of Canadians’ lives today and well into the future. Even worse, the Conservatives are trying to hide the truth from Canadians by rushing the bill through as quickly as possible, without allowing members to give serious consideration to all the impacts that Bill C-45 will have on Canadians.

In the speech I gave in the House on this subject a few weeks ago, I mainly talked about matters of procedure and the anti-democratic nature of this bill. Since then, unfortunately, nothing has changed. We have seen this since the beginning of their mandate: the Conservatives have absolutely no scruples when it comes to limiting their opponents’ speaking time and flouting the democratic principles that have been at the heart of our parliamentary system since Confederation.

Bill C-45 is no exception to these new rules that the Conservatives want to impose on Parliament. The NDP has repeatedly asked this government to split this massive bill, so we can examine it in detail in committee and propose the amendments that are needed to make this bill acceptable, but of course the Conservatives have refused. Yes, a few committees were assigned to examine certain aspects of this bill, but given how little time the government allowed them to do their job, they were unable to hold reasonable and reasoned debates, and the vast majority of the witnesses who were called to appear were chosen by the Conservative government. We can all agree, therefore, that this process was neither very serious nor objective.

Obviously, the committee review was simply an attempt by the government to create an appearance of transparency and to silence the opposition, and nothing more. However, when we do exactly what this government is hoping Canadians will not do, and analyze Bill C-45 carefully, we can clearly see that a genuine examination of the provisions of this bill and the actual amendments is called for, because too many of these measures may well have disastrous consequences for the environment and our country's economy.

I am thinking, for example, of the changes made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which will become the Navigation Protection Act. Already, we have a good idea of what this government wants to do with it: forget about the fish, the environment, the flora and fauna, and focus on boats and navigation. That is all that counts. Once it is passed, Bill C-45 will eliminate the idea of protecting waterways from the act, and will no longer automatically require an environmental assessment when infrastructure is constructed on virtually all of the waterways in Canada. Once more, this shows what contempt the Conservatives have for protecting our environment.

If Bill C-45 passes as is, only 3 oceans, 97 lakes and 62 rivers in all of Canada will be protected and over 90% of those are in Conservative ridings. That raises some questions.

We must also remember that the provinces and municipalities will now be forced to protect waterways in their jurisdiction, even though they do not have the resources to do so. Of course, the government did not allocate additional resources—logistical or financial—to help the municipalities and provinces carry out this new task, now that the federal government is downloading its responsibilities.

Such measures could be catastrophic for a riding like mine, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which has 2,258 lakes, rivers and streams. There is Jacques-Cartier River, which some may recall is currently contaminated with TCE. This government still refuses to acknowledge the crown's responsibility in the matter. There is also Sainte-Anne River, which crosses my riding on the Portneuf side; and Lac Saint-Augustin, one of the most polluted lakes in Canada that now, thanks to this government, will be even less protected than it was to begin with. There is Lac Simon, near Saint-Raymond-de-Portneuf; Rivière Montmorency, a rather large river in the region; Rivière aux Pommes, which goes through Neuville and the riding of Portneuf; and there are many more. I could name 2,258.

All these waterways play a vital role in my region's economy, which depends on industries such as tourism and recreational fishing.

We often hear the Conservatives say they are strong advocates for hunters, for obvious reasons, appalling reasons that I will not bother to repeat here in the House. However, we never hear them speak out on behalf of fishers. Recreational fishers come to my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier to take advantage of our ZECs, controlled harvesting zones. These people help drive the economy in my region. They come to enjoy the beautiful landscapes and natural resources that Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is famous for. With this bill, there is nothing left. Developers can build a dam or a bridge anywhere they like, to the detriment of all the industries that depend on these waterways, but too bad. The bill introduced by the Conservatives does not contain any measures to do anything at all, apart from the fact that the provinces and municipalities can seek their own recourse.

How can the government justify its decision to stop protecting lakes and rivers in my region and across Canada to my constituents and to all Canadians? It is absolutely inconceivable.

Bill C-45 poses another major problem. I am talking about the changes to support measures for businesses conducting scientific research and experimental development. Many of my colleagues have already talked about this issue. I am glad they did, because this is a crucial part of the budget that needs to be changed.

So, quite simply, they decide to eliminate these measures and they also get rid of eligible investment costs. What they are really doing is cutting $500 million from this program and increasing taxes for businesses. The Conservatives will never present it to us this way, but this is exactly what they are doing. They are creating an increase for the small and large businesses that drive the economy. This is hardly very consistent with their message that they are champions of the Canadian economy. It is obvious that they are not.

Technology, productivity and innovation are essential elements that allow our businesses to compete on the international marketplace, and to compete with emerging countries, which will be setting up good R&D programs for their businesses.

Our businesses will simply leave and it is the manufacturing sector, which is still very significant in the Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier area, that will be directly affected by this ill-considered decision.

I would like to end quickly by saying that unless the bill is amended to reflect the priorities of Canadians, I will have to oppose it. I am going to take advantage of the fact that I still have some speaking time left to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion.

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-45, in clause 321, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 291, the following:

(2.1) as the addition of the navigable waters listed is deemed to be in the public interest, the governor in council may make regulations adding these to the schedule, as soon as practicable after the day this act is assented to, by indicating, with regard to lakes, their approximate location by latitude and longitude and, with regard to rivers, their approximate upstream and downstream points, with the description of the water body and, in the event that more than one water body bears the same name as listed hereinafter, it selects the one to be added to the schedule:

The list includes Raymond Lake, Salt Lake, Reindeer Lake, St. Augustin Lake, Creek Lake, Rat Lake, Kasba Lake, Aurora Lake, Anderson River, Tadek Lake, Morell Lake, Larocque Lake, Campbell Lake, Newland Lake and Thomas Lake.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There is no consent.

Before we go to questions and comments, just a reminder to all hon. members that we have five minutes for questions and comments. I note there are many members who wish to pose questions to the member who just spoke, so I would ask members to keep their questions and responses succinct so more members will have the opportunity to participate in the question and comment period.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, within this massive, unprecedented budget bill one aspect proposes to establish electronic travel authorizations. That means if individuals are from a country where a visiting visa is no longer required, or they are not American citizens, they would have to tap into the Internet to get pre-approved before coming to Canada. Very little debate, if any, has actually occurred in the House on that issue.

Does the member agree with the Liberal Party that this is one of the reasons why we need separate pieces of legislation as opposed to one massive bill of this nature in order for us to provide due diligence?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for his question. He often speaks in this House, and so I am not surprised that he has a question.

As I have said on many occasions and as a number of my colleagues have also said, omnibus bills are undemocratic and do not allow us to focus on each element that we want to discuss.

This subject seems to stir emotions. I hope that my Conservative colleagues are reacting because they believe that omnibus bills are totally unacceptable.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the common cowardice of the person in a position of strength who abuses their power is the privilege of the government. For the umpteenth time, the government is unfortunately invoking closure. Let it take advantage of its position of strength. The immorality of this gesture will weigh heavily on it.

I really liked the speech by the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier on this subject, as is often the case. The bill is quite lengthy and covers a lot of ground. In some ways, it is a draft.

I would like her to expand a bit on the problems with an omnibus bill that makes changes to many things, without any prior review and without respect for the people of Canada.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beauport—Limoilou for his excellent question that will allow me to continue the point I started earlier.

A number of Conservatives have already asked in the House how NDP members could be opposed to a budget that includes a tax credit for small businesses. Although I must say that this is an excellent tax credit, it will end in about 20 days. They will blame us for all kinds of things like this, when what we oppose are the big measures, such as the gutting of the Navigable Waters Protection Act or the changes to support measures for research and development.

We cannot examine these issues and truly understand the effects they will have, since the government does not give us a chance to do our job, to examine the figures and call in the witnesses who deserve to be heard. I am talking not only about government witnesses, but also witnesses from all segments of society.

I could go on about this, but my time is running out. A number of my colleagues can continue to explain to the government all the problems with the omnibus bills it is introducing and how undemocratic they are.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague, who was very eloquent, as usual.

Bill C-45 is ironically entitled the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, but I do not see a single effective measure to create jobs or stimulate economic growth.

We know that the tax credits that were given to small businesses are short and long term and are insignificant.

Support for research and development was cut. Where is the national strategy to create jobs for the 1.4 million Canadians who are still looking for work?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one might find such a strategy in the NDP's platform, but certainly not in the Conservatives' budget implementation bill.

It gets worse. Based on what is being proposed, 102,000 more jobs could be lost and not just in the public service. This is a problem. The government is not creating jobs; jobs disappear faster than the government can create them.