Debates of Dec. 4th, 2012

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate.

I would like to ask my colleague and friend from Random—Burin—St. George's about one of the most devastating cuts to services in Newfoundland and Labrador, the closure of the marine search and rescue sub-station in St. John's, which impacts all of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is the closure of the one in Quebec City as well.

I know the member has worked hard with the individuals who were displaced, and I am wondering if she has any thoughts on that.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Avalon, who is more than well versed in what has transpired in Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to cuts to search and rescue. In fact, the closure of the maritime rescue sub-centre in St. John's struck a blow not just to everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, because that search and rescue centre provided service for anyone who travelled on the North Atlantic.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are continuing to fight the good fight, but the Conservative government turns a blind eye and pretends not to hear the outcries from those who know precisely what will happen. Unfortunately, as a result that closure, there is going to be a tragedy that may well convince the government of the need to reinstate that maritime rescue sub-centre.

Quebec City has been given a reprieve and the centre is not closing, but it is not because of the good wishes of the Conservative government. The reality is that it could not find competent French-speaking personnel to be part of the Trenton rescue centre. It is not because the government does not want to close Quebec but because it really does not have a choice at this point.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of the jobs and growth act, 2012, which implements key elements of economic action plan 2012.

When we introduced the plan back in March, we highlighted its importance in taking decisive action to ensure our economy would create good jobs and sustain a higher quality of life for our children and grandchildren, including measures to help the environment.

When it comes to the environment, Albertans care deeply about the natural beauty of our province and about protecting it for future generations. When my family and friends come to visit, I love to show them the beauty of Kananaskis, Banff and Jasper. However, the concerns of Albertans with respect to the environment can be seen in many other ways besides our pride in our national parks.

For example, more and more Albertans are looking into thermal heating solutions. I paid extra to install the technology in my new home. As Albertans, we are not afraid to put our money where our mouth is. However, the key factor is balance. That is exactly how I would describe the measures contained in this bill.

In my remarks today I will focus on elements of today's legislation that expand the eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean, green energy generation. Not only would this measure help protect Canada's natural environment; it would support our government's top priority, that being jobs and growth.

Before I speak to that in greater detail, I will speak to the larger economic action plan 2012.

This is a low-tax plan that will build on the strong economic foundations we have built since forming government in 2006. It is a plan that has ensured and will continue to ensure that we avoid the problems facing other countries.

Creating jobs and long-term economic growth is key to our success, not to mention that it is the reason we first introduced Canada's economic action plan. Central to our strategy is our government's low-tax plan for jobs and growth, a policy that has made Canada one of the best places in the world to invest. Not only that, but our economy has created more than 800,000 net new jobs since July 2009, of which 90% are full time.

What is more, all of the major credit rating agencies, such as Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's, have renewed Canada's AAA credit rating.

The plan includes a bold tax reduction plan that has branded Canada as a low-tax jurisdiction for businesses to invest—and the best place to do business, according to Forbes magazine.

Indeed, we are making it easier for Canadian businesses to successfully compete in the global economy and more attractive for others to invest in this country, with the end goal being more and better jobs for Canadians and a healthy, thriving economy.

We must now stay the course with our low-tax plan to protect the economy and create jobs, a plan that has made Canada the envy of the world.

In the words of German Chancellor Angela Merkel:

Canada's path of great budgetary discipline and a very heavy emphasis on growth and overcoming the crisis, not living on borrowed money, can be an example for the way in which problems on the other side of the Atlantic can be addressed. This is also the right solution for Europe.

Nevertheless we know that, when looking to the future, it is important to find a balance between economic and environmental priorities.

Canada is an energy superpower, with one of the world's largest resource endowments of both traditional and emerging sources of energy. More and more, the rest of the world looks to Canada as a secure and dependable supplier of a wide range of energy products.

Since 2006, our government has taken significant steps to establish our country as a global clean energy leader, including through regulatory actions, investments in technology and innovation, and broad-based incentives.

This past March, acting on the advice of the witnesses who appeared before the House of Commons finance committee's prebudget consultations and on the advice of the committee report, which recommended that “the federal government continue to use tax incentives to promote the development and use of renewable energy”, economic action plan 2012 proposed to support these sectors through the tax system by expanding eligibility for the CCA, accelerated capital cost allowance, for clean energy generation equipment.

For the purpose of today's bill, let me quickly describe for Parliament and for Canadians watching at home the technical details behind the accelerated CCA for clean energy generation contained in part 1 of the bill.

The existing measure applies to a broad range of specified equipment that generates or conserves energy by using a renewable energy source, using fuels from waste or making efficient use of fossil fuels.

Through today's legislation, our Conservative government proposes to expand this incentive. Currently, waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment produces heat using waste sources.

Today's legislation proposes to expand the eligibility of the accelerated CCA for clean energy generation equipment to allow waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment to be used in a broad range of applications, including space and water heating. For example, wood waste could be used as an alternative to heating oil for space and water heating in a shopping centre.

District energy systems transfer thermal energy between a central generation plant and a group or district of buildings by circulating steam, hot water or cold water through a system of underground pipes.

We propose to expand the accelerated CCA for clean energy generation equipment by adding equipment that is part of a district energy system that distributes thermal energy primarily generated by waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment.

For example, in a remote community, a district energy system that uses heat generated by waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment could provide an alternative to equipment that uses only fossil fuels.

And finally, today's legislation proposes to add the residue of plants to the list of eligible waste fuels so that it can be used in waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment.

The residue of plants, such as straw, corn cobs, leaves and similar organic waste produced by the agricultural sector, can be used in a number of ways, including the production of heat, electricity, biofuels and other bio-products.

Our government believes that investments in our energy future will be essential to realizing economic opportunities, creating employment and enhancing the Canadian advantage.

It is through measures like expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy equipment that we will balance environmental protection and economic growth.

Economic action plan 2012 recognized, for example, that to effectively compete and succeed globally we need to maximize the value that Canada draws from its natural resources, while protecting the environment at the same time.

I am proud that the measures contained in today's bill will help further unleash the potential of Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to innovate and thrive in the modern economy, to the benefit of all Canadians for generations to come.

In doing so, our Conservative government will reinforce Canada's comparative advantages and ensure the sustainability of public finances and social programs for future generations.

I would therefore encourage all members to support this bill and economic action plan 2012, to support Canada's economy, and to cast their vote for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my government colleague a question about research and development. We know that major changes were made to tax credits for scientific research and experimental development following the Jenkins report.

There are some particularly troubling elements in Bill C-45, including the fact that the government will cut tax credits for certain industries that really need them right now by $500 million. These credits will be converted into grants. Winners and losers will be chosen by the government.

The second element we do not like is the fact that capital expenditures will no longer be eligible for tax credits. This will cause significant harm to some industries, such as those in the manufacturing and natural resource sectors, because they need to set up pilot projects.

I would like to know whether the member is comfortable with the fact that the government is planning to decide who wins grants and who loses rather than provide tax credits. Why will capital expenditures, which were not mentioned in the Jenkins report's recommendations, no longer be eligible for tax credits?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that this government has a record of having the maximum tax deductions in the history of Canada.

The government believes in balancing its approach, attracting business and creating jobs by reducing taxes. That is the record of our government. I suggest my colleague go back and study this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, he articulated that a 21-page budget document was not appropriate to be passing as it was affecting too many pieces of legislation. That is what he argued just a number of years ago. However, today the current budget bill far exceeds that 21-page document.

The current budget bill is hundreds of pages and affects numerous pieces of legislation. It is somewhat hypocritical for the Prime Minister to say that it is not okay to have a 21-page budget bill, but when he is Prime Minister, he presents this massive document which is, in essence, a historical precedent for budget bills never before seen in the House of Commons.

Why has the Conservative majority government decided to sneak through so many changes in legislation through the back door with this budget?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question, but I laughed when I heard my colleague from the Liberal Party ask it.

There is nothing groundbreaking in this. Indeed, the Liberal government's last budget implementation bill in 2005 amended dozens of different pieces of legislation. A wide range of legislation was amended, including everything from the Auditor General Act, the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, the Department of Human Resources Development Act and many more. I suggest my Liberal colleague go back and check his own records.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some concern that I rise to speak here today. I said I am concerned, and that is the right word to describe how I feel about Bill C-45, because it will have a huge impact.

The bill is over 400 pages long and amends dozens of existing laws. It is a real statutory juggernaut, if not a monster. Its repercussions will be felt for a very long time all across Canada. Instead of letting us study this bill properly, the government has imposed a gag order. That is what frightens me. How are we supposed to do our jobs if we cannot debate the bill?

I was elected to represent the people of Alfred-Pellan. How can I voice their opinions and concerns if our study of Bill C-45 is reduced to a bare minimum? It makes no sense. I would even say that this brutal way of imposing legislation on Parliament goes against common Canadian values. Canada has always been a place of debate, discussion and compromise. It is unfortunate that this government does not promote those values.

The being said, I would like to take the next few minutes to clearly explain what I dislike about this bill. My main concern has to do with the environment. Indeed, Bill C-45 seems to use every available means to gut the environmental protections that we are so proud of. As we know, Canadians have traditionally cared about respecting the environment. This has generally been the consensus, but for the past few years, ever since the Conservative government came to power, that consensus has been called into question. My Conservative colleagues do not seem to be concerned about nature. They want to put development before protection. This is a very dangerous approach that will prove ineffective in the long run.

For instance, Bill C-45 guts the protection of navigable waterways in Canada. Quite some time ago, we decided as a society that it was important to protect the lakes and rivers that we all care so much about. Thousands of waterways were thus protected by the legislation. Before developing a project like a bridge, wharf or pipeline, a proper assessment had to be done.

Is there an environmental hazard? Will species at risk be affected? What impact would an accident have on the environment? This is the type of question that made the Navigable Waters Protection Act so important. It responded to a logical requirement: it made people stop for a moment before developing without thinking. The pros and cons of a project were considered. If everything seemed fine, then the project went forward. If not, then it was back to the drawing board. This was the right way of doing things. It was an acceptable compromise between development and respect for the environment. Unfortunately, Bill C-45 is ruining all that.

Over 99% of the 33,000 bodies of water that were once protected will now be abandoned. Only a handful of rivers and waterways will still be protected under the new navigation protection act. As for the rest, it will be a wild west scenario. Companies will be able to build, develop and destroy without question. They could build a pipeline, bridge or wharf without any problems. They will build first and then have second thoughts later if things happen to go awry. The wisdom and critical judgment that were at the very heart of our values have gone out the window.

In short, the Conservatives are giving the keys to Canada's wilderness to big business. Too bad for the balance between the economy and nature, too bad for first nations, too bad for communities that care about their natural heritage and too bad for the environment. All that is being sacrificed for the sake of economic development.

My colleagues and I hope that Canada's economy grows. What we do not want, however, is for the economy to develop to the detriment of the environment. What good is making a buck if we have to destroy everything to do it? Bill C-45 is bad news for the Canadian wilderness. And yet, the beauty of that wilderness is one of the things for which we are recognized throughout the world.

If we ask people from other countries and tourists what they like about our country, they often answer that it is the wilderness and the wild open spaces. Canada has the longest coastline in the world. We have breathtakingly beautiful lakes and rivers. By doing away with the environmental protections for these waterways, Bill C-45 damages that reputation. This bill is a frightening step toward a damaged and spoiled wilderness.

I have discussed this with many of my constituents, and some environmental groups have also talked to me about it. What do they think? They are ashamed of their government. They do not understand how it can just dismiss the balance that Canadians worked hard to achieve over the past few decades. They feel like they are going back in time. The provinces and territories are also concerned about Bill C-45. By putting an end to the protection of waterways, the federal government is abdicating its responsibilities. It is abandoning all of this and letting the provinces deal with it on their own.

This means more responsibilities for the provinces without the additional funding they need. They are merely being told to deal with it. Is that the government's so-called open federalism? For the good of our federation, I hope not.

Another aspect of Bill C-45 concerns me. Earlier, I spoke a little about the economy. Upon reading the bill, I had a question: where is the government's plan to stimulate job creation?

I looked through the 400 pages and unfortunately found nothing. Of course, the government's response will be that abolishing the environmental protection of rivers will stimulate the economy. That is so cynical that I do not even want to respond. However, I must, and I will repeat that economic development does not have to happen at the expense of nature. There is a way to strike a balance. Bill C-45 will eliminate the balance in our laws.

From what I can gather, the government has only one job creation strategy: development at any cost. Not only is this despicable from an environmental point of view, but it is also counterproductive. All kinds of measures could be implemented right now to stimulate the economy and create jobs. My colleagues and I keep proposing measures right here in the House, and none of them will result in an environmental disaster.

I am thinking, for example, of reducing the obscene credit card fees charged to small and medium-sized companies. Why has the federal government not taken action on this? It is a matter of putting the major banks in their place by preventing them from abusing SMEs, which are job creators. This is simple and effective, and it would put more money in the pockets of honest business owners to help them hire people.

Giving tax breaks to small and medium-sized companies that hire would be another way to stimulate job creation. All economists agree that SMEs are essential to making Canada's economy run smoothly. They are the ones we should be helping, not the big oil companies and banks that are making money. The government does not seem to realize that. When it must choose between multinational companies that earn billions of dollars and small businesses, it chooses the big guys. Unfortunately, that does not make much sense.

We must be careful. We cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. No one, especially not me, is opposed to the existence of big companies. They also contribute a lot to our society. Once again, this is a matter of balance. As with protecting the environment, we must find a happy medium. Under Bill C-45, this happy medium will no longer exist. The government will replace it with a scale that is tilted to the right, and always more to the right.

That is why I strongly oppose the quick passage of Bill C-45. Its repercussions are much too significant and its targets are much too poor to receive my support. I urge all my colleagues to think carefully before supporting this bill. If they examine it closely they will see that it is headed in the wrong direction.

There is little time left for debate. I am very happy and grateful to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-45. However, I want to reiterate that it is extremely sad that this bill is being passed at lightning speed. It is also very disappointing that this omnibus bill was not properly studied in committee and that the few committees that did have a chance to study it did not have enough time to do so. Some of them had only one day for their study, even though this bill is over 400 pages long. It is extremely sad to see just how much our democracy is being undermined.

As a final point, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a 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: (2.1) 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, including, with respect to lakes, their approximate location in latitude and longitude and, with respect to rivers and riverines, the approximate downstream and upstream points, as well as a description of each of those lakes, rivers and riverines, and where more than one lake, river or riverine exists with the same name indicated in the list below, the governor in council shall select one to be added, namely: Sunken Lake, Thonokied River, Bear Head Lake, Shark Lake, Coyne Lake, Ontadek Lake, Frame Lake, Rufus Lake, Barnston Lake, Great Bear Lake, Anderson River, Tuitatui Lake, Hornaday River, Bedford Lake and Basile Lake.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There is no unanimous consent.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under successive Conservative governments, the economy has repeatedly been pitted against the environment. Laws have been weakened and repealed to fast track development, putting the environment and the health and safety of Canadians at risk. The Conservative government should recognize that our children are being exposed to unsafe environments and should meaningfully address this challenge. The government should put health, and particularly children's health, back in the environment debate. Simply put, our future depends on it.

I would like to ask the member when the debate changed from protecting the environment to safeguard human health and wellbeing to gutting environmental protection to streamline expansion and growth. Is it not time we made human health, and particularly our most vulnerable, our children, a consideration in the environmental debate?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Etobicoke North for her question and comments. This all reminds me of a householder I sent out a few weeks ago in Alfred-Pellan to the people of Laval. The document addressed some environmental concerns and, more specifically, Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol.

My colleague might be surprised to learn that dozens, if not hundreds, of my constituents wrote to me about this, explaining how upset they were about Canada's withdrawal from all these environmental programs and about the destruction of our environmental laws. They noted that the Conservatives are not thinking about future generations and wondered why this government is acting this way. My colleague's comments are therefore very relevant, and it is important that the government across the way realize this.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my colleague's speech. She had a lot to say about the environment. A very happy event is approaching for her and her loved ones, but what legacy will we be leaving for future generations if the government undermines environmental legislation and takes away research and development sector subsidies that are crucial to the development of green energy?

There is nothing in this bill for wind or solar power, absolutely nothing for the development of hydrogen-powered vehicles, and nothing to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from the auto industry either. China and the United States now have greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles coming off the assembly line. Canada has done nothing. What impact will this have on future generations?

How sad it is to see the government undermine the economy like that. Sometimes, all it takes to stimulate job creation is support for local economies. But the government is not doing anything in this budget.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for sharing his totally legitimate concerns and comments with us.

What does this bill have to offer future generations in terms of environmental standards? Unfortunately, it contains no environmental standards to protect future generations. As I mentioned, the official opposition and my Liberal colleagues are not the only ones worried about this problem. Many of the people of Laval, who care deeply about their environment, are worried too.

People at the eastern end of Laval are strongly attached to their bodies of water. Two navigable rivers cross the riding: the Rivière des Mille Îles and the Rivière des Prairies. People in that lovely part of the country really want all of their bodies of water, which they are constantly trying to raise awareness of, to remain protected and to be in better shape for future generations.

I was talking about this to the Conseil régional de l'environnement de Laval, with which the four Laval MPs work very hard. The organization is shocked at the extent to which the government is abandoning future generations and at how little attention Bill C-45 pays to sustainable development and the environment.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak today about our government's priorities: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

The Minister of Finance is doing a terrific job with our financial policies and has helped create well over 800,000 new jobs since the global economic recession. This has made Canada the envy of the world and the G8. We will continue to become more competitive as we invest in infrastructure, science, innovation and tax reduction while reducing barriers to trade. We have initiated the most ambitious trade expansion plan in Canadian history. We are strengthening our ties with the U.S., opening trade agreements with India and the European Union, building our growing trade relationship with Asia and much more.

Expanded trade benefits the resource communities I represent and the ones the members opposite want to destroy with their policies. In my constituency, many export crops are grown. Probably the most important is canola. Indeed, my riding is the number one canola-producing constituency in the country. Farmers, jobs and value-added industries depend very strongly on this trade.

This is a government that has continually lowered taxes. It has cut taxes over 140 times. Budget 2012 spends Canadian taxpayer dollars responsibly, with the goal of balancing the budget and ensuring that a strong plan is in place to create jobs.

We are working to strengthen the financial security of workers, businesses and families and to create good jobs and long-term prosperity from coast to coast to coast. To do this, we will extend by one year the hiring tax credit for small business. This has helped many small businesses in my own constituency. Many businesses in my constituency export to the United States and around the world. I hope that the NDP and Liberals opposite do not disregard the importance of these small job creators by continuously attacking the resource sector that works hand in hand with the small businesses that need the oil, gas, lumber and metals they produce to make their goods and fuel their businesses.

We will invest in upgrades to infrastructure to maintain safe rail service, renew the Canadian Coast Guard fleet and improve facilities at our borders. Furthermore, we will increase funding for skills training for students, older workers and Canadians with disabilities. We are also working to reform Canada's immigration system.

In terms of our responsible resource development program, in 2010, Canada's natural resources sectors employed more than 760,000 workers across the country. Right now the mining and energy sectors alone represent 10% of the Canadian economy and 40% of our exports. In the next 10 years, more than 500 new projects, representing over $500 billion in new investment, will be proposed for Canada. The potential for job growth is simply enormous.

Since 2006, our government has been working to streamline the review process. Our efforts have already made a difference, without any negative environmental impact whatsoever. Currently, companies undertaking major projects must navigate a complex maze of regulatory requirements, long approval processes, and most importantly, unpredictability. That is why our government is acting, in Canada's economic action plan 2012, with our plan for responsible resource development.

Responsible resource development streamlines the review process for major economic projects by providing predictable timelines for project approvals. It prevents long delays that kill potential jobs and stall economic growth by putting valuable investment at risk. Responsible resource development will create good, skilled, well-paying jobs in cities and communities across Canada while continuing to maintain the highest possible standards for protecting the environment. Again, emerging economies, such as Asia, are burgeoning markets for our natural resources.

I serve on both the fisheries and the environment committees of the House. I would like to talk a bit more about these two areas and the importance of the sustainable use of our resources and how government can play a productive role working with the conservation community and resource industries.

In terms of fisheries, our government is introducing changes that will focus on fish and fish habitat protection rules. These changes solidify our government's commitment to protecting recreational, commercial and aboriginal fisheries and the habitat that supports them. We are adopting a sensible and practical approach to managing real and significant threats to fisheries and the habitat that supports them while minimizing the restrictions on routine, everyday activities that have little or no impact on the productivity of Canada's fisheries.

The old laws were indiscriminate and meant that all bodies of water where fish live or could possibly live, or might live in another time, are subject to the same rules and evaluation regardless of size and environment, and most importantly, are in line with their contribution to a fishery that people actually use. We have heard Canadians tell us about farmers being prevented from cleaning out their irrigation canals, municipalities being delayed in repairing infrastructure and doing routine maintenance, businesses not being allowed to clear flooded fields and campsites and cottage owners prohibited from keeping up their properties, all because of the existing rules that lack common sense.

The new changes would focus the rules by drawing a distinction between vital waterways that support important fisheries in Canada, and unproductive bodies of water, like drainage ditches and irrigation canals, as well as identifying and managing real threats to the fisheries, including direct impacts on fish, habitat destruction and aquatic invasive species.

The fisheries minister would also have tools to establish clear new and accessible guidelines for Canadians to follow for projects in or near water. Regulatory standards actually do not exist at this time for routine low-risk projects, such as building boat launches or docks. The minister could now identify ecologically significant areas that require enhanced protection. Currently, all areas are treated the same under the law. As a fisheries biologist myself, I agree with focusing our efforts on bodies of water that have fisheries important to people and local communities.

These changes would also allow the government to enforce the conditions associated with Fisheries Act authorizations. At present, DFO cannot enforce the conditions. We would align infractions under the Fisheries Act—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could you indicate what the quorum count is currently? Are there enough members in the House for a quorum?

And the count having been taken.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Seeing sufficient quorum for the debate to continue, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, Canada's families deserve the cleanest air, water and environment possible and the trends are good for Canada's environment. That is why, since 2006, our Conservative government has made major investments to preserve our environment and protect the health and wellbeing of Canadian families for today and tomorrow. The list includes $1.1 billion for the eco-energy retrofit homes program; $1 billion for a priorities, such as green energy generation and transmission infrastructure; $1 billion to support pulp and paper mills to reduce their emissions and become leaders in the production of renewable energy from biomass; $1 billion in support of clean energy research; $200 million to help address the health and environmental risks posed by dangerous chemicals through the chemicals management plan; $100 million to support clean energy generation in Canada's forestry sector; $68 million to clean federal contaminated sites; $38 million to reduce the risk of invasive plant and animal species; $35 million to support climate and atmospheric sciences research; $27 million to improve Canada's weather services; over $18 million to support reporting on key environmental indicators, such as clean air, clean water and greenhouse gas emissions; $16 million to protect and clean the Great Lakes, and I could go on and on. The list is absolutely enormous.

Economic action plan 2012 builds on our Conservative government's impressive record of supporting a cleaner and more sustainable environment. We are committed to providing continued support to clean up Canada's lakes, including Lake Winnipeg and Lake Simcoe, and providing expanded tax relief for clean energy generation.

Economic action plan 2012 supports families and communities, strengthens health care in rural and remote communities and, of great importance to my constituency, strengthens access to broadband in rural areas. Moreover, in Manitoba, as the country knows, flooding is a significant issue. Economic action plan proposes up to $99.2 million over three years to assist the provinces and territories with the cost of permanent flood mitigation.

We are also increasing access to support for business innovation, and federal transfers to provinces and territories are at a record high. I have a lot more information to provide, but I see that my time is up. I would say that I am very proud to be part of our government that is focusing on ensuring that Canada remains economically strong.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his speech and tell him that, yesterday, I was in Conservative ridings in the area of Saint-Georges-de-Beauce and Lac-Mégantic to tell the people there that Lac Mégantic and Rivière Chaudière will no longer be protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

What a surprise. The people there were not aware that this was happening. I therefore encouraged them to find out about what the Conservatives are up to. Why are Lac Mégantic, Rivière Chaudière and Rivière Saint-François in my riding being abandoned while hundreds of lakes and rivers in Conservative ridings—at a rate of 90%—are being protected?

Why this unfairness? Why do the people of Drummond, Lac-Mégantic and Saint-Georges not also deserve to have their waterways protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I enjoy serving with the hon. member opposite on the environment committee.

The old Navigable Waters Protection Act was about navigation, and we have changed it based on the misapplication of the act. It is now the navigation protection bill, and its job is to protect navigation.

Under the old regime, minuscule and very small bodies of water were often listed as navigable waters. Indeed, in my own constituency, one rural municipality was building three crossings across intermittent streams, and the Navigable Waters Protection Act was brought to bear. The bill for the bridges they were being told to build was $700,000. The total budget for the municipality was $1.4 million. That is how ridiculous the application of the act was in the past.

We are introducing common sense.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the pieces that is being proposed in the budget bill is to put in place another tier for visitors coming to Canada. In essence, after this budget bill passes, we will have created a tier for people coming from countries from which we will now require a visitors' visa; a tier for American citizens, who will now be the second type of visitor we get; and a third tier, which is virtually unknown, for anyone from a European country such as England, and also for countries like Australia, who will now have go onto a website and get permission before he or she can actually come to Canada.

These are significant changes. When I asked the question in committee, there was no idea or sense of what the implementation cost would be or anything of that nature.

Does the member not recognize the value of having that whole debate in a separate piece of legislation where due diligence could be applied?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, and indeed all of Canada knows, immigration levels to Canada are at a record high. Again, we are experiencing a shortage of skilled workers that our emerging and growing economy needs.

How we manage our borders is of critical importance to Canadians and our economy. There are many people, of course, who want to enter our country and we know that we have to be very careful to ensure they are screened. As the son of immigrants myself, I know the contribution that immigrants make to our country, but it is very important that we control our borders.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the expertise he has brought to bear in the environment committee.

Yesterday, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country brought up his experience as a former city councillor in discussing this budget. The FCM has said that it supports the changes to navigation proposed in Bill C-45. I, too, am in support of those.

I just want the member to know that the Penticton Indian Band has also reiterated its support for it. The costs that the Navigable Waters Protection Act would impose on their community and economic development by forcing them to build a bridge at a different height, despite the fact that the Okanagan Channel has not been navigable by any boat for the past 50-plus years, just shows that this act needs to be changed.

The opposition continues to oppose the bill for no practical reason. I would just like to hear the member's thoughts why that is.