Debates of Dec. 4th, 2012

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I 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:

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 it 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 and 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: the Alsek River, the Arctic Red River, the Bay du Nord River, the Bloodvein River, the Bonnet Plume River, the Boundary Waters-Voyageur Waterway, the Rainy River in Thunder Bay, the Clearwater River, the Coppermine River, the Cowitchan River, the Hayes River, the Hillsborough River, the Kazan River, the Kicking Horse River, the Main River, the Margaree River, the Mattawa River, the Missinaibi River, the Seal River, the Shelburne River, the Soper River, the South Nahanni River, the St. Croix River, the Tatshenshini River, the Thames River, the Thelon River, the Three Rivers and the Upper Restigouche River.”

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There is no consent.

Resuming debate. I would tell the member for Newton—North Delta that there will be approximately eight minutes available in the time allocated for debate this afternoon on the question that is before the House. I will give her the usual signal ahead of that time so she will know how much time remains.

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-45 because, once again, we have before us another reiteration of an omnibus bill. Instead of respecting parliamentary democracy and dealing with issues and different aspects separately, whether it be the environment; changes to EI, labour laws or immigration; protecting our waterways; or pensions; the government has buried all of those issues into this omnibus bill, thus preventing us as parliamentarians from having an in-depth debate.

When MPs are elected, it is stressed how important it is for us to do our due diligence and provide oversight on the budget but the Conservatives keep moving time allocation. Here we are at report stage and once again my colleagues across the way, with an absolute lack of respect for parliamentary democracy and elected parliamentarians, have shut down debate, more or less saying that because they have a majority they can be the bullies that they are surely proving to be.

It is not only members of the NDP who think that way. If there were no time allocation, I could stand here for the whole day and there would be others who would speak and support the position we are taking.

With respect to Bill C-38, Andrew Coyne, who is not exactly a Liberal commentator, wrote the following, which also applies here:

Not only does this make a mockery of the confidence convention, shielding bills that would otherwise be defeatable within a money bill, which is not: It makes it impossible to know what Parliament really intended by any of it. We’ve no idea whether MPs supported or opposed any particular bill in the bunch, only that they voted for the legislation that contained them. There is no common thread that runs between them, no overarching principle; they represent not a single act of policy, but a sort of compulsory buffet.

...there is something quite alarming about Parliament being obliged to rubber-stamp the government’s whole legislative agenda at one go.

From the emails received by many colleagues with whom I have spoken, we can see that this is of major concern, not only to members in the House but also to those who care and cherish our parliamentary democracy. Our citizens are wondering what the government has to hide and why it is not debating key issues in Parliament on their own merit instead of burying them in a new piece of legislation that is the size of a phone book and a phone book larger than those in many of the cities in Canada.

The mantra we also hear, which is a learned kind of refrain, is that the NDP voted against it. I am proud to be standing here speaking against the legislation because it would not do what the Conservatives purport it would do. They say that the bill is all about job creation but we know that is another misleading comment and a kind of mantra used to try to stop what I would call proper discourse on key issues.

The Conservatives claim that the budget is about job creation. However, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared before committee he said that the budget would cost 43,000 Canadians their jobs. That does not seem like a job-creating budget. The budget would actually lead to a loss of jobs. I am not the world's best mathematician, nor will I pretend to be, but I understand what losing 43,000 jobs would mean. I also understand that it is not just the people who will lose their jobs but also the communities in which they live that will lose. When one person loses a decent paying full-time job, it has an impact on the whole community. It has an impact on the business community, on our health care and on all of our institutions. I predict that the job losses will be a lot larger.

The Conservatives claim that they have encouraged jobs by giving tax breaks to small businesses. That tax break will expire before the budget is passed. It is only a minimal $1,000 and it is only there for the year 2012. What a misleading piece of propaganda the Conservatives exude.

It will not be with pleasure, but I will be proud to stand in the House and speak against a budget that attacks the basic Canadian values of our environment, our pensions, our jobs and so on.

At this time 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 it is reasonably practicable after the day on which the 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, Calder Lake, Rusty Lake, Drybones Lake, Contwoyto Lake, King Lake, Tukweye Lake, Sandy Lake, Dissension Lake, Mid Lake, Hook Lake, Crooked Lake, Tsu Lake, Duckfish Lake, Marion Lake and Cotterill Lake.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Newton—North Delta have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 12:14 p.m., pursuant to an order made Monday, December 3, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

Before completing debate at report stage of Bill C-45, I wish to explain the process to the House.

Since the motions in Group No. 1 have already been proposed, I will only refer to the motion number when putting the questions on the motions in that group.

With respect to the motions in Group No. 2, they will be put to the House in the usual manner. When the House is ready to proceed with the putting of the motions of said group, I will only refer to the motion number.

To this end, I have asked that copies of the report stage section of today's notice paper be placed on each member's desk for ease of reference.

I would like to point out that this is the same process that was used last June at report stage of Bill C-38.

We shall now proceed to the putting of the question on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Louis Plamondon]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is not in the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour. Because the motion was moved in the past, the member who moved the motion does not necessarily have to be present in the House.

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 22, 25, 26, 34 to 38, 61, 63 to 65, 95, 96, 99 to 106, 108 to 110, 114, 115, 139, 142 to 147, 155, 157 to 160 and 162.

The next question is on Motion No. 7.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 7 is deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 9, 11, 18, 32, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 74, 97, 111 to 113, 116, 131, 136, 138 and 140.

I will now put the motions in Group No. 2 to the House.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 163

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Motion No. 164

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 165

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Motion No. 166

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 102.

Motion No. 167

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 103.

Motion No. 168

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

Motion No. 169

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Motion No. 170

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 106.

Motion No. 171

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

Motion No. 172

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Motion No. 173

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 109.

Motion No. 174

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 175

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Motion No. 176

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 112.

Motion No. 177

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 178

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Motion No. 179

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

Motion No. 180

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Motion No. 181

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 182

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 183

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 184

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 185

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 186

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 187

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 188

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 189

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 190

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 191

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 192

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 193

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 194

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 195

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 196

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 197

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 198

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 199

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Motion No. 200

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 201

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 202

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 203

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 204

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 205

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 206

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 207

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 208

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 209

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 210

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 211

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 212

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 213

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 214

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 215

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 216

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 217

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 218

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 219

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 220

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Motion No. 221

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 222

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Motion No. 223

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Motion No. 224

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 225

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Motion No. 226

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 227

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Motion No. 228

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 229

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 230

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 231

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 167.

Motion No. 232

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Motion No. 233

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 234

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 235

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Motion No. 236

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 237

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 240

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 174.

Motion No. 242

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

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

,

seconded by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 243

That Bill C-45, in Clause 175, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 27 on page 204 with the following:

“or any of its members in accordance with any treaty or land claims agreement or, consistent with inherent Aboriginal right, harvested by an Aboriginal organization or any of its members for traditional uses, including for food, social or ceremonial purposes;”

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 245

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motion No. 246

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Motion No. 248

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 178.

Motion No. 249

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 179.

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

, seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

Motion No. 253

That Bill C-45, in Clause 179, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 208 the following:

“(3) The exemptions set out in subsection (1) apply if the person who proposes the construction of the bridge, parkway or any related work establishes, in relation to any work, undertaking or activity for the purpose of the construction of the bridge, parkway or any related work, that the work, undertaking or activity

(a) will not impede navigation;

(b) will not cause destruction of fish or harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat within the meaning of the Fisheries Act; and

(c) will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of a species listed in the Species at Risk Act.

Motion No. 254

That Bill C-45, in Clause 179, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 208 the following:

“(3) The exemption set out in subsection (1) applies if the person who proposes the construction of the bridge, parkway or any related work establishes, in relation to any work, undertaking or activity for the purpose of that construction, that the construction will not present a risk of net negative environmental impact.”