Debates of Dec. 4th, 2012

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.

Mr. Speaker, furthermore, while I have the floor, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #522

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from December 3 consideration of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to speak to Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012.

As Canadians know, our government's top priority is creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We have ensured that we have provided initiatives that will build a strong economy and foster job growth. We are dedicated to supporting Canadian families and communities, protecting our environment and supporting business and development.

We invested over $63 billion in targeted stimulus and investment that helped to protect Canada from the worst global recession. It is no wonder that Canada has been envied by countries around the world, as we have weathered the economic slowdown.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry but I am having a terrible time hearing the hon. parliamentary secretary's remarks. I know that we are just finishing one vote and going on to another but I cannot follow what he is saying and I would like to be prepared to ask questions.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. There are a lot of conversations going on. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism has the floor and I would ask members who wish to carry on other conversations to perhaps depart to their respective lobbies.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin again then. I am honoured to speak today to Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act.

As Canadians know, our government's top priority is creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We have ensured that we have provided initiatives that will build a strong economy and foster job growth. We are dedicated to supporting Canadian families and communities, protecting our environment and supporting business and development.

We invested over $63 billion in targeted stimulus, an investment that helped to protect Canada from the worst global recession. It is no wonder that Canada has been envied by countries around the world as we have weathered the economic slowdown much better than other countries.

Our government understands that the global recovery remains fragile. There are still a lot of Canadians looking for work and that is why economic action plan 2012 moves ahead to secure jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canada.

We are supporting entrepreneurs, innovators and world-class research. We are acting on the Jenkins report, announcing $1.1 billion to directly support research and development, and $500 million for venture capital.

Prior to becoming the member of Parliament for Willowdale, I was an entrepreneur. I started five businesses and had staff in these businesses ranging from 5 people to 400. These measures are important to Canadian entrepreneurs.

Innovation in science and technology is important to our government and that is why we will invest $37 million annually to Canada's granting councils.

We know that it is important to improve conditions for business investment and that is why we believe in responsible resource development. We are ensuring that major resource projects are not bogged down by the regulatory system that one project receives only one review in a clearly defined timeframe.

In undertaking the most ambitious trade expansion plan in Canadian history, we know it is important to growing our trade relations with countries that offer markets in which we need to expand.

As a former entrepreneur, I know all too well the importance of having good business conditions. In extending the hiring credit for small business, we want to encourage additional hiring and lower total business payroll taxes by $205 million.

This government knows that it is important to keep Canadian families strong, and that is why economic action plan 2012 introduced several key measures to help Canadian families. They include: first, improving the registered disability savings plan to help ensure the long-term financial security of children with severe disabilities; second, improving first nations water infrastructure with over $330.8 million to ensure safe and clean drinking water on first nations reserves; third, investing in small public infrastructure with $150 million to support repairs and improvements to existing community facilities; fourth, promoting more active lifestyles with continued support for participation and its community-based physical activity and fitness programs; and fifth, enhancing the victims fund to ensure victims of crime have an effective voice in the federal justice and corrections system.

Those build on top of the strong action our Conservative government has taken to support families since 2006.

I will give the House other examples of what we have done to help Canadians. We have cut taxes over 140 times since forming government. We cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We removed over one million Canadians from the tax rolls. We increased the amount Canadians can earn tax free. We reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, putting nearly $1,000 back in the pocket of an average family. We introduced the universal child care benefit, offering families more choice in child care by providing $1,200 a year for each child under the age of 6. We introduced the family caregiver tax credit, a credit of up to $2,000 for caregivers of all types of infirm dependent relatives, including spouses, common-law partners and minor children. We introduced the child tax credit, providing personal income tax relief of up to $320 in 2011 for each child under the age of 18.

We introduced the children's fitness tax credit, promoting physical fitness among children through a tax credit of up to $500 in eligible fees for programs associated with physical activity. We introduced the children's arts tax credit of up to $500 in eligible fees for programs associated with children's artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities.

We brought in the landmark tax free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since the RRSP.

We doubled the in-study income exemption to $100 a week, allowing full-time students to earn more money without affecting their loans.

We eliminated the marriage penalty for one-earner families by increasing the spousal amount to the same level as the basic personal amount.

We introduced the registered disability savings plan to help families with children with disabilities.

In addition, families are benefiting from other new targeted measures, like the first-time homebuyers tax credit, the expanded homebuyers plan and the public transit tax credit.

I know that my constituents of Willowdale work hard for their paycheques and they believe in lower taxes. I am proud to be part of a government that supports low taxes and leaving more money where it belongs: in the pockets of hard-working Canadians and job-creating businesses. That is why we have cut taxes over 140 times since 2006, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in nearly 50 years. We have removed over one million low-income families, individuals and seniors from the tax rolls altogether.

We have cut taxes in every way government collects them: personal taxes, consumption taxes, business taxes, excise taxes and much more. This includes cutting the lowest personal income tax to 15%; increasing the amount Canadians can earn tax free; providing seniors with pension income splitting; reducing the GST from 7% to 5%, putting nearly another $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family; introducing the child fitness tax credit and child art tax credit; bringing in the landmark tax free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since the RRSP; reducing the small business tax from 12% to 11%; and lowering business taxes to 15%, as passed in Parliament in 2007.

Indeed, our Conservative government low tax record has provided tax savings for typical Canadian families totalling over $3,100.

Due in part to the government's low tax plan, Forbes Magazine ranked Canada number one in the world for business to grow and create jobs.

Our economic action plan 2012 builds on our Conservative government's low tax record, including extending the hiring credit for small business for an additional year and providing business with a credit of up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2012 employment insurance premiums over those paid in 2011. This new tax credit will help up to half a million employers with additional hiring, reducing small business' 2012 payroll costs by about $205 million.

Supporting Canadian students is also a priority for this government. Seneca College is located in my riding of Willowdale. I was honoured recently to join the Minister of State for Science and Technology in the announcement of a grant to bridge innovation and commercialization. We know that Canada's students need to succeed in the global economy with the help of the best education possible. That is why, since 2006, our Conservative government has provided much needed support for our students.

I will now share with the House some of the measures we are taking to prepare our youth for the challenges of the 21st century. We are investing more than $10 billion annually in students and education, including more than $3 billion in transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education and over $7 billion in direct support for students and their families.

We are investing $2.5 billion per year to help students to deal with the cost of education through grants, scholarships and basic programs.

We have established the Canada student grant program, which is providing up to $250 per month of study to low-income students and up to $100 per month to middle-income students.

We are providing $140 million per year to encourage more young Canadians to pursue apprenticeships, including the new apprenticeship incentive grant and apprenticeship completion grants. We created the new apprenticeship job creation tax credit to encourage employers to hire new apprentices.

We have lowered the in-study interest rate for part-time Canadian student loan recipients from prime plus 2.5% to zero, bringing them in line with full-time students.

We have increased the family income threshold for part-time Canada student loan and Canada student grant recipients, bringing the eligibility thresholds in line with thresholds used for the full-time students.

We have invested $9 million in the north to expanded territorial colleges' literacy and numeracy programs, including in remote communities.

However, in the economic action plan 2012, we are doing more to ensure Canadians students are even better equipped and better integrated into the workforce. We are increasing support for youth employment opportunities. We are doubling graduate internship to innovative firms. We are clarifying eligibility for federal loan forgiveness.

I am proud of the measure that this government has taken. I know that these initiatives will be good for my constituents in Willowdale and for all Canadians. I am proud to stand in support of the economic action plan. I ask members of the House to support this plan today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member opposite thinks it is reasonable and responsible that, under Bill C-45, less than 1% of Canada's waterways will be protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which will be called the navigation protection act from now on.

Before this bill, all waterways in Canada were automatically protected by the government, which was responsible for the common good. From now on, less than 1% of our waterways will be protected.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to distinguish between the two types of waterways. There are navigable waterways and other waterways. Navigable waterways are designed to increase commerce across Canada. Throughout our history, Canada has created navigable waterways such as the Welland Canal and the Rideau Canal system for the primary purpose of trade and commercialization in this nation.

As for natural waterways, yes, those will be protected under the Environmental Protection Act.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's good articulation of the speaking notes from the Prime Minister's Office. However, I think he missed a couple of points.

For instance, the government, headed by the Prime Minister, has said that it wants to increase the retirement age for seniors from 65 to 67. The member missed that talking point. He also missed the one that I really like, that the Prime Minister and the government have decided to increase the number of members of Parliament when the vast majority of Canadians do not want more MPs.

While we are seeing those types of priorities, we are also seeing severe cuts to our civil service, and there are issues affecting services for the unemployed and pensioners. There is a litany of cuts.

Why did the member overlook some of those more significant measures that the Prime Minister has taken to the detriment of all Canadians?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising those issues, because there are so many points proposed in our economic action plan that I cannot possibly articulate them all at this time.

Increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67 is in line with what is happening internationally. The fact is that Canadians generally have much better health these days and, based on actuarial reports, they are living longer.

With respect to the civil service cuts, this is a process where we have increased efficiency in how we do business. Therefore, we are able to survive with a smaller civil service.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his remarks, and I recognize, of course, that he deals with the area of multiculturalism.

I am very concerned about the aspects of the bill that work against our inclusive culture as a nation, particularly the new requirement that even visitors on vacation in Canada would have to fill out a form and receive permission from the Minister of Immigration before they are to allowed to come here as tourists on vacation.

Has the hon. parliamentary secretary reviewed that within his department to consider its implications for multiculturalism?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's border needs to be secure. In this increasingly globalized world, it is very easy for visitors from all around the world to come to Canada. We are still a very generous and open country. However, we need to put a modicum of pre-arrival security checks in place to ensure that our borders are secure, such as with the United States within the framework of the North American security perimeter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-45, which as anyone who is watching knows, is the Conservative government's second omnibus budget implementation bill. Judging by the bill's 414 pages and 516 clauses amending over 60 different pieces of legislation, it is clear that the Conservatives just do not get it and, I fear, never will.

Despite the recent Liberal motion condemning omnibus legislation and Canadians' overwhelming opposition to Bill C-38, the government's last omnibus budget implementation bill, the Conservative government introduced yet another undemocratic omnibus bill.

When Canadians worry about the way the government is writing legislation, ministers throw their hands up in the air and tell Canadians not to concern themselves with process. However, Canadians are concerned about process. They understand that the process of elections, the process of debate, the process of accountability, the process of parliamentary study and consultation are the roots of Canadian democracy and go hand in hand with the success and stability of our economy. When the Conservative government tells worried Canadians not to concern themselves with process, Canadians sit up and take note.

In the face of unyielding abuses of power by the Conservative government, Liberals continue to fight for democracy and our economy and, in doing so, for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. For example, Liberals introduced a successful motion to separate the changes to MPs' pensions from the budget implementation bill so that these important changes could be fast-tracked through Parliament. We were pleased that the government worked with us on this particular issue.

In an attempt to ensure proper debate and consultation on Bill C-45, we requested that many unrelated measures be presented in separate stand-alone legislation. While the Prime Minister rejected Liberal calls for a more democratic approach, we were nevertheless encouraged that at least he agreed to allow Bill C-45 to be studied by 11 separate standing committees. Unfortunately, it became clear that the government's permission for the bill to be studied by committees was nothing more than a public relations ploy.

Tragically the government's refusal to split this enormous bill meant that only the finance committee had the order of reference from the House, meaning that only that committee could amend this legislation. For instance, had the fisheries committee discovered an error in division 4, which amends consequential provisions relating to the destruction of fish habitat under the Fisheries Act, the fisheries committee would have been unable to correct the legislation.

Bill C-45 is flawed and that is why Liberals introduced over 3,000 amendments at committee. It was our hope that some of these amendments would find bipartisan support so that we could have the best legislation possible. Unfortunately, the Conservatives proved yet again that when it comes to working together, they have no interest in doing so.

Many Canadian families are still feeling the harsh effects of the economic downturn and are struggling to make ends meet. I know that in my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's people were hoping that the Conservative government would surprise them and show leadership for a change by introducing a budget implementation bill that would help to create jobs. Unfortunately, Bill C-45 does very little to help create jobs and does even less to help struggling families feeling the burden of the growing gap between the rich and low and middle income Canadians.

Under the Conservative government, the Canadian economy is struggling. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is predicting a slower rate of growth that will cost the Canadian economy $22 billion every year. Even the Minister of Finance is predicting a slower growth rate and has stopped being so bullish about his deficit targets, embarrassingly conceding yet again that he will not meet his own deficit targets.

While the bill is known as an implementation bill, it may be more accurately described as a budget correction bill. Bill C-45 is tasked with cleaning up Conservative legislative mistakes in Bill C-38. For example, some of the measures that it seeks to correct include errors in the amended Fisheries Act regarding the travel of fish species in or through bodies of water, as well as fixing poor drafting of the new environmental assessment law's transition provisions and the unclear ministerial approval process for specific investments by public investment pools.

Part of the problem with omnibus legislation is that its sheer size and scope prevents Parliament from properly scrutinizing it and making sure that it actually achieves the desired outcomes. That is what we have been asking for, an opportunity to work with the government and all parties in the House to make sure that we have the best piece of legislation we can possibly have for Canadians who elect us to do just that.

When we combine the more than 400 pages of Bill C-38 with the Conservatives' penchant for limiting debate and ignoring facts that do not fit their ideology, it is not hard to understand why Bill C-38 had so many mistakes. These mistakes now have to be corrected.

Instead of the government presenting Canadians with legislation focused on jobs and the economy, it is attempting to correct mistakes that it should not have made in the first place, mistakes that are now taking up the time of the House of Commons when we should be debating other important pieces of legislation. This should have been dealt with and not have come back here so that members of Parliament again have to stand and point out the errors of the Conservative government. Had the government split the bill, as the Liberals requested, the government would not have had so many sloppy mistakes.

Furthermore, many of the measures introduced in the most recent omnibus bill, Bill C-45, do not belong in a budget implementation bill because they have nothing to do with the process of implementing a budget. The Minister of Finance's claim that all measures introduced in Bill C-45 were in the budget is simply not the case. For example, changes to the definition of aboriginal fishery were not in the budget and do not impact acts under the finance department. Changes to land designations in the Indian Act were not in the budget. I note that both of these changes to legislation affecting first nations peoples were done unilaterally, without consultation, and in fact violate the constitutional responsibility to consult aboriginal peoples. That is a blatant failure of the government, the failure to consult with Canadians from coast to coast to coast on issues that impact every facet of their lives on a daily basis. Still, the government just goes straight ahead and does what it wants to do without consulting those who will be most directly impacted.

Another interesting example of a measure that was not in the budget but appears in the budget implementation bill is the suspension of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. Not only is the elimination of that board not in the budget, the budget actually promised the exact opposite. Page 146 of the budget states that “Over the next few years, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB) will continue to set the rate...”. Bill C-45 eliminates this board and centralizes the rate setting responsibility in the hands of cabinet.

In addition, the board set the employment insurance rate and was supposed to invest employment insurance surpluses, but under the Conservative government, so many people had been without work that the board has never had a surplus to invest.

Instead of addressing the harsh fiscal realities of many Canadians, Bill C-45 continues the Conservatives' reckless abuse of power. Cutting important job creation tax credits, like the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, the Atlantic investment tax credit and the corporate mineral exploration and development tax credit will not help our economy thrive.

I cannot support a piece of legislation that does more to harm jobs than to create them.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. Excessive use of time allocation motions is undemocratic. This massive omnibus bill, which will make major changes to various aspects of bills, was not introduced democratically with respect to discussion by Canadians or members of the House.

I would also like to say that, despite the Conservatives' claims that this budget will create jobs, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that this budget will result in the loss of 43,000 Canadian jobs. This budget will lead to higher unemployment.

My colleague touched on that. Can she comment further?

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

Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of time to look at a budget bill this size and the various clauses it contains, and anyone who takes the time to go through it clause by clause realizes that the intention of the government is not to help create jobs but to cut jobs. That is precisely what we are seeing throughout the country.

If we look at Service Canada, for instance, we see so many job losses just in that organization alone. On the other hand, we see job cuts in public service personnel who respond to issues with respect to employment insurance. We see jobs cut from veterans offices. We see job cuts across the board, and people are being directed to Service Canada. However, the reality is that the government is cutting resources at Service Canada as well, so Canadians are being impacted not only by the loss of jobs but the loss of public services that they are entitled to and have been used to receiving. Now the government is telling them to go online, forgetting that a lot of people, particularly in rural communities, still do not have access to computers to go online. Then they are told to go to a Service Canada office, where they will find fewer employees to deal with the issues with which they need help.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reason the opposition members are opposing all of our environmental, resource, and navigation regulations and our new acts and laws is simply that they are in love with the process. Notice how the members opposite never talk about environmental results. They never talk about how our environment is improving. They never refer to environmental indicators. For them it is always about process, process, process. How about focusing on results?

[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.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 278

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Motion No. 279

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Motion No. 280

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Motion No. 281

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 183.

Motion No. 282

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 286

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Motion No. 287

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Motion No. 288

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Motion No. 289

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

Motion No. 292

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 219.

Motion No. 293

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 220.

Motion No. 294

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 221.

Motion No. 295

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 222.

Motion No. 296

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 223.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 297

That Bill C-45, in Clause 223, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 26 on page 239.

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

moved:

Motion No. 299

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 224.

Motion No. 300

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 225.

Motion No. 302

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 226.

Motion No. 303

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 227.

Motion No. 304

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 228.

Motion No. 305

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 229.

Motion No. 306

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 230.

Motion No. 307

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 231.

Motion No. 308

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 232.

Motion No. 309

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 233.

Motion No. 310

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 234.

Motion No. 311

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 235.

Motion No. 312

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 236.

Motion No. 313

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 237.

Motion No. 314

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 238.

Motion No. 315

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 239.

Motion No. 316

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 240.

Motion No. 317

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 241.

Motion No. 318

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 242.

Motion No. 319

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 243.

Motion No. 320

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 244.

Motion No. 321

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 245.

Motion No. 322

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 246.

Motion No. 323

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 247.

Motion No. 324

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 248.

Motion No. 325

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 249.

Motion No. 326

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 250.

Motion No. 327

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 251.

Motion No. 328

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 252.

Motion No. 329

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 253.

Motion No. 330

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 254.

Motion No. 331

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 255.

Motion No. 332

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 256.

Motion No. 333

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 257.

Motion No. 334

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 258.

Motion No. 335

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 259.

Motion No. 336

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 260.

Motion No. 337

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 261.

Motion No. 338

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 262.

Motion No. 339

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 263.

Motion No. 340

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 264.

Motion No. 341

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 265.

Motion No. 344

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 266.

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

,

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

Motion No. 345

That Bill C-45, in Clause 266, be amended by adding after line 6 on page 260 the following:

“(9) For greater certainty, any prescribed information given to the Agency in relation to any persons on board or expected to be on board a conveyance shall be subject to the Privacy Act.”

Motion No. 346

That Bill C-45, in Clause 266, be amended by adding after line 6 on page 260 the following:

“12.2 Within six months after the day on which regulations made under subsection 12.1(8) come into force, the impact of section 12.1 and those regulations on privacy rights must be assessed and reported to each House of Parliament.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 347

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 267.

Motion No. 348

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 268.

Motion No. 349

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 269.

Motion No. 350

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 270.

Motion No. 351

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 271.

Motion No. 352

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Motion No. 353

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 273.

Motion No. 354

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 274.

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

,

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

Motion No. 355

That Bill C-45, in Clause 274, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 262 the following:

“(3) The council shall, within four months after the end of each year, submit to the Minister a report on the activities of the council during that year.

(4) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days after the day on which the Minister receives it.

(5) The Minister shall send a copy of the report to the lieutenant governor of each province immediately after a copy of the report is last laid before either House.

(6) For the purpose of this section, “sitting day” means a day on which either House of Parliament sits.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 356

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 275.

Motion No. 357

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 276.

Motion No. 361

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 277.

Motion No. 362

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 278.

Motion No. 363

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 279.

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

,

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

Motion No. 364

That Bill C-45, in Clause 279, be amended

(a) by replacing line 3 on page 265 with the following:

“47. (1) The Minister may, following public consultation, designate any”

(b) by replacing lines 8 to 15 on page 265 with the following:

“specified in this Act, exercise the powers and perform the”

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

moved:

Motion No. 365

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 280.

Motion No. 366

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 281.

Motion No. 368

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 282.

Motion No. 369

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 283.

Motion No. 370

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 284.

Motion No. 371

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 285.

Motion No. 372

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 286.

Motion No. 373

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 287.

Motion No. 374

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 288.

Motion No. 375

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 289.

Motion No. 376

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 290.

Motion No. 377

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 291.

Motion No. 378

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 292.

Motion No. 379

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 293.

Motion No. 380

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 294.

Motion No. 381

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 295.

Motion No. 382

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 296.

Motion No. 383

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 297.

Motion No. 384

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 298.

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

,

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

Motion No. 385

That Bill C-45, in Clause 302, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 8 on page 271 with the following:

“9. (1) Except in instances where a province is pursuing any of the legitimate objectives referred to in Article 404 of the Agreement, namely public security and safety, public order, protection of human, animal or plant life or health, protection of the environment, consumer protection, protection of the health, safety and well-being of workers, and affirmative action programs for disadvantaged groups, the Governor in Council may, by order, for the purpose of suspending benefits of equivalent effect or imposing retaliatory measures of equivalent effect in respect of a province under Article 1709 of the Agreement, do any”

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 386

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 307.

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

moved:

Motion No. 389

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 308.

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

,

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

Motion No. 390

That Bill C-45, in Clause 308, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 272 with the following:

“national in respect of whom there is reason to believe that he or she poses a specific and credible security threat must, before entering Canada, apply”

Motion No. 392

That Bill C-45, in Clause 308, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 273 the following:

“(1.02) The Minister shall cause a copy of each proposed regulation made under subsection (1.01) to be laid before each House of Parliament, and each House shall refer the proposed regulation to the appropriate committee of that House.

(1.03) A regulation may not be made before the earliest of

(a) 30 sitting days after the proposed regulation is laid before Parliament,

(b) 160 calendar days after the proposed regulation is laid before Parliament, and

(c) the day after the day on which each appropriate committee has reported its findings with respect to the proposed regulation.

(1.04) The Minister shall take into account any report of the committee of either House. If a regulation does not incorporate a recommendation of the committee of either House, the Minister shall lay before that House a statement of the reasons for not incorporating it.

(1.05) A proposed regulation that has been laid before Parliament need not again be so laid prior to the making of the regulation, whether it has been altered or not.”

Motion No. 393

That Bill C-45, in Clause 308, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 273 with the following:

“system or officer, and any personal information relating to the authorization may only be disclosed in accordance with the Privacy Act.”

Motion No. 394

That Bill C-45, in Clause 308, be amended by adding after line 5 on page 273 the following:

“(1.02) No private security company shall be involved in the collection, dissemination, retention or disposal of private information obtained for the purposes of the electronic authorization system referred to in subsection (1.01).”

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

moved:

Motion No. 395

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 309.

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

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

Motion No. 396

That Bill C-45, in Clause 309, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 273 the following:

“(4) Within six months after the day on which the regulations relating to electronic travel authorizations referred to in subsection 11(1.01) come into force, the impact of such authorizations on privacy rights must be assessed and the assessment reported to each House of Parliament.”

Motion No. 397

That Bill C-45, in Clause 309, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 273 the following:

“(4) Regulations relating to electronic authorizations referred to in subsection 11(1.01) shall not be made earlier than two years of the coming into force of this subsection to allow for consultation with the tourism industry and other interested parties to assess the potential impact of the regulations on that industry.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 398

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 310.

Motion No. 399

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 311.

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

,

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

Motion No. 400

That Bill C-45, in Clause 311, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 273 with the following:

“subsections 11(1) and (1.01), other than those for which an authorization is issued by the system and those”

Motion No. 401

That Bill C-45, in Clause 311, be amended by adding after line 33 on page 273 the following:

“(1.01) This section ceases to have effect with respect to electronic travel authorizations referred to in subsection 11(1.01) at the end of the fifteenth sitting day of Parliament after December 31, 2016 unless, before the end of that day, the application of this section is extended by a resolution passed, by both Houses of Parliament, that this section continues to be in force.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 402

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 312.

Motion No. 404

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 313.

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

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

Motion No. 405

That Bill C-45, in Clause 313, be amended by deleting lines 15 to 24 on page 274.

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

moved:

Motion No. 407

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 314.

Motion No. 409

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 315.

Motion No. 410

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 316.

Motion No. 411

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 317.

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

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

Motion No. 415

That Bill C-45, in Clause 317, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 277 the following:

“(7) Section 2 of the Act is renumbered as subsection 2(1) and is amended by adding the following:

(2) For the purposes of this Act, when considering if a decision is in the public interest, the Minister shall take into account, as primary consideration, whether it would protect the public right of navigation, including the exercise, safeguard and promotion of that right.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 419

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 318.

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

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

Motion No. 422

That Bill C-45, in Clause 318, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 279 the following:

“(f) the importance of that navigable water to Aboriginal people for traditional and other uses. ”

Motion No. 423

That Bill C-45, in Clause 318, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 279 the following:

“(4.1) For the purposes of this Act, a bridge, boom, dam or causeway is deemed to have been determined by the Minister to be a work that substantially interferes with navigation.”

Motion No. 426

That Bill C-45, in Clause 318, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 279 the following:

“(10) All works that the Minister has determined under this section are likely to substantially interfere with navigation are deemed to be physical activities designated by regulations made under paragraph 84(a) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and linked to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.”

Motion No. 428

That Bill C-45, in Clause 318, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 280 the following:

“(2.1) If the Minister did not require from the owner the deposit of information and publication of a notice under paragraph 5(6)(b), the Minister must require from the owner the deposit of the plans of the proposed work, of a description of the proposed site and of any other information specified by the Minister in the local land registry or land titles office or in any other place specified by the Minister and the publication of a notice containing the information in the Canada Gazette and in two newspapers published in or near the locality where the proposed work is to be constructed.

(2.2) The notice referred to in subsection (2.1) shall invite any interested person to provide written comments to the Minister within 30 days after its publication.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 438

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 319.

Motion No. 440

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 320.

Motion No. 442

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 321.

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

,

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

Motion No. 443

That Bill C-45, in Clause 321, be amended by deleting lines 23 to 30 on page 288.

Motion No. 445

That Bill C-45, in Clause 321, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 290 with the following:

“(a) designating any works, other than bridges, booms, dams and causeways, as minor works;”

Motion No. 446

That Bill C-45, in Clause 321, be amended by replacing lines 11 and 12 on page 290 with the following:

“navigable waters, in whole or in part, other than a river that is part of the Canadian Heritage Rivers System or that provides habitat for any wildlife species at risk set out in Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act;”

Motion No. 448

That Bill C-45, in Clause 321, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 290 the following:

“(2.1) Before making any order under paragraph (2)(a), the Minister shall assess the likely environmental effects of those works.

(2.2) Before making any order under paragraph (2)(b), the Minister shall take into account

(a) the ecological value of that navigable water;

(b) the utility of that navigable water for the purposes of fishing and hunting; and

(c) the importance of that navigable water to Aboriginal people for traditional and other uses.

(2.3) The Minister shall post a summary of the assessments made under subsections (2.1) and (2.2) on the Internet site of the Department of Transport.”

Motion No. 449

That Bill C-45, in Clause 321, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 36 on page 290 with the following:

“28.1 (1) The Minister must table, in each House of Parliament, every order that he or she proposes to make under paragraphs 28(2)(a) and (b).

(2) Each proposed order that is tabled before a House must, on the day it is tabled, be referred by that House to an appropriate committee of that House, as determined by the rules of that House, and the committee may conduct inquiries or public hearings with respect to the proposed order and report its findings to that House.

(3) A proposed order that has been tabled pursuant to subsection (1) may be made

(a) on the expiration of 30 sitting days after it was last tabled in either House; or

(b) if, with respect to each House,

(i) the committee reports to the House, or

(ii) the committee decides not to conduct inquiries or public hearings.

(4) For the purpose of this section, “sitting day” means a day on which either House sits.”

Motion No. 454

That Bill C-45, in Clause 321, be amended by deleting lines 22 to 43 on page 291.

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

moved:

Motion No. 455

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 322.

Motion No. 456

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 323.

Motion No. 457

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 324.

Motion No. 458

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 325.

Motion No. 459

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 326.

Motion No. 460

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 327.

Motion No. 461

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 328.

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

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

Motion No. 463

That Bill C-45, in Clause 328, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 294 the following:

“RIGHT OF ACTION

39.01 An individual whose right of navigation in respect of any navigable waters has been interfered with, or will likely be interfered with, may bring a claim for relief in public nuisance without the consent of the Attorney General and without establishing special damages.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 464

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 329.

Motion No. 465

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 330.

Motion No. 466

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 331.

Motion No. 467

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 332.

Motion No. 469

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 333.

Motion No. 470

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 334.

Motion No. 471

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 335.

Motion No. 472

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 336.

Motion No. 473

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 337.

Motion No. 474

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 338.

Motion No. 475

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 339.

Motion No. 476

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 340.

Motion No. 477

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 341.

Motion No. 478

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 342.

Motion No. 479

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 343.

Motion No. 480

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 344.

Motion No. 481

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 345.

Motion No. 482

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 346.

Motion No. 483

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 347.

Motion No. 484

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 348.

Motion No. 485

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 349.

Motion No. 486

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 350.

Motion No. 487

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 351.

Motion No. 488

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 352.

Motion No. 489

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 353.

Motion No. 490

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 354.

Motion No. 491

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 355.

Motion No. 492

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 356.

Motion No. 493

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 357.

Motion No. 494

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 358.

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

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

Motion No. 495

That Bill C-45, in Clause 358, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 309 with the following:

“reinspection of the grain, to the grain appeal tribunal for the Division or the chief grain”

Motion No. 497

That Bill C-45, in Clause 358, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 309 with the following:

“appeal is given to the grain appeal tribunal for the Division or the chief grain inspector for”

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

moved:

Motion No. 498

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 359.

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

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

Motion No. 499

That Bill C-45, in Clause 359, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 309 with the following:

“41. (1) If an appeal is taken, the grain appeal tribunal for the Division or the chief grain”

Motion No. 500

That Bill C-45, in Clause 359, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 309 with the following:

“(2) The decision of the grain appeal tribunal for the Division or the chief grain inspector”

Motion No. 501

That Bill C-45, in Clause 359, be amended by replacing line 37 on page 309 with the following:

“conferred on him or her under subsection (1) provided that it is demonstrated that the delegate has no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of the appeal.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 502

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 360.

Motion No. 503

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 361.

Motion No. 504

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 362.

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

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

Motion No. 505

That Bill C-45, in Clause 362, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 310 with the following:

“provide a security, in the form of a bond, for the purpose of”

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

moved:

Motion No. 506

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 363.

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

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

Motion No. 507

That Bill C-45, in Clause 363, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 310 with the following:

“provided a security as required by subsection”

Motion No. 508

That Bill C-45, in Clause 363, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 310 with the following:

“provided a security as required by subsection”

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

moved:

Motion No. 509

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 364.

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

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

Motion No. 510

That Bill C-45, in Clause 364, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 311 with the following:

“believe that any security provided by a licensee”

Motion No. 511

That Bill C-45, in Clause 364, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 311 with the following:

“provided by a licensee, and the security may be”

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

moved:

Motion No. 512

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 365.

Motion No. 513

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 366.

Motion No. 514

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 367.

Motion No. 515

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 368.

Motion No. 516

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 369.

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

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

Motion No. 517

That Bill C-45, in Clause 369, be amended by replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 313 with the following:

“terminal elevator shall submit grain received into the elevator for an official weighing, in a manner authorized by the”

Motion No. 518

That Bill C-45, in Clause 369, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 314 with the following:

“authorized by the Commission who has been demonstrated to have no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, in the grain and chosen”

Motion No. 519

That Bill C-45, in Clause 369, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 314 with the following:

“authorized by the Commission who has been demonstrated to have no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, in the grain and chosen by”

Motion No. 520

That Bill C-45, in Clause 369, be amended

(a) by replacing line 40 on page 314 with the following:

“the grain appeal tribunal for the Division or the chief grain inspector for Canada for a”

(b) by replacing line 44 on page 314 with the following:

“prescribed portion of them, to the grain appeal tribunal for the Division or the chief grain”

Motion No. 521

That Bill C-45, in Clause 369, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 315 with the following:

“section provided that it is demonstrated that the delegate has no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, in the decision.”

Motion No. 522

That Bill C-45, in Clause 369, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 316 with the following:

“70.2 (1) An operator of a licensed”

(b) by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 316 with the following:

“third party or cause it to be officially”

Motion No. 523

That Bill C-45, in Clause 369, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 316 with the following:

“Commission and chosen by the operator. A third party may not be authorized unless it is demonstrated that it has no direct or indirect interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of the weighing or inspection.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 524

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 370.

Motion No. 525

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 371.

Motion No. 526

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 372.

Motion No. 527

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 373.

Motion No. 528

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 374.

Motion No. 529

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 375.

Motion No. 530

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 376.

Motion No. 531

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 377.

Motion No. 532

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 378.

Motion No. 533

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 379.

Motion No. 534

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 380.

Motion No. 535

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 381.

Motion No. 536

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 382.

Motion No. 537

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 383.

Motion No. 538

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 384.

Motion No. 539

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 385.

Motion No. 540

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 386.

Motion No. 541

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 387.

Motion No. 542

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 388.

Motion No. 543

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 389.

Motion No. 544

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 390.

Motion No. 545

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 391.

Motion No. 546

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 392.

Motion No. 547

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 393.

Motion No. 548

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 394.

Motion No. 549

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 395.

Motion No. 550

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 396.

Motion No. 551

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 397.

Motion No. 552

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 398.

Motion No. 553

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 399.

Motion No. 554

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 400.

Motion No. 555

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 401.

Motion No. 556

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 402.

Motion No. 557

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 403.

Motion No. 558

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 404.

Motion No. 559

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 405.

Motion No. 560

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 406.

Motion No. 561

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 407.

Motion No. 562

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 408.

Motion No. 563

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 409.

Motion No. 564

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 410.

Motion No. 565

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 411.

Motion No. 566

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 412.

Motion No. 567

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 413.

Motion No. 568

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 425.

Motion No. 569

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 426.

Motion No. 570

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 427.

Motion No. 571

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 428.

Motion No. 572

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 429.

Motion No. 573

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 430.

Motion No. 574

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 431.

Motion No. 575

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 432.

Motion No. 577

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 433.

Motion No. 578

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 434.

Motion No. 579

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 435.

Motion No. 580

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 436.

Motion No. 581

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 437.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 582

That Bill C-45, in Clause 437, be amended by deleting lines 25 to 34 on page 341.

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

moved:

Motion No. 583

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 438.

Motion No. 586

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 439.

Motion No. 587

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 440.

Motion No. 588

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 441.

Motion No. 589

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 442.

Motion No. 590

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 443.

Motion No. 591

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 444.

Motion No. 592

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 445.

Motion No. 594

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 446.

Motion No. 595

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 447.

Motion No. 596

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 448.

Motion No. 597

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 449.

Motion No. 598

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 450.

Motion No. 599

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 451.

Motion No. 600

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 452.

Motion No. 601

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 453.

Motion No. 602

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 454.

Motion No. 603

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 455.

Motion No. 604

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 456.

Motion No. 605

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 457.

Motion No. 606

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 458.

Motion No. 607

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 459.

Motion No. 608

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 460.

Motion No. 610

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 461.

Motion No. 611

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 462.

Motion No. 612

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 463.

Motion No. 613

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 464.

Motion No. 614

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 465.

Motion No. 615

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 466.

Motion No. 616

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 467.

Motion No. 617

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 468.

Motion No. 618

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 469.

Motion No. 619

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 470.

Motion No. 620

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 471.

Motion No. 621

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 472.

Motion No. 622

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 473.

Motion No. 623

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 474.

Motion No. 624

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 475.

Motion No. 625

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 476.

Motion No. 626

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 477.

Motion No. 627

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 478.

Motion No. 628

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 479.

Motion No. 629

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 480.

Motion No. 630

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 481.

Motion No. 631

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 482.

Motion No. 632

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 483.

Motion No. 633

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 484.

Motion No. 634

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 485.

Motion No. 635

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 486.

Motion No. 636

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 487.

Motion No. 637

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 488.

Motion No. 638

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 489.

Motion No. 639

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 490.

Motion No. 640

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 491.

Motion No. 641

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 492.

Motion No. 642

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 493.

Motion No. 643

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 494.

Motion No. 644

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 495.

Motion No. 645

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 496.

Motion No. 646

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 497.

Motion No. 647

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 498.

Motion No. 648

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 499.

Motion No. 649

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 500.

Motion No. 650

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 501.

Motion No. 651

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 502.

Motion No. 652

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 503.

Motion No. 653

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 504.

Motion No. 654

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 505.

Motion No. 655

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 506.

Motion No. 656

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 507.

Motion No. 657

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 508.

Motion No. 658

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 509.

Motion No. 659

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 510.

Motion No. 660

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 511.

Motion No. 661

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 512.

Motion No. 662

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 513.

Motion No. 663

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 514.

Motion No. 664

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 515.

Motion No. 665

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Clause 516.

Motion No. 666

That Bill C-45 be amended by deleting Schedule 1.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I will now put the question on the motions in Group No. 2.

The question is on Motion No. 163. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the Motion No. 163 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 164 to 219.

The next question is on Motion No. 220. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the Motion No. 220 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 221 to 229.

The next question is on Motion No. 230. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the Motion No. 230 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 231 to 236.

The next question is on Motion No. 237. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 237 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 240, 242, 245, 246 and 248.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on Motion No. 249. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it. The recorded division stands deferred.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 278 to 282.

The question is on Motion No. 286. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion 286 stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 287 to 289.

The question is on Motion No. 292. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 293 to 296, 299, 300 and 302 to 308.

The question is on Motion No. 309. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 310 to 339.

The question is on Motion No. 340. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 341, 344, 347 and 348.

The question is on Motion No. 349. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 350 to 354, 356, 357, 361 to 363, 365, 366 and 368 to 384.

The question is on Motion No. 385. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The next question is on Motion No. 386. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it. The recorded division stands deferred.

And five or more members having risen:

The next question is on Motion No. 389. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay. The recorded division stands deferred.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 395, 398, 399, 402, 404 and 407.

The question is on Motion No. 409. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The next question is on Motion No. 410. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it. The recorded division stands deferred.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 411, 419, 438, 440, 442, 455 to 461, 464 to 467 and 469 to 486.

The next question is on Motion No. 487. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. This recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 488 to 494, 498, 502 to 504, 506, 509, 512 to 516 and 524 to 564.

It being 2 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, December 3, the House will now proceed to statements by members, followed by oral questions.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington

Volunteerism

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to pay tribute to the countless volunteers and community organizations in Perth—Wellington who are working to make Christmas a little brighter for local families.

In Stratford, the Kiwanis Christmas basket fund will once again provide families in need with all the trimmings for a full Christmas dinner. Organizations like the Stratford House of Blessing are particularly busy at this time of year, as they ensure that families have clothes on their backs and a roof over their heads. In the town of Mitchell, volunteers are busy gathering toys and gifts as part of the Angel Tree program so that young children will have a gift under the tree on Christmas morning.

In the food banks in communities across Wellington and Perth counties, donations are needed now more than ever to keep the cupboards stocked. We are blessed to live in such a wonderful country. I hope that those Canadians who are able to will look for opportunities to give generously to make Christmas special in their communities.

Conservative Party of Canada

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we are near the end of the latest budget implementation bill, with the Conservatives putting into place hundreds of measures from a budget they said was necessary to maintain our fiscal standing. With $5.2 billion in spending cuts, reduced services to Canadians, and the killing of 19,000 public sector jobs that provide those services, it is the most austerity since the Liberals slashed budgets and services in the mid-1990s. The Conservatives are also seriously undermining environmental protection and are attacking pensions and necessary support for unemployed Canadians.

Were these cuts necessary? Not according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who said that the Minister of Finance is lowballing revenues by $4.7 billion a year and that we will be in surplus a year ahead of schedule.

Why are the Conservatives doing this when we have nearly 7.5% unemployment? It is 12% in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador? They are doing it because they want to make government smaller, regardless of the cost and consequences to Canadians.

Robotics Competition

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding efforts of the students who make up the robotics team at Yorkton Regional High School, in my constituency, and their coach, applied arts teacher Kevin Chiasson.

Two team members, Bo Chiasson, who is in grade 11, and Jayden Leister, who is in grade 12, recently participated in the WorldSkills Americas robotics competition held in São Paulo, Brazil. They came home with the gold, the top ranking team from among all the competitors in North America and South America. Their win now advances them to the WorldSkills International competition to be held in Leipzig, Germany in July 2013.

As a former teacher, I applaud the hard work and dedication of this team. I know I speak for all members in this chamber when I wish Bo and Jayden every success in Germany.

Junior Runner

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jillian Forsey from Kippens, in my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's. Jillian, a student at Stephenville High School, is an accomplished athlete on both the provincial and national stage. She has participated in competitive sports for the majority of her adolescence, attaining national success in cross-country skiing and cross-country running. Most recently, 17-year-old Jillian won the junior women's national cross-country running championship. She ran the race in a blistering time of just 17 minutes and 21 seconds.

As the national champion in the junior women's division, Jillian qualified to race at the World Cross Country Championships in Poland. Continuing to surpass several milestones, Jillian has consistently proven she is a star athlete.

I ask all members to join me in recognizing Jillian and in wishing her and her Canadian junior qualifiers great success when they compete in Poland.

Foreign Affairs

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this past week, the UN voted 138-9 in a symbolic gesture recognizing the state of Palestine. It was 65 years to the day since the celebrated UN vote on partition that gave rise to the modern state of Israel. Having accepted partition, the tiny nation was attacked by five surrounding armies.

To this day, the Palestinian charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, formed during what it likes to call the Al-Nakba, the disaster.

Hamas official Osama Hamdan stated that, “A Palestinian state without an armed struggle against Israel is an illusion”. Nevertheless, Hamas welcomed the statehood bid “because it reflected the international community's readiness to fix what it corrupted in Palestine”, adding that Hamas would continue its armed struggle.

With widespread violence in Syria, instability in Egypt, Hezbollah and Hamas armed by Iran, and Iran pursing nuclear weapons and sworn to destroy Israel, it is hard to imagine that the UN vote will produce any relief for the people caught in the conflict. The prospect for peace just slid further over the horizon, and that is a tragedy in the making.

Aerospace Industry

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday we received the report on the aerospace review. The aerospace industry represents 66,000 good-quality jobs and creates 92,000 additional jobs.

Montreal is the third-largest aerospace cluster in the world. The report makes more than 20 recommendations, which makes it clear that the federal government has not done its homework. The report provides a realistic portrait of the situation and issues the following warning:

“Failure to respond and adapt” will mean steady decline, “diminished industrial and innovative capacity, fewer rewarding jobs...and the gradual eclipse of an industry that has been a major contributor to the country's well-being”.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives' changing of the research and development program criteria in Bill C-45 is a direct blow to the aerospace industry.

I want to acknowledge the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, which is holding its summit this week in Ottawa. I also want to encourage the development of more energy-efficient airplanes and investments in this strategic sector of our industry, so that Canada continues to be an aerospace leader.

HMCS Ojibwa

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the HMCS Ojibwa has landed on Canada's south shore. The Cold War era submarine made the trip from Halifax to the Hamilton Harbour and was readied for the final leg of its journey through the Welland Canal to Port Burwell, Ontario.

Ian Raven and the late Alan Montgomery, from the Elgin Military Museum, shared with all who would listen the benefits of undertaking this Canadian naval history project. Retired Rear Admiral Dan McNeil helped manage the overall vision of the project, and they, along with thousands of others, have made this dream a reality. The municipality of Bayham, led by Mayor Ens, put the support in place to make this possible. Thank you to the Minister of National Defence for the donation of the Ojibwa to the museum.

Port Burwell is proud of its marine and maritime history and is looking forward to having people visit. A tour of the HMCS Ojibwa will become a southwestern Ontario tradition for decades to come. Thanks to all who have made Project Ojibwa and this Canadian naval museum a reality.

The Economy

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy has experienced one of the best performances among developed countries around the world. Canada has outperformed all other G7 countries in job growth, creating over 800,000 net new jobs since the end of the recession. We have the soundest banking system in the world. The OECD has projected that Canada will lead the G7 in economic growth for the next 50 years.

Our government is committed to maintaining a strong economy. We also remain committed to keeping taxes low. Since forming government in 2006, we have cut taxes for Canadian families so that they can keep more of their hard-earned money. We have reduced the GST by 2%, and we have introduced important tax savings measures, like the child tax credit, the child disability benefit, the hiring for small business tax credit, and the children's fitness tax credit. These measures will save the average Canadian family over $3,100 per year.

Canadians can count on our government to keep taxes low while investing in the Canadian economy to promote job growth and economic prosperity.

St. Vincent de Paul Christmas Fair

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

Mr. Speaker, the second St. Vincent de Paul Christmas fair was held in my riding last weekend.

My partner and I took advantage of the opportunity to do some holiday shopping while sipping a delicious hot chocolate. Many artisans from my riding, Alfred-Pellan, had stalls there, including La bête de Duvernay, a jewellery maker; Dolce Pane, a bakery; and a farm called Aux vieux chênes de Saint-François.

In addition to about 30 stalls, the people of Laval were treated to holiday movies, sleigh rides, carolling and storytelling. Even Santa Claus and his elf, Shiver, showed up for the event.

The second St. Vincent de Paul Christmas fair was a success thanks to the coordinated efforts of a number of Laval organizations: the Relais du quartier de Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, the Caisse populaire Desjardins des Mille-Îles, the Laval CSSS, the Association pour les aînés résidant à Laval, the Conférence régionale des élus de Laval, and the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul parish.

Congratulations to everyone. We are already looking forward to next year's third Christmas fair.

The Economy

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a fragile global economy, we need to pass measures to support economic growth and job creation here in Canada.

However, the opposition, through stall tactics and ploys, is trying to block help for Canadians, such as help for Canadians trying to save for retirement with pooled registered pension plans; improvements to the registered disability savings plan; the closing of tax loopholes that benefit only a select few; greater oversight and safety of Canada's financial system; the new, economically vital Windsor-Detroit bridge that my colleague from Essex has fought for for years; the job-creating hiring credit for small business; vital support for Canada's airlines and the people whose jobs depend on them; and reforms to federal bureaucrats' pension plans that would make them more financially sustainable for the taxpayers footing the bill.

If the opposition had its way, it would simply stall Parliament. We would make no progress on Canada's economic recovery. However, this government, this Prime Minister and the members on this side will not have it. We will stand for it, squarely behind Canadians.

Firefighters

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when you think of the great work firefighters do in our communities, the first thought that comes to mind is probably of the dangerous work they do in protecting our families. I was able to experience some of this first hand, albeit with most of the danger removed, when I took part in a firefighters experience day earlier this fall.

As well as their important safety role, we should not overlook the great charity and advocacy work firefighters also do in our communities. The Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association is a great example of this. For Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Sudbury added to its fleet the first pink fire truck. Fire Chief Dan Stack said that the aim was “to inspire people to be proactive and take the steps needed for early detection against cancer”. In addition to the new truck, firefighters also volunteered their own time to drive people to and from the Ontario Breast Screening Program and sold special T-shirts, with the proceeds going to the Northern Cancer Foundation.

I am sure that MPs from all parties will take this chance to thank firefighters in Sudbury and across Canada for all their great work.

Pooled Registered Pension Plan

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for my 200th member's statement, I would like to draw your attention to the following: since the global economy remains fragile, our government must pass our economic action plan 2012 in order to support growth and job creation in Canada.

The opposition is trying to slow our economic recovery by blocking measures that would encourage the growth that Canadians are counting on. The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park wants to undermine the government's attempts to help Canadians save for their retirement through a pooled registered pension plan. This plan is a new, low-cost option designed to help the 60% of Canadians who do not have a workplace pension plan.

Canadians will be disappointed that the NDP and its allies in the opposition are launching such a reckless attack and trying to block a measure meant to help millions of Canadians meet their retirement objectives.

Volunteerism

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate International Volunteer Day. Every year more than 12.5 million Canadians contribute over two billion volunteer hours. They share their time, skills and talents to make things better in their communities and in communities around the world.

Whether in classrooms or hospitals, homes or war zones, Canadians have a long and proud history of helping out. In developing countries, where too many people are still struggling with extreme poverty and violence against women and girls, or where people lack the business training they need to become self-sufficient and to contribute to their communities' success, increasingly, Canadians are lending that helping hand.

One example, from my riding of Vancouver Quadra, is Pedram Goshtasbpour, who recently returned from a volunteer assignment in Colombia. In just 14 days, Mr. Goshtasbpour trained 165 individuals in leading-edge technical tools, enabling them to offer their services and to participate as entrepreneurs in the global economy.

On behalf of my colleagues in the House, I thank all volunteers for contributing so much to so many.

Pensions

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again the NDP-led opposition members are trying to stop Canada's economic recovery by moving to kill pro-growth measures Canadians depend on. One of these important measures is to reform our public sector pensions. This was introduced in the jobs and growth act. These reforms will save taxpayers a whopping $2.6 billion and will bring public sector pensions more in line with the private sector.

Our government recognizes that public sector pension plans need to be financially sustainable in the long term. This means that they need to be able to respond to future cost increases in a way that is fair to Canadian taxpayers as well as to plan members and participating employers.

In this fragile global economy, our government is supporting growth and job creation, while the NDP-led opposition members play partisan games. They finally have a chance here. Let us encourage the NDP-led opposition to support these very important measures this afternoon.

Conservative Party of Canada

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I dreamt that my statement was written by a henchman from the Prime Minister's Office. It went something like this.

Senator Mike Duffy has been a resident of Ottawa for years, but taxpayers pay his living expenses nonetheless. Once again, the Conservatives are stuffing their pockets with taxpayers' money while preaching restraint for everyone else. Had they not had to pay the living expenses of the unelected, unaccountable senator, who has no democratic legitimacy, my constituents could have bought hundreds of Sherwood hockey sticks so their children could play hockey. But no. Instead of having our young people keep the hockey stick market afloat, the Conservatives want our children to drift into the hell of drug addiction. Their proposed merger of the maritime provinces is a diversionary tactic and would transform New Brunswick into a park where they could raise dinosaurs.

Mr. Speaker, it was just a nightmare. In this place, the misuse of public funds is unacceptable. We do not feel the need to make up stories just to lay it on thicker. The Conservatives should perhaps give it a try. It feels good to tell the truth, and it makes one look less foolish.

Unions

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yet again the NDP leader is refusing to take a principled stand on what matters most to Canadians. The NDP leader refuses to condemn the Canadian Union of Postal Workers for sending a delegation to an anti-Israel hatefest in Brazil.

What does going on a tropical vacation to spread anti-Zionist propaganda and call for the release of one of the world's most vicious terrorists of our time have to do with the mandate of the CUPW? Shame on the CUPW for having the nerve to send union bosses and cronies to an anti-Israel conference and to expect Canada Post to pay their way. What is even more disgraceful is that NDP leader finds nothing wrong with this.

It is time unions stopped trying to spend Canadians' hard-earned money to spread hate. Unions should return to their roots and focus on improving workers' conditions.

The Economy

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday Canadians learned that economic growth in our country has slowed to a rate of six-tenths of 1%. That is well below the projections made by the Minister of Finance just a couple of weeks ago in his economic update.

The Prime Minister knows all too well that the Canadian economy would have to grow at a rate of over 4% in the next quarter to meet his minister's most recent projection. We all know that will not happen.

Will the Prime Minister be straight with Canadians and provide a plausible forecast to replace the numbers put forward by his Minister of Finance just three weeks ago?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will give you the facts. Since July 2009, we have seen the creation of some 820,000 net new jobs.

Here, I am pleased to correct the record from yesterday, because unbeknownst to the Leader of the Opposition, 75% of those jobs were in the private sector.

In this fragile economy, the House needs to have the NDP stop fighting the job-creating hiring credit for small business, stop fighting the new, economically vital Windsor-Essex to Detroit crossing and get behind the budget bill of the Minister of Finance.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the Conservatives predicted that, in 2012, this year, Canada's economic growth would reach 3%. However, the Conservatives have had to admit that they were completely wrong. Job prospects are therefore not as good.

At the same time, the employment insurance eligibility rate has fallen to its lowest level in 10 years. There are 350,000 more unemployed workers now than there were in 2008. When people work, they work fewer hours, and so when they lose their jobs, they are less likely to be eligible to receive employment insurance benefits.

How can the Conservatives justify this situation, which is what is truly happening?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, for those Canadians seeking employment, the single greatest thing that this government, this country, can do is to get a growing economy creating jobs.

We have seen more than 820,000 net new jobs created since July 2009. That is almost 400,000 more jobs than when the economic downturn started.

What we need to point out to Canadians is that they should be disappointed that the NDP continues its reckless attack on some of the key job creation and pro-economic growth measures. Measures like the hiring credit for small business, the NDP members are fighting. Measures like the economically vital Windsor-Detroit bridge, the NDP members are fighting. Measures like the registered disability savings plan—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, for generations, the first nations have suffered the consequences of the federal government's bad faith.

Four years ago, the Prime Minister worked with Jack Layton to publicly apologize to the first nations on behalf of the government for the residential schools tragedy. This was a defining moment in our Parliament's history.

Unfortunately, the government is currently fighting in court to keep millions of relevant documents secret. There will be no truth and reconciliation if the truth is intentionally hidden.

Can the government act in good faith for once and make these documents accessible? That way, we will have access to the truth.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, our government remains committed to bringing closure to the legacy of residential schools, and we will continue to honour the Indian residential school settlement.

As of November 30, the government has in fact disclosed almost one million documents to the commission. In addition, we are working with 23 other government departments and with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to ensure that all relevant Indian residential schools-related documents are made available to the commission.

Canada aims to disclose all remaining documents relevant to the commission's mandate by June 30.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, forcing the commission to go before the courts demonstrates the Conservatives' bad faith.

They are refusing to provide the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with access to millions of documents it needs to do its work. If the commission does not have access to these documents, it will not be able to examine them before its mandate expires.

Will the Conservatives stop interfering in this process and give these documents to the commission immediately so that it can get to the bottom of this matter?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I responded to those questions by this very same member yesterday in committee.

We are displaying good faith. We are following the terms and conditions of the Indian residential schools settlement agreement. It is a court supervised agreement. We have turned over a million documents. We are working with 23 other federal departments.

We plan to have all of the federal documents in the hands of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by next summer.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the chiefs are on the Hill today demanding answers because of the government's lack of good faith. It is disgraceful that the commission has been forced to take the Conservatives to court.

To make an apology more than just words, the government must act now. The 150,000 residential school survivors, and all Canadians committed to reconciliation, deserve the full truth about this dark episode of Canadian history. Was the Prime Minister's historic apology just empty words? Are they trying to sabotage the commission's work, or will the Prime Minister direct all departments to fully co-operate with the commission, now?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, the federal departments are all co-operating now. That is the point of this whole exercise. We are doing this in good faith, and we doing it in the spirit of reconciliation.

Taxation

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a full 8.4 million of the people who file their income tax in fact do not have any taxable income. They are therefore ineligible for the income tax credits that are given to people who have an income. I would like to ask the minister once again: Why would the Government of Canada not make its hockey equipment tax credit, its music lesson tax credit, its caregiver tax credit and its disability tax credit available to people who really, really need it?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the real question in this regard is the outstanding work that the Minister of Human Resources has done supporting people with disabilities and the real leadership of the Minister of Finance.

I think what Canadians want to know is why the Liberal Party voted against every single one of those credits for taxpayers. Why did it do that?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's position is very clear: the credits must be refundable in order to ensure that they are given to people who really need them. That is the most important thing.

Five million women, particularly single mothers, are not entitled to receive the tax credits. Like the others, they have children. Like the others, they have parents. They are in the same situation except that they have less money. Why not give them the same access to tax credits?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as one of the first actions of our government, we gave a tax cut to every single Canadian. That is called a cut on the GST. The Liberal Party of Canada stood and fought us tooth and nail, every step of the way.

The Liberal Party at the time, when it came to the opportunities fund for people with disabilities, the employment innovation fund for people with disabilities, the registered disability savings program, called all these tax credits economically inefficient and refused to support them. Why can they not get behind these formidable measures brought forward by the Minister of Finance to help Canadians with disabilities, to help all Canadians?

Health

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, my colleagues had a press conference with the chiefs from Northern Ontario, who talked once again about the crisis with respect to OxyContin and the abuse of prescription drugs in their communities. There has been widespread interest in this question. Fully over 80% of all the prescriptions for painkillers in the world are given out to North Americans. We have a serious issue in our country with respect to this. I wonder why the minister would not delay the market sale of OxyContin by not issuing a drug ID number, which she has the full power to? Will she tell us why she will not meet with the chiefs at a time when she is prepared to—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister of Health.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, our government has implemented tough new controls to prevent these drugs from being illegally distributed. We have tightened the rules under the non-insured health benefit program and have seen a 50% reduction in the amount of these drugs provided. These are just some examples of what we are doing.

However, I do have a question for the Liberal Party. OxyContin was approved in 1996 under the Liberal government. The member opposite was also the public health minister at that time. Why, for 10 years, did the Liberals do nothing to strengthen the controls on this drug and prevent its abuse?

National Defence

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, senior officials have confirmed that the Prime Minister and the—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Pontiac has the floor.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Order. The hon. member for Pontiac has the floor.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, senior officials have confirmed that the Prime Minister and the cabinet were informed of all the developments on the F-35s, including the cost overruns and technical problems, and were even aware that the process was biased in favour of Lockheed Martin.

The Minister of National Defence said many times that the F-35 was the only appropriate fighter jet. He should immediately apologize for having hidden this information.

Since he is responsible for this fiasco, can he tell us what other options are being looked at to replace the CF-18s?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the issue raised by the hon. member. I think the best way to deal with this is to enhance transparency and push reset on this process, which is exactly what the government has done. We have established the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat to ensure there is transparency in this process moving forward. This time, there will be increased oversight. Included in the secretariat is a former well-respected auditor general, which will provide increased oversight for the work done by the officials.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister wants us to believe that she, too, was converted on the road to the F-35, but you will forgive my skepticism. F-35 bad news is not new news, and documents have surfaced showing that the Prime Minister and his cabinet were informed of every fumble and foul-up on the F-35. What they said before the election was simply not the truth. There was no signed contract, the program was not on time and Canada will, in fact, be subject to billions of dollars in cost overruns.

Why did they not just tell us the truth?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, what the Auditor General recommended is that the Department of National Defence revise its cost estimates for the F-35 and make them public. We have gone one step further. In fact, we are pressing reset on this process. We have established a secretariat to oversee this process moving forward, including two independent members, which will provide oversight for the work done by officials.

Public Works and Government Services

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, SNC-Lavalin manages 320 federal buildings for $550 million a year and uses subcontractors to do certain jobs. Even though it is public money, the subcontracts are private, which opens the door to potential abuse.

Will the new procurement rules apply to subcontracts?

Will the minister carry out a full audit to ensure that taxpayers are getting their money's worth, in terms of both building management and the awarding of subcontracts?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, our contractual obligations are with the general contractor. In terms of the contract for the operations and maintenance of federal buildings, our objective is obviously to have quality work done at the lowest cost to taxpayers, and the winning contractor did have the lowest bid.

In terms of the specific concerns that were raised about this contract in 2010, we ordered an independent audit done by PricewaterhouseCoopers, and all of its recommendations have been implemented, including increased oversight and monitoring of this contract. In addition, I ordered in late 2010 a re-procurement of this contract.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has almost answered my question, which is cause for concern.

Parties seeking subcontracts under the SNC Lavalin $0.5-billion-a-year federal building management contracts are raising new concerns. The concerns relate to fairness, transparency and efficacy in the bidding process. The 2011 PricewaterhouseCoopers audit found grossly escalated costs for one in every two billings reviewed—for example, $1,000 to remove a light switch.

In view of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services's new-found concern for potential fraud, is she in fact saying that the contract has simply been rubber stamped, and is this what her government considers value for money?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. This contract, like every other contract we have with suppliers, is covered by our new integrity framework. If the member would like any additional information on that, she is welcome to a briefing.

Furthermore, when specific allegations about this contract were raised we brought in an independent auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and we have implemented all of its recommendations, including increased oversight and monitoring of this general contractor. In late 2010, I did order a re-procurement of this contract.

Search and Rescue

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to previous Conservative answers, it was actually the Department of National Defence that opposed keeping marine medical emergency calls being handled within Canada. Even after they were warned about potential problems for search and rescue operations off Newfoundland and Labrador, they still pushed for an Italian organization that would do it for free.

Will the minister now stand up and take responsibility and come clean with Canadians about his dangerous search and rescue experiment?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the top priority of the Canadian Coast Guard is and always will be the safety of our mariners.

We do have a contract with a Canadian company that is taking medical calls.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the Minister of National Defence is not taking responsibility.

The Conservative government, however, has raised misleading Canadians to an art form. The Prime Minister told the House last spring that the Italian service was a backup but the new trail of emails contradicts this story. The defence department was actually pushing for the plan to move medical emergency calls to Rome when Halifax said it would not take marine emergency calls.

Will the Minister of National Defence now explain these contradictions and come clean on his role and his department's reckless decision?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. The Canadian Coast Guard has an excellent working relationship with DND. In an average year, the Canadian Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard, partnered, respond to approximately 9,100 incidents. We are tasking military aircraft or ships for over 1,100 cases, saving an average of 1,200 lives and assisting some 20,000 people across the country.

I can assure the member that it is a Canadian company that is taking those medical calls.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve better than the Conservatives' misleading statements. We are talking about saving lives, not money.

The Conservatives are refusing to take responsibility. It appears that they are going to subcontract a departmental responsibility to Italy. They did not think twice about shutting down the search and rescue centre in St. John's, and they are now getting ready to shut down the one in Quebec City.

Will they repeat the same mistakes? Should francophones start practising their Italian?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, we are confident that changes in Quebec City will have no negative impact on our ability to respond to distress incidents on the water quickly, effectively and in both official languages.

Quebec is served by no less than 19 coast guard vessels, including 7 search and rescue lifeboats, 2 hovercraft and 6 helicopters.

Health

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago in Saskatchewan Tommy Douglas brought medicare to Canada. He fought powerful interests but with help from the people he succeeded. Unfortunately, since coming to power the Conservatives have done nothing to strengthen the health accords. We have witnessed growing privatization, no national drug plan, no help for home care and longer wait times.

Will the Conservatives finally show leadership and stop their reckless plan to unilaterally cut $36 billion from provincial health care budgets?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the provinces and territories are responsible for delivering health care in their jurisdictions. To enable the provinces and the territories to address their priorities, we have announced long-term stable funding arrangements that will see transfers reach a historic level of $40 billion by the end of the decade.

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

Mr. Speaker, supporting the universal health care system and Tommy Douglas's legacy—which is deeply entrenched in Canadian values—takes more than a random list of projects. It takes vision and leadership to implement a strategy for the purchase of prescription medication that will lower costs.

The Conservatives' record is one of reducing transfers to the provinces and taking a laissez-faire approach to privatization.

When will Canadians be able to benefit from a national strategy for the purchase of prescription medication?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, to enable the provinces and the territories to address their priorities, our government has introduced a long-term stable funding increase up to $40 billion by the end of the decade.

I also want to mention the other investments that we are making: $1 billion in health research resulting in over 10,000 research projects across Canada; a debt forgiveness program for doctors and nurses; the establishment of a mental health commission of Canada; Canadian partnerships against cancer; Canadian Institutes of Health Research; improving the food safety system; as well as medical records. The list goes on.

Government Services

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives used their self-inflicted debt burden as an excuse to cut front-line services to the most vulnerable. They drove up federal debt by $140 billion.

Who is forced to pay the price? It is low-income families who cannot get their kids into university, the unemployed who cannot get anyone to answer the phone at EI, newcomers to Canada who are told it is not a federal problem if they get sick and die waiting for their refugee claim, and veterans who cannot get a decent burial.

Why do the most vulnerable need to suffer the financial incompetence of the government?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, our economic action plan 2012 is dedicated to ensuring that we have excellent services for Canadians who need them. At the same time, it is important for growth and jobs and opportunity to get to a balanced budget in the medium term. We are focused on jobs and economic activity. That is the best guarantee we can continue to pay for our social programs.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the cuts the government has chosen to make typically hurt low-income Canadians the worst. For them, vital front-line services are eviscerated, but there is more. There is a bizarre attack on public health and safety, maritime search and rescue, emergency preparedness, environmental science, habitat protection, food safety, product labelling and aboriginal health. None of these cuts are in the so-called back office. They are all front-line services that keep Canadians safe.

Why do the Conservatives let their financial incompetence impair public health and safety?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, we have dedicated considerable resources, in fact, growing resources to health and safety issues. We made sure we ring-fenced those in terms of our budget reviews to ensure we were delivering excellent services to Canadians. We are transferring funds to the provinces on health care.

That is our record. We will not abide by the opposition members who continue to vote against budgets that have excellent programs for Canadians. That is our dedicated approach to growing jobs in our economy. That is our approach to economic growth and opportunity. The opposition members keep voting against it.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 27 days, it will be 2013 and Canadians are clearly fearful about the year ahead.

Despite inheriting a $13 billion surplus and a shrinking debt, six years of Conservative incompetence have caused the debt to balloon to over $600 billion. The Conservatives have now spent the taxes that our grandchildren will need to pay while slashing vital services, such as EI, pensions and veterans services.

Will the Conservatives please make a New Year's resolution to stop attacking vulnerable families through reckless service cuts and stop kicking the little guy?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, today we are trying to fight opposition motions to block Canadians trying to save for their retirement, to close tax loopholes, to build the Windsor-Detroit bridge to create jobs and growth in the province of Ontario, to help 500,000 small businesses create more jobs and to help the registered disability savings plan. Opposition members are all against these fine measures.

Employment Insurance

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources' numbers simply do not hold water.

Currently, only one-third of those who appeal an employment insurance decision get a hearing within the 30-day time period. The minister's solution is to reduce the number of people holding the hearings from 700 to 39 and to introduce a process that will include twice as many steps. Then she claims that this will speed things up. Does she take people for fools?

Why is the minister making the process more complex?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. However, it is true that the current system is not serving Canadians as well as we would like. That is exactly why we have to change the system.

Specialists will be working full time, whereas now, they are only working part time. They will work full time to serve Canadians and to ensure that claims are processed more quickly and efficiently.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the current system is too slow because the board of referees is short-staffed. Service Canada is having the same problem, which is causing unreasonable delays in processing times.

The minister is mocking workers who are paying for a service that they simply are not receiving. This is not her money; it is workers' money.

Why not invest in human resources instead of coming up with complicated solutions that simply do not work?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is their system that is not working. The hon. member has just demonstrated that very clearly. That is why we need to change it and that is why we are changing it.

Instead of having three part-time people review a claim, we will have one full-time specialist. That should improve the efficacy. It should improve the quality and consistency of the judgments as well. We are changing the system that needs fixing so that it will serve Canadians better and faster.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the minister will say anything to distract people from the mess that she has made of EI.

Her department is not even meeting its own service standards. One in four unemployed are not getting their EI application processed in 28 days. Two out of three calls to EI call centres are not being answered on time. Now we learn that two out of three workers who appeal do not get a hearing within 30 days.

When will the minister take responsibility and fix the problem that she created?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing.

As I just explained, the current system is not working and that is exactly why we are changing it. By having full-time people deal with the cases, we will ensure that Canadians have their appeals heard more quickly, that there will be a higher consistency in the decisions and that there will better quality service because of better information.

We are trying to improve it but every step we take is opposed by the NDP.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the new social security tribunal is part of the Conservative agenda to gut services to unemployed Canadians.

Let us do the math. There used to be 700 board members and now there will only be 39. Delays will get worse. The system will be less fair.

Instead of demonizing the unemployed, why will the minister not do the right thing and give people the benefits that they themselves have paid for.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. We are streamlining the process to make it faster, more efficient, more effective and of higher quality.

The question is why the NDP will not support the budget that will help improve things for Canadians by extending the small business hiring tax credit to create jobs so that people do not need EI, and to help improve the registered disability savings plan for those people who need that for their future security. Why will the NDP not support those efforts to help needy Canadians?

Infrastructure

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bridge to strengthen trade bill will ensure the successful and timely construction of one of Canada's most important infrastructure projects, a new bridge between Windsor and Detroit.

This legislation is critical as it would provide certainty to the private sector this project will not be delayed by lawsuits from a certain billionaire. Shockingly, the NDP and the MP for Windsor West who should know better are putting politics before progress and have introduced a motion to delete this from Bill C-45 and stop this bridge from moving forward.

Would n the minister explain to this House and to the member for Windsor West the importance of voting for Bill C-45 tonight?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the new bridge will create thousands of jobs and investment opportunities along the Detroit-Windsor corridor. The bridge to strengthen trade bill would ensure that this happens in a timely manner.

I urge the member for Windsor West and his party to stand up for Canadians, put politics aside and vote with us as we move forward on delivering a new bridge for Canadians to cross the busiest the trade corridor.

It is really important for our country's economy.

The Environment

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the monster budget bill, one of the more troubling aspects of this bill are the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

With no rhyme nor reason, the Conservatives have stripped away protection from thousands of lakes and rivers across Canada. Nova Scotians were shocked to learn that, along with many other rivers, the Shelburne Heritage River will no longer be protected under this act.

How is it that millionaires in Muskoka get lake protection but Nova Scotian rivers do not? Are there no Nova Scotian Conservatives over there who will stand up to this cherry-picking and this favouritism?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my department has consulted with every province and territory on the list of waterways and none of them had any concerns with the list. It appears that only the opposition wants officials to review thousands of applications when over 90% of them do not have any treaties on navigation. It is creating a backlog for absolutely nothing. The department will continue to care about the issues of navigation when there are concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities can tell himself what he wants, but the fact of the matter is that while the Conservatives are protecting lakes for the wealthy friends of the President of the Treasury Board, the Châteauguay River will go unprotected, and be at the mercy of unscrupulous developers.

In addition to its ecological importance, the river played a crucial role in the Conservatives' favourite moment in history, the War of 1812. The Battle of Châteauguay culminated in a triumphant British victory over the Americans.

Why are the Conservatives refusing to adequately protect this river and recognize its historical importance?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this is another good example of how the NDP gets everything wrong. It is strictly a matter of boating. Of course, we recognize the historical importance of this river. Scientists who have conducted research on shipping and transporting important freight by boat—which has always been crucial to our country's economy—determined which waterways would be used for this purpose. We are not talking about the waterways that were travelled down by canoe in 1812.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we are spreading the news regarding the Conservatives' policies.

Quebec is a magnificent land of lakes and rivers.

This week, I had the opportunity to go to the splendid Mégantic Lake, and the magnificent Chaudière River, two waterways that will no longer be protected due to the Conservatives irresponsible actions.

The members for Mégantic—L'Érable and Beauce know how important these waterways are to the region.

Why have these members allowed the President of the Treasury Board to protect the lakes of the rich and famous without regard for their own constituents?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, once again, these are baseless remarks. Has the member ever seen any big boats go down the Chaudière Falls? He really does not understand boating. It is not about sharing a canoe, but about vessels that transport freight in containers. Has he seen many of those on the Chaudière River? He is woefully unfamiliar with his region. This is about boating. Nothing else.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the rivers and lakes in my region of northern Ontario are tourist magnets and an integral part of the local tourism market, and the Conservatives are stripping their protections.

On top of hampering that economy, the Conservatives are also yanking protection from tourist-rich lakes surrounding Sioux Lookout and the historically significant Albany River in the riding of Kenora, the Boundary Waters, the Seine River, all bodies of water where people, boats and ships navigate.

Why does northern Ontario not deserve the same protections as millionaires in Muskoka, and why is no one on that side speaking up?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has always been and remains about navigation and navigation only. In fact, the amendments focus on measures to ensure that is still the case. It will not affect the government's protection that any other department still has, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and many others. Why are the lakes in northern Ontario important in his riding and not in the riding of the President of the Treasury Board. There is navigation on the lakes of members on this side of the House.

Search and Rescue

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

Mr. Speaker, last May, just days after the Conservatives closed the maritime rescue sub-centre in St. John's, a medical emergency call off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador was rerouted to Italy. The Prime Minister misled the House claiming that there was “no change to procedure” and that calls were only rerouted to Rome as a back up.

We now know that is not true. Internal emails revealed that the procedure was in fact permanently changed and that medical calls were to be answered first in Rome, not Canada.

Why did the Prime Minister put seafarers' lives at risk and try to cover it up?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly reject the premise of that question. I can assure the hon. member that marine medical calls are being answered in Canada by Canadians.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, General Lawson tells us that the statement of operational requirements for the new fighter aircraft has not been modified to date. This statement is so biased that there is only one option: the F-35. Yet the minister is telling us that all options are on the table as far as the new fighter jet is concerned. The government is contradicting itself. We have lost confidence; it is a real fiasco.

Will the government submit a statement of operational requirements for the new fighter aircraft to the National Research Council of Canada, as it did for the search and rescue aircraft?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, General Lawson has also indicated his support for the process that the secretariat is undertaking to ensure that all the due diligence is done in leading up to a decision about the acquisition to replace the CF-18s.

In terms of the options analysis, the present statement of requirements is being set aside. As the full options analysis is being done, the terms of reference for that options analysis will be made public and the member will be able to take a look at it.

The Environment

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Brome Lake is the jewel of my riding. It is a favourite spot of many recreational boaters. But since the Conservative ministers do not spend their summer vacations there, Brome Lake is not receiving the same favourable treatment in their reform of the protection of navigable waterways. The selection of waterways that will remain protected is random, ill-considered and irresponsible.

Is there not a single Conservative member who is disgusted with the flagrant favouritism shown to the President of the Treasury Board?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague how many big boats he has seen on his lake. There are obviously all kinds of navigation as well.

From the outset, we have said that the criteria used to determine the list were established solely by departmental officials, who looked at historical data on navigation, and nothing else. That is what our decision was based on, and it is strictly in relation to navigation. This will be the continued focus of our work.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, important lakes and rivers in my region are being stripped of protection: Lake Ramsey, stripped of protection; Lake Wanapitei, stripped of protection; Trout Lake, stripped of protection. Meanwhile, Muskoka millionaires' playgrounds are protected while lakes that supply drinking water are not.

Will no Conservative stand up for our natural heritage and vote against this cherry-picking of protected lakes?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the lakes the hon. member has talked about are all protected and will still be protected by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. They will all be protected by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. They will all be protected by the Fisheries Act. They will all be protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Species at Risk Act.

The hon. member said that there is no protection. He does not understand the issue. This is about navigation.

Health

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today we heard that a company that does testing for a wide range of consumer products was found by Health Canada to be falsifying records of inspections it completed. This type of behaviour from industry is disappointing and offensive to Canadian consumers who purchase their products each and every day.

Could the Minister of Health please inform the House the steps our Conservative government is taking to keep Canadian consumers and their families protected?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada conducted an inspection of this company and determined it was falsifying records. This is completely unacceptable, so to protect consumers, we have suspended their licence.

As a precautionary step, Health Canada is asking companies to temporarily halt sales of the affected products until their safety can be confirmed.

I have directed Health Canada to get to the bottom of this and to inform Canadian of any changes. We will continue to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Institute for Health Information reports that wait times still remain high for certain procedures. Canadians wait longer in emergency rooms for care than people in Australia, the United Kingdom and the U.S.

The 2004 Liberal health accord committed $5.5 billion to reduce wait times. Conservatives refuse to renew this fund after 2014. Therefore, provinces will have to struggle with the problem alone.

The Canadian health care coalition says that without a 2014 health accord, medicare is not sustainable. Is this the minister's objective?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous government that balanced its books on the backs of the provinces and the territories, we have committed to a long-term, stable funding for the provinces and territories.

We respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and the territories in the area of health care. To help the provinces and the territories address the issue of wait times, we have made targeted investments of $6.5 billion. We also have provided long-term, stable funding up to $40 billion to the end of the decade.

I am glad to see that our investments are making a difference, as we see improvements in wait times for priority areas such as cancer care, cardiac care and diagnostic testing.

Rail Transport

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

Mr. Speaker, according to the guidelines regarding noise created by rail facilities, particular attention should be paid to noise when a new line is built.

However, in my riding, residents are going to file a complaint regarding the noise coming from the new facilities for the Rive-Nord commuter train. The facilities were built in the heart of a residential area, fewer than 30 metres from houses.

Will the minister be proactive and work with the municipal authorities to ensure that the residents of Saint-Jérôme do not have to endure this noise?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I remind members of often is the importance of respecting areas of jurisdiction.

This train is managed by the municipality. The federal government is not going to get involved in the management of a municipal matter only to be told by the city that it is not within its purview. A train that transports people within a municipality is, of course, the responsibility of the municipal government.

At the federal level, we have an obligation to ensure that the national railways abide by federal rules. But at a municipal level, it is the city's responsibility.

Labour

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the delegation of Canadian Union of Postal Workers' big union bosses returned from the world social forum free Palestine conference in sunny Rio. This radical political conference is dedicated to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish homeland and promotes Jerusalem as the future capital of Palestine.

Yesterday, the NDP leader refused to condemn this misuse of public funds by his big union bosses. Will the Government of Canada condemn the misuse of public funds?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, yes, of course we condemn this misuse of funds. Time and time again, the NDP and the leader of the opposition stand with their big union bosses, rather than for the taxpayers. The NDP should understand that using public funds to attend extremist political conferences in Rio is just plain wrong.

I wonder if the leader will condemn this use of public funds, while big union bosses are around and playing in hateful activities around Ipanema and Copacabana beaches.

Public Safety

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives justified their decision to vote against the national bullying prevention strategy by talking about the money they are investing in such programs as Stop Now and Plan, which help young people. How hypocritical. We have learned that funding for the Stop Now and Plan program will end in March.

For a government that is supposedly tough on crime, it is really soft on bullies. Does the Conservative government only pretend to care about victims of bullying?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, our government is, as all Canadians are, very concerned with the issue of bullying and the effect that it has on young people and families in Canada.

We support the work that is ongoing in two parliamentary committees. We believe it is time to act. We believe it is not time to study. That is why we are supporting initiatives through the RCMP, through Health Canada and through other initiatives in public safety.

Natural Resources

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Lower Churchill project, the Conservatives are trying to conceal unfair competition for Hydro-Québec under a patina of environmental concern. As if the Conservatives had any credibility in that area. The NDP is gullible enough to believe it.

No one in the government could have any doubts about the fierce opposition of the entire Quebec National Assembly, considering that Quebec's natural resources minister has specifically warned her Conservative counterpart.

How can the Minister of Natural Resources have the audacity to claim that he tried to come to some agreement, when there has been no doubt from the outset that federal funding goes against the economic interests of Quebec?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained yesterday, this project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is economically viable and it is important for the region. I hope that other provinces with similar projects will approach us so they can benefit from federal support.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. David Alward, Premier of New Brunswick.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Derrick Dalley, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would also like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Raffi Cavoukian, perhaps better known by his stage name “Raffi”, celebrated singer, songwriter, musician and recipient of the Order of Canada in recognition of his work with children.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 2.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will now continue to put the questions on report stage motions under Group No. 2.

The question is on Motion No. 565. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 565 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 566 and 567.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to give the Minister of Health an opportunity to get her facts straight for once. OxyContin was approved in 1996. I was—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. As members know, correcting the record, getting facts straight and things like that should be reserved for a future question period or other parts of debate, not through points of order.

The question is on Motion No. 568. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 569 to 575.

The question is on Motion No. 577. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 578 to 581, 583, 586 to 592, 594 to 608 and 610 to 612.

The question is on Motion No. 613. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 614 to 663.

The question is on Motion No. 664. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 665.

The question is on Motion No. 666. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies 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.

A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the questions to be put on Motions Nos. 29, 30 and 151.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #523

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare 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 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 29, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #524

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 29 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 30.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 30, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #525

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 30 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 151. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 153.

(The House divided on Motion No. 151, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #526

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 151 defeated.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, on a point of order.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we had some dialogue such as can be had in this place, but on the previous vote we want to ensure that the House is following its normal practices and procedures. The vote actually required the House to be tested for the question. We on this side are very much interested in protecting the rules and rights of members in this place, as I know you are as well. I am not so sure of the other side, but we want to make sure the vote was done in a proper manner—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is still making his point.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that the proceeding votes follow the normal course. I am sure it was just an oversight from the table, but we know that the procedure that will follow for the motions will seek the intent of the House before moving on to the recorded vote. Is that correct?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Absolutely, I can assure the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I cannot blame this one on the table. That one was all me. I neglected to put that part. Of course, we will follow the voting pattern as laid out from here on.

The question is on Motion No. 7. A vote on this motion also applies 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.

A negative vote on Motion No. 7 requires the questions to be put on Motions Nos. 78, 83 and 84.

(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #527

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 7 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 9, 11, 18, 32, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 74, 97, 111 to 113, 116, 131, 136, 138 and 140 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 78. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 78, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #528

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 78 defeated.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, Foreign Investment.

The next question is on Motion No. 83. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 83, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #529

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 83 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 84. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the Motion No. 84, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #530

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 84 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 163.

(The House divided on Motion No. 163, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #531

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 163 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos 164 to 219 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 220. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 221 to 229.

(The House divided on Motion No. 220, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #532

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 220 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 221 to 229 also defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 230. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 231 to 236.

(The House divided on Motion No. 230, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #533

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 230 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 231 to 236 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 237. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 240, 242, 245, 246 and 248. A negative vote on Motion No. 237 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 243.

(The House divided on Motion No. 237, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #534

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 237 defeated.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 240, 242, 245, 246 and 248 also defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 243. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 243, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #535

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 243 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 249. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 278 to 282. A negative vote on Motion No. 249 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 253 and 254.

(The House divided on Motion No. 249, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #536

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 249 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 278 to 282 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 253. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 253, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #537

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 253 defeated.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The next question is on Motion No. 254. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 254, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #538

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 254 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 286. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 287 to 289.

(The House divided on Motion No. 286, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #539

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 286 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 287 to 289 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 292. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 293 to 296, 299, 300 and 302 to 308. A negative vote on Motion No. 292 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 297.

(The House divided on Motion No. 292, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #540

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 292 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 293 to 296, 299, 300 and 302 to 308 also defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 297.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 297, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #541

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 297 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 309. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 310 to 339.

(The House divided on Motion No. 309, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #542

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 309 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 310 to 339 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 340. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 341, 344, 347 and 348. A negative vote on Motion No. 340 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 345 and 346.

(The House divided on Motion No. 340, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #543

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the Motion No. 340 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 341, 344, 347 and 348 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 345.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 345, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #544

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 345 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 346.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 346, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #545

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 346 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 349. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 350 to 354, 356, 357, 361 to 363, 365, 366 and 368 to 384. A negative vote on Motion No. 349 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 355 and 364.

(The House divided on Motion No. 349, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #546

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 349 defeated.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 350 to 354, 356, 357, 361 to 363, 365, 366 and 368 to 384 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 355. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #547

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 355 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 364.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

(The House divided on Motion No. 364, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #548

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 364 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 385.

(The House divided on Motion No. 385, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #549

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 385 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 386.

(The House divided on Motion No. 386, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #550

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 386 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 389. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 395, 398, 399, 402, 404 and 407. A negative vote on Motion No. 389 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 390 and 405.

(The House divided on Motion No. 389, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #551

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 389 defeated.

Therefore, I declare Motions Nos. 395, 398, 399, 402, 404 and 407 defeated.

The vote is on Motion No. 390. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 392 to 394, 396, 397, 400 and 401.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 390 which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #552

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 390 defeated. Therefore, I declare Motions. Nos. 392 to 394, 396, 397, 400 and 401 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 405. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 405, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #553

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 405 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 409.

(The House divided on Motion No. 409, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #554

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 410. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 411, 419, 438, 440, 442, 455 to 461, 464 to 467, and 469 to 486.

A negative vote on Motion No. 410 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 415.

(The House divided on Motion No. 410, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #555

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 410 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 411, 419, 438, 440, 442, 455 to 461, 464 to 467 and 469 to 486 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 415. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion Nos. 422, 423, 426, 428, 443, 445, 446, 448, 449, 454 and 463.

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 House divided on Motion No. 415, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #556

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 415 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 422, 423, 426, 428, 443, 445, 446, 448, 449, 454 and 463 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 487. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 488 to 494, 498, 502 to 504, 506, 509, 512 to 516 and 524 to 564. A negative vote on Motion No. 487 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 495, 505 and 517.

(The House divided on Motion No. 487, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #557

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 487 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 488 to 494, 498, 502 to 504, 506, 509, 512 to 516 and 524 to 564 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 495. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 497 and 499 to 501.

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 yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on Motion No. 495, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #558

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 495 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 497 and 499 to 501 defeated as well.

The next question is on Motion No. 505. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 507, 508, 510 and 511.

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 House divided on Motion No. 505, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #559

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 505 defeated.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 507, 508, 510 and 511 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 517. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 518 to 523.

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 House divided on Motion No. 517, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #560

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 517 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 518 to 523 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 565. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 566 and 567.

(The House divided on Motion No. 565, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #561

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 565 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 566 and 567 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 568. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 569 to 575.

(The House divided on Motion No. 568, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #562

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 568 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 569 to 575 also defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 577. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 578 to 581, 583, 586 to 592, 594 to 608 and 610 to 612. A negative vote on Motion No. 577 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 582.

(The House divided on Motion No. 577, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #563

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 577 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 578 to 581, 583, 586 to 592, 594 to 608 and 610 to 612 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 582.

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 House divided on Motion No. 582, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #564

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 582 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 613. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 614 to 663.

(The House divided on Motion No. 613, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #565

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare Motion No. 613 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 614 to 663 defeated.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The next question is on Motion No. 664. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 665.

(The House divided on Motion No. 664, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #566

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 664 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 665 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 666.

(The House divided on Motion No. 666, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #567

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 666 defeated.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #568

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-10, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

I wish to inform the House that because of the delay there will be no private members' business hour today. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would ask all members who wish to continue their conversations to please leave the House.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Employment Insurance

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in September, when we returned from the summer break, Canadians were just beginning to discover the full scope of the Conservatives' famous mammoth budget bill.

The employment insurance counter-reforms imposed by the government would have all manner of negative consequences for our economy, but also for our workers and the unemployed.

Last May, because of pressure from the opposition, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was forced to clarify for Canadians the concepts of suitable employment and reasonable job search. We then discovered what the Conservatives deem to be suitable employment.

In Bill C-38, the government has done away with the concept of suitable employment, except in cases when employment arises in consequence of a work stoppage.

The minister also explained that the Canada Employment Insurance Commission would henceforth determine which jobs are suitable for workers based on personal circumstances, working conditions, hours of work, travel time, type of work and salary.

The government also announced the creation of three new categories of claimants: long-tenured workers, frequent claimants and occasional claimants. All of the categories of claimants will be under more pressure to find a job and, within a few weeks, will have to accept any old job at pay that can be just 70% of their previous salary.

As for the notion of reasonable job search, we know that claimants will have to prove that they are conducting daily job searches. We even learned that job seekers would have to prove that they are filling out five job applications a week in urban areas and three applications a week in rural areas.

Claimants will have to keep a journal in which they log all of their job search activities and will have to submit this evidence on request. There will also be a new electronic job alert system that claimants will have to consult, even though claimants do not all have easy access to a computer, let alone the Internet.

Lastly, job seekers will have to search for jobs within a 100 km radius of their home or the equivalent of one hour of commuting time.

I have to say that when I was in Montreal recently, it took me 20 minutes to go through three lights near the Palais des congrès. So the 100 km radius is not always clear.

A few months ago, a man from Carleton was offered a job in Gaspé, even though Gaspé is three and a half hours from Carleton. Someone else, a man from the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, was offered a job in Bonaventure, on the Gaspé Peninsula. That is a twelve-hour trip, including a $50 ferry ride.

How can the minister call these job offers “suitable employment”, when accepting such an offer would cost the unemployed individual one way or another? It would involve either a costly move, uprooting that individual from his community, or a loss of income that could actually exceed the wages offered, after transportation costs.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member's comments.

Our government's top priorities are job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

In order to foster a strong and competitive workforce, we want to help Canadians who have lost their job find new jobs as soon as possible. By encouraging unemployed Canadians to take part-time work while they are collecting EI benefits, we know the odds are that this will lead to permanent work and it increases substantially by taking those part-time jobs.

On August 5, we implemented the new working while on claim pilot project that was announced in budget 2012. We know there were some concerns raised about the new pilot project and we listened. On October 5, the government announced its intention to amend the working while on claim pilot project. This amendment will allow those who are working while on claim between August 7, 2011, and August 4, 2012, to revert to the rules of the old pilot project over the next three years. This was done to allow these claimants time to transition to the new pilot project.

The new pilot project will continue to ensure that Canadians are always better off working than not.

But that is not all. We are also taking steps to help Canadians find local jobs that are out there for them.

Sometimes people lack the resources to search effectively for work. Using tools like job bank, we will be sending more frequent and enhanced job alerts and labour market information to Canadians.

We are here to help the unemployed.

At the same time, we recognize there are Canadians who are having difficulty finding work, particularly in the off season in parts of the country where much of the economy is based on seasonal industries. For those who are unable to find employment, employment insurance will continue to be there for them as it always has been.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are simple. The Conservatives have demonstrated unbelievable incompetence by implementing this counter-reform that is not working, that is harming our economy and that is attacking our job seekers.

We saw it a few months ago when changes were made to the notions of suitable employment and reasonable job search. We saw it again a few weeks later when there were problems with the pilot project that allows people to work while receiving benefits. It is now clear that the changes to the appeal mechanism will make it much more difficult for unemployed workers to appeal decisions in order to discourage them from asserting their rights. This will be a complete fiasco.

When will the Conservatives realize that the only alternative is to backtrack completely on this counter-reform and go back and consult with workers before introducing new practical, positive and innovative solutions that do not penalize or stigmatize anyone?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is making improvements to employment insurance so we will help better connect Canadians with jobs in their local labour market.

The working while on claim pilot project is a national three year EI pilot project that came into effect on August 5. The intent of this pilot project is to find a way to help EI claimants stay connected to the labour market.

We believe claimants benefit by accepting work while on claim, even if it is part-time or temporary work.

This new pilot allows EI claimants who are working to keep 50% of their benefits for every dollar they earn. This replaces the 100% clawback for any money above that weekly cap previously.

We know there have been concerns about the current pilot project and we have listened and responded by allowing claimants time to transition to this new pilot project.

Foreign Investment

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 10, we are expecting a federal decision on the purchase of Nexen. Canadians are still in the dark about the details, the framework for making this decision and the implications of the cumulative levels of our natural resources that can be sold to other enterprises, including national enterprises. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Another controversy is linked to that, and that is the pending ratification of the foreign investment protection and promotion agreement, the FIPA, that locks China and Canada into a 31-year trade and investment agreement. Like many Canadians, I have serious concerns about the new FIPA with China.

Everyone in the House knows that trade is vital to our Canadian economy. Historically, Canada has signed foreign investment protection agreements with countries all over the world. It is clear, however, that this agreement is different from any previous FIPAs the Conservative government has signed.

For example, this agreement is with a country that has a non-democratic political system. It has the second largest economy in the world.

Of the approximately 40 FIPAs Canada has signed since 2004, this is the only one that contains provisions allowing the Canadian government to withhold documents from the public and to conduct arbitration hearings behind closed doors. I want to make it clear that I am for trade with China. I am for strong relationships with China. However, I am not for agreements that are signed in the dark.

This agreement would not guarantee market access or real investment protection for Canadian enterprises doing business in China, which means that minimal benefits would accrue to Canadian exporters. However, it would create significant potential financial risks.

Presently, the Canadian government is rapidly eliminating Canada's environmental assessment and navigable waters ecosystem protections. Should a future provincial or federal government decide to restore these environmental safety nets, the agreement could provide Chinese investors with the right to contest any changes that might be seen as affecting their profitability, leading to costly liabilities for Canadian taxpayers and raising serious questions regarding Canadian sovereignty over lands, resources and our environment.

Finally, the federal government has refused to conduct public hearings on this agreement, despite repeated calls from the Liberal Party, trade experts and thousands of Canadian citizens who have significant concerns about the long-term implications of this agreement. Liberals believe that before being finalized, international treaties such as the Canada-China investment agreement must be transparent, include proper consultation and be subject to arm's-length examination to ensure that the best interests of the Canadian people are being served.

That is why I put forward a motion in the House of Commons to require the government to send all such treaties to a parliamentary committee for public hearings and study after being tabled in the House of Commons and prior to the treaty coming into force. If the government was truly committed to being fair, inclusive and open with Canadians, it would support my motion.

It is unacceptable to sign agreements that lack transparency and are closed to the public. The government is not demonstrating any responsibility in this regard. That is why we are calling for transparency and a thorough review by a parliamentary committee.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member went off on several tangents, so it is a little difficult to know where to start. The late show tonight was to be on the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement that Canada signed with China, which is what I will attempt to answer for.

To make a quick point to begin with, the hon. member mentioned that the agreement between Canada and China is locked in for 31 years. That is patently false. If she did even a rudimentary amount of homework she would know that was not the case. It is renewable and could last for 31 years, but it is not locked in for 31 years from the beginning.

The other thing that needs to be said is that prior to 2006, when that member was in government, treaties were not brought to the House of Commons at all for 21 sitting days. They simply became the law of the land. Here is an opportunity to bring this up on opposition days and to debate this in the House of Commons, and yet neither the Liberals nor the NDP took advantage of that. If they really wanted to have fulsome debate on this issue, they had lots of chances.

The reality is that our government is committed to creating the right conditions for Canadian businesses to compete globally. Canada's foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with China, the world's second largest economy, will provide stronger protection for Canadians investing in China and create jobs and economic growth right here at home. It establishes a clear set of rules under which investments are made and investment disputes are resolved. It is no more complicated than that.

For Canadian businesses looking to set up in China, they cannot be treated less favourably than any other foreign company looking to do the same, and once an investment is made, a Canadian business cannot be treated less favourably than any other business, including Chinese businesses.

The FIPA agreement also ensures that all investment disputes are resolved under international arbitration, ensuring that adjudications are independent and fair. Canadian investors in China will no longer have to rely on the Chinese legal system to have their disputes resolved.

Finally, our agreement with China is the first bilateral investment agreement that China has signed that expressly includes language on transparency in dispute settlement proceedings. Let me be clear. It is Canada's long-standing policy that all dispute resolution should be open to the public and that the submissions made by the parties be available to the public. Under the agreement, any decision emanating from dispute resolution would be made public.

Despite the fearmongering of the anti-trade critics, the agreement does not impair Canada's ability to regulate and legislate in such areas as the environment, culture, safety, health and conservation. Furthermore, restrictions in the agreement will preserve Canada's current ability to review foreign investments under the Investment Canada Act to ensure that they provide a net benefit to Canadians and that our national security is not compromised.

In short, the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement is similar to the 24 other investment treaties that Canada has signed with key trade and investment partners. We join countries like New Zealand, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Japan, who have all signed investment treaties with China on terms that are similar to or, in most cases, less favourable than those we negotiated with China.

The hon. member says she is pro-trade. She has a great opportunity, not to go out there fearmongering but to tell the truth about this treaty, which other countries are extremely jealous of. We now have rules-based investment with China on the Chinese mainland and Chinese have those same sets of rules available to them in Canada. This is no more complicated than that.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite reinforced my very point when he mentioned that China is the second largest economy in the world. Accordingly, this FIPA is substantively different from any previous ones. Moreover, we were given no opportunity to study it in committee, with no expert witnesses able to come forward to help parliamentarians understand the implications.

This is in the context of a government that has forfeited the trust of Canadian citizens. It is a government that has been closed with its information, which has not allowed its scientists to speak to the public about their findings. It is a government that requires the Parliamentary Budget Officer to threaten to take it to court just to produce the information that he requires to provide Parliament with information on the budgets that parliamentarians are expected to vote on and the kinds of accountability they are expected to provide.

It is a government that has lost the trust of the Canadian public and Parliament, and now is concluding major agreements in secrecy without the proper scrutiny that committees would be able to provide. That is what we are seeking. We are seeking this for this agreement and, indeed, all treaties and agreements.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know I only have a short time to wrap up but the hon. member is simply not putting the correct facts on the table. If her party or she as an individual wants to debate this treaty in the House of Commons, there is ample opportunity for her to do that. Prior to 2008, and I think the hon. member was here at that time, treaties were not brought to the House of Commons for 21 sitting days and, therefore, never had the opportunity to be debated at all. When we formed government in 2006, we corrected that.

The previous government, the hon. member might remember, was a Liberal government, which is the party she is a member of. It had no interest in debating these treaties in the House of Commons and provided no opportunity to do so. All we have done is added openness and clarity to the process to actually engage people in debate about these important issues to Canadians.

The reality is that we have signed 24 FIPAs around the world. This FIPA is really not much different than other ones. The member should look at this. The hon. member said herself that the Chinese economy was the second largest economy in the world and would be the largest economy in the world by 2030. It probably has, although we do not know for sure, some of the largest reserves of foreign currency in the world and the member is saying that we should not trade with them. That is nonsense.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 10:23 p.m.)