Debates of May 7th, 2012

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thought it was very interesting to hear the member say that one of the aims of his party is not to spend their children's inheritance, to cut the deficit, to pay down the debt and to create jobs.

I have been here so long that I am long in the tooth. However, I remember that 1993 a Liberal government came in vowing to do those things, and within three years we did. For 10 years after that we balanced the budget, and we left this new government with a $13 billion surplus, a $3 billion contingency fund and a debt that was being paid down.

Now we are hearing the same thing again. What took the Conservative government six years to get it? How did we get in this mess all over again?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the member opposite wants to go back to 1993, she is missing everything that happened before 1993, going back to 1984, when the Conservatives took over after Liberal governments on and off from 1968.

I actually ran in the election in 1974, so I am very familiar with these issues.

Canada did not have significant debt—that is, a debt that was anywhere near out of control—until 1968, when Pierre Trudeau became Prime Minister of Canada, and he did not even take debt seriously. In fact, Pierre Trudeau told Canadians that debt does not matter because it is money that we owe to ourselves. That is when Canada's big deficits and big debt began.

When the Conservatives took over government in 1994, Canada's national debt was like the big snowball we see in the cartoons, going down a ski slope and getting bigger and bigger. When it was getting near the bottom was when the Conservatives became the government.

The interest rates, the interest costs on debt, were eating up a huge portion of the government's budget. It was a huge task to try to get that balanced. It takes years to show benefits.

In fact, the Conservative government at the time made the toughest decision. It was to introduce a value-added tax, the GST, which the member's party promised to get rid of and did not, because that value-added tax paid down the deficit. The Liberal Party of Canada took credit for that for years afterward.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I find it amusing that the question I just asked did not get answered at all and that the 13 years from 1993 until 2006 were ignored.

I rise to speak against this so-called budget implementation bill. The government bundled many things into this bill. While I would have liked to stand to speak to the issues of getting rid of the deficit, jobs—sustainable jobs, not part-time jobs or jobs that will sunset in five years—and the problems facing us fiscally, I am forced to talk about everything else, which is sad. If the government really wanted to address the many things it purports to address in this bill, then it should have separated them. It should have allowed us to discuss them as separate entities in order to deal with some of the changes it is trying to make. However, this is a sneaky way of getting regulatory and public policy changes through on a whole bunch of things that no one can discuss.

I have heard people across the aisle say that a lot of time will be spent discussing this budget bill. This is the first time we have had a budget bill that contains absolutely everything and that needs a lot of time to be discussed. I am going to talk about some key areas that I think are important, since I only have 10 minutes. There are many areas, as I said, that could have been de-bundled. No one across the way is able to tell us why, when the Senate thought this was a good way to do it, that the House does not.

I want to talk about raising the age of qualification for OAS from 65 to 67. To date, in spite of many questions in the House, the government has provided no information or rationale for why this change is even necessary. All of the experts have said that our OAS system is sustainable. This is from a government that promised that it would not change pensions and is now tackling it through the back door.

The government, in this bill, which has nothing to do with anything, is abolishing the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, a non-partisan organization established by a Conservative government in 1988 to promote democracy abroad. Conservatives have been sabotaging this organization for many years and are now finally getting rid of it. However, this does not surprise me, because the government does not support democracy very well in Canada, so I suppose it does not feel it has to do it abroad.

I would also like to ask a question that I am hoping one of the Conservatives will answer in one of their speeches. Why is the President of the Treasury Board taking charge of the objectives of the School of Public Policy and the way the school is being handled? I did not know that the President of the Treasury Board was an academic, understood education or had degrees in education or public policy of any kind. It is very interesting to see these changes being made that have no rationale to them at all, except for power and control.

Here is another piece that shows us that the government, in terms of getting rid of the democracy international organization, is also trying to kill democracy in Canada. The Minister of Labour is dipping her fingers in labour agreements. There is a right in a democratic society to collective bargaining, but the minister now is going to intervene. She is going to be at the table virtually, if not in reality, making decisions, telling people what they should do and setting the stage so that collective agreements on bargaining rights are going to be completely skewered in this country. In fact, repealing fair wages and hours of labour in this bill would single out a group of workers who, the government tells us, happen to be only 7% of the labour force. Taking away the rights of fair wages and hours of labour from 7% of the population is discriminatory, no matter how small that group is.

Here is another piece of knocking down democracy in this country: the silencing of civil society under the CRA. It is going to look at whether groups, organizations or NGOs that are all under the heading of “special interest groups” as far as the government is concerned are now going to be able advocate only 10% of the time. Just 10% of what they do will be advocacy.

However, many of these groups need to advocate. Why do we have civil society and NGOs if they are not going to be able to say what direction public policy should take within their sphere of influence and understanding and, in fact, criticize governments when they do not do the right thing? Silencing civil society is at the bottom of all of this.

I will now go into what I am most concerned about, which is what is happening with health. As the health critic, I am really concerned about the surreptitious cuts to health, which everyone seems to be denying every time we ask a question, about the surreptitious way of undermining this federation and by removing the cohesion that has gone on for so long and the way the federal government has dealt with the provinces in a mutually respectful manner negotiating transfer of payments.

Under health, the RCMP, interestingly enough, is delisted as an insured person. Why? It is because the government says that it now can get a better quality of care delivered by the province. What does that say about the federal government's ability to deliver health care when it is the fifth largest deliverer of health care in this country? What does that say about how the government will deliver health care to first nations, Inuit and the armed forces?

We see how the government has been delivering care: cuts to suicide prevention and mental health programs for veterans and the armed forces; and cuts to youth, aboriginal and Inuit suicide programs. Those are things that make us wonder why the federal government is letting the RCMP go off and get care from the provinces when it is, as it calls it, a better standard of care.

We see cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency of $56 million and over 100 inspectors. The UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food will be on a fact finding mission to Canada. We are the first nation to be investigated by the UN special rapporteur. There was a time when the UN would come to Canada to look at best practices, not to investigate us. How have we changed in terms of the way the world the views us?

The UN wants to come here to look into the missing and murdered aboriginal women. Again Canada has become, not a model to the world but a place where everyone has to come and investigate to see what happened to Canada.

We also want to talk about the cuts to public health. There are cuts to Inuit child and the general health, cuts to the aboriginal health human resources, cuts to the diabetes initiative program for aboriginal people, a 35% cut in the federal tobacco control strategy and an overall $16 million cut from public health.

We learned some lessons or I had hoped the members across the way had learned some lessons because there were quite a few of them who were in the Harris Ontario government at the time when cuts to public health and privatization of inspection created Walkerton. People died. Are we going to wait until people die before the government wakes up and realizes that, if there are areas in which it is going to cut, it cannot cut essential programs and services because it will create severe catastrophes and tragedies?

I do not think any one in this House would stand and say that there should not be cuts. Of course, there need to be cuts but we need to be careful how we cut so that we do not harm Canadians.

I also want to say that we have health transfers being unilaterally decided upon by the federal government. This is the first time in the history of this country that has happened.

Leaving the provinces to fend for themselves and breaking up the federation in a way that it has never been broken before is the first step toward dismantling medicare.

The budget fails to create jobs for struggling middle-class Canadians or to deal with the economic disparities among individuals in this country and among regions. The Minister of Finance says that the budget bill is all about jobs and finances. He could have fooled me.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with some interest and I noted that she mentioned cuts to CFIA. In fact, we hired well over, I think, 156 or more inspectors, in addition to the ones who were there in the previous year, about 55 of whom are now being transferred to provincial responsibilities because of rationing and realignment to a more appropriate management style.

However, when the member expresses concerns about health cuts, negotiating with the provinces and territories was the way forward as she expressed it, if I can liberally paraphrase her, I wonder what she has to say about former finance minister Paul Martin of the Liberal Party slashing transfers to the provinces in his budgets, creating a health hole in provincial budgets that took decades to recover from? Was that negotiating with provincial partners and territories?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, whenever past governments, including Conservative governments, talked about transfers, they talked to the provinces and territories and negotiated. It was tough, difficult and raucous at times but it was the only way to make things work in this country.

Nobody is saying that cuts are not necessary. We are just saying that when cuts are made in areas of essential services, it creates a tragedy and a problem.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I was elected by the good people of Vancouver Kingsway in 2008 to come here, I was told by the people who operate this place and have a lot of experience here that our prime function as parliamentarians was to scrutinize and approve spending of government. The second thing I was told was that, as a democratic chamber in Canada, it was our responsibility to scrutinize legislation that comes before this House.

The Conservative government has developed a propensity for bringing in massive omnibus legislation in which it confuses and combines a budget with many other important pieces of legislation in one big bill, which makes proper scrutiny impossible in a democracy.

I have heard the talking points of my friends opposite. The Conservatives say that there is more time devoted to this budget than to any budget in 20 years. What they are not telling Canadians is that in the last 20 years there have not been these kinds of omnibus budgets presented in this House.

Obviously, taking the same amount of time to debate a normal budget and comparing it to the amount of time given to debate a budget that is over 400 pages long and guts parks, veterans services, women's health, environmental reviews and sees the closing of everything from consulates to immigration offices, is not a fair comparison.

Given that my hon. colleague has been in this House a fairly long time, could she tell us what she thinks about the degradation of democracy and the ability of parliamentarians to properly scrutinize the budget bill as presented by the Conservative government?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has asked a very important question. It is something we are seeing here, which is why I chose to spend a little time talking about democracy in this country and the fact that Parliament is not an arm of government. Parliament is in itself one of the core institutions of democracy. Parliament has been disrespected. Parliament has been misled. Parliament has been denied any opportunity at committees to decide what it wants. Many things are in camera. That is the kind of thing that is going on.

There is a strategic reason for this. When one puts too many things in a bill, we will not be able to discuss them all. For instance, the pipeline and tanker issues that will affect my province of British Columbia will be controlled directly by the government with fast-forwarding of environmental assessments. It is a travesty and my province is concerned about this.

The government can then say later on that when members voted against the budget bill, they voted against all sorts of important things. There are some good things in this bill that we might like to talk about but do not have the opportunity to do it. That is the sadness of it all and how democracy has been undermined, and how the best interests of Canadians are not being served by this kind of strategy.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to speak today to what I consider to be one of the most important budget documents, not only our country but for every citizen.

Canadians across the nation contribute so much during their lives. Moms and dads go to their jobs each and every day and yet still find the energy to raise healthy and happy families. We have seniors who have given so much to our communities and still do to this day. We have men and women in the armed forces who make tremendous sacrifices each and every day. In my riding, I have the Trenton Canadian Forces base and we have seen, sadly, the damage that can happen and the enormous sacrifices that are made on behalf of freedom. We all recognize that so many times over the years freedom is not free.

We have farmers who rise early every morning and who many times do not finish working until long after the sun goes down.

We have entrepreneurs, like our friends in the gallery here today, whose hopes, dreams and hard labour are invested in their shops and stores.

Canada is made up of hundreds of thousands of decent, honest people and a multitude of communities doing their best day after day. The one thing I believe they share is the belief that their hard work and dedication should be rewarded with a secure and worry free future.

There is an old African proverb that says, “For tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for today”. I think most people in this House from both sides would agree with that philosophy.

I am confident that Bill C-38 is the bill that addresses Canada's needs not only for today but, more important, for tomorrow and certainly over the long run.

However, we must recognize the reality that the world economy is still fragile, particularly in Europe and in the United States. I can assure members that we are not unaware of the dangers that this fragility poses. However, through measures that we have already taken, we can proudly say that we have helped to protect Canada from the worst of this global recession.

Prudently and proactively, from 2006 to 2008, our government paid down over $37 billion in debt. That brought our debt to its lowest level in a quarter of a century. Just under 700,000 jobs have been created since July 2009 in the workforce, which is the strongest job growth record in the G7. Canada's economy has expanded for nine of the last ten quarters. Our unemployment rate is well below that of the United States and that is the first time that has happened in more than three decades.

The World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world. There are nearly 200 countries in the world but we are ranked number one, which is most enviable. We have maintained that ranking for four consecutive years.

Forbes magazine ranked Canada number one in the world for opportunity and for businesses to locate, grow and create jobs. I think there is no doubt that Canada is in a strong and enviable position going forward.

It is crucial to understand what the budget would not do.

First, we are not raising taxes. I will quote John F. Kennedy from his annual budget message to Congress in 1963 where he said:

Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased — not a reduced — flow of revenues to the federal government.

There is a clear consensus that higher taxes kill jobs and create less income. That is a reckless idea that only the opposition parties blissfully and blindly follow. Our policy of lower taxes has and will continue to make us more competitive and prosperous.

The second “not” is that we are not balancing our government's books by cutting transfers to seniors or other levels of government for health, education and social programs like the previous government. We will not balance our budget on the backs of the provinces and municipalities that would force taxes back onto the regular everyday taxpayers. There is only one taxpayer.

Regrettably, I only have a few minutes, so I will not have the opportunity to fully elaborate on all the things we are doing to strengthen the financial security of workers, businesses and families. However, I will take my remaining time to highlight just a few of the bold and significant steps we have taken in Bill C-38, which lays the foundation that focuses on the things that matter most to Canadians, increasing jobs and, certainly, maintaining economic growth.

How are we doing it? We are encouraging ownership, innovation and world-class research with over $1.1 billion in significant investments for research and development, over $500 million for venture capital, and support for increased public and private research collaborations. There are measures in this budget to improve conditions for business investments by continuing to keep taxes low, measures such as extending the hiring credit for small business for an additional year, and I can tell members that in much of rural Canada this is a most welcome initiative.

We are investing in training and infrastructure and opportunity for Canadians by investing in programs that will help our youth, our Canadians with disabilities, aboriginals and workers over 50 get back into the workforce. We are reforming the EI system to promote the creation of jobs and remove the disincentive to work.

We are helping families and communities by assisting victims of crime, with a clear focus on the victim. We are improving water quality for first nations communities, investing $150 million to support repairs and improvements to existing community facilities and, of course, improving the registered disability savings plan to help ensure the long-term security of children with severe disabilities.

We are looking ahead. We are ensuring that vital social programs and services are there for Canadians by making gradual and responsible adjustments to the old age security. I know a number of my colleagues on the other side bemoan our activities, but they are denying the facts. As an example, the average life expectancy of Canadians is on the rise. Baby boomers are already close to or at retirement. Meanwhile the birth rate has decreased. Clearly there are four working, taxpaying Canadians for every senior on a current basis. In 20 years, that will be down to two.

It has been estimated that the cost of old age security will grow by around $70 billion in just under 20 years, if we take no action. That is why preventive measures are imperative. Our government will work to protect the retirements of current and future seniors by increasing the eligibility age of OAS from 65 to 67.

We are being proactive, as the change will not come into effect until 2023, and even then it will be phased in gradually. Of course, Canadians currently 54 years of age or older as of March 31, 2012, will not be affected at all by this change. This is timely, considered and responsible action that is needed to sustain OAS for future generations of seniors.

We are also bringing pension plans for public sector employees and parliamentarians back into line with those of Canadians who work in the private sector. We are supporting our seniors by continuing to invest in the new horizons for seniors program. This is a program that supports projects led or inspired by the seniors themselves who make a difference in the lives of others and in their communities.

I know in my riding of Prince Edward—Hastings, from one end to the other, seniors have embraced these opportunities to stay engaged, to stay active and of course to stay healthy.

We are looking after our environment by investing, as just one example, $50 million alone for the protection of Canada's species at risk. We are creating more parks and new parks, the most ever in the history of our country. We are supporting the health of our lakes, by providing extended tax relief for clean energy generation equipment and, of course, by following through on our commitment to Cancun.

Economic action plan 2012 also demonstrates our government's strong support for my province of Ontario through record federal transfers, support for health care and education and other critical services. Totalling $19.5 billion in 2012-13, the transfer support represents an increase of nearly $8.4 billion or a 77% increase from the former Liberal government.

Yes, we are investing, but we are also saving. Our government's prudent plan to return to balanced budgets over the medium term is on track. Over the past two years, we have put in place targeted spending restraint measures and have reviewed government administrative and overhead costs. These actions have already delivered over $0.5 billion in new savings, which are ongoing.

This budget is a balanced approach, and it is the pattern that I have commented briefly on today for long-term success, success for seniors as well as future retirees.

It is clear that the government is planning for tomorrow, and we are doing it today.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to put a number of facts to my hon. colleague for his comment.

First, he and other members of the government have said they do not believe it is fair to foist the economic problems of today on the generations of tomorrow. They have also commented that it is not prudent or fair to place those obligations on seniors, yet the government is going to raise the OAS retirement age from 65 to 67 for seniors in the future. My hon. colleague says that is necessary because of the demographics of the country, although the government has refused to increase the number of immigrants coming to the country. Also, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says it is not necessary because old age security is sustainable.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on this particular fact. His government has cut $12 billion in GST and a further $10 billion, at least, in corporate income tax. Why is it cutting over $22 billion of federal revenue, today, to give tax cuts to corporations, today, to be paid for by seniors who turn 65 in the future?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me just correct the hon. member first. He mentions a decline in the rate of immigration. The reality is that he is dead wrong. The largest amount of immigration we have had in the last 10 years in Canada has occurred during the role of this government. We are averaging 250,000 immigrants per year.

We understand how important that is. We are a country of immigrants. We are a country of immigration. There are challenges. The last thing we need to do is bring immigrants into the country who have tremendous qualifications but end up driving cabs. That is why we are changing the rules of the immigration standards and access, so that we can bring in people who are talented, people who have job opportunities. We have 150,000 people wanting jobs, yet we have businesses across the country that cannot get staff. They cannot get people because we have a mismatch in the quality, talent, capacity and capability of our immigrants. Therefore, I beg to differ with the hon. member.

I certainly appreciated my time spent with the member in Asia. I think we understand the realities of the importance of immigration. We were so pleased to arrange for the approved destination status, which has proven to be such a benefit for Canada.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on a couple of themes mentioned by the hon. member.

In his speech, he trumpeted how good the budget is for Ontario. I am from Prince Edward Island, and we are not feeling the love. The public service has been gutted. The head office of the Department of Veterans Affairs has been gutted, the district office of Veterans Affairs has been closed, the Canada employment and immigration processing centre has been closed and the Citizenship and Immigration Canada office has been closed.

I heard my colleague say that the budget will not pay off the deficit on the backs of the provinces and municipalities. Well, the increase in the OAS eligibility age does exactly that. It transfers the cost of supporting our poor senior citizens to the other levels of government.

He talks about not bringing down the debt on the backs of municipalities. We have a crumbling infrastructure. We now have infrastructure projects, including a well field in Prince Edward Island and a sewer separation project, which is only being funded by two levels of government while we wait for the feds.

My question to the hon. member is whether there is a place in this budget—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings, and there is less than a minute left.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, there certainly is much room and many initiatives in the budget that will be helpful. The member mentioned infrastructure. I might just draw his attention to the fact that the federal government just completed the most successful long-range, all encompassing, intensive infrastructure program in the history of the country, and we partnered with the provinces and the municipalities. We created hundreds of thousands of jobs. We kept our unemployment level at certainly not an acceptable level by our standard, but in comparison to our competitors and other nations around the world, we stood out as number one.

To suggest that the government puts one province ahead of the other is not—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I am afraid the hon. member's time has elapsed.

Before resuming debate, 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 Davenport, Public Transit; the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, Employment; the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, Government Communications.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke. I consider myself to be very lucky to be able to speak to the Conservative budget, because the Conservatives have once again allotted very little time for Parliament to discuss it. The government is showing unbelievable contempt for our institution and our democracy by limiting the right of Canadians' representatives to speak on such an important and imposing bill.

People everywhere are speaking out against this undemocratic practice. The Conservatives' argument to justify the countless time allocation motions to limit debate was that these matters had been discussed in previous Parliaments. That argument no longer holds water because we are talking about budget 2012 and a great number of measures that have never been discussed before, not even during the election campaign. There is no good reason to study this bill in record time, as we are doing today.

Bill C-38 is a massive omnibus bill that goes far beyond the scope of the budget. Tabling a bill with such a huge scope and such a tight deadline undermines the nature of Parliament. In fact, this massive bill of 421 pages does not contain only the measures set out in the budget, but also a number of changes that were not previously announced. At least a third of Bill C-38 aims at weakening environmental rules and protections. It is incredible and incomprehensible. It is enough to make us wonder whether they are so ashamed of the measures and the decisions they are making that they have to hide them in such a huge bill.

Canadians are not that gullible and, luckily, there is one party that is standing up for them every day in the House of Commons. I am happy to be able to speak on behalf of the citizens of Sherbrooke, and to defend their interests here, in the House of Commons, and to condemn this government that does not respect democracy.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Hear, hear!

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I would like to thank the member for Drummond for his applause.

The New Democrats believe that Parliament and government should be open and respectful. We believe it is shameful to try to be introduce measures by stealth in Parliament, particularly measures that will make the government even less transparent. The 2012 budget contains reckless cuts in services on which Canadians depend, including the old-age security program, culture, transfers to the provinces, infrastructure programs and environmental assessments.

The Conservatives say that their budget focuses on job creation. However, they even admit themselves that this budget will lead to 19,200 job losses in the public service. I do not know if this is their job creation plan, but clearly, it is not working. It is important to note here that the job losses in the public sector will inevitably lead to losses in the private sector; they are interrelated.

Consequently, we are strongly opposed to Bill C-38 because of its content, and also because of the very improper procedure being used. The NDP team will oppose the 2012 budget and its implementation act, unless the act is amended to focus on the priorities of Canadians, that is, creating high-quality jobs, protecting our environment, strengthening our health care system and improving retirement security for everyone.

Let us look at environmental assessment. Bill C-38 repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and replaces it with a new environmental assessment system designed to expedite the approval of major projects, including pipelines, and to gut the environmental protection rules. Bill C-38 increases the minister's discretionary power with regard to major pipeline projects. It gives cabinet the power to make decisions about major pipeline projects and allows the National Energy Board to authorize the construction of pipelines and power lines that cross navigable waters. In addition, it gives cabinet the power to veto a NEB decision and to approve a project previously turned down by the board. As I mentioned earlier, at least one-third of this bill is devoted strictly to environmental deregulation.

Bill C-38 also delegates the environmental assessment process to other authorities, including the provinces. With this bill, the government is once again offloading federal expenses onto other levels of government. It is not the first time we have seen this.

Bill C-38 repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which means that Canada will no longer be required to report its greenhouse gas emission levels. In this regard, just about everyone in Sherbrooke agrees: the Conservative government's decision is wrong-headed.

As for old age security, Bill C-38 amends the Old Age Security Act in order to implement the changes announced in the budget.

Although we support the measures to make registration for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement automatic and we support the voluntary deferral of benefits, we strongly oppose gradually increasing the age of eligibility from 65 to 67.

Several experts, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the federal government's chief actuary, have confirmed that the old age security program is sustainable. And yet the Conservatives want to balance their budget on the backs of our seniors. The Conservatives have run up the largest deficit ever recorded in our history. And then they want to tell our seniors that they are the one who will have to pay for it.

When did we hear about this measure in the election campaign? Never. They never mentioned the measure in the election campaign and now they are throwing it in our faces, taking us completely by surprise.

As for transparency and accountability, the most important aspect is how they are reducing the Auditor General's oversight powers. Bill C-38 eliminates mandatory financial audits by the Auditor General for 12 agencies—yes, I said 12 agencies.

Bill C-38 dissolves the Public Appointments Commission. The elimination of this commission will significantly reduce the transparency of the government and the public appointment process, and will open the door to more political interference.

As far as culture is concerned, hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts will be made in phases to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ending in 2014-2015. Telefilm and the National Film Board will also be affected.

In my riding, Radio-Canada Estrie contributes to our community by providing us with information in a diligent, professional and consistent manner. These draconian cuts make it hard for the people of Sherbrooke to be on top of local current events and to add their voices to the national and regional discourse. In Sherbrooke, we are proud to have a Radio-Canada bureau that delivers the region's news to us night after night. I will oppose any measure that might jeopardize its ability to do its work properly.

This budget is penalizing the general public. The Prime Minister can find money to build new prisons, buy fighter jets and provide gifts to corporations, but who will have to pay for all this and work an extra two years to subsidize these ideological expenses? The middle class and seniors, that is who. In light of this complete lack of leadership, I am very worried about the government's cuts that, once again, will hurt the public the most.

When it comes to communities, the budget has forgotten all about cities. It contains nothing for public transit, nothing for housing and nothing for immigrant settlement services. We have been advocating for a long time for more investments in municipal infrastructure in order to facilitate access to the region and to build the new Champlain Bridge. In fact, the budget cuts $500,000 from amounts to be allocated to Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated in 2013-14. It is obvious that the Conservatives do not care about the interests of our communities.

The government will have to address an important matter in my region. I am referring to the Sherbrooke airport. The announced reduction in infrastructure spending is not very encouraging. However, I will continue to defend this project and I hope that the government will be listening.

In stark contrast to the Conservatives, the NDP is determined to address the real priorities of Canadian families: jobs, health care, pensions and environmental protection.

We will be voting against the bill, because of its content and the way in which it has been presented.

I will close by stating that the people of Sherbrooke strongly oppose this bill. One month ago, I held a public consultation and asked my constituents what they thought of the budget. The main reaction was the fairly quick rejection of this budget, and I am here to make that point on their behalf. I hope that the government will not turn a deaf ear.

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

Madam Speaker, I have not heard such anti-corporate rhetoric from anybody since the 1960s, but the NDP lives in the past when it talks about these corporations.

I have a specific question for my hon. friend. Given that many union members have their pension funds stuffed with investments from major Canadian energy and banking corporations, the kind of corporations that my hon. friend and his party detest, will he recommend to the union bosses that all union pension funds divest themselves of investments in Canadian corporations?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are not against corporations—quite the opposite—but we are against excessively large tax credits and cuts. Now that the Conservatives have given so much money to companies that export jobs, they are turning around and telling seniors that they will have to wait two more years before they can retire.

It is kind of unbelievable for them to give everything to corporations and not ask for any accountability or even job creation in return. In fact, there have been job losses. Most of the time, corporations that have benefited from Conservative tax credits over the past six years and Liberal credits before that relocate jobs to other countries.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives talk about tax cuts and the future in the same breath. However, cutting Environment Canada's budget, eviscerating environmental legislation, suppressing dissenting opinions and muzzling government scientists increases the risk of major environmental harm, which would be a high price for future generations to pay, would it not?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

Because I am a young member, when I study a bill that is so impressive and so important in relation to the future and the environment, among other things, it moves me greatly. When you are young and you make decisions, you think a lot about the future and about the consequences that those decisions will have in 20, 30 or even 50 years.

When reading this bill, I got the impression that it does not point to a very positive future. The government appears to be putting the environment at the bottom of its list of priorities, especially since it has backed out of the Kyoto protocol. I have many concerns about the future and about what will happen to our planet if we continue to be governed by a government that has such a backwards ideology in terms of the environment.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke for his very passionate words.

He is a young person who is coping with real challenges that will lead to climate change. We need to hear about these things in this debate. Climate change is a fundamental issue, and there is nothing in the budget or in the budget implementation act about it or about the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. I would therefore like to thank this young member, who has a worthy vision of the country and of the planet.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her comments

It is indeed a very important issue for my generation. In the years to come, we will see more and more climate change. We are seeing it already today. It is a major issue for our generation and for everyone, in fact. We must take it seriously.

Not all the members on the government side are young people, but that is no reason to ignore this issue, to not think about their grandchildren. We must think about future generations. It is the best way to draft a bill. When the bill being drafted is the budget, thought must be given to its future consequences. If that is not taken into consideration, the bill will miss the mark completely.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today about our government's priorities: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. It is very appropriate after the recent comments of the leader of the NDP, who seems to want to pit one region of Canada against another, one industrial sector over another.

Over the weekend, the NDP leader chose to attack the natural resources sector and laid blame upon it for the effects of the global economic crisis on our manufacturing sector. Although his comments were ostensibly related to the oil sands, I would assume he was talking about all of Canada's natural resources sectors. I happen to represent a natural resources constituency. In Manitoba, forestry and agriculture are major industries and I take his comments as a direct attack on my constituents and communities.

This is in very sharp contrast to our government, which is focused on long-term prosperity. This has made Canada the envy of the world and the G8.

We are well-positioned to balance our budget in the medium term and become more competitive as we invest in infrastructure, science, innovation and tax reduction, while reducing barriers to trade. We have undertaken the most ambitious trade expansion plan in Canadian history and will continue with that. This is a government that has continuously lowered taxes. Since forming government, we have cut taxes 140 times for families, businesses and individuals.

Budget 2012 spends taxpayer dollars responsibly. I would like to quote Craig Alexander, chief economist of TD Economics, who said:

When combined, the various measures included in...budget [2012] are aimed at improving productivity and boosting private sector growth...In addition to being fiscally prudent in the medium-term, the government is taking action to pursue fiscally sound policies for the long run.

In terms of creating and protecting jobs, we will extend by one year the hiring tax credit for small business, a measure we know works to encourage businesses to hire more employees. In western world Manitoba where I am from, there are many small businesses and manufacturers that export to the United States and around the world. I hope the NDP does not disregard the importance of these small business job creators, while their leader attacks the natural resources industry. What he and his party have to realize is that the natural resources industry supports many manufacturers that provide vital products for resource industries.

We are going to invest in upgrades to infrastructure such as maintaining safe rail service, renewing the Coast Guard fleet and improving facilities at our borders. We are increasing funding for skills training for students, older workers and Canadians with disabilities. Our government will also reform Canada's immigration system. It needs to be more efficient and better at meeting our country's labour market needs so the businesses that need workers can find them and new Canadians can succeed when they come to Canada.

I would like to take a minute to talk about our responsible natural resource development policies, which I very strongly support. Canada's natural resources sectors employed more than 760,000 across the country, many in my constituency. In fact, the mining and energy sectors alone represent 10% of the Canadian economy and 40% of exports, sectors that the leader of the NDP wants to see damaged and reduced. In the next 10 years, more than 500 new projects, representing over $500 billion in new investments, 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 for major environmental projects. Our efforts have made a difference without any negative impact on the environment. It is very important to make a distinction between the environmental process and environmental outcomes. They are two very different things.

Currently, companies undertaking major projects must navigate a complex maze of regulatory requirements and processes, many of which have little to do with the environment, and approval processes are long and unpredictable. That is why our government is acting, in Canada's economic action plan 2012, with our plan for responsible resource development. The responsible resource development policy will streamline the review process for major economic projects and prevent long delays that kill potential jobs and add nothing to environmental improvement, I might add, and stall economic growth by putting valuable investment at risk.

As a young biologist back in the 1970s, I had the pleasure of working on the first environmental assessment in the Mackenzie Valley. A very thorough environmental assessment of the Mackenzie Valley environmental resources was done prior to the potential development of that particular pipeline.

The pipeline did not happen. A similar review was undertaken again in the 1990s, doing exactly the same thing we did in the 1970s. Again, the pipeline did not happen. Had that pipeline been built in the late 1970s or early 1980s, gas would have been flowing from the Mackenzie Valley and thousands of much-needed jobs in impoverished rural communities would have been created. That is the problem with the environmental process. With the low prices for natural gas these days, one wonders whether that Mackenzie Valley pipeline will ever be built. More importantly, responsible resource development would create good, skilled, well-paying jobs in cities and communities across the country, especially in rural communities, the kind that I represent.

Going back to the Leader of the Opposition's comments over the weekend, when he said he wanted to internalize costs for the oil sands, it is that old thing, full-cost accounting, which has never been done. He also talked, in March, about a comprehensive cap and trade program. Interestingly, I wonder if he wants to internalize the costs for all natural resource industries across the country. Does this apply to forestry development? Does he want to see it for hydro development? Does it apply to hydro development in Quebec, for example? One does not know, but these are questions that need to be asked of the leader of the NDP.

Protecting our fisheries is very important. Our fish and fish-habitat protection rules would do just that. These changes would solidify our government's commitment to protect recreational, commercial and aboriginal fisheries and the habitat that supports them. We would adopt 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 fish stocks. Section 35 of the Fisheries Act, a definition of fish habitat, is extremely broad and almost all of Canada then becomes fish habitat. Then what do we do? We have a prime example right next door to us on Parliament Hill. There has been massive change in habitat in the Ottawa Valley with the city of Ottawa itself and the Rideau Canal, yet the Ottawa River is thriving. The fish community and the fish populations are very abundant. That is because of the inherent productivity of the ecosystem here in spite of all the changes that have occurred. Obviously those changes were within the bounds of ecosystem function. We have a thriving fish population in the Ottawa River and thriving human communities right beside it.

We have heard Canadians tell us about farmers being prevented from cleaning out their irrigation channels, and municipalities being delayed in repairing bridge supports, doing routine maintenance of drains and so on. That is because the existing rules lack common sense. The changes we are proposing would focus protection on recreational, commercial and aboriginal fisheries, the important ones, drawing a distinction between vital waterways that support Canada's fisheries and productive bodies of water like drainage ditches and irrigation canals. We would identify and manage real threats to fisheries. The minister would have new tools to establish new and clear accessible guidelines for Canadians to follow for projects in or near water. We would identify ecologically sensitive areas that require enhanced protection. Currently, all areas are treated indiscriminately under the law. As a fisheries biologist, I can tell members that we would be able to implement these new regulations and improve, enhance and conserve fish populations.

The changes would also allow the government to enforce the conditions associated with Fisheries Act authorizations. At present, DFO cannot enforce the conditions on authorizations. We would align infractions under the Fisheries Act with the Environmental Enforcement Act which provides higher maximum penalties.

In terms of protecting Canada's environment, our bottom line is that Canadian families deserve the cleanest air, water and environment possible, again delivering on environmental results. It is the physics, chemistry and biology of the environment that are important here, not process. When one looks at what we have done for the environment, delivering results and spending billions of dollars on environmental improvement, it shows that we work. The NDP demands an environmental process that only makes lawyers rich. We Conservatives demand results and we deliver.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by the hon. member, who sits with me on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. His speech was a great disappointment to me, especially since he spoke about the Fisheries Act, which is going to be amended. We know that the amendment of this bill is an aberration and that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will not even be able to study it.

This bill attacks fish habitat in such a ways that only fish that are valuable to humans will be protected. Nevertheless, all fish feed and live in an ecosystem. If we do not protect the fish that they eat or the ecosystem in which they live, how will we be able to protect any fish over the long term?

The change to this legislation is a total aberration. We are going back years—50 years even—in terms of environmental protection. And this is only one of many examples.

Abandoning the Kyoto protocol and doing nothing to fight against climate change is also an incredible aberration. We must not exceed more than 2% in global warming over the next few years.

I wonder what there is in this bill to protect the environment and fight against climate change.