Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. I take it in the good spirit that the member intended it of course. It is very collegial in the House and Canadians who are watching at home should understand that is how we do business in the House.
I would just like to finish my thought on the economy. If we exclude the quantitative easing measures, the recent second stimulus of the U.S., its growth failed to meet expectations in the last quarter. We are watching that economic development and responding to it. We understand there is more work to do and that is why we are doing it.
Bill C-45 continues our low tax trajectory. The extension of the EI hiring credit, for example, is a measure specifically against taxes incurred by small businesses. We continue on that low tax trajectory for creating jobs and growth.
Contrast that with the opposition. Those members like a high tax trajectory. Their plan is full of it. The member for Nickel Belt, on October 25, lamented that the government was not collecting enough taxes from Canadians. They support a much different approach, but it is one that would kill jobs, not expand economic growth. We cannot increase the cost of doing business as significantly as those members have proposed and expect that businesses will somehow create jobs.
We support many measures in Bill C-45 and I wish opposition members could bring themselves to stand on their feet and support them.
One measure is our attempt to extend the EI hiring credit for small business another year. It benefited over half a million businesses last year and stands the prospect of doing similarly in this current context as well.
I would think the NDP would oppose our shift from oil and gas tax preferences to bio-energy, but that does not seem to be the case.
There are two major issues I want to talk about with respect to Bill C-45, which I wish the NDP would support.
The first issue is the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities since 2007. We looked at this issue extensively for many months back in 2008. We are seeking to clarify the intent of the bill first of all. It is about protecting navigation. It was that way in 1882 when the bill was brought in and it was, quite frankly, that way up until the mid-1990s. It is a series of court interventions that have broadened the definition of a navigable water to the point where it is no longer useful. If a canoe or a kayak can be floated in four inches of water for a small distance that is considered a navigable water even if one has to portage that canoe or kayak five times over the course of a kilometre. They consider that a navigable water. Most of us in terms of applying common sense would know that is actually not the case.
We are looking to clarify that act, and that is important for a number of reasons. One is the infrastructure projects that roll out across the country, building critical infrastructure. We need to have a regulatory environment that focuses on allowing those projects to move forward. We are applying scrutiny where we need to apply scrutiny, which is where navigation has a serious likelihood of impairment. Our approach does that.
We had to consider two options. One is do we narrow the definition of a navigable water or do we take an exemption approach or a list approach as to which waterways we look at and which ones a navigation permit will not apply.
Witness after witness for weeks could not come up with the definition of a navigable water. It is incredibly complex and the nature of waterways across the country are exceedingly complex. That makes it difficult to come up with a workable definition of what a navigable water is. We had the municipalities come before committee. Representatives of seven provinces and two territories were at committee. They agreed with the approach that we are taking, which is to look at which waters we apply this to and which ones we do not.
Where are navigational interests to be protected and navigational rights to have that additional scrutiny, and where will they not? When we debated it back then, we had three parties supporting that approach. Sadly, that is not the case as we debate this measure today.
I gave the example earlier when asking the member for Prince George—Peace River about a forestry company going into an area where navigability is not an issue. If one were to take a kayak somewhere, according to the way the courts have defined navigable water, it would take one, in some cases, hundreds of kilometres to get to that particular area, if one even dared to go there. These are areas where logging companies go in and cut on a regular basis. However, for every temporary bridge across a creek, even if it were an intermittent creek, there would have to be a separate application to get a navigable waters permit. If there are 200 temporary bridges, it would take 200 applications. If an inspector from Transport Canada has to go there and do a site inspection, we can imagine how unwieldy and difficult it would be for one to develop a plan when navigability is not even a remote issue at all. We are moving to a risk-based approach and one that makes a tremendous amount of sense.
The second item I want to talk to is the bridge to strengthen trade, DRIC. The new Detroit River international crossing is this government's single most important infrastructure priority. We have not only said so here but have consistently proven it in this place, whether via the establishment of the borders and gateways fund in 2006, or the International Bridges and Tunnels Act in 2006, or the budgetary measures to support the parkway and the DRIC in 2007 and beyond. This act would insulate the DRIC from frivolous lawsuits. We already have 10, including three NAFTA challenges, aimed not at ensuring that the project is compliant with Canadian laws but to slow it down and kill it. The opposition stands for that delay and it should not. Its members should get behind this and Bill C-45 so that we can get jobs going.
Some 10,000 construction jobs and thousands more will be created from the necessary long-term business investment that will come because we have predictability at that corridor. Our trucks can move our goods across the border. Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are waiting for this to go ahead. Opposition members stand for delay. Shame on that party. The members should instead stand up for it.
