Stephen Woodworth

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, December 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, which includes measures to deliver job creation and economic growth.

Everyone in this chamber should realize that Canada's economic health is vital for all Canadians. We have to ensure both immediate and long-term economic growth. In introducing this bill, the government is taking a pragmatic approach to strengthening Canada's economy in the middle of global economic peril.

Opposition members have opposed the jobs and growth bill with procedural arguments, suggesting for example that there has been insufficient debate on the legislation. In reality, this bill has been debated in the House and in committee for many hours. The government invited 11 different committees to study and provide feedback to the House on the bill. The government is committed to timely and open debate on legislation.

The measures in the jobs and growth bill are reasonable in light of the economic challenges that Canada faces as a result of the global economy. I suppose that the procedural arguments proposed by the opposition are necessary only because they cannot find much of anything else to oppose in the very reasonable content of this bill.

Rather than considering the opposition's exaggerations, let us consider some facts. The fact is that in these unsteady economic times, Canada has proven to be a global economic leader. We have consistently been ranked very highly by international standards. Since July 2009 alone, over 820,000 net new jobs have been created in Canada. This is the highest level of job creation in the whole G7.

The World Economic Forum has rated our banking system the world's best. The IMF and the OECD have both projected that Canadian economic growth will be among the strongest in the G7. Canada also has the lowest debt to gross domestic product ratio in the G7. The major credit-rating agencies have affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating.

Such international acclaim is clear demonstration that the government is on the right track for economic success. It is clear that global economic uncertainty continues. Collectively, we in the House are responsible for ensuring that Canada stays on track to ensure economic success for future generations. We must support economic growth and job creation.

This bill prioritizes these two goals with targeted measures to ensure a strong economic outcome for Canada. For example, the hiring credit for small businesses is a targeted measure that will have a huge impact on job creation. In extending the hiring credit for small businesses, this bill aids Canadian small businesses, which drive the Canadian economy and are vital to stability.

A hiring credit for small businesses stimulates job growth because it alleviates the cost of hiring new employees. This creates greater economic opportunities. Last year alone, 534,000 employers took advantage of the up to $1,000 payroll credit, including many small businesses in my riding of Kitchener Centre. The hiring credit for small businesses works for Canadian business and it works for all Canadians. I am proud that our government introduced it and is now moving to extend it.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses across our country, including Kitchener, has praised the hiring credit for small businesses. The CFIB has told us that the credit “makes it easier for them to continue to support Canada's economic recovery by creating jobs”.

This tax credit is a significant incentive for small to medium-size businesses to create new jobs, and its extension will be equally successful. All members of the House should be lining up to support a budget that contains such a measure.

Another example in the jobs and growth bill is the active steps taken to ensure that pension plans for federal public sector employees are fiscally responsible.

The solution to economic instability will not be found in raising taxes. Higher taxes would hinder the Canadian economy and kill jobs. This is not the avenue to pursue. Unfortunately, opposition members who oppose this bill repeatedly propose tax increases rather than job creation and economic growth. Economic prosperity for years to come will only occur through a low tax approach.

This bill not only takes the current economic climate into consideration but it is also forward-thinking. It would provide opportunities for Canadians to invest in the future. For example, in 2007, the government introduced the registered disability savings plan to help Canadians with disabilities and their families save money for long-term financial security. After much consultation, the jobs and growth act would improve upon the existing registered disability savings plan. The changes would allow more Canadians with disabilities to take advantage of the RDSP by allowing qualifying members to open an account for those who do not have a legal representative. There would be another change. As it stands, regardless of the amount withdrawn, a beneficiary is penalized for making a withdrawal from an RDSP account. Canada disability savings grants or Canada disability savings bonds received in the preceding 10 years are simply clawed back. This is unfair. This bill would provide for proportional repayment based on the amount withdrawn, a very sensible solution and one that every member in the House should support.

The bill would ensure the efficient implementation of the policies and measures introduced in the economic action plan passed in the House to support the economic future of all Canadians. Much of the content found in this bill would simply bring technical clarification to existing measures that have already passed in the House. For instance, this bill would deliver the necessary tax framework for pooled registered pension plans, which create an opportunity for all Canadians to participate in a structured pension plan for the first time ever. This is another way that the jobs and growth act would effectively support families and communities to provide for their long-term economic future.

Responsible resource development measures are yet another way in which the bill responds to our very real economic peril. Responsible resource development maximizes the potential of our resource sector, thus creating high-value jobs while enhancing environmental protection. Tighter, more effective regulation of development necessary to a growing population is essential for a growing economy. Environmental regulation should provide a clear framework to ensure measurable environmental outcomes, not requirements that have the effect of obstructing development without improving environmental outcomes. That is one of the goals of this bill.

It has been observed that a wise man will make more opportunities than he finds. During these times of economic uncertainty, it is important to be aggressive in creating initiatives to strengthen the economy. In this jobs and growth act, the government is being proactive about creating economic opportunities. The act's promotion of interprovincial trade, improvements of the legislative framework governing Canada's financial institutions, facilitating cross-border travel, the removal of red tape and the reduction of fees for Canadian grain farmers are just a few more examples of proactive measures that have the potential to really stimulate economic growth.

I very confidently support the jobs and growth act which would deliver job creation and economic growth. The targeted measures included in this act would ensure long-term economic strength to the benefit of my constituents in Kitchener Centre and all Canadians.

I call on all members of the House to join together in supporting these measures, join in leading Canadians safely through the stormy seas of global economic uncertainty that surrounds us.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, December 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the member's comments regarding the Navigable Waters Protection Act and I want to cite one or two examples for him about the kind of problems that can arise.

For example, a fishway was proposed for Spencer Creek in Hamilton, a small waterway that goes through a residential area in Hamilton, and the application under the Navigable Waters Protection Act took over a year to approve due to a backlog of applications. That is just for a fishway in a residential neighbourhood.

Another example was an aerial cable built by the Renfrew Hydro Electric Commission, which required approval because it crossed over the Bonnechere River near Renfrew. That took over six months to approve.

I was very intrigued by the member's comments that somehow there is a constitutional right to such delays. I wonder if I understood him correctly. Does he think these are the kinds of things that we should be regulating in Canada?

[Petitions, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from 25 people from Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Alberta, 16 of whom are women. I have a second petition to exactly the same effect from 173 people from British Columbia, 80 of whom are women.

The petitions are with respect to the fact that Canada's 400-year-old definition of a human being states that a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth, contrary to 21st century medical evidence, and that Parliament should reject any law that states that some human beings are not human.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending section 223 of the Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.

I have another petition that is a little different. It points out that subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code remains identical to section 195(1) of the Statutes of Canada, 1953-54, and refers to the science of embryology, ultrasound, intrauterine photography, microsurgery, fetal health interventions, all confirming that a child is distinct before birth.

The petitioners ask Parliament to strike down subsections 223(1) and 223(2) and replace them with definitions that currently reflect embryological knowledge.

[Petitions, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present two petitions from my constituents of Kitchener Centre, totalling about 150 signatures, of which half are by women concerned about Canada's 400-year-old definition of a human being. They are calling upon Parliament to amend subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code in order to recognize 21st century medicine.

I have another two petitions to the same effect from my neighbouring riding of Kitchener—Waterloo, with about 100 signatures, of which half are from women; and another with 171 signatures from the Perth-Wellington riding to the same effect; and another with 500 signatures from the Victoria area. All of these petitioners believe that Canada should recognize 21st century medical evidence in relation to subsection 223(1).

[Petitions, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions.

The first petition has 38 signatures from Montreal, Vancouver and the London-Waterloo region asking the Government of Canada to, among other things, continue to staff and fund the Experimental Lakes Area at current or higher levels of commitment. The second petition is by another 36 people from the Kitchener area to the same effect.

[Burma, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have constituents worried over the fate of loved ones facing persecution in Burma.

Rohingya are a minority group in Burma who are without citizenship rights. They are prohibited from building of worship and from working in the public service. They require a permit to travel and they must declare their religion on I.D. cards.

This summer, violence again broke out in Burma and many Rohingya were targeted. There are real concerns that Burmese security did not do an adequate job of protecting all residents and may even have contributed to the violence.

The Canadian government advocates for the protection of human rights in Burma and around the world. We condemn the violence in Burma's Rakhine State, which has led to the displacement of up to 90,000 residents.

We call on all sides to work toward a peaceful resolution. We urge the Burmese government to ensure the safety of all civilians.

The House must stand with the Rohingya in their quest for protection and justice.

[Canada Elections Act, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the interesting question that the member for Toronto—Danforth just raised. It seems to me that under the existing act the Chief Electoral Officer is an entirely neutral party and does not intervene in respect of any particular player in the political process. If we allow the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to intervene, there would be obvious implications for neutrality in terms of the court case and the political process.

Right now it is the political actors who look after contestations and the Chief Electoral Officer is like a referee or an umpire. I am challenging what the member who spoke just said about that change not influencing the scheme of the act.

[Petitions, September 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a great number of petitions from Canadians across the country who want Parliament to recognize that every human being has an inherent worth and dignity.

In particular, I have another 1,300 signatures to add to the 1,200 or so I filed yesterday, from people in the area of Scarborough—Rouge River, 100 from the area of Willowdale, 625 from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and another 700 from everywhere across Canada in 10 petitions. They just keep flooding in.

[Petitions, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support a number of petitions referring to Canada's 400-year-old definition of human being and asking Parliament to bring that into the 21st century. The petitioners are asking Parliament to stand up for the principle that every human being is created equal and every human being has an inherent worth and dignity.

In particular, I have a petition with almost 300 signatures from the riding of Mississauga—Erindale. I have a petition with almost 400 signatures from Calgary, Saskatoon, Vancouver Island, London and Bruce Grey. I have petitions from the riding of Scarborough—Rouge River, which together accomplish almost 1,200 signatures, many of whom are women. I have a petition from the riding of Markham—Unionville, which together have almost 1,300 signatures. I have a petition to the same effect from the riding of Oak Ridges—Markham with 300 signatures. I also have a petition from the riding of Scarborough—Agincourt with almost 300 signatures.

I have received petitions from all across the country with thousands of signatures but I will stop there for today.

[Petitions, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have with me a number of petitions today from my riding of Kitchener Centre. Almost 150 more people are asking the House of Commons to reject any law that says some human beings are not human and thereby to endorse the principle that every human being in Canada has equal worth and dignity.

To similar effect, I have petitions from the riding of Macleod, Alberta, with 50 signatures; from Whitby—Oshawa, with dozens of signatures; from Kitchener—Waterloo, with another 50 signatures; from Durham, with 78 signatures. Of these signatures, half seem to be from men and half from women.

I have a petition from a riding in Scarborough to the same effect and a petition from the riding of London North Centre with over 100 signatures.

I could go on, but I will stop at that point.