Bill C-38 (Historical)

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures

Part 1 of this enactment implements certain income tax measures and related measures proposed in the March 29, 2012 budget. Most notably, it
(a) expands the list of eligible expenses under the Medical Expense Tax Credit to include blood coagulation monitors and their disposable peripherals;
(b) introduces a temporary measure to allow certain family members to open a Registered Disability Savings Plan for an adult individual who might not be able to enter into a contract;
(c) extends, for one year, the temporary Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for flow-through share investors;
(d) allows corporations to make split and late eligible dividend designations;
(e) makes the salary of the Governor General taxable and adjusts that salary;
(f) allows a designated partner of a partnership to provide a waiver on behalf of all partners to extend the time limit for issuing a determination in respect of the partnership;
(g) amends the penalty applicable to promoters of charitable donation tax shelters who file false registration information or who fail to register a tax shelter prior to selling interests in the tax shelter;
(h) introduces a new penalty applicable to tax shelter promoters who fail to respond to a demand to file an information return or who file an information return that contains false or misleading sales information;
(i) limits the period for which a tax shelter identification number is valid to one calendar year;
(j) modifies the rules for registering certain foreign charitable organizations as qualified donees;
(k) amends the rules for determining the extent to which a charity has engaged in political activities; and
(l) provides the Minister of National Revenue with the authority to suspend the privileges, with respect to issuing tax receipts, of a registered charity or a registered Canadian amateur athletic association if the charity or association fails to report information that is required to be filed annually in an information return or devotes resources to political activities in excess of the limits set out in the Income Tax Act.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures and related measures. Most notably, it
(a) amends the Income Tax Act consequential on the implementation of the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, including the extension of the tax deferral allowed to farmers in a designated area who produce listed grains and receive deferred cash purchase tickets to all Canadian farmers who produce listed grains and receive deferred cash purchase tickets;
(b) provides authority for the Canada Revenue Agency to issue via online notice or regular mail demands to file a return; and
(c) introduces a requirement for commercial tax preparers to file income tax returns electronically.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act to implement certain excise tax and goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 29, 2012 Budget. It expands the list of GST/HST zero-rated medical and assistive devices as well as the list of GST/HST zero-rated non-prescription drugs that are used to treat life-threatening diseases. It also exempts certain pharmacists’ professional services from the GST/HST, other than prescription drug dispensing services that are already zero-rated. It further allows certain literacy organizations to claim a rebate of the GST and the federal component of the HST paid on the acquisition of books to be given away for free by those organizations. It also implements legislative requirements relating to the Government of British Columbia’s decision to exit the harmonized sales tax framework. Additional amendments to that Act and related regulations in respect of foreign-based rental vehicles temporarily imported by Canadian residents provide, in certain circumstances, relief from the GST/HST, the Green Levy on fuel-inefficient vehicles and the automobile air conditioner tax. This Part further amends that Act to ensure that changes to the standardized fuel consumption test method used for the EnerGuide, as announced on February 17, 2012 by the Minister of Natural Resources, do not affect the application of the Green Levy.
Finally, Part 2 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Tax Act to provide authority for the Canada Revenue Agency to issue via online notice or regular mail demands to file a return.
Part 3 contains certain measures related to responsible resource development.
Division 1 of Part 3 enacts the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, which establishes a new federal environmental assessment regime. Assessments are conducted in relation to projects, designated by regulations or by the Minister of the Environment, to determine whether they are likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that fall within the legislative authority of Parliament, or that are directly linked or necessarily incidental to a federal authority’s exercise of a power or performance of a duty or function that is required for the carrying out of the project.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the National Energy Board or a review panel established by the Minister are to conduct assessments within applicable time limits. At the end of an assessment, a decision statement is to be issued to the project proponent who is required to comply with the conditions set out in it.
The enactment provides for cooperation between the federal government and other jurisdictions by enabling the delegation of an environmental assessment, the substitution of the process of another jurisdiction for an environmental assessment under the Act and the exclusion of a project from the application of the Act when there is an equivalent assessment by another jurisdiction. The enactment requires that there be opportunities for public participation during an environmental assessment, that participant funding programs and a public registry be established, and that there be follow-up programs in relation to all environmental assessments. It also provides for powers of inspection and fines.
Finally, the enactment specifies that federal authorities are not to take certain measures regarding the carrying out of projects on federal lands or outside Canada unless they determine that those projects are not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
This Division also makes related amendments to the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and consequential amendments to other Acts, and repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the National Energy Board Act to allow the Governor in Council to make the decision about the issuance of certificates for major pipelines. It amends the Act to establish time limits for regulatory reviews under the Act and to enhance the powers of the National Energy Board Chairperson and the Minister responsible for the Act to ensure that those reviews are conducted in a timely manner. It also amends the Act to permit the National Energy Board to exercise federal jurisdiction over navigation in respect of pipelines and power lines that cross navigable waters and it establishes an administrative monetary penalty system.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act to authorize the National Energy Board to exercise federal jurisdiction over navigation in respect of pipelines and power lines that cross navigable waters.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to extend the maximum allowable term of temporary members of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission from six months to three years. It is also amended to allow for a licence to be transferred with the consent of that Commission and it puts in place an administrative monetary penalty system.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Fisheries Act to focus that Act on the protection of fish that support commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fisheries and to more effectively manage those activities that pose the greatest threats to these fisheries. The amendments provide additional clarity for the authorization of serious harm to fish and of deposits of deleterious substances. The amendments allow the Minister to enter into agreements with provinces and with other bodies, provide for the control and management of aquatic invasive species, clarify and expand the powers of inspectors, and permit the Governor in Council to designate another Minister as the Minister responsible for the administration and enforcement of subsections 36(3) to (6) of the Fisheries Act for the purposes of, and in relation to, subject matters set out by order.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to provide the Minister of the Environment with the authority to renew disposal at sea permits in prescribed circumstances. It is also amended to change the publication requirements for disposal at sea permits and to provide authority to make regulations respecting time limits for their issuance and renewal.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Species at Risk Act to allow for the issuance of authorizations with a longer term, to clarify the authority to renew the authorizations and to make compliance with conditions of permits enforceable. The Act is also amended to provide authority to make regulations respecting time limits for the issuance and renewal of permits under the Act. Furthermore, section 77 is amended to ensure that the National Energy Board will be able to issue a certificate when required to do so by the Governor in Council under subsection 54(1) of the National Energy Board Act.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends a number of Acts to eliminate the requirement for the Auditor General of Canada to undertake annual financial audits of certain entities and to assess the performance reports of two agencies. This Division also eliminates other related obligations.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to prohibit the issuance of life annuity-like products.
Division 3 of Part 4 provides that PPP Canada Inc. is an agent of Her Majesty for purposes limited to its mandated activities at the federal level, including the provision of advice to federal departments and Crown corporations on public-private partnership projects.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Northwest Territories Act, the Nunavut Act and the Yukon Act to provide the authority for the Governor in Council to set, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, the maximum amount of territorial borrowings and to make regulations in relation to those maximum amounts, including what constitutes borrowing, the relevant entities and the valuation of the borrowings.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to modify, for parent Crown corporations, the period to which their quarterly financial reports relate, so that it is aligned with their financial year, and to include in the place of certain annual tabling requirements related to the business and activities of parent Crown corporations a requirement to make public consolidated quarterly reports on their business and activities. It also amends the Alternative Fuels Act and the Public Service Employment Act to eliminate certain reporting requirements.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to establish the Social Security Tribunal and to add provisions authorizing the electronic administration or enforcement of programs, legislation, activities or policies. It also amends the Canada Pension Plan, the Old Age Security Act and the Employment Insurance Act so that appeals from decisions made under those Acts will be heard by the Social Security Tribunal. Finally, it provides for transitional provisions and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to add provisions relating to the protection of personal information obtained in the course of administering or enforcing the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act and repeals provisions in the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act that are substantially the same as those that are added to the Human Resources and Skills Development Act.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to add provisions relating to the social insurance registers and Social Insurance Numbers. It also amends the Canada Pension Plan in relation to Social Insurance Numbers and the Employment Insurance Act to repeal certain provisions relating to the social insurance registers and Social Insurance Numbers and to maintain the power to charge the costs of those registers to the Employment Insurance Operating Account.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Parks Canada Agency Act to provide that the Agency may enter into agreements with other ministers or bodies to assist in the administration and enforcement of legislation in places outside national parks, national historic sites, national marine conservation areas and other protected heritage areas if considerations of geography make it impractical for the other minister or body to administer and enforce that legislation in those places. It also amends that Act to provide that the Chief Executive Officer is to report to the Minister of the Environment under section 31 of that Act every five years. It amends that Act to remove the requirements for annual corporate plans, annual reports and annual audits, and amends that Act, the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act to provide that that Minister is to review management plans for national parks, national historic sites, national marine conservation areas and other protected heritage areas at least every 10 years and is to have any amendments to a plan tabled in Parliament.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act in order to allow public sector investment pools that satisfy certain criteria, including pursuing commercial objectives, to directly invest in a Canadian financial institution, subject to approval by the Minister of Finance.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the National Housing Act, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada’s Economy Act to enhance the governance and oversight framework of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
This Division also amends the National Housing Act to establish a registry for institutions that issue covered bonds and for covered bond programs and to provide for the protection of covered bond contracts and covered bond collateral in the event of an issuer’s bankruptcy or insolvency. It also makes amendments to the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to prohibit institutions from issuing covered bonds except within the framework established under the National Housing Act. Finally, it includes a coordinating amendment to the Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada’s Economy Act.
Division 12 of Part 4 implements the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America signed on May 26, 2009.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to reflect an increase in Canada’s quota subscription, as related to the ratification of the 2010 Quota and Governance reform resolution of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund, and to align the timing of the annual report under that Act to correspond to that of the annual report under the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Canada Health Act so that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are included in the definition of “insured person”.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to
(a) remove the office of the Inspector General;
(b) require the Security Intelligence Review Committee to submit to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness a certificate on the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s annual report; and
(c) increase the information on the Service’s activities to be provided by that Committee to that Minister.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Currency Act to clarify certain provisions that relate to the calling in and the redemption of coins.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in order to implement the total transfer protection for the 2012-2013 fiscal year and to give effect to certain elements of major transfer renewal that were announced by the Minister of Finance on December 19, 2011. It also makes certain administrative amendments to that Act and to the Canada Health Act.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Fisheries Act to authorize the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to allocate fish for the purpose of financing scientific and fisheries management activities in the context of joint project agreements.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Food and Drugs Act to give the Minister of Health the power to establish a list that sets out prescription drugs or classes of prescription drugs and to provide that the list may be incorporated by reference. It also gives the Minister the power to issue marketing authorizations that exempt a food, or an advertisement with respect to a food, from certain provisions of the Act. The division also provides that a regulation with respect to a food and a marketing authorization may incorporate by reference any document. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the Government Employees Compensation Act to allow prescribed entities to be subrogated to the rights of employees to make claims against third parties.
Division 21 of Part 4 amends the International Development Research Centre Act to reduce the maximum number of governors of the Centre to 14, and to consequently change other rules about the number of governors.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends Part I of the Canada Labour Code to require the parties to a collective agreement to file a copy of it with the Minister of Labour, subject to the regulations, as a condition for it to come into force. It amends Part III of that Act to require employers that provide benefits to their employees under long-term disability plans to insure those plans, subject to certain exceptions. The Division also amends that Part to create an offence and to increase maximum fines for offences under that Part.
Division 23 of Part 4 repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to provide the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development with the authority to waive the requirement for an application for Old Age Security benefits for many eligible seniors, to gradually increase the age of eligibility for the Old Age Security Pension, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Allowance and the Allowance for the Survivor and to allow individuals to voluntarily defer their Old Age Security Pension up to five years past the age of eligibility, in exchange for a higher, actuarially adjusted, pension.
Division 25 of Part 4 dissolves the Public Appointments Commission and its secretariat.
Division 26 of Part 4 amends the Seeds Act to give the President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency the power to issue licences to persons authorizing them to perform activities related to controlling or assuring the quality of seeds or seed crops.
Division 27 of Part 4 amends the Statutory Instruments Act to remove the distribution requirements for the Canada Gazette.
Division 28 of Part 4 amends the Investment Canada Act in order to authorize the Minister of Industry to communicate or disclose certain information relating to investments and to accept security in order to promote compliance with undertakings.
Division 29 of Part 4 amends the Customs Act to allow the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to designate a portion of a roadway or other access way that leads to a customs office and that is used by persons arriving in Canada and by persons travelling within Canada as a mixed-traffic corridor. All persons who are travelling in a mixed-traffic corridor must present themselves to a border services officer and state whether they are arriving from a location outside or within Canada.
Division 30 of Part 4 gives retroactive effect to subsections 39(2) and (3) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.
Division 31 of Part 4 amends the Railway Safety Act to limit the apportionment of costs to a road authority when a grant has been made under section 12 of that Act.
Division 32 of Part 4 amends the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act to replace the two Vice-chairperson positions with two permanent member positions.
Division 33 of Part 4 repeals the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act and authorizes the closing out of the affairs of the Centre established by that Act.
Division 34 of Part 4 amends the Health of Animals Act to allow the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to declare certain areas to be control zones in respect of a disease or toxic substance. The enactment also grants the Minister certain powers, including the power to make regulations prohibiting the movement of persons, animals or things in the control zones for the purpose of eliminating a disease or toxic substance or controlling its spread and the power to impose conditions on the movement of animals or things in those zones.
Division 35 of Part 4 amends the Canada School of Public Service Act to abolish the Board of Governors of the Canada School of Public Service and to place certain responsibilities on the Minister designated for the purposes of the Act and on the President of the School.
Division 36 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act by adding a preamble to it.
Division 37 of Part 4 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to eliminate the requirement of a hearing for certain reviews.
Division 38 of Part 4 amends the Coasting Trade Act to add seismic activities to the list of exceptions to the prohibition against foreign ships and non-duty paid ships engaging in the coasting trade.
Division 39 of Part 4 amends the Status of the Artist Act to dissolve the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal and transfer its powers and duties to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
Division 40 of Part 4 amends the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act to give the Round Table the power to sell or otherwise dispose of its assets and satisfy its debts and liabilities and to give the Minister of the Environment the power to direct the Round Table in respect of the exercise of some of its powers. The Division provides for the repeal of the Act and makes consequential amendments to other acts.
Division 41 of Part 4 amends the Telecommunications Act to change the rules relating to foreign ownership of Canadian carriers eligible to operate as telecommunications common carriers and to permit the recovery of costs associated with the administration and enforcement of the national do not call list.
Division 42 of Part 4 amends the Employment Equity Act to remove the requirements that are specific to the Federal Contractors Program for Employment Equity.
Division 43 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to permit a person’s benefits to be determined by reference to their highest earnings in a given number of weeks, to permit regulations to be made respecting what constitutes suitable employment, to remove the requirement that a consent to deduction be in writing, to provide a limitation period within which certain repayments of overpayments need to be deducted and paid and to clarify the provisions respecting the refund of premiums to self-employed persons. It also amends that Act to modify the Employment Insurance premium rate-setting mechanism, including requiring that the rate be set on a seven-year break-even basis once the Employment Insurance Operating Account returns to balance. The Division makes consequential amendments to the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act.
Division 44 of Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to make certain imported fuels duty-free and to increase the travellers’ exemption thresholds.
Division 45 of Part 4 amends the Canada Marine Act to require provisions of a port authority’s letters patent relating to limits on the authority’s power to borrow money to be recommended by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance before they are approved by the Governor in Council.
Division 46 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Land Management Act to implement changes made to the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, including changes relating to the description of land that is to be subject to a land code, and to provide for the coming into force of land codes and the development by First Nations of environmental protection regimes.
Division 47 of Part 4 amends the Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act to increase the maximum indemnity in respect of individual travelling exhibitions, as well as the maximum indemnity in respect of all travelling exhibitions.
Division 48 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act to provide that the chief executive officer of the Authority is appointed by the Governor in Council and that an employee may not replace the chief executive officer for more than 90 days without the Governor in Council’s approval.
Division 49 of Part 4 amends the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act to repeal provisions related to the First Nations Statistical Institute and amends that Act and other Acts to remove any reference to that Institute. It authorizes the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to close out the Institute’s affairs.
Division 50 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to provide for the payment or reimbursement of fees for career transition services for veterans or their survivors.
Division 51 of Part 4 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to add powers, duties and functions that are substantially the same as those conferred by the Department of Social Development Act. It repeals the Department of Social Development Act and, in doing so, eliminates the National Council of Welfare.
Division 52 of Part 4 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act in order to correct the English version of the definition “eligible wages”.
Division 53 of Part 4 repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.
Division 54 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2008 to provide for the termination of certain applications for permanent residence that were made before February 27, 2008. This Division also amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things, authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to give instructions establishing and governing classes of permanent residents as part of the economic class and to provide that the User Fees Act does not apply in respect of fees set by those instructions. Furthermore, this Division amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow for the retrospective application of certain regulations and certain instructions given by the Minister, if those regulations and instructions so provide, and to authorize regulations to be made respecting requirements imposed on employers in relation to authorizations to work in Canada.
Division 55 of Part 4 enacts the Shared Services Canada Act to establish Shared Services Canada to provide certain administrative services specified by the Governor in Council. The Act provides for the Governor in Council to designate a minister to preside over Shared Services Canada.
Division 56 of Part 4 amends the Assisted Human Reproduction Act to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act that was rendered in 2010, including by repealing the provisions that were found to be unconstitutional and abolishing the Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada.

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It appears that Bill C-38, as tabled in the House, may not be the correct version.

MPs have been given at least two different versions of Bill C-38 in preparation for today's debate. One version has 421 numbered pages of legislative text, and that was the version that was given to opposition MPs in the opposition lobby immediately after the legislation was tabled in the House. Another version has 425 numbered pages of legislative text, and that is the version that has been distributed to MPs through Parliament's postal and distribution service and online through the Parliament of Canada website. It appears that either the opposition MPs were given the wrong copy of the bill when the bill was tabled in the House, or the wrong copy is being more widely distributed to MPs and the public in advance of today's debate.

Is there text that appears in one copy but is missing from the other? We do not know. We are relying on hard copies of legislation that are over 400 pages in length, so it is virtually impossible to verify the source of each discrepancy.

How can everyone follow the debate on Bill C-38 when what is on page 310 in one version is clearly nowhere to be found on page 310 in the other?

It is also not clear which version of the bill we should use to propose amendments or prepare for clause-by-clause at committee.

On page 728 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, it states:

In the past, the Speaker has directed that the order for second reading of certain bills be discharged, when it was discovered that they were not in their final form and were therefore not ready to be introduced.

The fact is that MPs have been preparing for today's debate with two different versions of Bill C-38. That will certainly impede our ability to properly debate the bill. We are told by the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the government has kept two different sets of books on F-35 costs, but it is a little much when the government presents two versions of its own budget implementation legislation.

If the government tabled one bill at first reading and then printed another version for members of Parliament, the debate cannot be allowed to continue at this time. I ask that this matter be clarified and corrected before the debate on Bill C-38 is allowed to proceed.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the process for the introduction of a bill is that the bill is provided to the Journals branch of the House of Commons that then distributes it as the official bill when it is introduced, and it is available through Journals to all members of Parliament. As for any other copies that may have been circulating, I cannot comment on that.

This is the official bill that has been introduced, and that is the bill we intend to have debated. There should be no confusion, unless some error has been made by Journals in what has been distributed, but I cannot imagine that this is the case.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the way for the explanation of the discrepancy, if in fact there is a discrepancy that has been pointed out by my other colleague.

There is a certain amount of “trust us” in this, that the bills are in fact the same. For something as critical as this, I am not sure what powers you, Mr. Speaker, actually have to answer the request made by my friend down the way.

It seems to be a very important one, particularly if we are essentially meant to take the government at its word that there is no difference between the bills that we saw in the House and the bill that has been distributed to Canadians and MPs outside of the House, also through official channels. I suppose that is my point. It is meant to be the same source.

I know you will take some reference on this, Mr. Speaker, but we will be very curious for your ruling if there is an ability for us to pause debate for a moment while the government rectifies this. Is there more important legislation than the budget implement act? It is hard to say.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will make one further brief submission. I do not believe there is any difference in the content of the two bills that are circulating.

I am told that one of them has a table of contents and that accounts for the difference in the page numbers. I expect that none of this should result in a delay of the debate or an impeding of the debate of the bill. I would be happy to examine, if there is in fact, exactly what the difference is between the bill that he has and the official bill which we will debate, which is the one that has been circulated through Journals and introduced into Parliament.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has not clarified and confirmed whether in fact opposition members were given the wrong copy. There are two choices. Either opposition MPs were given the wrong copy or the current copy now being distributed by the government is wrong.

This is material. This is not a trivial matter. In terms of the proposal of amendments and the discussion, it is important that we have the identical copy.

I suggest we cannot proceed with debate until you, Mr. Speaker, have had the opportunity to rule on this.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the one that was tabled with Journals is the one that has the table of contents. There may be another that is circulating for people if they wish, which was the old form in which these bills were done in the past.

This one was done with the table of contents. That is what was introduced and that is what we are here to debate. There is no reason why we cannot proceed with that debate. In terms of every clause, the table of contents not being part of the clauses of the bill, the working copy he has versus the one that was introduced are identical.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of clarity here, when the clerk, a few moments ago, called the title of the bill in response to your indication that we were now at orders of the day in our agenda for today, the clerk rose in response to that, as is traditional, and called Bill C-38, reading the title of it.

Could the table indicate to us which version of the bill was before the clerk when the clerk called that item for discussion today, so we know exactly what we are debating from here on forward?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table the two different versions that have discrepancies between pages, for example, page 310 in one version is different from page 310 in another, to help aid you in your deliberations, if that is helpful.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I can inform the House that the version of the bill called, Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, has 425 numbered pages. The short title is “Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act”. This was the version of the bill that was tabled in the House. This was the version of the bill that was before the clerk when the clerk called orders of the day. With that, I am prepared to let debate proceed.

In terms of what was distributed, we can look into that and find out from Journals. If there was an error, we can come back to the House on that. In terms of what is before the House, the version that was called today is the same version that was tabled in the House.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these are not versions on websites or any such thing. One version is the version that was handed out on the day the bill was introduced and this is a second bill that the government handed out the day after, and they are different. I am looking at the very first page and in the section about part 1 the order is different. There is a clause 3 in here and it does not appear until the second page of a different version of the same bill.

This is difficult because we are now looking through the two bills to see if there are any fundamental substantial discrepancies and the assurance from the government is that there are none, that is exactly the same two pieces of legislation. The page numbering and the order may be different, but there are no different clauses. Otherwise, in a sense, it is impossible to have a debate if there are substantive alterations in the bill.

This is not an attempt to drill the government's agenda or calendar. It is difficult for us as parliamentarians to know with assurance in a 400-page bill that everything is accurate if we have seen differences on page 1 of what was handed out on the day the bill was introduced by the government and what was handed out later by the government. We need that assurance and I am not sure how to actually rectify this. I have never seen this on a budget implementation act before. It is obviously critical legislation.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I think I can shed some light on where we are. When the bill is brought to the House, it is printed first by whichever department is introducing it, which in this case was the Department of Justice. Standing Order 70 says, “All bills shall be printed before the second reading in the English and French languages”. I have been told it is a question of pagination based on the different software that is used when the department prints its version. Then it is transmitted to the law clerk's office, at which point it is then printed for distribution to members. I am prepared to allow debate to proceed. The pagination that is being used for the debate has 425 pages and it is properly before the House in that respect.

If there is any further confusion, I can come back with a more thorough explanation of how that happens, but the bills are identical. It is simply a matter that when they are printed by the House of Commons, the slightly different software results in a different pagination.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps an unprecedented situation that the House has never had to deal with before. If it takes some time to proceed through the two books to determine they are in fact substantively identical, could the government undertake, with whatever assistance is required from the table or the officers of the House, to report back to the House before the end of this day that in fact the two versions have been examined and they are substantively identical? There is nothing more important than the debate about budget legislation and it is absolutely fundamental that the House be assured there is no discrepancy in the material that we will discuss.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, none of us have any doubt in your perspicacity and being an erudite member and Speaker, but I think you, the Clerk and the staff need more time. It is a 425-page document. I read pretty fast, but if you, the Clerk and the team were able to, in the last 10 minutes, read all 425 pages of one document, compare them to the 421 pages of another and, as such, can assure the House that there is absolutely no difference, that is commendable. However, if in fact you have not had the time to read through both documents and confirm absolutely unequivocally there is no difference, then I believe the member for Wascana is absolutely right. We have to pause until we are absolutely certain of this because members of Parliament were given one copy and that was the copy we used to prepare for this debate.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much regret what appears to be an effort to unnecessarily delay the work of the House by the Liberal Party members, but I am not surprised.

The fact is the bill before this House is the bill that was printed by this House, subject to an order of the House on first reading. The copy they had before first reading is of course the preprinted version. The actual bill is the one that says on the front, not “C blank”, but the one that says “C-38”. That is Bill C-38. All members of this House have that through Journals Branch. All members of this House had ample time to prepare for that. It was printed by Journals Branch some time ago. Their failure to examine the bill as printed, as ordered by the House, should not be an occasion at this point in time for delay of this debate.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government provided opposition members of Parliament with a copy that, according to the minister or the House leader, was wrong. I guess it has come to be readily accepted by this Parliament that when the government provides a document we cannot always believe it. However, is the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons saying that in fact every time we are given a document by the government we automatically have to question whether it is the correct one, the one upon which we ought to be working and developing our debate and amendments? He is saying that we have somehow erred. I think he owes the House an apology for having provided to opposition members of Parliament a document that was the wrong one.

It is not the opposition parties that are either delaying this debate unnecessarily or acting inappropriately. It is the government that has made an error in this case and has provided a document to the House that it now says was the wrong document.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Kings—Hants has been absent for the entirety of the discussion. The document that he refers to that says “C blank” is the copy before it was introduced into the House. After it was introduced into the House, there was an order that it be printed. The Speaker has already addressed the question of Journals Branch printing it and having a different pagination, it being identical.

I am disappointed that he considers that to mean one copy being the wrong bill and one copy being the right bill. It is a fact that this is the practice for every bill, that it is thus introduced. The member has been in this House for many years. I would expect that he would by now be familiar with that.

The explanation from you, Mr. Speaker, is amply clear. I do not think we are achieving anything more through this debate other than his objective, which is further delay. If he wishes, we can give him further assurance that the two documents, in substance, are identical. We are happy to do that. However, at this point he is simply wasting the time of the House and misleading the House by referring to one document as wrong and one document as correct. The fact is that one is what was submitted to Journals Branch and the other is what Journals Branch then subsequently printed which is, of course, the official bill before the House.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have explained how the difference in pagination has come about. I assure the hon. member for Kings—Hants that I cannot read 425 pages of financial terms in about eight minutes but I can assure him that, when the bill is received by the law clerk's office, the proofreading is done at that point. The version that is printed by the House matches what was provided by the department. So in this case we have a difference in pagination that has resulted from the two different systems apparently. The bill is properly before the House. It is the bill that was printed and is available from Journals Branch.

At this point, I am prepared to let debate proceed. I can come back to the House with a further explanation. I understand the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has assured the House it is the same version so I think we can at this point proceed with the debate.

The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Edmonton—Leduc.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this second reading of the debate of the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. This legislation would help bolster economic growth and ensure that Canada's economic and public finances remain sustainable over the long term. Today, I would like to focus on our government's plan for responsible resource development, a critical part of the economic action plan. It is a forward-looking piece of legislation that would help ensure that all Canadians benefit from our natural resource heritage.

Our abundant natural resources have always been the foundation of Canada's economy. They are at the very heart of what we have been and what we are as a country. They have fostered the development of entire communities and regions. They have contributed to carving out the character and identity of our people, and they have been a source of great national pride, from the birth of our country to the present. The global economy presents both opportunities and problems and we must make the right choices to ensure the prosperity and security of Canadians for generations to come.

There is a tremendous new global opportunity for Canada to capitalize on its resource development potential to stimulate jobs and growth in a period of global economic uncertainty. We have a country with an enormous amount of natural resources. We are an energy superpower. We are first in the production of potash, second in the production of uranium, third in the production of hydroelectricity and natural gas, and sixth in the production of oil. We have the third largest reserves in the world. We are a mining giant.

Canada is one of the leading mining nations in the world, producing more than 60 minerals and metals. In 2009, more than 220 principal producing mines, more than 3,000 stone quarries and sand gravel pits, and more than 50 non-ferrous smelters and refiners and steel mills were operating in Canada.

Canada is well positioned to benefit from the growing global demand for energy, especially oil. Our oil sands are the third largest proven reserve in the world. As conventional oil supplies are depleted, the International Energy Agency predicts that the world will become increasingly dependent on so-called unconventional sources of oil like that of Canada's oil sands.

As the International Energy Agency has told us time and again, traditional energy sources, oil and gas, will continue to be the dominant energy source for many years to come. In 25 years from now, even under the most promising scenarios for development of alternative energy technologies, fossil fuels will still be providing well over 60% of the world's energy. The demand for oil will be almost 15% higher than today. More and more, the growing demand for oil and gas will come from emerging economies where the appetite for other resources needed to fuel a growing economy is also rising.

Increasing demand for oil and gas and the opening of new markets for minerals and metals represent significant opportunities for jobs and prosperity for Canadians. The good news is that the demand in the world for the kinds of resources that we have in abundance continues to increase day after day, month after month, year after year. As global economic weight continues to shift towards fast-growing emerging economies in Asia and elsewhere, we must act to meet the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities. To do that, we must diversify our markets.

Currently, almost all of our crude oil exports go to the U.S. The U.S. is a great and valued customer, but that oil is being sold at a substantial discount because, quite simply, it has nowhere else to go. It is a buyer's market.

North American crude prices are some $20 a barrel below the world price and even lower for Canadian heavy crude. When we are exporting about 2 million barrels a day, it adds up to some serious lost revenue, over $40 million a day at current price differences. This lost opportunity represents lower revenue for producers. According to a recent analysis by CIBC, this price discount could cost Canadian producers $18 billion of lost revenue this year alone.

This also represents forgone tax and royalty revenue for governments, so less money to provide essential social services for Canadians. This is the impact of having our crude oil resources locked in by lack of transportation capacity. We have no way to deliver our oil to markets other than the U.S., so we are forced to take just about whatever American refineries are willing to pay. We simply cannot afford to take these kinds of losses year after year. It is costing us billions of dollars in economic activity and thousands upon thousands of jobs. That is why it is so critical for Canada to develop the infrastructure we need to diversify and deliver our oil and gas to new and growing markets, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. In the interests of Canada and Canadians, we need to act and we need to act quickly. Major projects such as pipeline infrastructure must not be subject to unnecessary delay.

The situation is getting even more serious than lower prices. It is estimated that without new export-oriented pipeline capacity, western Canadian producers will have to start putting limits on investment and job creation plans because there will be no way to get any more oil to the market.

We run the very real risk of missing out. With over $500 billion in potential resource projects over the next 10 years, we have a tremendous opportunity to create jobs and economic growth right across the country. These jobs will be in every sector of the economy, from manufacturing, mining, science and technology, to the services sector. However, this opportunity is not guaranteed. Canada is competing for capital with countries around the world. Fortunately, Canada has a lot to offer: attractive investment opportunities, a competitive tax regime and policies that do not discriminate against foreign companies. I saw the recognition of that opportunity in my trips to China and Japan this year.

Unfortunately, our inefficient, duplicative and unpredictable regulatory system is an impediment. It is complex, slow-moving and wasteful. It subjects major projects to unpredictable and potentially endless delays.

What our country needs is a 21st century regulatory system that protects the environment and is efficient, effective and expeditious. That is why this bill proposes a system-wide approach. With responsible resource development legislation we will focus our efforts in four areas: first, making reviews for major resource projects more predictable and timely; second, reducing duplication in the review process; third, strengthening environmental protection; and, fourth, enhancing consultations with aboriginal peoples.

Allow me to speak briefly about each of these areas.

The bill contains a number of measures to make the regulatory system more predictable and timely and to facilitate decision-making with regard to investments and planning.

That means, among other things, implementing reasonable and realistic schedules for reviewing major projects, consolidating the responsibility for environmental assessments to three agencies instead of 40, and focusing our efforts on major projects.

After consulting experts, we believe that the timelines for conducting an independent, objective, exhaustive, scientific study are adequate.

We have consulted with experts, including Gaétan Caron, the chairman of the National Energy Board, so we are comfortable that the delays, the timelines, are in fact adequate. We are also ensuring that our regulatory system has the resources needed to meet these timelines. We have reinvested $54 million into the major projects management office initiative to enhance the capacity of key regulatory departments and agencies to enable them to focus their efforts on major projects.

Furthermore, while the opposition likes to spread misinformation that the funding for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, or CEAA, has been cut, that is not true. We have renewed its base funding and increased its funding to more effectively carry out aboriginal consultations and environmental reviews on an independent, objective and scientific basis.

We are also ensuring that there is clear accountability in the system. The federal cabinet will make the go, no-go decisions on all major pipeline projects, informed by the recommendations of the National Energy Board. This is already the case for the vast majority of decisions across government, including under CEAA.

We believe that for major projects that could have a significant economic and environmental impact, the ultimate decision-making should rest with elected members who are accountable to the people rather than with unelected officials. Canadians will know who made the decision, why the decision was made and whom to hold accountable.

The bill also proposes measures to reduce duplication and regulatory burden. It would allow provincial environmental assessments that meet the substantive requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to be substituted for the federal government assessment. In some cases, the provincial process may be deemed equivalent to the federal process. However, these provisions will only be put into effect if the province can demonstrate it can meet federal requirements.

Even though we are making many changes to ensure that the process is efficient, we also want to make the environmental protection more effective. An expedited review is not synonymous with easier approval. We are not choosing between the two. By simplifying the process we are not compromising environmental protection.

The bill will ensure that we stop reviewing projects that have little to no environmental effect and focus resources on those projects that have the potential for significant environmental and economic impact. This means we will be getting out of reviewing projects like blueberry washing facilities, parking lots, or hockey rinks. Frankly, we should not inconvenience people and waste government resources on paper-pushing exercises.

As a safeguard, the minister of the environment will retain the authority to order environmental assessments on projects he deems need them. Importantly, the bill will introduce administrative monetary penalties from $100,000 to $400,000 for non-compliance by proponents with conditions imposed by the regulator.

Budget 2012 also introduced important maritime safety measures. Tankers will be double-hulled. There will be mandatory pilotage, mandatory aerial surveillance and improved navigation tools. We will also be increasing annual pipeline inspections from 100 to 150 and doubling annual comprehensive audits from three to six to identify issues before problems occur.

These measures will significantly increase the safety of major projects on the environment while ensuring the system is efficient.

The last pillar of our responsible resources development strategy is to enhance consultations with aboriginal peoples. The Prime Minister made it clear during the Crown-First Nations Gathering in January that our government takes seriously its duty to consult and accommodate. Our plan for responsible resource development contains several steps to move this agenda forward.

For example, consultation of aboriginal Canadians will be an integral part of the environmental assessment and regulation processes. One department or organization will be designated as the sole crown consultation coordinator for the review of specific projects.

The plan also calls for the use of memorandums of understanding and agreements with aboriginal groups and provincial governments in order to clarify expectations for the consultations with regard to project reviews. In addition, our plan helps achieve these objectives by encouraging positive long-term partnerships with aboriginal communities, in order for their members to secure more direct and indirect benefits from new major projects.

Over the last few years, our government has taken several key initiatives to put Canada ahead of the curve in today's highly competitive global economy. We reduced personal and corporate taxes. We invested in science and technology, alternative energy and environmental protection. We negotiated free trade agreements, reduced red tape and the regulatory burden and tackled government waste.

Our government's agenda is all about long-term growth, employment, prosperity and security for Canadians across the country. Responsible resource development is at the heart of that agenda. To capture the promise of jobs, growth and prosperity from our immense natural resources, the time to act is now.

Taken together, these system-wide measures will ensure our regulatory system is more accountable, efficient, effective and responsive to the needs of all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, I wanted to bring to the attention of the House that arising from the point of order brought forward by the hon. member for Kings—Hants and with subsequent interventions by the government House leader, the opposition House leader and the hon. member for Wascana, I am pleased to report to the House that the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel responsible for the printing of bills can confirm that the text included in the version of Bill C-38 tabled in the House on April 26, 2012, is identical to the text found in the copy printed after first reading of the said bill, as distributed to all members of the House.

The version of the bill distributed to members on April 26 was a photocopy of the secret copy of the bill prepared by the Department of Justice. The version distributed to members after first reading is produced by the House administration—in particular, the office of the Law Clerk—and the difference in text and number of pages is due to the electronic preparation of the bill in House software.

The text is identical and has been reviewed by legislative editors working in the Law Clerk's office. Except for a few pagination differences, it is identical in all respects.

I thank hon. members for their interventions on this matter.

We will now go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill is quite remarkable because although it is ostensibly the budget implementation act, about one-third of the bill is focused on gutting our environmental protections.

Just as the previous speaker indicated, the hon. minister's priority is about getting oil out of the ground and getting it out of the country as quickly as possible.

If the minister's goal is simply to hasten the approval of pipelines and to make sure that his colleagues in the oil and gas sector advance their businesses as quickly as possible, regardless of the wishes of local communities, why did he not recommend excluding the environmental provisions from the bill and putting them in a separate bill, so that we could property debate and adequately scrutinize them and make a proper decision on behalf of Canadian interests to protect our environment?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill would do a great deal to protect the environment. Some $165 million will be devoted to that. More money will be going to the major project management office, which oversees the large projects, and a substantial amount of money, over $35 million, will be going to maritime security.

As I mentioned in my remarks, tankers will have to be double-hulled, there will be mandatory pilotage, there will be enhanced navigation, there will be aerial surveillance, and additional measures will be taken when necessary in particular cases.

In terms of pipelines, over $13 million will be invested in improving pipeline safety. Pipelines are the safest form of transporting oil and gas, but we will make it even safer through additional inspections.

As well, this government has devoted a great deal of money to improving safety overall. Billions of dollars have been devoted to alternative energy, to improving energy efficiency, and to improving the safety of conventional sources of energy and reducing the environmental impact, but this—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Our time is limited. Many hon. members may wish to pose questions.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Kings--Hants.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this being a budget implementation bill, it is curious that the Minister of Natural Resources is leading the debate here today.

Therein lies my question. The minister, in his opening salvo, referred to the importance of accountability and of elected representatives being responsible and accountable for decisions made. The logical corollary is that if the minister and the government are serious about that level of accountability and responsibility, why is the minister not insisting that this be a separate piece of legislation to be debated by members at the natural resources committee or the environment committee?

The minister said that the reason for these regulatory changes is to enhance parliamentary and government accountability. If he is serious about that, then why, for goodness' sake, is he not introducing a separate piece of legislation with himself as the lead minister, because this is a natural resource bill? This should not be a finance bill.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is part of the budget package because it relates to a significant degree to economic development and growth, which is part of economic action plan 2012. Nevertheless, there will be an opportunity for members opposite to participate in debate. There will be a separate finance committee that will provide an opportunity for the public and the opposition to ask questions, to participate in the debate and to make their views known. It will not be a stultifying debate in any way.

There was an allusion to my comment about government decision-making. We are determined to make sure that for large projects that can have a significant regional or national impact on the environment and the economy, the decisions should ultimately be made by elected officials, not appointed officials.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as part of the natural resources delegation, I accompanied the Minister of Natural Resources to Asia, where I saw him effectively represent Canadian interests.

My question relates to the megaquarry, which he is aware of. A number of us are concerned about this proposed major open-pit mine in southern Ontario. Many of my constituents have voiced the desire to see a federal environmental assessment done for that proposed 2,500-acre quarry, which has the potential to be a 7,000-acre open-pit mine in southern Ontario.

Could the minister reassure my constituents that the changes proposed in the bill would strengthen environmental oversight protection for similar major projects in places like southern Ontario?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the whole point of this exercise is to ensure that we have a robust environmental review of major projects. Now that particular project falls under the aegis of the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency.

There will be a list indicating the types of projects that will be reviewed. Major projects will normally be reviewed by CEPA. There will be an opportunity for substitution by the province but only if the particular province in question has the capacity and the willingness to conduct an identical level review. That will be up to the Minister of the Environment to oversee.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, where we studied the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Why does my colleague not want us to study proposed changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act? As members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, it is our job to study proposed changes to these bills. This act is very important and includes many environmental and human health protection measures.

What is my colleague afraid of? Why does he not want the committee to analyze this act? It is the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's job to study changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all members are allowed to participate in deciding who makes up the Standing Committee on Finance.

Each party is responsible for deciding which member will represent it during debates. If his party wants him to speak, he will have the chance to speak, to ask questions and to participate in the debates.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is on the matter of uranium mining and nuclear safety issues.

In dealing with these matters from a government or a regulatory point of view, there are two connected dimensions. One is the administrative function of actually carrying out the regulatory oversight and the other, of course, is the legal liability if something goes wrong.

I wonder if the minister would clarify in this legislation, since there is an attempt here to devolve responsibility from the federal level to the provincial level in respect of uranium mining in particular, whether he is devolving to the provinces simply the administrative responsibility for conducting the necessary environmental reviews and examinations or whether he is devolving the legal liability issue to the provincial jurisdiction involved.

Is it purely an administrative transfer or is also carrying with it the legal liability that would previously rest at the federal level?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has responsibility for the oversight of uranium. We do not intend, nor does the bill contemplate, any transfer of liability, if that is the specific question asked.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today deeply concerned about the bill at hand and about the direction in which the government is taking this country.

Bill C-38 is a massive 425-page omnibus bill that goes far beyond the measures in the budget. It includes many previously unannounced changes.

This is the Conservatives' first post-election majority budget and their true colours are showing throw.

During the election, the Conservatives did not tell Canadians that they planned to raise the age of eligibility for old age security. Canadians had to hear it all the way from Davos, Switzerland, months after the election. And yet, Bill C-38 raises the age of eligibility for OAS.

During the election, the Conservatives did not tell Canadians that they planned to do away with protecting our environment and fighting climate change. In fact, the Conservative platform claimed that they recognized that a healthy environment and a strong economy go hand in hand.

The Conservative platform also promised to conserve and protect our environment and to take action on climate change. They promised new investments to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including an extension of the eco-energy retrofit homes program.

And yet, a full one-third of Bill C-38 is dedicated to the gutting of environmental regulation and protection. It repeals the Kyoto Implementation Act. And that extension of the eco-energy program? It never happened. In fact, the Conservatives abandoned the program early, despite its economic success.

During the election, the Conservatives promised open and accountable government. Their platform claimed that they were here for integrity and accountability, and that they were committed to providing the principled, accountable government that our great country deserves. This was in the Conservative platform and yet Bill C-38 includes a series of previously unannounced measures that will contribute to a more secretive environment here in Ottawa by rolling back government transparency and accountability.

During the election, the Conservatives presented Canadians with one plan, but now that the elections are over, they are moving in the opposite direction as quickly as they can. Yes, the Conservatives' true colours are showing and I am deeply concerned and all Canadians should be deeply concerned.

My New Democratic colleagues and I strongly oppose the bill on both content and process grounds. Bill C-38 includes most of the major proposals announced in budget 2012, which we have vigorously opposed and to which I will return shortly. We also take issue with the undemocratic omnibus nature of the bill, which goes far beyond the budget. The tabling of such a large and wide-ranging bill in such a short time frame undermines Parliament by denying individual MPs the ability to fully inform themselves as to its content and implications.

Back in 1994, a young MP from Calgary took offence to the omnibus nature of the Liberal's budget implementation bill. This MP stood in the House and said:

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you should rule it out of order and it should not be considered by the House in the form in which it has been presented.

...I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.

...in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

The bill contains many distinct proposals and principles and asking members to provide simple answers to such complex questions is in contradiction to the conventions and practices of the House.

That was said on March 25, 1990. Who said that? It was the young MP who is the current Prime Minister of Canada. His objection to the Liberal omnibus budget bill can and should be applied to the bill at hand.

In 1994, the Prime Minister argued that the Liberals' omnibus bill did not fulfill the required level of relevancy, that is that the items in the bill were too diverse and could not be reasonably grouped together in a coherent manner.

Let us see how this bill stacks up on this point. Among other things, Bill C-38 raises the age of eligibility for OAS-GIS, guts the environmental assessment regime, eliminates the Auditor General oversight on a number of agencies, repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, changes the rules for registered charities, amends the Seeds Act to potentially allow private contractors to perform food inspection and it changes the rules on foreign ownership of wireless telecommunications companies.

This is the definition of an omnibus bill and, applying the Prime Minister's own arguments, this bill should be ruled out of order. The measures in the bill are too wide-ranging to fulfill the relevancy requirement, and we agree that asking members to vote in a block on such diverse subject matters does not allow them to represent their constituents as our democracy requires.

However, once again the Conservatives are trying to ram legislation through Parliament without allowing Canadians and their MPs to thoroughly examine it. To make matters worse, they are trying to sneak through changes that will further restrict transparency and democracy in the future.

Bill C-38 would enact numerous changes that will limit the ability of Canadians and MPs to hold government accountable, with a broad attack on government transparency that was not present in budget 2012. These changes include weakening the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and undermining the authority of the National Energy Board, increasing cabinet discretion and ministerial power over a range of issues from immigration to food safety to approving pipelines, eliminating Auditor General oversight for many agencies, eliminating the position of the Inspector General for CSIS, and reducing reporting requirements to Parliament.

When did the Conservatives become so afraid of accountability? On this side of the House, we believe in a respectful and open Parliament and government.

We believe it is wrong to try and sneak measures past Canadians and to ram them through Parliament as quickly as possible, particularly legislation that will only make government less transparent.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said repeatedly that MPs are not getting the information they need in order to reasonably be able to exercise their power of oversight.

And while other Westminster parliaments around the world are working to improve fiscal transparency, this Conservative government is focused on reducing government accountability as quickly as possible.

New Democrats are focused on addressing the real priorities of Canadian families, such as creating good quality jobs, strengthening our health care system, ensuring a secure retirement for all and protecting our environment.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are too busy focusing on gutting environmental protection and slashing vital services.

In the fall, the New Democrats tabled a motion that called on the government to take immediate action to grow our economy and create jobs. The Conservatives supported this motion with their votes but they have yet to turn these votes into action.

The Conservatives claim that this budget is all about job creation but the budget contains nine times more in cuts than in job creation measures and actually plans for unemployment to rise. There are already 1.4 million Canadians out of work. The current unemployment rate of 7.2% remains well above its pre-recession level of about 6%. For our young people, the future of our economy, the situation is even worse. Youth unemployment remains at nearly 14%.

Now the Conservatives say that they are creating jobs but, with the growth in the labour force, there is a net increase in the unemployment rate. In fact, since the Conservatives took office in February 2006, we have lost 365,000 manufacturing jobs.

In his appearance at the finance committee last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the Conservatives' austerity budget would mean a further loss of 43,000 jobs and would slow Canada's economic recovery. Furthermore, he confirmed that when, combined with prior cuts, there would be a total of 103,000 jobs lost in the public and private sectors, a significant drag on our economy.

The government will claim these numbers are hypothetical, but Canadians know differently. They are dealing with the fallout. After all, when an industrial plant with 1,000 people closes, the impact is not isolated to those jobs only but also affects suppliers and small businesses in the community. It is the same when we lose over 19,000 public sector jobs. In fact, if the Conservatives were more focused on creating jobs for Canadians, why would they focus their efforts on paying consultants to review government spending at $90,000 a day. That is where their priorities seem to lie.

New Democrats support the ongoing review of government spending to ensure that our tax dollars are well-spent, but we believe in reviewing all government expenditures, including tax expenditures.

As Glen Hodgson of the Conference Board of Canada told the finance committee last fall, “value for money applies on the tax expenditure side as much as on the spending side”. We believe in policy based on evidence.

The evidence shows that the Conservatives’ massive corporate tax breaks have failed to create good quality, family-supporting jobs. The Minister of Finance recognizes that infrastructure investment has more than five times the economic impact of corporate income tax cuts, as he indicated in the appendix of budget 2009.

And yet, despite the evidence, this government is determined to continue on with its agenda of corporate tax cuts, while slashing jobs and services and planning for unemployment to rise.

Evidence shows as well that the OAS and GIS program is sustainable.

Pension and retirement expert Professor Tom Klassen of York University notes:

I haven’t heard any academic argue that there’s a crisis with OAS, which is why I was surprised a few days ago when the Prime Minister seemed to say there was a crisis...there’s got to be...more evidence that there’s a problem...I don’t see that evidence.

Numerous experts, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer, have confirmed that the OAS, the old age security, is sustainable in its existing form. Even the government's own latest actuarial report on OAS indicates that the OAS/GIS will account for 2.37% of GDP in 2011, 3.16% in 2030 and then will fall below today's level to 2.35% in 2060.

The cost of the government's proposed changes will throw tens of thousands of seniors into poverty. In fact, without OAS/GIS for two years, almost 100,000 recently retired Canadian seniors would be made poor today. In particular, the poverty rate for single senior females would rise from 17% to 48%, almost tripling.

Despite this evidence, the government is using the budget bill to balance the books on the backs of our seniors.

The evidence shows that good environmental policy is also good economic policy. Policy-makers in Germany have long understood this and today Germans are reaping the benefits of their foresight in the form of cutting edge innovation, superior global competitiveness and hundreds of thousands of quality jobs.

Unfortunately, under the Conservative government, Canada is near the bottom of the global heap in terms of investments in green initiatives and our economy is suffering for Conservative inaction. Under the Conservatives, Canada's environmental ranking has plummetted to among the worst in the world. In fact, the 2011 Climate Change Performance Index ranks Canada 57 out of 60 nations surveyed, well behind G8 countries like the U.K., France and Germany that all scored in the top 10.

Despite this evidence that they are heading on the wrong course, the Conservatives are determined to use Bill C-38 to gut environmental assessment, reduce Canada's accountability on the world stage by repealing the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and reduce the independent scientific advice available to guide policy making by shutting down the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

The Conservatives claim to be focused on efficiency and a review of government expenditures, but the evidence points to the contrary. With this bill, the Conservatives are leading the country down the wrong path. Just as effective government policy relies on evidence and effective review of government activities relies on government transparency, government spending reflects government priorities. Accurate, timely information about how much the government is spending and on what is crucial for Canadians to be able to evaluate if the values of their elected representatives are in line with their own.

Not only is the government not in the business of providing answers, with Bill C-38 it is deliberately dismantling requirements for government transparency and accountability. The opening of the 2011 Conservative platform characterized the election last May as a choice between principled leadership and opportunism. I wholeheartedly agree. This Conservative bill is highly opportunistic. Instead of telling Canadians their plans during the election, the Conservatives have waited until the campaign is done to show Canadians what they are really about. On this side of the House, we believe in principled leadership.

We believe it is wrong for the government to claim that it is focused on job creation, while cutting jobs and planning for unemployment to rise.

We believe it is wrong for the government to cut a seniors’ benefit program and throw tens of thousands of seniors into poverty.

We believe it is wrong for the government to gut measures that have been put in place to protect our environment and to turn its back on international action on climate change.

Finally, we believe it is wrong for the government to try to sneak legislation past Canadians and their MPs in a massive omnibus bill, especially when these measures deliberately seek to impede government transparency and accountability in the future.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, because it:

a) weakens Canadians' confidence in the work of parliament, decreases transparency and erodes fundamental democratic institutions by systematically over-concentrating power in the hands of government ministers;

b) shields the government from criticism on extremely controversial non-budgetary issues by bundling them into one enormous piece of legislation masquerading as a budgetary bill;

c) undermines the critical role played by such trusted oversight bodies as the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, the CSIS Inspector General and the National Energy Board, amongst many others, thereby silencing institutional checks and balances to the government's ideological agenda;

d) raises the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement from 65 to 67 years in a reckless effort to balance the government's misguided spending on prisons, incompetent military procurement and inappropriate Ministerial expenses;

e) includes provisions to gut the federal environmental assessment regime and to overhaul fish habitat protection that will adversely affect fragile ecosystems and Canada's environmental sustainability for generations to come;

f) calls into question Canada's food inspection and public health regime by removing critical oversight powers of the Auditor General in relation to the Canada Food Inspection Agency all while providing an avenue and paving the way for opportunities to privatize a number of essential inspection functions; and

g) does nothing to provide a solution for the growing number of Canadians looking for employment in Canada's challenging job market and instead fuels further job loss, which according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer will amount to a total loss of 43,000 jobs in 2014.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The amendment is admissible.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for York Centre.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. One year ago today, the Canadian people sent us here. They elected a strong, stable, national Conservative majority government. They gave us a strong mandate to create jobs and long-term prosperity.

I am really curious. In listening to the member's remarks that would make the drafters of the Waffle Manifesto blush with pride, I wonder if she had an opportunity to speak to her seatmate, the member for Hamilton Centre. His experiment was tried in Ontario with high taxes, low unemployment, reckless government spending where the Ontario credit rating was downgraded a number of times. This is what she wants to bring to Canada.

Did she have an opportunity to speak to her seatmate about how Ontario was damaged and hurt by such policies of the NDP government at that time, and how the province of Ontario still has not recovered from that period?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly telling that with a budget implementation act of 425 pages that throws in everything, including the kitchen sink, the hon. member opposite cannot think of one question or one way to challenge anything I have just said that challenges the legitimacy, the transparency and the democratic approach of this bill. He cannot think of one question to ask on that. Therefore, what he has to do is resort back to a boilerplate talking point from some distant past in some Conservative ideological fantasyland. It is funny, but it is shocking.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park has done a masterful job of showing the deficiencies in the bill.

When the bill kills the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the Kyoto protocol and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, it is doing irreparable harm. That is clear.

We know what it is about. We know it is about building pipelines to the United States and Russia and rushing little-processed bitumen off our land.

My question to the hon. member is, would she and her party support the building of a much better pipeline to eastern Canada to ensure energy self-sufficiency for Canada; more affordable oil products in the east; more job creation; and the creation, not the closing, of refineries across Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously we all understand the need for an energy security policy in Canada. What approach that will take remains to be seen because there is a vacuum on the other side of the House in terms of what that would look like.

I will tell the hon. member and I will tell the House what I am in favour of. I am in favour of a rigorous environmental assessment that makes sure we are balancing our economic needs with the needs for future generations to have a sustainable environment so we are protecting our wilderness areas, our coastal water areas, the air we breathe, the food we eat, so that not just Canadians today but future generations are protected. That is what is undermined by the changes, the one-third of the bill that is being proposed by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Parkdale—High Park for very ably outlining the NDP concerns with the government bill.

The member did touch on the fact that this omnibus bill has all kinds of repercussions for Canadians. I think one of the real repercussions for Canadians is undermining the strength of our democracy.

I would like to ask the member to comment on what she feels this does to the role of parliamentarians, to the role of MPs, not only here in the House to be able fully debate every aspect of a complex piece of legislation, but also what it does to the committee structure in the country. Why would Canadians trust a government that has misused the public confidence with regard to the F-35s and with regard to prorogation?

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

Mr. Speaker, that really gets to the heart of the issue. I think it is fair for the Minister of Natural Resources to say there are changes the government would like to make in the area of building pipelines and that there are things Canadians should examine. These should be proposed in a proper separate bill, a bill that puts forward the government's goals in the area of energy and natural resources and the environment.

We have parliamentarians who have been elected to represent their constituents, the people of Canada, in their critic area. When we have a bill of 425 pages, a third of which is gutting environmental protections, that will go to the finance committee instead of the environment committee then we have to ask ourselves the questions: what are they hiding, how are Canadians served by this, and what is happening to our democracy?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it exciting to see the NDP members stand up to talk about protecting Canadian families and Canadian jobs. This is the same party that sent members down to the United States to protest Canadian jobs, to protest against Canadian families earning a living. They should be ashamed of themselves for that.

I am curious. They talk about how they stand up for Canadians, how they stand up for jobs, except I am wondering why they voted against the economic action plan, not once but twice? They voted against real jobs, against roads and bridges, against hockey rinks being built from small town Alberta to small town Quebec. Right across the country, they voted against training Canadians to take Canadian jobs. Why did they vote against those plans? It was the largest infrastructure investment in Canada's history and they voted against it.

They should be ashamed of themselves. Not only do they not stand up for Canadians when they have the chance, but they stand against them with foreign powers. They stand all the time against Canadians and Canadian jobs. I want to know why they would do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a little sad that we could not get some legitimate questions about the comments that were made so we could actually have a reasonable debate.

If the hon. member wants to talk about job creation, I raised in my speech that it was the Conservatives who paid consultants $90,000 a day to tell them where they should cut programs and services in the public sector, and guess what? They will not tell Canadians where those cuts will come from, so we do not even have the proper ability to defend Canadian services, to defend the programs Canadians want, because they are not coming clean with the Canadian people.

I think that is very telling. They are using stale talking points rather than dealing with this massive budget at hand.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the finance critic, for her excellent analysis of the budget. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Finance, and I would also like to commend her on her work.

I would like to ask her a question and hear what she has to say about the process that is being used. She spoke a bit about the fact that we have a 425-page budget implementation bill that throws in everything but the kitchen sink. We know that a third of this bill pertains to environmental issues, yet this bill will be examined only by the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to know whether the hon. member read Andrew Coyne's very eloquent Postmedia News column that unequivocally condemned the fact that the government was including all these issues in one bill.

What does she think is the committee's role? Does she think that the committee will be able to effectively examine this 425-page bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that very good question.

Indeed, this is supposedly a budget implementation bill, but in fact, it is a mishmash of things. One-third of this bill has to do with changes that would eliminate environmental protection measures.

This bill undermines democracy and the ability of members of Parliament and Canadians to review its content properly. That is why we are asking that the bill be divided so that the clauses on the environment can be reviewed by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable, Development and the rest by the other committees with interests in this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That is all for questions and comments on this round. Before we resume 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 St. Paul's, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, National Defence; and the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Pensions.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-38, the government's budget implementation bill.

I would like to use my time to address four themes: namely how the Conservatives are, one, hiding the full impact of their spending cuts; two, breaking their election promise to protect old age security; three, using budget 2012 to ram through important changes to Canada that are unrelated to budgets; and four, failing to create good paying jobs and recognize the important issue of growing income inequality in Canada.

Later on in this debate, my colleague from the riding of Etobicoke North, the Liberal critic for the environment, will speak on how the Conservatives are using this budget bill to completely rewrite Canada's environmental laws. We understand that streamlining environmental laws and protection can be a meritorious objective and approach, but there is a difference between streamlining and gutting.

The approach of the government to use an omnibus bill, the kitchen sink bill, to put all of these measures in the same legislation is to deny Parliament and committees the opportunity to subject this legislation to suitable scrutiny and enable us, as parliamentarians, to be both responsible and accountable.

I will first speak about the full impact of the government's spending cuts. The Conservatives are trying to hide the full impact of their cuts from Canadians by only talking about half of them. Allow me to illustrate that with a couple of examples.

We know the Conservative cuts will ramp up over four years until they reach $10.8 billion in ongoing cuts to the annual budget. However, budget 2012 only provides details on $5 billion of the $10.8 billion in ongoing cuts.

As we try to make sense of this budget, we must be mindful that the information the government released in budget 2012 applies to just under half of the overall cuts. That goes for the 19,200 federal public servants who will be laid off. Those positions that are being eliminated stem from just half of the cuts.

We hear about the ongoing cuts of $688 million to Public Safety, $153 million to Transport, $310 million to Agriculture and Agri-food and $378 million to international aid. Once again, those cuts are the result of just half of the overall cuts that are projected by the federal government. For the other half of the cuts we have precious few details.

From budget 2010, we know there will be an ongoing cut of $1 billion to National Defence and an ongoing cut of more than $1.8 billion to international aid. I do not know how the government can afford $16 orange juice, six star hotels, and several thousand dollars in limousine bills in that context, but that is another story. The only other person I know of who has stayed at The Savoy is Conrad Black, but that too is another story.

We read in the newspaper that Canada's foreign aid is being cut by $378 million, but that is not even close to the full story. When we add the cuts announced in 2010, we know the ongoing annual cut to foreign aid is at least $2.2 billion, which is roughly 50% of Canada's foreign aid budget.

We know the ongoing annual cut to National Defence is at least $2.1 billion, not the $1.1 billion introduced in budget 2012.

We know the ongoing annual cuts to the Government of Canada will be $10.8 billion, not the $5.2 billion announced in budget 2012.

What we do not know is the impact that these additional cuts will have on the programs and services offered to Canadians. We do not know how the other departments and agencies will be affected.

We do not know how many federal public servants will be cut in addition to 19,200 positions that were announced in budget 2012.

The government cannot cut an additional $5.6 billion without cutting programs and services.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimates that in addition to the 19,200 positions being eliminated in budget 2012, there will be a further 6,300 jobs cut as a result of the government's previous strategic reviews that have yet to be implemented, and a further 9,000 cuts as a result of the government's budget operating freeze. That creates a total of 34,500 federal public service job cuts.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer agrees that the 19,200 public service jobs that are being cut do not represent the full number. In his words, “Additional job losses will be required.... we're actually talking about cuts on top of cuts.” How many more federal jobs will be eliminated? The government is not telling Canadians or the public service the truth.

We do not know why the Conservatives are hiding the real figures. We do not know why they are not explaining to Canadians the cuts that are going to affect them. We do not know why the Conservatives refuse to give Canadians and Parliament all the information they need to have an informed debate.

As Liberals, we recognize the government is about choices and some spending cuts are necessary, even in good times. It was in that context that we, as a government--and I remember when the member for Wascana was minister of finance and the member for Markham—Unionville was the minister responsible for the expenditure review committee of cabinet. I served on the expenditure review committee of cabinet at that time. It is important to realize, to put this in context, that we were actually in surplus at that time.

It is important to also recognize that we agree, in principle, with reviewing government expenditures on an ongoing basis in surplus or deficit to ensure best value for taxpayers, to ensure that programs and services reflect actual need, not need that may have lapsed in the past.

It is also important to realize and to recognize the context of the surplus that the Liberal governments were delivering. The Liberal government had inherited a $43 billion deficit that was left behind by the previous government. Under the Liberal watch, Canada went from a $43 billion deficit to nine consecutive years of budgetary surplus that paid over $100 billion down on the national debt. And it was during those good times, during surplus, that we did expenditure review, but we did very differently from the way the government is doing it now.

In fact, we also cut Canadian taxes while maintaining a balanced budget and we introduced the largest personal income tax cut in the history of Canada. We also cut corporate taxes when we could afford to when we were in surplus. We cut payroll taxes.

However--

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Thirteen consecutive times.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thirteen consecutive times, I am reminded by one of the greatest finance ministers we have ever had, the member for Wascana.

However, in terms of the way we conducted expenditure review, we identified savings very differently from the way the Conservatives are doing it. We were careful to provide detailed information to Canadians long before the cuts were implemented.

In fact, we can get all that information. It is still available on the Internet, at www.expenditurereview.gc.ca. I do not know how much longer the Conservatives will leave that up. But if we go to that website, we see, line by line, a description of which programs were being cut, where, when they were being cut, why it was being done and by how much. That was provided before the cuts were implemented. That is the level of detail that Canadians expect from their government in a functioning democracy.

It is important to keep in mind that was almost seven years ago. The level of transparency, in terms of information for Canadians that is demanded by the public today, has actually increased. The Liberal government that I was proud to be part of and the expenditure review committee that I was proud to serve on that identified billions of dollars of savings for Canadians, was more open and transparent then, seven years ago, than the Conservative government is today.

I will add that our decisions were made by ministers working in concert with public servants. We did not have to pay a consulting company $90,000 a day. We did not have to outsource our decision-making on those difficult decisions at the time. However, it is important that that level of detail be provided to Canadians today.

Unfortunately, now the Conservatives routinely hide even the most basic information from Canadians and members of Parliament. They are not just hiding this information from the opposition in a partisan sense, they are also hiding it from their own members on that side of the House. Members elected in the Conservative Party have the same fiduciary constitutional responsibility as part of their jobs to hold their government to account and to demand the information that members on this side of the House have.

Last year, the Conservatives were found in contempt of Parliament for hiding the cost of legislation that was before the House. They hid the cost of their crime bills and the cost of their F-35s. They refused to provide the information that Canadians needed in order to make informed decisions. They refused to provide that information to parliamentarians representing Canadian citizens. By hiding that information, they were attacking the very democratic foundation of our country. For that, they were the first government in the history of the Westminster system to be found in contempt of Parliament.

The Auditor General has since eviscerated the government for keeping two sets of books on the F-35s: a real set that was kept hidden from Canadians and the Parliament of Canada, and a phony set the Conservatives used during the last election.

Now the Conservatives are at it again. On Monday, the government held a briefing for MPs and senators on this budget bill. The legislation would implement changes, for instance, to old age security and raise the age from 65 to 67. Government representatives were asked how much these changes to old age security would change the cost of the program for Canadians. The government refused to answer. Worse, it said that we would find this information out after the bill was passed and when the chief actuarial officer updates his report.

The Conservatives would not tell us this information prior to the vote on the bill. They insist that these changes to OAS are necessary in order to save money. They say that the system is not sustainable. In reality, as we have heard from several reports, including Finance reports, reports from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and OECD reports, that is absolutely false. In Canada's case, old age security is sustainable as is.

As well, the Conservatives will not tell us how much these changes will save the treasury. They will not provide this basic information that we, as parliamentarians, need to make an informed decision. Is the real reason because these numbers would show Parliament the truth, that in fact OAS is sustainable? That we do not have to make these draconian changes that would punish our most vulnerable citizens? These regressive changes would hurt, in many cases, the poorest of the poor.

We do know that the Prime Minister is breaking his election promise to Canadians by raising the age of OAS from 65 to 67. He promised he would not cut Canadian pensions. This is a cut on Canadian pensions and an attack on low-income seniors.

We also know that the Prime Minister is ignoring the advice of the OECD, Canada's chief actuarial officer and the Parliamentary Budget Officer who all agree that these changes are not necessary. We know that the Prime Minister is ignoring his own experts on this matter. The experts agree that it is sustainable. Even if OAS were not sustainable, if changes had to be made, there are changes that could be made that would be progressive. For instance, we could adjust the clawback threshold. There are areas we could look at.

Let us look at who gets OAS. Some 40% of Canadians who receive OAS make less than $20,000 per year and 53% of those who receive OAS make less than $25,000 per year. Older single women living in poverty are disproportionately affected by OAS changes. To qualify for the guaranteed income supplement that is received by the poorest of the poor, Canada's most vulnerable citizens, one would have to qualify for old age security. Those people will lose about $30,000 over a two year period.

Now the government is saying that people can work a couple of extra years. Well, that may be fine if one is a politician, journalist, accountant, lawyer or consultant. However, it is a little tougher if one is a pipefitter, welder, carpenter or a woman working in a fish plant in Newfoundland in cold, damp conditions on a concrete floor all day. We have to think of all Canadians. Those who are doing physical labour are some of the most vulnerable.

It is important to realize that with these changes to OAS the government is saying that it is giving advance notice so that people can save a little more. How can families making $20,000 or $25,000 be expected to save a little more? I think this shows the degree to which the government is out of touch with the realities of Canada's working poor, and the realities of income inequality in Canada.

Raising OAS is only part of this kitchen sink bill. The reality is that this bill is 421 pages in length, has 753 clauses and amends 70 laws. It includes a complete rewrite of our environmental laws, a unilateral cut of 3% to the provinces for health care funding at a time when our population is growing, the tearing up of 100,000 immigration applications that have been worked on for years, sweeping changes to EI, and the removal of several laws including the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, and the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. It includes the elimination of several government bodies including the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the First Nations Statistical Institute and the National Council of Welfare.

The bill actually gives the Governor General a salary increase of $30,000, after taxes. I do not think our Governor General was pining for a pay increase. I am not sure if this kind of salary hike is appropriate at a time when government programs and services are being slashed.

The point is this is a very big piece of legislation. It covers a wide range of issues and areas of public policy. For example, included in the sweeping changes to EI is a change that would allow low-income recipients who find work to keep more of their income. There are some of us who may look at part of that and say, “Okay, that makes some sense.” However, we cannot support that when the budget bill also includes measures that would gut old age security for a lot of seniors, preventing them from receiving it at the time when they need it, or that potentially reduces Canada's environmental oversight and regulatory framework.

The Liberal member for York West has been championing, for a long time, changes to protect long-term disability pension plans. There are some of those measures in there. We could, if provided the opportunity, support some of those measures, but we are not given that opportunity because this is an omnibus bill. It forces us to vote for the entire kitchen sink bill and not exercise our responsibilities as parliamentarians to evaluate and support individual measures that may be meritorious while others would not be.

The general direction this legislation would take Canada is not something I would support, but there are measures in this bill that I could support. By bundling these different changes in a single piece of legislation, the Conservatives are denying Parliament the opportunity and the ability to fulfill its responsibilities to provide oversight and clear direction.

I would like to quote Andrew Coyne on this matter:

....the practice has been to throw together all manner of bills involving wholly different responsibilities of government in one all-purpose “budget implementation” bill, and force MPs to vote up or down on the lot. While the 2012 budget implementation bill is hardly the first in this tradition, the scale and scope is on a level not previously seen, or tolerated.... 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.

Over the coming days this House is expected to continue its debate on this legislation. A number of changes in the legislation will be discussed. No doubt a number of changes will fall through the cracks. I expect the Conservatives are counting on this.

Finally, on the issue of income inequality, this was not an ordinary economic downturn. It is not an ordinary recovery. We are part of a global economic restructuring. Canada's recovery is being driven by our natural resource wealth. As such, we are seeing a commensurate higher dollar and a very different effect of the recovery on different parts of the country. We are seeing the crowding out of a lot of traditional high-value manufacturing jobs. We are seeing an increase in the gap between rich and poor.

In several recent polls, Canadians have indicated that the issue of income inequality is one of the most important economic issues facing the country and in some cases the most important. There is nothing in this budget addressing income inequality specifically, but there are measures in this budget that actually make it worse. We believe that income inequality should be on the agenda of the Canadian Parliament and this budget, among other things, denies Parliament the opportunity to have a fulsome debate on one of the issues that is important to Canadians, and that is growing income inequality.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague's presentation somewhat entertaining because there seemed to be a lack of understanding of what exactly is in the budget implementation act. I would suggest that my hon. colleague perhaps take a second look at it because there are many measures that help to deal with things like inequality. In fact, the best way to fight poverty and o deal with inequality is to ensure that Canadians have jobs, which is the main focus of this budget. It is the main focus because we are addressing jobs, long-term prosperity and, of course, economic growth.

I have before me pages and pages of good quotes from economists across the country and elsewhere who suggest that this budget implementation act is in fact the direction that this government ought to have taken. They applaud the fact that we have taken this direction and they suggest that if we deter from this path it would put our country at significant risk.

Could the member opposite address the fact that there are so many economists who agree with our position? How does he explain the fact that there are literally dozens of them who agree with the direction this government has taken?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there are also a lot of economists who believe that income inequality is an important issue and that there are economic costs as well as social costs to ignoring income inequality. A lot of economists, including the Nobel prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz, have said that the economic costs of ignoring income inequality will be significant, that in fact growing income inequality is leading to a gap in equality of opportunity.

I know some rich people who are as concerned about the issue of income inequality as anyone else because they know it is bad for society and, while they believe in a free market economy, they do not believe in a free market society. They know that it is fundamental to social cohesion and to our communities that people have equality of opportunity. The only way this budget addresses income inequality is to make it worse. I am concerned about the growth of inequality of opportunity within Canada, between provinces and between rich neighbourhoods and poor neighbourhoods. It is an issue that we will--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Sudbury.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking a lot about what is in the bill and what is not in the bill. One of the things that really caught my eye is this tiny piece in the bill that relates to foreign ownership when it comes to spectrum. The option the government put out does nothing to address rural areas in Canada. Rural Canadians do not matter to the current government because it is continuing to ignore them when it comes to broadband and wireless technology.

What the government put in here was foreign ownership. A company can come in here and buy any one of our small new entrants as long as they are below 10%. If they are below that 10% they can buy them up, opening up companies like AT&T to come in and maybe buy this and take over. We have seen too many examples of this in the past. In my riding of Sudbury, we had Vale take over Inco.

Has the member considered this? What does he think the implications will be when we have more foreign ownership coming into our country?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to issues of foreign ownership, I am generally quite open to foreign direct investment, with certain caveats.

For instance, when it comes to telecommunication, it is generally thought of by the ideologues that when we deregulate it leaves more competition and more competition leads to lower prices. That is not always the case in telco. When we deregulate telco, quite frequently prices get closer to costs. The reality is that in rural and small town communities the costs of providing telco are often higher because the population being served is smaller and the infrastructure costs are still significantly high. As a result of that, there is a cherry-picking that goes on in the cities where there is a bigger market so there is an opportunity to cut prices. Therefore, a cutting of prices will occur for urban clients but there is often a commensurate jacking up of prices in rural communities. I generally favour rational and, in some cases, lower regulations on some of these services if they lead to more competition. My fear is that on some of these measures we could actually see an increase of the prices for access to telco in rural communities.

This leads to another fact. The cuts to CAP that the government is implementing will have a terrible effect on a lot of the communities I represent in my rural Nova Scotian riding. There are communities and libraries in my riding where there is a wait to get on a computer. People cannot afford to have their own computer or Internet access so they go and wait for a long time to have access. Those CAP sites are important and should be maintained.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about some of the comments coming from the government with respect to how in the past the former Liberal government would put a lot of the services down to the provinces when it comes to deficit fighting and cutting down on the deficit, which we did.

However, I would like the member to comment on how raising the age from 65 to 67 for old age security eligibility, as well as the guaranteed income supplement, will be a downloading a lot of responsibilities onto the provinces, certainly when it comes to welfare, housing and a lot of the social services.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with members of provincial governments. In fact, I met with the premier this week. The provinces are not being engaged or consulted on any of these changes. There will be a significant off-loading of social costs with these changes to OAS. This also comes at a time when we have an aging demographic, particularly in Atlantic Canada, which will create a disproportionately high burden on our health care costs.

The other area where there will be an off-loading onto the provinces is in the whole area of costs to operate prisons. The government is proposing to put a lot more Canadians behind bars but is actually cutting Correctional Services of Canada. Therefore, the question that must be asked is: Who will pay for these increased costs?

I do not have time to talk about the illogical and ideological spectacle of government, at a time when we know that these approaches to law and order do not work, spending money on them. The reality is that the provinces will bear a significant amount of expense, so I think they will become more engaged in this debate.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, thank the member for Kings—Hants for his no doubt learned speech. However, there was a moment toward the end of his speech when I think we caught a glimpse of some of the tortuous logic on economic matters that the Liberal Party has fallen victim to. He drew a distinction between a free market economy and a free market society. He likes the free market economy but not the free market society.

We on this side of the House understand that a free market is a free market. If it is managed well, it serves society, creates jobs and creates growth.

If it is not by keeping taxes low, if it is not by investing in the very best human resources and in innovation, and if it is not by encouraging responsible resource development, how else does the hon. member expect to make Canada competitive in the decades and, indeed, the centuries to come?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I should cite for the hon. member one of Canada's former prime ministers who has a close relationship with both the hon. member and myself. He sent me an email on my bill on income inequality congratulating me. He said that this was exactly what the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada ought to be engaged in. That was a Progressive Conservative prime minister who knew the difference between a free market society and a free market economy.

I can also tell the hon. member that people who, like me, recognize the importance of a free market economy, we also recognize the importance of a vibrant public education system, ensuring that we invest in equality of opportunity and that we work with the provinces on a national basis to ensure that Canadians do not get left behind. That is what the Conservatives are forgetting. This is a budget that leaves a lot of Canadians behind. We cannot say that it does not address income inequality, it—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The member's time has expired.

Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on March 29, the Minister of Finance tabled economic action plan 2012, our low tax plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, which the House voted on and passed on April 4. The budget builds on our successful plan that has already seen nearly 700,000 net new jobs created across Canada since 2009.

On Thursday, April 26, we introduced this bill, Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, to implement the budget and the job creating measures it includes, including those measures to ensure that Canada's competitive advantages are harnessed to ensure our prosperity for decades to come. On the same day that the bill was introduced, I informed the House that there would be a vote on the bill on May 14.

In order to keep that commitment to Canadians and the House, I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at second reading of Bill C-38, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

For planning purposes, I would like to advise that it is the intention of the government to allow a total of seven days for the second reading debate of Bill C-38. That would allow a vote to take place, as indicated earlier, on May 14.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure the House appreciates the new information from the government House leader.

Before I call on the Minister of the Environment to resume debate, I will let him know that I will need to interrupt him in about four minutes, this being the end of government orders for the day.

Second Reading

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from York Centre.

It is always a pleasure to rise and address the House but today it is an even greater pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this important budget and our commitment to environmental excellence in Canada.

We all know that, thanks to the efforts of this government, Canada has weathered the economic crisis of the past few years and countries around the world have taken notice. Since July 2009, more than 690,000 jobs have been added and the peak achieved before the recession has now been exceeded by 260,000 jobs. That is the highest job growth rate among the G7 countries.

I am proud that our economic action plan has indeed shown itself to be world class, but I am also proud that our environmental actions and our national parks are also meeting world-class standards.

I know that hon. members are particularly interested in the environment, and we are very busy on that front. One example, an important one, is our performance with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.

Just last month I was pleased to announce the results of the national inventory report and the data collected from the greenhouse gas emissions reporting program. Between 2009 and 2010, our emissions remained steady, while thanks to our economic action plan, our economy grew 3.2% during that time.

This is not a blip; this is a continuing trend. Yes, emissions have grown by 17% since 1990, but in the same period, Canada's economy has grown over three times as much, by 60.5%, through a responsible, practical approach to managing both the environment and the economy and with the support and participation of our provincial and territorial partners through new technologies and better practices in our various industrial sectors. Through all of these, we will continue on this path.

Hon. members know that Canada is a world leader in a very competitive global economy, but we cannot remain world class without continually sharpening our skills, focusing on essential activities, increasing productivity and working smarter. This government knows this, and our commitment to Environment Canada is to build on the tradition of excellence in the organization and the extraordinarily talented and committed employees.

Let me give just a few examples of the steps we have taken. Even before this budget, we renewed the Plan Saint-Laurent and the Atlantic ecosystem initiative. We created a world-class system for monitoring the water, air and biodiversity of the incredibly important oil sands region of Alberta, and I--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I must interrupt the hon. member. He will have six minutes left for his intervention, but it being 5:30, the House will not proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to follow my colleague from Welland on this debate. He quite eloquently spoke to the flaws of this bill. I would like to also thank him for his work on the agriculture file and on behalf of farmers.

Just prior to the start of this debate, my colleague from Malpeque and I were discussing how what we are witnessing is a transformation of our country. We were discussing the state of our country, and this omnibus bill, which lumps in all these measures that are chipping away at what many Canadians believe in, is just an example of this. I would go so far as to say that although we speak the same language, we are dividing ourselves into two new solitudes. One is represented by the government side, which represents a minority of citizens in our country, and the other side is represented by this side here, which represents the majority of citizens, citizens who really do not want to see major changes to our social net or to our system.

What are we seeing? We are seeing a government saying that it is all about job creation. At the same time, we are seeing a tremendous loss of public service well-paying jobs. I would like to remind people in the House that especially in our small rural communities, well-paying jobs are the main economic driver. These are the folks who drive the economy. They are the ones who go to restaurants and buy the local cars. They are the ones who keep our communities alive. What we are seeing here is that a lot of these jobs are being cut, and, as I will explain later, it is for no real reason.

Just before I move on, I would like to talk about what I call “union bashing”. We have well-paying jobs in this country, both in the private and public sectors, because we have a labour movement that has worked hard to ensure a high standard. I was talking with some representatives of the Canadian Police Association the other day when they were in town. They told me the reason they have well-paying jobs as police officers is that police officers, with the exception of the RCMP, have unions or associations, and the reason the RCMP has a livable wage is that the bar has been set by people who are represented by unions. At the same time we see Bill C-377, the accountability of unions act, loading a whole bunch of red tape on police associations and other trade unions in the country, which is totally unacceptable.

What are the budgetary consequences of this 2012 budget?

First, there will be at least 19,200 jobs lost in the public service. Second, there will be a total of between 50,000 and 72,000 jobs lost in the economy, including 1,119 jobs lost at the Department of National Defence, 162 fewer trade officers in Canada, 840 layoffs at Health Canada, 650 layoffs at the CBC, at least 4,800 layoffs in the NCR, 252 layoffs in client service at Veterans Affairs Canada, 100 food inspectors laid off, and I could go on.

What are we seeing, then? We are seeing that for no reason, the public service, consisting of civil servants who are professionals and do their jobs, is being reduced for what I would submit are ideological reasons. Why are they ideological? I am not sure if people are aware of this, but by the year 2014, the current government, since 2006, will have given the corporate sector over $220 billion of corporate tax cuts. That is $220 billion. Let us juxtapose that with raising the age of qualification for pensions to 67 and the hardships that will cause to a lot of seniors on marginal income. Let us juxtapose that with other cuts to the public sector and to the environment.

I would like to also say that choices are made by government. It appears the choice has been to make these drastic cuts to not only the public sector but to our way of life. There is a choice in spending billions of dollars on F-35s or even $30 million to somehow glorify the War of 1812, which nobody really cares about. We can tell that to pensioners who are trying to make ends meet and see what they have to say about it.

We talk about economic recovery. We talk about the fact that Canada supposedly has led the world economic recovery, whereas research that has been done has shown that two countries have been stronger than Canada in recovering from the economic downturn. One is Sweden, the other Australia.

Let us talk about Sweden, a country where there are no strikes, where everything is done by collective agreement and where the law mandates that labour is represented on corporate boards so that there is a working relationship between government, corporations and labour. Let us talk about a country where there is free tuition, free care for seniors, free child care, over 400 days of paid parental leave per child and full benefits for part-time workers.

If my colleagues in the House are not sure of these statistics, I urge them to see the film Poor No More, narrated by Mary Walsh. In the film she takes us to Sweden and compares what is happening here. I know that the argument will be that we want to raise taxes; well, Sweden is a country that has high taxes and provides services, and it is a country where people are working and there is virtually no unemployment.

In a March 29 article entitled “A budget that screws the planet for short-term profits”, Marc Lee, of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, stated:

This is a colonial vision of the economy as a quarry for foreign interests. Instead of ensuring development of resources in a manner consistent with real long-term needs like energy security, the [federal government] is open to any foreign investor who wants our resources, and Canadians will politely have to clean up the mess afterwards. While there will be some Canadian jobs in all of this, most of them will be of short duration in the construction phase, but the budget also increases the capacity to bring in temporary foreign workers.

Let us talk about the short-duration jobs.

We here are against the northern pipeline that will send raw bitumen through our territory and to the waters off the coast of British Columbia to Asia. One of the reasons we are against the pipeline is that the jobs that will be created are short term. We are shipping jobs outside of the country. It is interesting to have a government that says we need to create jobs and that at the same time, through its policies, will be shipping jobs outside of the country.

Mr. Lee goes on to say in his article:

Our penchant for planetary destruction just cannot happen fast enough. Under the mantra “one project, one review” environmental considerations will get lumped in with everything else, meaning that review processes for destructive mining and oil and gas projects will be fast-tracked.

Therefore, instead of having a review that looks at and ensures proper oversight of these projects, we will get this fast-tracking.

I am going to say a few words about the environment as well. At least a third of Bill C-38 is devoted to environmental deregulation. The government is doing everything it said it would do, and more.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

The weakening of the Auditor General’s oversight powers is one of the very important elements of this bill.

I would like my colleague to tell us what the consequences of reducing those powers will be.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question and I would like to thank my colleague.

Obviously, if the Auditor General does not have the authority or capacity to do his work, there will be less oversight of what the government is doing. There will not be as much oversight. Less oversight amounts to interfering in the democratic process, and that is what we have already seen, since 2006, with this government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech, which I appreciated enormously.

In this budget, everything possible is being done to exploit natural resources and send them out of the country as fast as possible.

Is the bottom line that this country is for sale? Why are we not doing any primary processing? Why are we not creating value-added jobs?

How would the member answer that question?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for her question.

The key is pressure from multinationals. This is the government’s policy in response to pressure from multinationals, which do not want us to do any processing in this country and do not want us to have a strong economy in Canada. It benefits them when we send our resources elsewhere, to other countries, where they will be processed at a lower cost because decent wages are not paid there.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent presentation.

If I recall correctly, the government party’s slogan in the last election was “power to the regions”.

I would like my colleague to go into more detail for us about the consequences this budget will have for the regions, rural communities and the north, because many of the measures being proposed in this budget at present will have a significant impact on those areas.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question and I thank my colleague for it.

What we are seeing here is an attempt to transfer powers to the regions without there being enough money to support what the regions want to do. That means that the responsibility will fall to the provinces, the regional districts. This puts a great deal of pressure on our small rural communities, including the ones I represent.

That is irresponsible, in my opinion.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak in support of Canada's economic action plan 2012. I am pleased to be sharing my time today with my hon. colleague, the member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, who I know is a hard-working and effective representative for his constituents.

A year ago today, during a time of immense global economic challenge, Canadians from coast to coast to coast were asked to make a choice about who would lead them on a path toward jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. On May 2, 2011, they made that choice. They chose our Prime Minister and this government to lead and chart Canada's path.

Canada's economic action plan 2012 is a forward looking, dynamic and exciting plan to increase Canada's competitiveness in a swiftly changing global economy to create jobs for today and those as yet unimagined, to open doors to stable growth and long-term prosperity, all of this while keeping taxes low and returning Canada to balanced budgets over the medium term.

Budget 2012 takes significant steps to encourage entrepreneurship, innovation and world-class research. Budget 2012 improves conditions for business investments and investments in training. Budget 2012 provides for needed infrastructure and vital social programs and services and is there for Canadians.

I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the residents of Vancouver South, to congratulate our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance on the careful and considerate measures in the budget. I am excited by what this budget means for Canada. My neighbours, friends and colleagues are also excited about what this budget provides for our province, our communities and our families.

British Columbia is a province of immense potential. We have abundant natural and energy resources. We are culturally diverse and blessed with the potential of an educated and innovative workforce. Through our ports, roads, rail lines and airports, we are the gateway to the Asia Pacific. B.C. is in many ways vital to Canada's future, and Canada's economic action plan makes that future even brighter.

For British Columbians, the budget would increase access to support for business innovation by creating the western innovation program, or WINN, a new program that would provide financial support to innovative small and medium-sized enterprises in western Canada. This is exciting news for entrepreneurs and the many new and inventive projects on which they are working. This new program will spur innovation and create jobs for the future.

The people of British Columbia are also excited to note the government's commitment to responsible resource development in the budget. The government is taking steps to modernize the regulatory system for project reviews. By streamlining the review process for major economic projects, projects can proceed in a timely fashion, while still protecting the environment. The realization of one project one review is welcome.

The government, through this budget, has renewed its commitment to the major projects management office initiative by proposing $54 million over two years to continue to support effective project approvals. Through this initiative, the approvals process for major natural resource projects will become more effective, as the average review will occur within two years instead of the archaic and project killing process currently in place taking 4, 7 or 14 years.

However, the budget is not just about moving projects; it is about effectiveness and balance. This means ensuring that the voices of people who may be affected by potential projects are heard and that the environment is protected. That is why our government is also taking important steps to ensure that the rights and interests of aboriginal peoples are respected and that they benefit from the economic development opportunities. Budget 2012 proposes $13.6 million over two years to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to support consultations with the aboriginal peoples related to projects assessed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Furthermore, our government has committed to responsible energy development and to that end will invest $35.7 million over two years to further strengthen Canada's tanker safety regime and ensure that pipelines in Canada are carefully monitored, environmental consequences are understood and emergency response is improved.

Budget 2012 also proposes $13.5 million over two years to the National Energy Board to increase the number of inspections of oil and gas pipelines, from approximately 100 to 150 inspections per year, and double from 3 to 6 the number of annual comprehensive audits to identify issues before incidents even occur.

Members of the House should know that the natural resource sector is of vital significance to British Columbians. It is therefore crucial that we move projects forward in a timely, responsible manner. Undue delays cost money, time, lost opportunity and, most important, jobs. However, what is most important is that the projects can anticipate a consistent approvals process which is conducted in a timely manner, that the rights of our aboriginal ancestors are understood and respected and that our environment is protected and safety regimes strengthened.

Budget 2012 accomplishes all of this as it strives to update Canada's regulatory systems and processes, while balancing Canada's economic and environmental needs.

Canadians and British Columbians are also excited to see our government take direct action to create jobs. That is why, since 2006, the government has placed a strong emphasis on access to skills training, support for post-secondary education, building a fast and flexible economic immigration system and developing untapped potential in the labour market.

Budget 2012 builds on this foundational work with an enhanced labour market focus and a number of targeted investments that will help respond to current labour market needs and challenges and meets longer-term labour market needs as well. The government will introduce measures to streamline processes and increase funding to better integrate and enable access for certain under-represented groups in the labour force, including immigrants, persons with special needs, youth, aboriginal peoples and older Canadians.

As an example, for young Canadians our government has committed to enhancing the youth employment strategy by investing $50 million over two years to assist more young people to gain the skills and work experience that they need. In addition to enhanced skills, this funding will also help to connect these young people with jobs in areas with skills shortages.

In addition to measures for under-represented groups, our government has also made a commitment to create an advisory council to increase the participation of women on corporate boards. With leaders from the private and public sectors, this council will link organizations to a network of skilled and experienced women and empower them to step into leadership roles and participate at the highest levels of all Canadian sectors.

Furthermore, we are taking important action to create jobs by extending the hiring credit for small business for an additional year. Almost 650,000 Canadian businesses are eligible for this credit. In my province, this is important, as small and medium-sized enterprises in B.C. are thriving and account for over 38% of the total value of goods exported from B.C., a value of $29.3 billion in 2010.

I have consulted with small business owners in my constituency and they are unanimous in their support for this action. They know the difference it will make for their businesses and for those whom they will be able to hire. They know that for every job that is created, there is a positive ripple effect for businesses, families and for our communities.

It is clear that budget 2012 is excellent news for Canadians and British Columbians. As I have already outlined, the comprehensive measures it contains will grow our economy, create jobs and prosperity, but budget 2012 also provides a stable framework for federal and provincial programs.

Canadians and British Columbians have come to depend on provincially administered services like education and health care. During the last election, our Prime Minister committed to protecting these important programs by not cutting and, in fact, increasing federal transfer payments to the provinces. Unlike the former government, our government is balancing the need for economic growth with strong programs.

For British Columbia, major transfer will total over $5.6 billion in 2012-13. This long-term, stable and increased support helps ensure that British Columbia has the resources required to provide essential public services and contributes to shared national objectives, including health care, post-secondary education and other key components of Canada's social programs. The federal government will contribute over $4 billion through the Canada health transfer, an increase of more than $1.2 billion since 2005-06, and almost $1.6 billion through the Canada social transfer, an increase of $393 million since 2005-06.

British Columbia will also benefit from continued direct targeted support in 2012-13, including $67 million for labour market training and $33 million for the wait times reduction fund. This is all significant support for British Columbians and the people of Vancouver South. I understand their enthusiasm and echo their appreciation of the commitment from our federal government to our province—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I am sorry, but the member's time has expired.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Joliette.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her remarks.

There is one thing I would like to know regarding the environment. Why does a third of Bill C-38 focus on environmental deregulation?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill does not provide for deregulation. It provides for a modernization of existing regulations. The bill provides a process. People will know the consistent, ongoing process for getting through the system.

The bill also provides more environmental protections as well as more checks and balances.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about tax cuts and lower taxes. It seems to me that the Conservatives believe that almost every problem can be solved with lower taxes.

Canadian mining companies up north want to hire some local skilled labour and even train the local folks to take the skilled jobs, but they cannot do it because not enough people finish secondary school. No amount of tax cuts will allow young people to get the skills and education they need to get good jobs. There is a problem. This is an example of where we cannot simply lower taxes and fix a problem.

We need to help young people get the skills and education they need so they can get good jobs and good wages. They then can pay taxes and lower the tax burden for everybody else. I do not think the Conservatives ever think about future tax burdens.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member on the opposite side. This government has lowered taxes for the average Canadian to the tune of $1,000 per family. That will put more money in their pockets for the additional credits they can do in arts and other areas.

At the same time, we have also increased transfer payments to the provinces. This is a consistent formula that the provinces can depend on and it provides an excellent framework for educational institutions, health sectors, et cetera to plan on.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the theme of the budget is about creating jobs, wealth and opportunity for all Canadians. Could the member tell us why we need to implement these changes now, so that we can provide a future for our young people?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the fragile global economy, our country needs to look toward Asia-Pacific countries to expand our markets. In doing so, there will be some historic changes in how the world's economy will be restructured.

It is so important for us to invest in skills training, education, entrepreneurship and innovation, so we can then direct these areas of the different sectors in Canada to work toward expanding our trade for a stronger economy in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend claims the bill would strengthen the environment. I would like her to find a single section in the bill that could be considered strengthening the environment. All I find is gutting.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I already noted in my speech that we are going to be increasing environmental protection by checking on pipelines not only 100 times but 150 times. We are also going to double the number of inspections from three to six. These are tangible, precise and specific safety features. We are also demanding the use of double-hulled oil tankers down the coast.

These are specific safety features in the bill that would strengthen environmental protection.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver South for splitting her time with me. It is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in favour of our government's economic action plan. Allow me to start by quoting just one of the many positive assessments of our recent budget.

David Frum of the National Post wrote that under this Prime Minister, “...Canada can fairly claim to be the best-governed country among advanced democracies in the world” and that the recent “federal budget locks up Canada’s lead”. He explained that the world's major economies share a common economic problem. How do we nurture a fragile economic recovery while returning to a balanced budget?

In the United Kingdom we see the danger of moving too quickly: the economic recovery falters. In the United States we see the danger of moving too slowly: dangerous debt levels and the loss of the country's AAA credit rating. Canada has the pace just right. We are on track to balance the budget in the medium term. The Canadian economy continues to grow. In fact, Canada's economy has expanded in nine out of the last ten quarters. Since July 2009, the Canadian economy has created nearly 700,000 net new jobs, the strongest job growth record in the G7.

Contrary to the assertions by the members opposite, these employment gains have been in high quality jobs, with 90% in full-time positions, and over three-quarters in high-wage industries and in the private sector. For the first time in more than three decades Canada's unemployment rate is well below that of the United States.

Among major industrialized countries Canada has an enviable economic record. The world has taken notice. The World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world for the fourth consecutive year. Forbes magazine ranked Canada number one in the world for business to grow and create jobs. Our economy outperforms our major trading partners. Canada is well ahead of other G7 countries in returning to balanced budgets. The International Monetary Fund projects that by 2016, Canada's total debt-to-GDP ratio will remain at about one-third of the G7 average and more than 20 percentage points below that of Germany, the G7 country with the next lowest ratio.

This afternoon I will speak to three reasons why I believe MPs should support our economic action plan.

First, the economic action plan continues our focus on creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

Second, our action plan will ensure Canada's social programs are sustainable in the long term so that they will be there for future generations when we need them.

Third, we will return Canada to balanced budgets by achieving fair, balanced and moderate savings.

Our action plan proposes a number of measures to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians. I will focus on one measure, our responsible resource development initiative. Here are some important facts. In 2010, natural resource sectors employed over 760,000 workers. In the next 10 years, new investments of more than $500 billion are planned across Canada. The problem is that those who wish to invest in our country have been facing an increasingly complicated and cumbersome set of rules that add costs, delay projects and kill jobs.

In my home province of British Columbia, in the government's 2010 Speech from the Throne, it was noted that some $3 billion in provincially approved projects were “stranded in the mire of federal process and delay.” The B.C. Minister of Finance, Kevin Falcon said, “We have many projects on the table today that are in the billions of dollars that could have important ramifications for jobs and employment and revenues.”

There are numerous examples of economic opportunities missed and jobs lost due to needless bureaucratic duplication and red tape. I will provide one such example. There is a proposal to develop a 396 megawatt offshore wind energy project in Haida Gwaii in British Columbia. The proponent estimates that the project would have a capital investment of $1.6 billion and would create up to 200 construction jobs. The federal decision to approve the process came 16 months after the provincial decision.

Our action plan 2012 proposes to remove these impediments that are unnecessarily delaying responsible resource development and costing Canadians jobs.

The Conservative government would focus on four major areas to streamline the review process for major economic projects. We would make the review process for major projects more predictable and timely, we would reduce duplication and regulatory burden, we would strengthen environmental protection, which is very important to note, and in British Columbia, as across the rest of the country, it is very important that we would enhance our consultation with first nations people.

As has already been established, Canada's financial situation, compared to other advanced democracies in the world, is enviable. Our government is not content to rest on our laurels and ignore the challenges that will face Canada in the coming decades. Our action plan is proposing necessary changes to our retirement system to ensure that it will be there for all Canadians.

Here is the challenge that we will be facing in the not too distant future. In the 1970s, there were seven workers for every one person over the age of 65 collecting old age security. Today, there are four workers for every senior collecting OAS, and in 20 years the number will be only two. In addition, in 1970 life expectancy was age 69 for men and 76 for women. Today it is 79 for men and 83 for women. At the same time, Canada's birth rate is falling. Given these demographic changes and realities, the cost of the old age security system will grow from $38 billion in 2011 to $108 billion in 2030. This program is funded out of general revenue every year and this increase is simply unsustainable.

Our action plan 2012 would put the OAS program on a sustainable path by proposing legislation to raise the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS benefits gradually. The phase-in period would begin in April 2023 and it would not be fully implemented until January 2029. Let me be very clear. These proposals would not impact those currently collecting benefits or those nearing retirement. An 11-year notification period followed by a six-year phase-in period would ensure that individuals have significant advance notification to plan their retirement and make necessary adjustments.

At least 34 other countries are increasing the age of eligibility for their programs. They all realize that they need to ensure the sustainability of those programs for future generations. Our actions would ensure that OAS remains strong and is there for future generations when they need it and is available for all seniors today who are currently receiving the benefits.

Finally, our action plan 2012 would keep Canada on track to a balanced budget over the medium term. We would not raise taxes. Doing so kills jobs. We would not cut transfers to individuals, nor would we cut transfers to other levels of government for health care, education and social services, as was done by previous governments. Our government would return to balanced budgets while continuing sustainable increases in transfers for health, education and social programs. Federal transfers to my home province of British Columbia would total over $5.6 billion in 2012-13. This represents a 23% increase, over $1 billion more, than the province received from the former Liberal government.

Canada is a very blessed country. Due to the leadership of our Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, our country has avoided the worst of the global economic storm and is on a sound financial footing. The measures I have discussed today—responsible resource development, long-term sustainability of our social programs and modest cost savings to return to a balanced budget—are part of our action plan that will create jobs, economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians.

I would ask all hon. members to join with our government and support economic action plan 2012.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the environment, several times today in the House, I have heard that certain organizations are to be targeted because they are a thorn in the side of the multinationals and the oil companies.

I have trouble with this concept. I would go so far as to subscribe to a conspiracy theory because I find this strange. I think that the members across the way think that way. However, as far as I know, the organizations are made up of Canadian citizens, volunteers, people involved in our communities who see the impact of the decisions made by multinationals. The multinationals and oil companies, on the other hand, are made up of people from abroad, and the majority of these companies do not necessarily care about our future.

I am trying to find a balance. I get the impression that the government tends to forget that the social contract for the power that it holds comes from Canadians. Why attack the Canadians who are identifying these problems? They are the ones we should be listening to, not the multinationals.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is standing up for Canadian citizens and for Canadian jobs, 760,000 jobs in the natural resources sector.

We know the NDP members oppose any development of the oil sands and have called for a moratorium on the development. They oppose any hydrocarbon, fossil fuel development at all. So it is no surprise that they are also opposing the Canadian jobs that result from these projects.

We have seen that they oppose Keystone XL which created over 140,000 jobs. They opposed the northern gateway pipeline, right off the top. They are also opposing the private sector unions which are clearly onside with natural resources development, and have said they support our regulatory reform because they know that these projects give good jobs and good benefits to Canadians. That is why we will continue with our responsible resource development plan.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure if I got this right from the member. He mentioned British Columbia getting more in transfers from this government than the preceding government. I think that is based on a formula which is called equalization and has been in existence for quite some time.

As a matter of fact, Newfoundland and Labrador, where I come from, is actually getting less money. No, let me correct that, we are actually getting no money from the federal government. That is because of the resources that are off Newfoundland and Labrador's coasts and because of what we have done. I would go back to the fight, what happened between Danny Williams and the Prime Minister.

I want to ask the member about one thing. He keeps talking about skills and development. Small towns across this country just lost the community access program which delivers high-speed Internet for the smallest communities. It is an issue of poverty. People making below the median income of $30,000 cannot afford these large bills for high-speed Internet. The local library decided to provide that service for all citizens, and now it is gone. It is a little disingenuous for a member from rural Canada to be talking about the fact that they are losing this essential service.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question was all over the map, from British Columbia to Newfoundland. I will try to focus on equalization and transfers to the provinces.

I do not know the hon. member's electoral history or if he was here during the time when the Liberal government cut $25 billion in transfers in health and social transfers to the provinces. Certainly, we did fix the equalization program to ensure that it was fair for all Canadians.

I also have no problem discussing the small-town impacts of our bill. I toured a local production facility, Britco in Agassiz, British Columbia. It produces housing units for natural resource development projects. The company sees a direct link between our plan to have regulatory reform and its business model. It has increased the number of its good, high-paying, high-skilled jobs, because of our program to ensure that we have responsible resource development.

I will continue to support the budget, as people in small-town Canada do.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address Bill C-38 on behalf of my constituents in Mount Royal.

While my constituents might understandably assume that the bill relates to the budget, in fact this 400-plus-page omnibus bill actually has very little to do with the budget. Many of the proposals therein have particularly deleterious consequences for the environment. Accordingly, I will be splitting my time with our environment critic, the hon. member for Etobicoke North.

A related problem is that while this budget implementation bill is supposed to flow from the budget speech, which itself is not only a financial statement but a statement of values and a reflection of priorities, this budget, in its reflection of priorities, does not note or even utter the words “social justice”. It does not note or even speak of “fairness” or “equality”. It does not note or even reference the Charter whose 30th anniversary we celebrate this year, nor does it reference or note anywhere the word “humanitarian”.

While the budget speech did outline certain measures that we see legislated in Bill C-38, this budget implementation omnibus bill goes above and beyond anything we have seen and beyond any of the enabling authority of the budget itself.

In its 400-plus pages, there are amendments to more than 60 statutes. It covers everything from fisheries to nuclear safety, from territorial borrowing limits to air transport. It is an enormous hodgepodge, bundling together legislation not unlike Bill C-10 that does not allow for the necessary differentiated parliamentary discussion and debate, let alone the necessary oversight of the legislation. It imbues the executive with arbitrary authority to the exclusion of Parliament, thereby serving as a standing abuse to the canons of good governance, transparency and accountability. Indeed, this alone should be cause for its defeat.

As Andrew Coyne has put it, and I quote, “The scale and scope is on a level not previously seen, or tolerated”. He notes that this bill makes “a mockery of the confidence convention” and that there is no “common thread” or “overarching principle” between the legislative items therein, let alone its standing contempt for Parliament in matters of process and procedure.

Moreover, and again on the crucial issues of parliamentary process and procedure, which are principled concerns, while the bundling together of disparate pieces of omnibus legislation as a confidence bill is problematic enough on its own, this bill is slated to go to the finance committee in its entirety. Accordingly, the review of the environmental regulations therein, which overhaul, weaken and undermine the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and environmental protection as a whole, will thus not be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, where it belongs. The provisions that abolish the First Nations Statistical Institute and make changes to the First Nations Land Management Act will not be the subject of examination and study by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, where it belongs. I can go on with numerous examples in this regard.

If circumventing proper and thorough parliamentary review in committee was not enough, the government, as we saw earlier, has invoked time allocation to limit the amount of time and discussion on this bill.

I am not suggesting that invoking time allocation, as the government has done again and again, or the use of an omnibus vehicle, as has occurred with Bill C-10, are against the legislative rules. What I am suggesting, as have many commentators, is that its use here and now on this particular omnibus bill is unnecessary, prejudicial, suprisingly undemocratic, in effect, unparliamentary and otherwise unsubstantiated and unwarranted.

Surely if Parliament had to debate something like going to war, it would be easy to see why we might time-allocate to ensure we get to the most pressing debate first, or if there were court decisions that affected many statutes, we might easily welcome an omnibus bill that would make the same change to many statues. What is so disconcerting with Bill C-38 is that the government need not be in a rush. There is no coherent or compelling theme to the omnibus proposals contained in the bill.

The opposition is not opposed to some of what is in Bill C-38. For example, the proposed changes to the custom and tariff rules sound reasonable. What we are opposed to is the take it or leave it, one size fits all omnibus approach to legislating that does not allow the necessary differentiated and deliberative oversight or review, or review by the particular and appropriate parliamentary committees. The government and the opposition can co-operate if the government would simply respect the opposition and be responsive in debate.

Again, I will remind my colleague that the government assumes that its legislation in every instance is perfect and, in so doing, believes there are no amendments that need even be tendered let alone adopted. This occurred in the case of Bill C-10 when, in response to amendments I introduced at the time, the government summarily rejected them because they came from the opposition, it seemed. It reintroduced the amendments on its own, a matter that could have been avoided, as the Speaker then noted in terms of the procedural complications that then ensued. Moreover, while I will be voting against this bill in large part because of the way it was introduced and how it is being pushed through Parliament, in terms of matters of process and its abuse, I will use my remaining time to outline some of my objections to the substance of the bill. Regrettably, time is limited and I therefore cannot address every flaw of this legislation.

First, Bill C-38 marginalizes low-income seniors by increasing the qualifying age for OAS from 65 to 67. While the government claims this change is necessary, and it did so just now in debate, for the sustainability of OAS, this contradicts Canada's chief actuarial officer and the PBO, who agree that the change is unsound and unnecessary as the current situation and system is sufficiently sustainable.

Second, the government proposes to close the files of federal skilled workers who applied prior to 2008, without any chance on their part to review or appeal this decision. It is not surprising that some have announced plans to take the government to court over this as a matter of fundamental fairness and due process. Indeed, all who apply to Canada should have their applications judged on their merits, not an arbitrary deadline set by the minister and applied in a retroactive fashion.

Third, cuts are being made to various food inspection agencies. These agencies keep Canadians safe and secure while ensuring the food chain is not contaminated. The government has yet to explain how these cuts would not prejudice the health and safety of Canadians or how food safety would be maintained in the absence of complete and adequate funding.

Fourth, the true nature of public service cuts in this bill still remains unknown. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimates that in addition to the 19,200 positions being eliminated in budget 2012, there will be a further 6,300 jobs cut as a result of the government's previous strategic reviews that have yet to be implemented, and a further 9,000 cuts as a result of the government's budget operating freeze. That would create a total of 34,500 federal public service job cuts associated with this budget cycle alone. As well, the Parliamentary Budget Officer agrees that the government's figure of 19,200 public service jobs being cut does not represent the full number. He said, “...additional job losses will be required. ...we're actually talking about cuts on top of cuts”.

I raise this in particular to note that we are being asked to rubber-stamp the government's agenda without the necessary information, in a manner that precludes the necessary oversight and review and when it is clear that there are inconsistencies with what the government is saying and what independent experts assert. Parliamentarians must be afforded the facts and figures upon which they are being forced to pronounce, as was the case in Bill C-10. We did not receive it then and we are not receiving it now. This, in effect, amounts to a kind of standing contempt of Parliament.

Fifth, and my colleague from Etobicoke North will speak further to this in a moment, this bill rewrites Canada's laws on environmental assessment and repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, weakening our environmental regulations but with consequences far beyond this.

In an email just this morning, a constituent wrote this. Considering that when environmental damage is caused, it has a domino effect on our food and water and thus affects Canadians' health and livelihood, these issues are actually also human rights issues. We have the right to safe clean water, safe accessible food and the myriad of other essential benefits we get from a properly functioning ecosystem.

Sixth, we have the elimination of a series of libraries and archives throughout different departments as part of the latest budget cuts, including the Canadian Council of Archives, which may close as soon as this Friday. This would affect historians, researchers, the media, Parliament and the public who deserve to have information preserved in addition to access to this information.

While I do not have time to elaborate on what this bill includes, I will close with a note about what is not in this bill. This bill does not address that which must be addressed. First and foremost is job creation, not just loss of jobs. Nor does it address the issues that matter most to my constituents in terms of social justice, access to justice and the promotion and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Accordingly, and with this I close, whether it is marginalizing low-income seniors by increasing the qualifying age for OAS or cutting funds to regional development programs that create jobs or not announcing any new funding for affordable housing when the existing program funds are set to expire soon, this budget is simply wrong-headed, misguided, prejudicial and disconnected from the needs of Canadians and from my constituents.

In short, Bill C-38 marks a sad chapter in Canadian parliamentary history.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. There is a lot of talk about the environment, which is a hot button issue.

We know that the Liberals signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol. But why did the Liberal Party not do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in truth, we did reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We also introduced a bill in the House to this effect, but it was defeated by the government.

I think that my colleague from Etobicoke North, an expert in the field, will answer that question.

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

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague did not have time to talk about the effects of the closure of libraries and archives, and the lack of access to libraries and archives.

I would ask my colleague to speak briefly about the impact that this loss of knowledge and history will have.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will be very damaging in terms of both the teaching and appreciation of history. However, this is not just about history; we are also talking about getting rid of all the sources of information and every source that has to do with history, science and knowledge. Both members and the public need this information. The public is affected by this decision.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government thinks it is promoting oil internationally, the tar sands, yet it has taken such a retrograde attack on anybody who asks questions. It is so militant about dismantling the process.

Does my hon. colleague not think good luck to poor Enbridge trying to sell its products internationally, when it has to explain that it is coming from a country that has stripped environmental standards down to third world conditions, that in the end what the government has created is a situation where it will be considered an environmental pariah on the international stage because of its continual militant attacks on basic public process, basic public participation, and vilification of anyone who speaks out, that at the end of the day the last thing big oil wants is to have friends like that?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is disconcerting is not only the overall approach with respect to environmental protection, or the absence regarding environmental protection, but the prospective chilling effect that the critiques of critics have on the overall discussion of this issue as a whole.

We saw the same thing with regard to Bill C-10. We see the same thing with regard to Bill C-26.

There is a pattern here in which those who criticize the government, if it is in matters of criminal justice, are said to be on the side of the criminals and not on the side of the victims, or on the side of the child pornographers and not on the side of those who seek to protect children.

This kind of indictment, and it is not even by innuendo but indeed indictment, by chilling debate, by silencing dissent, does credit neither to the substance of the legislation, which should be allowed to be debated on the merits, and there is no more compelling concern in that regard than that which relates to the environment, nor to the democratic process itself, which should allow for all forms of discussion, debate, dissent, critique and the like.

We are missing this, not only in this debate but on other bills as well.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a profoundly sad time for Canada. The government is gutting 50 years of environmental oversight and threatening the health and safety of Canadians, our communities, our economy and our livelihoods.

We need to be very clear that when the government came to power it inherited a legacy of balanced budgets but soon plunged us into deficit before the recession ever hit. It is absolutely negligent and shameful that the government would gut environmental safeguards to fast track development rather than promote sustainable development, development that meets the needs of today without compromising those of the future.

The government did not campaign in the last election on gutting environmental protection. Canadians should, therefore, rise up, have their voices heard and stop the Prime Minister's destruction of laws that protect the environment and the health and safety of Canadians. In fact, Maurice Strong, a prominent Canadian who spearheaded the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, just this week urged people who are concerned about the future of the environment to do an end run around the federal government. He urged grassroots groups to mobilize and make full use of social media, saying that there was still some time to bring the pressure of people power.

Instead of understanding the gravity of the situation and standing up for the environment, the Conservative government returns to tired talking points and trying to score political points by attacking the former Liberal leader, saying that the Liberals took no action on climate change, when it knows that is absolutely false. The Liberals implemented project green, which would have taken us 80% of the way to meeting our Kyoto targets. The Conservatives killed project green, reduced our greenhouse gas emissions target by an astonishing 90%, walked away from Kyoto, having just repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and continue to ignore the fact that failing to take action on climate change will cost Canadians $21 billion to $43 billion annually by 2050.

Maurice Strong says that the government may be totally negative when it comes to being a constructive force in mitigating climate change. For example, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment continues to rail against Kyoto. Is she aware, however, that her own minister has, for the second time, said that Kyoto was a good idea in its time? He first said it to The Huffington Post and has now said it to the BBC.

Norway's former prime minister, former chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development and former director general of the World Health Organization, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, recently said that Canada was moving backward on the issue of climate change and warned Canada not to be naive on the issue. She recently told delegates in Canada that despite the weaknesses of the Kyoto protocol, the world could not afford to push it aside without an alternative, as emissions are continually rising. When questioned about the link between human activity and climate change, she said, “Politicians and others that question the science, that’s not the right thing to do. We have to base ourselves on evidence”.

While the Conservative government claims a balanced approach to protecting the environment and promoting economic growth, when has the parliamentary secretary or the minister actually ever stood up for the environment? Was it through cuts to Environment Canada, cuts to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency or cuts to ozone monitoring? The list of cuts goes on and on.

Canadians should not be fooled by mere snippets of environmental protection but should in fact pay attention to the government's reducing budgets at Environment Canada and other investments on environmental protection and research by hundreds of millions of dollars while maintaining several tax incentives for the oil and gas sector that the Minister of Finance's department recommended eliminating in a secret memo.

After we vote against this kitchen sink budget, a budget that devotes 150 pages of a 400-page budget to environmental gutting, the Conservative government will stand up and say that the opposition voted against some good things for the environment. However, the government gives us absolutely no choice, as we simply cannot vote for the wholesale destruction of environmental legislation and 50 years of safeguards.

If the parliamentary secretary, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources really believe that Bill C-38, the kitchen sink bill, is good for the environment, they should have the courage to hive off the sections on environmental protection and send them to the relevant committees for clause by clause study under public scrutiny, and end their affront to democracy.

I have a list of cuts to Environment Canada and just some of the changes on the environment to be found in Bill C-38. There are cuts of 200 positions at Environment Canada. Last summer the government announced cuts of 700 positions and a 43% cut to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. There are cuts to research and monitoring initiatives, air pollution, industrial emissions, water quality, waste water and partnerships for a greener economy, cuts of $3.8 million for emergency disaster response, and consolidating the unit that responds to oil spill emergencies in central Canada, namely Gatineau and Montreal, far from where emergencies, including those involving diluted bitumen, might occur on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and along the proposed route of the northern gateway pipeline project.

The government has repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. It has repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which allows the federal government to avoid environmental reviews of many potentially harmful projects and to do less comprehensive reviews where they still occur.

Canada's environment commissioner says that the changes are among the most significant policy development in 30 or 40 years and that there will be a significant narrowing of public participation.

While the Minister of Natural Resources complains:

...our inefficient, duplicative and unpredictable regulatory system is an impediment. It is complex, slow-moving and wasteful. It subjects major projects to unpredictable and potentially endless delays.

Premier Jean Charest says:

In Quebec, we've very well mastered the ability of doing joint assessments. ... I have learned, through my experiences, that trying to short circuit to reduce the process will only make it longer, and it is better to have a rigorous, solid process. It gives a better outcome, and for those who are promoting projects, it will give them more predictability than if not.

There are more changes: the weakening of several environmental laws, including species at risk and water; the near-elimination of fish habitat in the Fisheries Act, putting species from coast to coast to coast at increased risk of habitat flaws and population decline; the authority of the federal cabinet to approve new pipeline projects above the National Energy Board; and the elimination of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the independent think tank with a direct mandate from Parliament. The minister has never said what will replace it. The head of NRT does not know either, as what it does is unique. As well, we see the silencing of government critics through changes to the Canada Revenue Agency and the attempts to seize control of the university research agenda.

The government should be able to stand on its own merits. It should be able to withstand criticism. Instead of making its arguments, it is just looking to eliminate dissent.

For decades, Canadians have depended on the federal government to safeguard our families and nature from pollution, toxic contamination and other environmental problems through a safety net of environmental laws. This bill shreds this environmental safety net to fast-track development at the expense of all Canadians.

Instead, the government could have implemented my Motions Nos. 322, 323 and 325, which focused on Canada's commitment to sustainable development, recognizing that it was not a choice between saving the economy and the environment and, therefore, working with the provinces, territories and stakeholders to develop a green economy strategy and a national sustainable energy strategy to build the jobs of the future for our communities and for Canada.

When we compromise the air, water, soil and a variety of life, we steal from the endless future to serve the fleeting present.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally disagree with all of the member's speech this afternoon, but I did enjoy listening to her dissertation on what she believes may happen and to the fearmongering that goes with it.

Assuming that the member for Etobicoke North believes in balanced budgets, what would the member and her party do to balance the budget? Would there be any cuts that she would recommend be made to the Government of Canada?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am always evidenced-based, fact-based. This was a well-researched piece of work.

I will present the evidence for the hon. member. The environment is not a Conservative priority. In 2008, the climate change performance index ranked Canada 56th of 57 countries in terms of tackling emissions. In 2009, the Conference Board of Canada ranked Canada 15th of 17 wealthy industrial nations on environmental performance. In 2010, SFU ranked Canada 24th of 25 OECD nations on environmental performance. Most recently, the environmental performance index ranked Canada 102nd out of 132 countries on climate change. In 2006, the Prime Minister remarked, “Canada's environmental performance is, by most measures, the worst in the developed world. We have big problems”.

This budget should have taken action to protect the environment, not gut it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her charming speech.

When we talk about sustainable development, we are talking about development that we will be leaving to future generations. I have one daughter who is 26 years old and another who is 21. It is our young people who will be here tomorrow and who will look after our country's future.

When we talk about the environment, we are talking about the security of these young people. When we talk about oil development, about big businesses that exploit and export everything abroad without considering the cost to the environment, we are putting future generations in debt.

Yes, the budget is balanced, but by bringing down a balanced budget, the government is putting future generations in debt. They are the ones who will have to clean up the environmental mess we are making today. What does the member think of that?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the hon. member. Climate change is our most pressing environmental issue. It requires moral responsibility and intergenerational responsibility. The government does not appreciate that. While it says that it is financially accountable, if it does not take action on climate change today, the costs annually by 2050 will be $21 billion to $43 billion for our children.

I just returned from Bangladesh, which has a population of 160 million. It is twice the size of New Brunswick and it produces less greenhouse gases than Manhattan. With the one-metre sea level rise, that will affect 20% of its land mass and affect 20 million people.

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

Mr. Speaker, an area in my riding of Kingston and the Islands is contaminated with heavy metal from about 100 years ago. It is pretty much unusable. We cannot touch the land. We cannot disturb the soil.

This is an economic burden on my riding of Kingston and the Islands today. It is a tax, really. Is that not an example of how lax environmental regulations from 100 years ago have an effect for decades afterwards on the local economy?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. What scares me most about this budget is that it will not affect a few years; the gutting of environmental legislation will affect our country for decades to come.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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 Scarborough-Southwest, Public Transit; the hon. member for Manicouagan, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Fisheries and Oceans.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Burlington.

I am proud to rise today in support of our Conservative government's 2011 budget plan. This plan is a cornerstone of our continuing unwavering commitment to provide Canadians with a stable economic road map within a thoughtful, comprehensive economic action plan.

The budget showcases a long-term prosperity vision for Canada through reasonable, pragmatic measures designed to maintain our enviable economic record and demonstrate our faith in the vibrant Canadian spirit, forged out of hard work, faith, common enterprise, ingenuity and compassion.

What is our focus? What is our agenda? Our focus, our agenda, is a stable stewardship of our economy to maintain and increase our prospects for success in the short term, in the medium term and in the long term. It is to foster a future Canada that works efficiently for us now and for our children and grandchildren, a Canada that is welcoming and productive and allows all Canadians the opportunity to live full and rewarding lives, a Canada that is prosperous enough that we can continue to support those of us in need and those around the world who need a hand up.

All of these noble ambitions require a foundational economic and financial strength for which our economic action plan sets a solid framework.

We cannot foretell all that is ahead of us. We cannot foretell, most assuredly, the actions and consequences of the decisions of other countries with whom we are interdependent in a global economic balance, but we can do our part and more within our sovereign borders to ensure that we are in a position to weather the storms that may come. We can ensure that we are flexible enough to deal with contingencies in an intelligent and caring manner and solid enough to plan ahead, so that a prosperous future does not have to include taking Draconian overnight steps because we have no choice but to raise taxes and overburden Canadian families and businesses.

It supports a future built on bold ambition that has at its core the certain belief that Canadians are capable of all things: of worthy endeavour in the arts and in business, of global competitiveness, of innovation that will amaze us and save lives, of all the stuff that dreams are made of.

We will improve Canada's labour market through employment programs and skills training for young Canadians, older workers, Canadians with disabilities and first nations; building a fast and flexible economic immigration system that responds to labour market demands; improving the employment insurance program; and better integrating high-quality researchers in the labour market. We will boost economic growth and job creation through supporting and fostering innovation, investment, education and skills.

How will we do this? Among the many initiatives outlined in the budget, I would like to highlight a few.

We will invest over $1 billion to support science and technology and we will provide $500 million to encourage innovative start-up companies.

Our government will ensure responsible resource development by streamlining the review process, something provincial and territorial governments and industry have been requesting for a long time. This streamlining will ensure reasonable timelines and clarity around the process requirements without compromising, and in fact strengthening, environmental oversight and while meeting strong federal standards.

We will expand free trade, which our Prime Minister and cabinet have been hard at work promoting.

The hiring credit for small business will be extended, something that will particularly help many in my riding.

The budget will provide $150 million over two years for the new community infrastructure improvement fund, $5.2 billion over 11 years to renew the Canadian Coast Guard, a vital resource in our coastal communities, and $275 million over three years to support first nations education and schools.

Specific programs will be aimed at attracting skilled immigrants to match our country's economic needs.

Our government will change our old age security delivery to ensure that younger workers today will also have this social program available when they are older, and we will phase in a proactive enrolment regime for both OAS and GIS, which will be warmly welcomed by the elderly and their caregivers.

We are also promoting more active lifestyles for all ages and enhancing the victims fund to continue our quest to better acknowledge the voices of victims in our federal justice and corrections system.

To my mind, the great news from this 2011 budget is that we will achieve all of these improvements without raising taxes and without slashing transfers to health, education or support for seniors.

In fact, we Conservatives have cut taxes over 140 times since forming government. From cutting tax rates and increasing tax credits to making our tax reporting system more reasonable and supporting families with both able-bodied and disabled members, we have provided savings for a typical Canadian family of over $3,100 per year.

Due in part to our government's low-tax approach, a stark contrast to the NDP and Liberals' higher-tax programs and philosophies, and the amazing fact, verified by the International Monetary Fund, that our net debt to GDP ratio remains the lowest in the G7, Forbes magazine has ranked Canada number one in the world—let me repeat that: number one in the world—for businesses to grow and create jobs.

Canadians do not need the federal government to hold their hands every step of the way, as we are a nation forged on resiliency and a desire for freedom, but Canadians do need us to clear a path. If that path can be well defined and well lit, all the better, but the fact that such a pathway exists is all that some Canadians need to move forward.

We need to show ourselves as partners of Canadian enterprise and achievement, not as an extra burden. Everyone must contribute, of course, but confidence to achieve and to have the ability to help others whose time has not yet come often requires the incentive that a prudent, caring government can provide.

This is such a budget. This is such a time. This is Canada's century. We are being noticed as never before around the world. We are being recognized as never before as leaders out of the despair and confusion of runaway debt. We are the true north, strong and free, and I am proud to be a part of it, proud of who we are and who we intend to be.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her contribution to the debate and I want to come back on one of the points that were mentioned.

We know that the environmental assessment and review processes in this country may be viewed by some as a burden for any development project. However, I think this is what allows the balance between the economic, environmental and social aspects of any development. The government talks about consultations with aboriginal peoples in this country. I would like to know what it means by “consultation with aboriginal peoples” in this budget, because the Supreme Court already has determined that “consultation” may mean, at times, “consent” of aboriginal peoples in developing projects.

Is the government talking about consultation with aboriginal peoples in the constitutional sense of the word, or is it talking about consultation in the expediency sense of the word?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think there were two questions in there.

First, certainly, we do not see the environmental assessment process as a burden. We see it as a necessity. However, we also see the need for clarity.

For those who wish to move forward or who may not, in fact, be able to move forward because of an environmental assessment, we are streamlining that process. We are continuing with the exacting and high standards of the federal assessment process, but it will be administered through the one level of government. We are quite confident that would add more clarity to the process.

As to the meaningful consultation with aboriginal peoples, we know, of course, what the Supreme Court of Canada said about that with respect to first nations.

I am a British Columbian member of Parliament. First nations are always consulted with respect to any development programs. Their input is welcome and in fact necessary to bring all peoples together with respect to the future of that province and Canada.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the pathway that the Conservatives have created. What one person may call a pathway another person, certainly me, would call tunnel vision, because in this particular case what we have is a lot of ideology being infused into the policy. The policy is somewhat understated by the government, but nonetheless it needs to be fleshed out.

That said, I do have a question. In all honesty, what I find is a little disconcerting. Time and time again through this debate—and up until the end of the debate, and going way back as well, even to the last budget—the Conservatives talked about the strong systems now in place that allow Canada to be number one out of seven when it comes to debt to GDP ratio. There are other markers out there that refer to Canada as being a leader in that particular area. Whether that may be the Conservatives or the preceding government is a whole other issue.

However, the question remains. Why would the government raise the age of eligibility for OAS and GIS from 65 to 67, citing that other countries are doing this, when those other countries do not have the financial strength that we do? Why would the government do that? What would be the impetus? I doubt if the demographers are really winning the argument over themselves who are saying that we have a strong enough economy to support that 20 years down the road.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we have an economy that is the envy of the world, and that was the point of my remarks—that we have been doing extremely well—but we are still in a fragile time, given our interdependence with other economies in the world. That is why sound stewardship and having the kind of focus our government has are so very important.

With respect to the specific changes to old age security, we have said time and again in this House that the funds for OAS come out of general revenue. It is not handled the same way as CPP, which we all know is sustainable and will continue. We need to be realistic about the future and we need to ensure that future generations will have the ability to access old age security.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the budget bill. I want to thank the member for Delta—Richmond East for sharing her time with me today.

We are dealing with a budget implementation bill. As members know, the budget is normally broken into two bills: one in the spring and one in the fall. We did not get a chance to talk about the budget in general because the NDP filibustered when we first introduced it, which took up all of the time.

I will talk about a few other things that are in the bill and put on the record how I feel about them. I will start with the jobs, balanced budget and future prosperity aspects of the bill. The budget, the bill, the plan is about this.

People ask me all the time what the major issue is that I hear about in Burlington. The major issue in my riding is that we need to get back to balanced books at the federal level. Our government has to get rid of the deficit spending that we did during the recession. That is what we are doing with the budget. That is why we need to proceed with what we are doing. The budget brings us back to what we promised.

I know it is hard for the opposition members to believe that we can actually promise to do something and then deliver it in our budget and policies. It is very difficult for them to understand that. During the election we committed to bringing back balanced books by 2015, and this budget puts us on the road to do that.

The Minister of Finance has been clear in the House that the budget will get us back and end the deficit spending we have had to do to overcome the worldwide recession. We are coming out better than any other country in the world. Those members know it, the public knows it and the people in Burlington know it. They are telling me that we need to get back to balanced books, and that is what we are doing. It is an election commitment.

Part of that commitment, and I make no apologies for it, is that we need to reduce some of the federal government spending, and that is about a $5.5 billion reduction. That sounds like a lot of money, but let us look at the whole picture.

If people follow along and are able to figure it out, the government spends $260 billion. We spend about $40 billion to $45 billion on interest charges on debt, which will still be there. That is why we have to get back to balanced books: so that we can start paying down debt in the way we were doing before the recession. We need to get that under control.

We transfer a whole bunch of money to the provinces for health care and social services, which are all important things. It is also an important support for the provinces. We did make changes to the equalization payments, as was mentioned earlier. We are committed to providing the provinces the money that we committed to provide. This is not like what happened in the past when we had deficits. What did the government of the day do? It cut its spending and assistance to its provincial partners. In this budget and in the campaign, we refused to do that. We said we would do it on our own.

That leaves us about $80 billion of federal spending over which we have control. Therefore, we are looking at about $5.2 billion and a few percentage points. If we cannot find a few percentage points to reduce the cost of government out of $80 billion, we are doing something wrong. Yes, it means that the public service has to come to the table with it.

We are also looking at programs and at what we are doing right. When we do a program evaluation, we look at what its mandate is and whether it has fulfilled that mandate. Is it over, or do we need to continue to fund it?

The ministers did not get together one night and decide on this. They had the departments come to them with suggestions of what was feasible, what could be done and what was reasonable. That is what we are implementing through the budget.

There are some great things in the budget, and members can ask me questions about what is in the implementation bill. I am happy to answer, but there are a few things for my riding of Burlington that I would like to highlight.

For example, we are spending $1.1 billion in research and development, including improvements to the IRAP program, basically doubling the money. This is a jobs budget.

We have heard the opposition ask us how we will create jobs. We will create jobs through innovation and research—not jobs necessarily for today, but jobs that will be there tomorrow if we commercialize research and development, if we take a leadership role on the industrial level and deliver not just to Canadians but around the world. Our country, like many others, is a trading country. That is why we need free trade agreements. That is why we are working so hard on them.

I am the co-chair of the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group. I have some relationship with Japan. Japan's government is coming to the realization that it needs partners, that it cannot do it all on its own and that it actually needs free trade agreements. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, we started discussions with Japan. We are moving forward. We already know as a country and as a government that we need to be traders in the global marketplace or we will get left behind. We deal with that in the budget.

Today, in this part of the implementation of the budget, there is discussion about what will do on the environmental side. I want people to read the legislation. It talks about substitution. It does not talk about elimination. If there is an environmental assessment at the federal level and another one at the provincial level, we can substitute one for the other, but they have to be at least equal. For those who do not know, most federal EAs have more restrictions and layers than provincial ones. Therefore, if the province takes it over, it has to meet the environmental assessment standards at the federal level. At the end of the day, the federal minister will make the final decision on it. All it is doing is reducing the layers of assessments.

When I was a municipal councillor, environmental assessments could be bumped up to the province. It delayed many projects, including one in my own ward. There were minor changes being made to save the bank of a creek that was running behind the homes of people. One person did not like how the environmental assessment worked out and how the problem was to be fixed, so it was bumped up to the provincial level. It took months and months to get that resolved. The bank deteriorated but was finally fixed.

The environmental assessment changes that we are making do not eliminate the requirements of assessment. However, why have two processes when there can be one? Why are people concerned about the timing? I would be surprised, and that is a pleasant word, if anyone could find new information after two years of study on a project. It is taking two years for environmental assessments to be completed. It is not like we are eliminating them. Just because an EA takes two years does not mean it will be approved. There is no automatic approval. It does not say that anywhere. It is a substitution, so instead of having the province do it and having it bumped up to the federal government to do it, we would be using the same criteria to do it once and get all the facts on the table. There is nothing wrong with those implementing the environmental assessment to look at the people who will have input into it and ensure they have professional experience and knowledge to add value.

There was a question from the previous speaker about the role of the aboriginal community. The aboriginal community is noted in our plan. We will be proactive in communicating with those individuals who will be directly affected, including the aboriginal communities.

On a personal note, there are some other changes in the budget implementation bill. As someone who has been recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, nothing to be too worried about, there are some changes in the bill that will affect those who test their blood sugar every day.

As someone who thought he was very healthy and had no issues, I would urge everyone to ensure they see their doctor on a regular basis. Issues like type 2 diabetes, if we do not get them early, will be a big burden on the health care system, not today but in the future.

I thank the government for the changes in the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the government member for his very eloquent speech. He is always very passionate and very expressive.

I think he sits on a committee, perhaps even on two committees. As a committee member, what does he think of the fact that this huge document will be studied exclusively by the Standing Committee on Finance, depriving him of his role in conducting an in-depth study of the important portions of this massive document that he mentioned in his speech? What does he think of the fact that it will not be studied by a number of committees and that it will in fact be reserved exclusively for the Standing Committee on Finance?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is new to Parliament. I have sat on the finance committee for five years. We had budget bills in the past that had a lot of different aspects to them. On our side, we have the ability to substitute members who have an expertise or knowledge in an area when we deal with a certain section of the bill. They can sit in the finance committee and discuss those issues there. That is the process.

Why would we break up the bill and send it to a whole bunch of different committees? It is much better to be focused on finance. It is a financial bill. If there are issues within the bill that members feel they need to discuss and have expertise in, it is up to their party to substitute individuals on the finance committee for those meetings to discuss those issues. It is much better focused. If we were to spread all over the committees, it would not be an efficient and effective way and a good use of members' time.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the member was here in 2005 when the Conservatives railed against the idea of including the Atlantic accord in the budget. The very things that he said were the things that they railed against. However, I digress.

He said earlier that he would talk about the inclusion of aboriginals in this debate. Taseko Mines Ltd. is trying to sway the way the Conservative government into excluding aboriginal peoples from participating in the environmental review of a project that would affect first nation communities. What does he say?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have committed to our aboriginal peoples that on issues of environmental assessments, they will be consulted. I do not know how much more black and white it needs to be for the member across, but it is there. It is in the legislation.

If he read the legislation, even the summary, the summary page lays it out. We are committed to discussing these EA issues with those directly affected, including the aboriginal people. I assume the member across will support that.

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

Mr. Speaker, journalists at Le Devoir are calling this bill a “mammoth”. I would go even further and say that it is a horse, it is an airplane, it is a brick. We can call it all sorts of things.

It is illegal for companies or individuals to use computer viruses—so-called Trojan horses—to install software on computers when users want nothing to do with it. This is exactly what the Conservative government has decided to do. It has transformed its budget implementation bill into a Trojan horse and opened up the Canadian telecommunications market to foreign companies while Canadians are worrying about their old age security and their shattered retirement dreams.

Quite frankly, the government has buried enough legislation in Bill C-38 to block a whole server.

Why has the industry minister decided to bury his amendments to the Telecommunications Act in the budget implementation bill rather than sending them to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology?

In March, the government announced rules for an auction that would have a significant impact on this country's digital future and its economy. We had a unique opportunity to promote competition in the wireless telecommunications market and ensure that all Canadians, including those living in remote regions, can participate in the digital economy of the 21st century. The government missed the mark.

Auctions for the radio frequencies used by our old analog televisions will allow the telecommunications companies that buy them to set up next generation wireless networks.

The promise made to the people of LaSalle—Émard and every other Canadian was that they will soon have access to much faster wireless networks. Far too many Canadians who live in remote regions still do not have access to high-speed Internet. For them, we had the opportunity to increase access to broadband Internet and to fully include them in the digital economy. The government had the opportunity to bridge the ever-growing digital gap that is currently dividing Canada in two: on the one hand, urban Canada, which is connected to high-speed wireless networks, and on the other hand, the regions, which are connected, but at speeds that are much slower than those available elsewhere in our country.

The promise was that we could correct the imbalance between urban and rural areas and promote competition in the industry in order to lower costs for consumers. The Government of Canada failed to keep that promise.

The proposed amendments to the Telecommunications Act contained in Bill C-38 will allow foreign telecommunications companies to operate in Canada if they have less than a 10% share of the Canadian market. These foreign companies will not be able to increase their share of the Canadian market through acquisitions, that is by purchasing rival companies, something that Canadian companies can do.

We therefore find ourselves in a situation where telecommunications companies in Canada will compete under rules that do not apply equally to everyone. Canadian companies will have one set of rules; foreign companies will have another. Here in Canada, we are used to arguing about hockey or soccer games, where everyone plays by the same rules. However, that is not the approach used by this government. We already knew that.

Many Canadian telecommunications companies have concerns about these developments. Ironically, the company that stood to gain the most from these changes immediately responded that it would boycott the auction.

The government was not transparent with Canadians, who have the same questions we do.

Will the government stand by its decision to open only part of the Canadian market to foreign companies? Are these changes simply the first step in a process that goes much further?

Does the government plan to continue to gradually lift restrictions on foreign companies' participation in the Canadian telecommunications market?

Will this government try to take advantage of the fact that it has created a two-tiered market with different rules for different players in order to completely open the Canadian telecommunications market to foreign competition?

The reality is that we have no way of knowing. Canadian are still waiting for the Minister of Industry to reveal his strategy for the digital economy. An initiative was launched two years ago, almost to the day. Then it was radio silence. The government's approach is hard to follow. It is behaving like a CEO without a business plan. It decides to hire staff without knowing what positions need to be filled. It launches a new product without knowing if it has any clients or if people are even interested in the product.

It is as though the government decided to sell off its most beautiful beachfront property without telling shareholders whether it wants contractors to build condos, houses, apartments, hotels or businesses. CEOs who do not have a business plan do not get very far, as we know.

The fact that the industry minister has decided to push through his amendments to the Telecommunications Act by including them in a budget implementation bill, where they will be all be debated together over a very short period of time and along with a heap of other bills, only adds to the sense that the government is just making things up as it goes along.

Resorting to a catch-all omnibus bill gives the impression that the government is like a tired chess player who is improvising with every move. It is playing a game without having a plan. We feel that the government introduces legislation first and asks questions later.

These amendments to the Telecommunications Act should have gone to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology for in-depth study by parliamentarians from the opposition parties. This is a fundamental breach of democracy.

Is the industry minister afraid that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology might discover that the changes to the act will not really promote competition in the Canadian wireless market?

Is the government afraid of hearing experts and even some of its own partners say that the proposed changes will not bridge the ever-widening gap between rural Canada and connected Canada?

Is the government afraid of hearing from wireless network operators that are dissatisfied with the auction rules that have been announced?

The lifting of foreign ownership requirements and the piecemeal approach to regulation the government is offering are not going to solve the problem of the digital economy. What Canada needs is a plan, a digital strategy. Canadians have already been waiting too long. We need a comprehensive approach to ensure competitive prices in the telecommunications industry, an approach that takes into account the needs of telecommunications operators, consumers and urban and rural Canadians. Rather than choosing dialogue and involving opposition parties in the legislation process, the government has chosen to ride the Trojan horse to hide changes to the Telecommunications Act from the scrutiny of Parliament and the industry committee. That is undemocratic and unacceptable.

Once again, I urge the industry minister to send the amendments to the Telecommunications Act for study by the appropriate committee and the opposition parties. We have a unique opportunity to bridge the digital divide and build next generation wireless networks to ensure the sustainability of Canada's digital economy, so that no one is left behind.

Let us not squander this important opportunity. Let us work together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for her presentation. I hope she will forgive me for using this as a moment for a comment.

I have been subjected to speeches on Bill C-38. A number of claims have been made by government members. Having read the bill, a number of the things that have been said are simply not in the legislation.

For example, it is not required in the legislation that the Minister of the Environment be satisfied the provincial process is equivalent before a substitution occurs. The language is completely discretionary, and merely says the minister must decide it is an appropriate substitution. “Appropriate” is not defined. Then there is a mandatory duty on the federal minister to turn the project over to a province if the province requests it.

Tanker safety regulations are not put forward anywhere in Bill C-38. That may be something they intend to do, but it is certainly not in Bill C-38.

Bill C-38 is not a budget bill, it is the decimation of environmental laws.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to respond to the comments made by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The bill certainly does cover a lot of ground. My colleague mentioned just one of the issues that deserves our attention. I would like to reiterate my belief that the Standing Committee on Environment should thoroughly study the section of the bill relating to its mandate, just as everything I talked about should be studied by the Standing Committee on Industry.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to note the work that is happening in the industry committee right now, of which she is a member, and where there is time to be able to go through government legislation properly. My colleague ably noted that process issue that we are losing.

Would the member expand upon the foreign ownership issue with regard to what has taken place in the past? We have seen the industry adjusted twice in recent years: the first time led to less competition in some urban areas, and the second time the minister actually put the Government of Canada into a lawsuit.

I would like to ask the member about due process. Why it would be more advantageous to go to committee and avoid those problems? These changes were in previous budget bills, at least one was, and that was the end result: no due diligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. We work very well together as a strong team committed to carefully studying every file that comes before us.

With respect to the section on changes to the Telecommunications Act, we found that none of the proposed scenarios intended to increase competition so that rural regions can benefit from the high-speed wireless network met the policy objectives.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question from my colleague from Windsor West. We certainly do have time in the industry committee to engage in studies on this bill.

Would the member for LaSalle—Émard comment on changes in the budget that are coming up on the Investment Canada Act, changes that have been put in by the government before the industry committee has had the opportunity to actually study those questions?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard for a brief answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Once again, my colleague mentioned another issue—the bill is a brick and covers all sorts of things—that the Standing Committee on Industry should have studied.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to oppose both the form and the substance of Bill C-38.

This bill is a jumble of dangerous legislation rolled up into an omnibus bill. In the time allotted to me, it will be impossible to identify the multitude of problems this bill contains, but I will nonetheless try to address as many of them as possible, because these legislative changes will hit my constituents in d'Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel hard.

Among other things, this bill raises the eligibility age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits; repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act; weakens the environmental assessment system and the measures to protect fish habitats, to expedite approval of large projects; changes the definition of interested parties, to narrow the scope of public participation in the environmental decision-making process; eliminates the Auditor General’s oversight of a number of agencies; repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Work Act, which will allow employers to circumvent the wage rates set by unions for construction workers hired on projects funded by the federal government; amends the Employment Equity Act so it does not apply to federal contracts, which is a direct attack on women, aboriginal people, persons with a disability and visible minorities; and amends the Seeds Act so that private businesses can then be allowed to perform food inspections.

This bill does a lot of other things, but these aspects in particular are really going to hurt my constituents in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I want to talk in greater detail about the fact that Bill C-38 repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Work Act. That act has protected construction workers who work on federal projects since 1930. It guarantees them reasonable hours and a decent wage. But the government is now attacking these workers and their fair and equitable wages. Without that protection, we will be going back to the standards that were in effect in the 1930s.

As well, the Employment Equity Act will no longer apply to federal contracts. The role of that law is to protect the rights of women, minorities, aboriginal people and persons with a disability. Even with that legislation, those groups continued to suffer discrimination. And now, the government wants to take away what little protection there is.

I very much hope for the day when we live in a world where that act is no longer needed, but that is absolutely not the case. In 2002, in fact, it was recommended that this House strengthen the act, not narrow its reach.

These changes to the rules governing government subcontractors can be based in nothing other than the Conservative ideology that wants to demolish Canadians’ rights by allowing discrimination and unfair wages.

The federal government should be an exemplary employer. How can Canadians trust a government that attacks the rights of workers and its subcontractors when it comes time to protect them from the abuses of faceless megacorporations?

The current government loses on all fronts when it attacks its own employees and does nothing to protect others from brutal layoffs by companies chasing huge profits overseas.

This omnibus bill is not only dangerous for our institutions and for workers, but it also attacks the health and safety of all Canadians. Environmental deregulation and cuts to food safety are similar in their impact and, accordingly, the entire food production chain will be affected.

With environmental deregulation, we will no longer be able to protect our air, our water and our soil. Opening the door to privatizing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will open the door to having seed inspections done by a subcontractor. That means less control and less information for the government, which could always deny knowing anything if things go wrong. This could also apply to food inspection. The government keeps offloading its responsibilities.

Ultimately, this deregulation and whittling away of checks and balances could have an effect on the health of Canadians. What is more, the government is weakening transparency and responsibility within government in the area of health.

This bill is bad for the Canadians in my riding. From Oka to Montpellier, Canadians want environmental regulations that protect them. From Mirabel to Ripon, farmers want to be able to count on the government to have regulations and inspections that are solid, fair and meaningful. From Morin Heights to Thurso, Canadians are fed up with this government, which has shamed us by withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol and is now waging a full-blown war on all the sectors of government that are responsible for providing a healthy environment for all Quebeckers and Canadians.

And just when we thought that the government could not stoop any lower, in the same bill it is attacking pensions by raising the retirement age from 65 to 67. As elected representatives, we cannot reduce the deficit by stealing Canadians' pensions. The OAS and the GIS are crucial to our public system because they help to fight poverty. The Conservatives are stealing two years of Canadians' pensions for reasons that do not make sense. There is no old age security funding crisis in Canada.

The government's most recent actuarial report indicates that the OAS and the GIS accounted for 2.37% of GDP last year, in 2011. This percentage will rise modestly to 3.16% in 2030, but will then fall below the current level to 2.35% of GDP in 2060. Clearly, there is no problem with long-term viability, and yet the Conservatives are trying to fool us by saying that these changes are intended to ensure the long-term viability of the program. However, these programs are efficient and economically sound, and the government's statements are unfounded.

In closing, the Conservatives are claiming that this budget focuses on job creation. In reality, however, a third of this bill is dedicated to scrapping regulations that protect the environment. Moreover, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated that the legislation will result in the loss of 43,000 Canadian jobs. And on top of all that, we are going to have to vote on a bill without having an opportunity to engage in a proper debate on it.

I would like to draw the House's attention to what Hélène Buzzetti wrote in Le Devoir on April 27:

Yesterday the Conservative government introduced a mammoth budget implementation bill.... Everything will be examined as quickly as possible by a committee that specializes in finance.

Each of these issues could have been dealt with in a separate bill and analyzed by the appropriate parliamentary committee. Instead, the government lumped them all together in one document that will be studied all at once...

A mammoth bill, that is what the media is calling it. I would remind the Conservatives that the mammoth is an extinct species. I hope the members across the floor realize that this omnibus bill should suffer the same fate and die when it comes time to vote.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member talking about her riding.

I also travelled around her riding and saw young people in Mirabel who were very happy with the support we are providing, particularly for the aerospace industry, and with the fact that we are funding research and development, innovation, and science and technology, in order to be able to stand out and market innovative ideas, in other words, to create wealth.

In order to provide quality services, we need to create wealth. This means reducing red tape, helping our industries and stimulating the economy, as we did during the recession. We were able to create 700,000 net new jobs. The member's party voted against all of those initiatives at the time.

Frankly, if we had followed the NDP way of thinking, the recession would have hit Canada much harder. We would be facing a debt crisis, just as the rest of the world is right now.

I do not understand how she can talk about people in her riding when we have a positive record, particularly in the Mirabel area in the aerospace industry.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote my colleague from Hamilton.

My colleague from Hamilton just said that if the government were so proud of it, why did it not send it to the industry committee?

I live in Saint-Augustin-de-Mirabel, and I spend a lot of time talking to the people of Mirabel. The issue that the people of Mirabel are most concerned about is the environment. In fact, at least one-third of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, is about environmental deregulation. The government is implementing everything it said it would and more. My constituents had already completely lost faith in the government for attacking the environment, doing nothing and withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol. Now things are even worse.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. I would like to talk to her about a specific issue.

We are both members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The member for Burlington, Ontario, spoke in committee a little while ago. He must be in the lobby. He must understand.

I know that the Standing Orders prevent me from saying where a member is, so I apologize. Still, I know he is there.

During a meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the member mentioned that the budget will help aboriginal communities. Fortunately, a professor from First Nations University of Canada in Alberta told us that, among other things, the budget was cut by 100%. I hardly dare say it.

If that is what they call helping aboriginal communities, what more could they do to hurt them?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me another chance to talk about my riding.

The community of Kanesatake in my riding is concerned about the consultation that is being done with first nations when it comes to a wide variety of things, but especially the environment. Bill C-38 would cut back on the community's ability to be consulted with respect to its concerns on environmental issues.

I would remind the member that Kanesatake is on the St. Lawrence River near the Ottawa River and on Lac-des-Deux-Montagnes. Those waterways have wide implications for federal waters and things like that, yet up until now there has not been enough consultation and not enough has been done to protect those waterways. Now the people who really care about them will not be consulted as much.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fredericton.

It is my honour to be here today to speak to the budget and budget implementation. It is something that is actually very easy to speak to, because it makes so much sense and it actually sets Canada up for a future that will be very strong.

We will not raise taxes. We will not be balancing our books on the backs of the provinces. We actually have a game plan that will create a Canada that we will love into the future, a Canada that will be prosperous into the future and a Canada that we all can be proud of.

We will have low taxes, growth and proper prudent fiscal management, which will, as I said, bring about strong economic growth. I see a bright future not just for us sitting here today, but for our kids, our grandkids and our great-grandkids. It will be a great time to be a Canadian, and we should all be proud of it. We should compliment the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance on how great a job they have done on the budget.

In the past two years, our government has already cut Canada's temporary planned deficit from the recession in half, a deficit that all members of Parliament agreed was necessary to stimulate the economy through investment in infrastructure. Since then, our economy has created some 700,000 net new jobs, placing Canada in one of the strongest fiscal positions in the G7.

Thanks to the government's strong fiscal management, Canada's budgetary balance will not be reached through the type of harsh fiscal and economic shocks now being implemented in parts of Europe, but through a building of Canada's successes by implementing moderate restraint in government spending. The majority of savings in spending will come from eliminating waste in internal government operations. We will make government leaner and more efficient. By doing this, we will be able to stay on track to balance Canada's budget by 2015.

The economic action plan 2012 will also not cut transfers to the provinces or senior levels of government. We will not balance our books on the backs of seniors and we will not balance our books on the backs of the municipalities or the provinces. We will balance the books through a combination of growth and finding efficiencies within the federal government that are there right now and that we can find with the departments. Unlike the Liberal government, which balanced its books on the backs of seniors and the provinces and created incredibly long wait-lists for medical attention and doctors' treatments, we will actually be increasing the transfers for health care and education. This budget is doing something that the Liberals never could do: it is taking responsibility for its own spending and ensuring that the use of taxpayer money is done in a proper fashion.

My province, Saskatchewan, will receive close to $1.3 billion in transfers in 2012-13. This long-term, growing support helps ensure that Saskatchewan will have the resources required to provide essential public services and contributes to the shared national objectives, including health care, post-secondary education and other key components of Canada's social programs.

Saskatchewan will also benefit from continued direct targeted support in 2012-13. It includes $14 million for labour market training as part of a commitment of $500 million a year in new funding to the provinces and territories, which began in 2008-09, and $8 million for the wait times reduction funds, part of the 10-year plan to strengthen health care across Canada.

We are working to strengthen the financial strength of workers, businesses and families to help create good jobs and long-term prosperity from coast to coast to coast. To help do this, for instance, we will extend by one year the hiring credit for small businesses, a measure we already know works to encourage employers to hire more workers. Furthermore, we will increase our funding for skills training for students, older workers and those Canadians with disabilities.

In Saskatchewan, our unemployment has been staying around that 4% to 5% range. It is actually a province that is doing very well. It is a province that came from an NDP background where we were shipping our kids to Alberta and everywhere else across Canada to get jobs. All of a sudden, we changed to a government that actually knew how to embrace the economy and let business do what business does, which is create jobs. This budget also does that.

When we look at the results in Saskatchewan, with a 4% to 5% unemployment rate, there is growth. We are looking for trades, skills and people. It is such an amazing success story. That is something we want to see continue right across Canada. We can never let the NDP get a foothold here in Ottawa because it would do what it did in Saskatchewan and it would actually break the country.

Another part of our plans for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity includes investing in innovation and world-class research. In response to the Jenkins report, economic action plan 2012 includes substantial funding to help create value-added jobs through innovation. We will better support the National Research Council and the industrial research and development internship program. We are also committed to additional funding to support advanced research at universities and other research institutions. We are making Canada the best place to invest.

We need to ensure that Canada is the place in which businesses want to invest in the long term. In the next 10 years, more than 500 economic projects representing $500 billion in new investments are planned across our country. In Saskatchewan, natural resources, from potash to oil, gold, coal, diamonds and uranium, offer huge potential and create even more jobs and growth.

To reach our country's full economic potential, we will implement reasonable, responsible development and smart regulations for major economic projects, respecting provincial jurisdictions and maintaining the highest standards of environmental protection. We will also streamline the review process for such projects according to the following principles: one project, one review, completed in a clearly defined time period, which will ensure that Canada has the infrastructure we need to move our exports to new markets.

That is very important for the province of Saskatchewan, because we have so many resources that are in the process of being developed. These guys go out, stake their claim, develop a mine and prove that it is financially viable, and then they sit there and wait, and it is not one year, not two years, not three years, not four years: they are waiting five or six years in order to get the environmental process completed, an environmental process that is stacked upon province and federal.

If we look at the situation now, these projects will get completed in two years, or three years at the most. They will have some bankability and know that when they invest big dollars, millions and millions of dollars, it will have a huge impact in ensuring the project is viable and can become a mine. However, what is very important, and something that we have stressed throughout, is that we will not shortchange or short-cheat the environment. We are ensuring that all the environmental requirements are met and we are working with the provinces to ensure those environmental standards are up to a standard that Canadians expect and deserve. We are not taking any shortcuts. Again, we are just getting rid of duplication, waste and bureaucracy.

One thing this government has done very well over the last few years is on international trade, and I congratulate the Minister of International Trade for the work he has done on this file. We will have a low corporate tax rate of around 15%. We have a market already through NAFTA that has roughly 300 million consumers, and then, with the Canadian-European trade agreement that we are working on, we will have another 500 million consumers.

Canada will be the only country in the world that will have market access to not only of the U.S., Mexico and other trading partners that we have agreements with already, but we will have market access to the European Union once the Canadian-European trade agreement is done. I cannot tell members how huge this is will be for Canada. It will create so many jobs it is unreal. We will have access to 500 million more consumers. We will have access for companies that would have low tax rates to locate here in Canada. They will know that just by locating here, they will have 800 million consumers they can trade with, and that is not counting the other trade agreements we have with Chile and Peru and the possibility of the Trans-Pacific partnership that we are working on and hopefully will be involved with in the future. Canada gets it. The Minister of International Tradegets it. We are an exporting country.

I come from a province of agriculture producers. We make our money from trading. We need to ensure we have market access. Our minister understands that and is doing everything he can to ensure that we have it. That is one of the things that will make this country a bright country in the future.

There are so many things we can talk about in the budget and how it will impact families, pensioners and long-term prosperity. However, I cannot stress enough that when we combine low tax rates, we create jobs.

When companies have a low tax rate, they create jobs. I know the NDP thinks that companies are these huge multinationals, but there are companies like Ted Matheson Men’s Wear in Prince Albert. When his tax rate is a little lower, he can hire another employee to work in his store. It is the manufacturers that we see out in St. Brieux, like Bourgault Industries, which is not a small manufacturer by any means, but when they have low tax rates, they are reinvesting in that small town of St. Brieux and in the areas of Melfort, Tisdale and Humboldt. That is what happens when we have low tax rates. It is better to leave that money with the companies and have them invest it in their communities than to send it to Ottawa and have it wasted somewhere else.

I think that if businesses are wondering where they should set up a business to manufacture and grow, it is right here in Canada. This budget helps implement and put in place the solid rooting for proper businesses to grow in the future throughout the world.

It is an amazing budget and one that I am proud to support. I cannot imagine how somebody could not support this budget. If they do not support this budget, then they do not have Canada's long-term interests at heart.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that information.

Bill C-38 contains many provisions, in particular, division 49 of part 4.

Why eliminate the First Nations Statistical Institute? By doing so, I believe the government is eliminating an independent source of statistics on first nations. In my riding of Joliette, there is the Manawan Atikamekw community.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is classic NDP spending priorities. We can take that money, put it on statistics and hire people who will study and study more things, or we can actually take that money and put into more education for aboriginal students, because that is what they are asking for in my riding. They are asking for more spaces to go to school, to take on a trade or get a university degree. They are asking for better funding for their elementary schools and high schools.

When we have a dollar to spend, I know the NDP would rather spend it on some theory or some professor doing some theoretical work. The member should not get me wrong; I am sure the statistical work is very important work, but if we only have a dollar to spend in a lot of situations, we need to ensure that dollar is used in the most effective way. I think it is more effectively used getting direct impact help to the aboriginal kids and students who require it than going to some other areas.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Prince Albert has been working hard in his riding representing the agricultural community. A lot that is in the budget really does help out agriculture. It helps out our municipalities. It really does address a lot of the concerns and needs that we have in rural Canada.

I was wondering if the member wanted to talk about some of the changes that we are making to the way we are handling the permit process for clean ditches, drains, municipal projects and helping farmers deal with excess water.

In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake, we have dealt with excess moisture for three out of the last five years. There have been delays in getting permits from DFO to do something as simple as cleaning out a culvert or building some drains on some farmland. We are backlogged because of DFO as well as the Manitoban government's permit processes. I would like him to talk about how important that is for his agriculture producers to deal with issues in a real time situation so that they can get a crop into the ground and develop better opportunities to advance their productivity.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Selkirk—Interlake had a lot of input in this budget because, if we look at his situation, these are areas where he had a lot of concern for his constituents. He wanted to ensure they had the tools and resources they needed to get the job done on their farms and ensure they can produce a good, healthy crop and have a good lifestyle.

What we were seeing in Saskatchewan with my riding and in the municipalities was just silliness. People would go to put in a culvert and all of a sudden DFO representatives would come and say that they could not do it. They would actually say, “You've got to park that backhoe for three weeks until we come back and look at where you're going to put that culvert. You're going to have to maybe change it by two feet or three feet or you're going to have to put a whole pile of stuff in there.”

What was interesting was that in a lot of these waterways, there was no water. They were waterways where maybe for three weeks water would flow during the spring runoff, and then there would be no water in them for the rest of the year unless we had a torrential downpour. There was silliness going on on the Prairies in terms of DFO, the navigable waters and Fisheries and Oceans.

That is one thing the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans got correct. He understands what is important to maintain a proper vibrant fishery. He also understands the balance of ensuring that what is represented and what is done on the Prairies is actually taking care of the fisheries and also taking care of the needs of farmers and the rural municipalities that work in the area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's remarks.

I would like to ask him how this budget will promote employment or the type of industry that will add value to our natural resources. This is a problem. The government wants to take our primary resources and export them. We do a lot of trade with many partners. But how does this budget add value to our natural resources to ensure that we have many high paying jobs?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I could go on for hours on what the response will be from the manufacturing sector and the resource development sector on this budget because of what we have done. Right off the bat I can say that having a low corporate income tax rate is an incentive for companies to locate for value-added here on the Prairies, and that is in the budget. The ability to have markets to sell their products to is something that we are working on through the Minister of International Trade and the trade agreements. Setting the stage so business can go out and employ people and locate here in Canada is important.

That is what we are doing in this budget. We are making it so that government is not creating jobs, business is creating jobs. They will create thousands of jobs, perhaps millions of jobs, based on the good foundations that are being set in this budget.

[Keith Ashfield, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to address some vital and sensible changes proposed by the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act.

I would like to first acknowledge and thank my colleague, the Minister of Finance, for putting together a visionary, thoughtful and thorough budget.

I am proud to be part of a government that is taking much-needed steps to help Canadians address the challenges of today's global economy. Our government recognizes that Canada is lucky to be the steward of a vast and abundant array of natural resources. We want to ensure they can contribute to our economic growth and job creation in a sustainable and responsible way now and for future generations.

One of Canada's traditional resources is our fishery. As part of our government's commitment to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, we have introduced changes to the Fisheries Act that would put a focus on protecting Canadian fisheries. These proposed changes to the Fisheries Act would shift the Department of Fisheries and Oceans from managing all impacts on all fish and all habitat to focusing on protecting Canada's fisheries and the habitat that supports it.

The current Fisheries Act's provisions are indiscriminate. They require that all projects and all waters, regardless of the fish species present or their contribution to fisheries, be considered in the same way.

Under the current rules, an irrigation canal on a farmer's field is valued the same way as the Great Lakes. We frankly do not think that makes a lot of sense.

The role and responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is indeed to protect this marvellous historic important resource, our fishery. We believe that Canadians want their government to make good, common-sense changes to the system so we can minimize or eliminate restrictions on routine activities on non-protected waterways and, at the same time, maintain appropriate, reasonable and responsible protection for Canada's fisheries.

In short, our government believes that fish protection policies should focus on Canada's fisheries, not on farmers' fields and flood plains.

Contrary to what some opposition members have been saying, the habitat that supports Canada's fisheries includes areas where these fish live, grow and reproduce along with the fish they eat.

We are in good company in our belief that Canada's fish protection policies should focus on fisheries instead of non-productive areas like drainage ditches or irrigation channels.

Berry Vrbanovic, president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, has said that the changes “...will allow governments to spend less time processing paperwork for small, low-risk public works...”.

This is good common sense, and a very conservative approach to boot.

He went on to say that:

These reforms will make it easier for governments to set clear, sensible priorities for protecting fish habitats. Currently the Fisheries Act applies the same protections to rivers and streams as municipal drains and farmers' irrigation canals. That doesn't make sense.

We agree with him and the countless other municipal leaders who have been calling for these types of reforms for many years.

Opposition parties should spend more time listening to Canadians about the countless tales of the current rules protecting ditches, man-made reservoirs and flood plains while they should be protecting rivers, lakes and oceans that are home to our fisheries.

Unlike the opposition, we are listening to Canadians. This government will ensure that decisions regarding Canada's vital waterways are made by Canadians in the interest of Canadians.

These proposed amendments would allow us to manage a range of threats, including the killing of fish, the permanent alteration and destruction of fish habitat, and aquatic invasive species.

To manage the threats to the fisheries, we would be able to identify ecologically significant areas for fisheries and ensure higher levels of protection for these areas. We would be able to enforce conditions through the Fisheries Act authorizations. Currently, DFO can set conditions but, believe it or not, cannot enforce them.

These changes would allow us to crack down on those who break the rules and they would align penalties under the Fisheries Act with those in the Environmental Enforcement Act, resulting in much stiffer penalties.

Now that we have set the direction, we will consult with interested groups, conservationists with expertise in protecting waterways, fishermen who benefit from the resource, aboriginals, provinces and territories and municipalities.

These consultations would inform us as we develop the regulatory and policy framework that would support and better define the changes. We will continue to build partnerships with those committed to preserving and protecting fisheries, with the hope that they can play an even larger role in the future.

In fact, we want to enhance partnerships with provinces and territories, industry and conservation groups. Where provinces and territories have laws or regulations for fisheries protection that are at least equivalent to our own, we would now recognize the provincial laws to avoid an unnecessarily duplicative process. We would now be able to incorporate best practices fisheries protection standards established by provinces or industry. The amendments would enable the government to allow other regulators to issue authorizations under the Fisheries Act, such as a province or a federal agency.

We would also be able to enter into agreements with third parties, such as conservation groups or professional organizations, to carry out and further the protection of our fisheries and the habitat that supports it. We want to work better and smarter with our partners and we want the rules to work more sensibly and practically for Canadians.

We would clarify situations where development poses the highest risk to fish and fish habitat and those areas of limited risk. We would establish a new framework, in conjunction with stakeholders, to make it easier for people to comply with the Fisheries Act while working in or near water. This would include identifying classes of low-risk work, such as installing a cottage dock, and classes of water where project reviews would not be required. For medium-risk projects, standards would be established allowing Canadians much-needed clarity while they carry out those projects.

Federal pollution protection laws would continue to protect Canada's waterways as they have in the past. We do not believe it is sensible or practical to treat all bodies of water the same way, and our government is making long-overdue changes to our rules to focus DFO on what is important to Canadians. It makes good common sense that the government should be able to minimize or eliminate restrictions on commonplace activities that pose little or no threat and, at the same time, maintain appropriate, reasonable and responsible protection for Canada's fisheries.

Other Canadians also believe that the Fisheries Act is in need of an update. Ducks Unlimited, for example, has noted that:

...the [Conservative] government announced that it commits to the responsible protection and conservation of Canada’s fisheries. Ducks Unlimited...supports this direction and understands that laws and regulations must be updated at interval to ensure that they address evolving social, economic and environmental systems, as well as support efficient process to achieve desired outcomes.

It went on to say:

DUC supports the federal government in updating the federal fisheries legislation and taking a targeted approach that would support the conservation and sustainable use of our fisheries resources. Also, the proposed changes will make it easier for the fisheries legislation and regulations to be enforced.

Let us take a look at what these changes can mean for Canadians. For anglers, the proposed changes would provide specific protection for recreational fisheries and support their ongoing productivity. For conservation groups, the proposed changes would enable the identification and protection of ecologically significant areas. Under the new rules, we would also be able to enter into agreements with these and other groups to undertake enhanced fisheries protection. This could include innovative approaches to protect habitat, support for aquatic invasive species outreach and development of standards for fish protection or other matters.

These proposed changes also include enhanced compliance and enforcement tools such as enforceable conditions, duty for proponents to notify in the event of serious harm to fisheries and penalties aligned with the Environmental Enforcement Act.

In conclusion, our recreational, commercial and aboriginal fisheries are important to Canadians. We want our rules that protect this resource to be sensible, clear and practical, and we want to ensure that they focus on the priorities of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the Conservative member's speech because it brought back some happy memories.

That being said, I disagree with him. I am an agronomist and I worked on agricultural watershed projects to improve water quality.

I know that farmers are concerned about water quality, not only in waterways but also in ditches. They are looking for ways to improve it. Changing the legislation is not going to help them in this regard because water flows everywhere. It leaves a ditch and travels to a stream, which flows into a river that leads to the ocean. Everything is connected and interconnected. We have to find solutions to protect fish habitats—solutions other than those proposed by the hon. member.

We have to think about conservation and about compensating farmers.

I would like to know whether the hon. member has anything to suggest that will help farmers while protecting ditches and waterways.

[Keith Ashfield, Conservative, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the waterways that maintain our resources and aboriginal, commercial and recreational fisheries are of the utmost importance to us as a government.

The member opposite talked about farmers' fields. I have heard numerous stories across this country about some of the obstacles farmers face each and every day. A gentleman, the other day, was telling me that he had a drainage culvert that was plugged and he could not get DFO authorization to unplug it. It went on for years and flooded his fields. In the end, what did he have to do? He built a road down the middle of his farm and ditched it on both sides so he could drain the water away from his fields. Those types of things are happening across this country, on the east coast and the west coast and in central Canada.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his speech as well as his service to Canada and Canada's fisheries. I know he works hard on behalf of all Canadians.

His speech was about the protection of Canada's fisheries in general. The committee, in recent weeks and months, has been looking at the Great Lakes fisheries, particularly the potential threat that aquatic invasive species pose to what is about a $7 billion or $8 billion fishery, both recreational and commercial. The witnesses have pointed out there are some gaps in both the law and the regulations about how aquatic invasive species are managed, their transportation and importation and those matters.

Can the minister tell us if the changes in the Fisheries Act that are in this piece of legislation would address that regulatory gap?

[Keith Ashfield, Conservative, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question because there is a major gap in the current fisheries legislation when it comes to aquatic invasive species. Whether it be Asian carp, zebra mussels, lampreys or others, we have to be very aware of it. There is nothing in our legislation now that allows us to address that. The changes in the act would address those issues. It would establish a list of aquatic invasive species and regulate the way aquatic invasive species are controlled to prevent their spread. It would also address the transport of live fish across borders. There is a huge market in Canada for Asian carp and we have to end that type of policy. Therefore, yes, the changes would address the regulatory gaps.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-38. We New Democrats oppose the bill for content and process. I will get into both of those themes during my deliberations this afternoon.

I would like to carry on with a little discussion with regard to the Great Lakes. People in Windsor live along the Detroit River. There has been a lack of action by the government on the Great Lakes despite the U.S. Obama administration addressing some of the issues. The Americans recently made a $500 million investment into the Great Lakes, and in the budget prior to this one, put $800 million into it. In fact, because so little was put into our Great Lakes system, the fake lake in Muskoka got more per capita contribution than any of the Great Lakes did.

That is important, because we are deficient not only in terms of environmental practices but also in services. We do not have some recovery services for men and women in distress on the Great Lakes. Our Coast Guards do a very good job of responding when they can, but at the Ambassador Bridge, for example, there is no recovery immediately available there when work is being done, and something needs to be done about that in case somebody falls off, a worker in particular. We had another death recently when a worker fell off into the Detroit River.

I want to move toward some of the content of the cuts that are taking place with regard to the budget. I will start with the OAS and the GIS, and in particular the raising of the age from 65 to 67.

Just so the public is aware, individuals have to apply for the GIS, the guaranteed income supplement. It is not automatically provided, so if people do not know this—and we deal with this situation all the time—they would not automatically receive that additional supplement. I would encourage the viewing audience out there to look at their pensions and, if they are past the age of 65, to inquire of their members of Parliament as to whether they are eligible for the GIS. It is a very important supplement that does not always get moved through to them.

Similar to that is the disability tax credit. If people do not actually apply for it, they will not get it. Both the GIS and the disability tax credit could be retroactive. It is important to know that, and people should contact their local members of Parliament.

A number of years ago I had the opportunity to go across this country on what was called the seniors charter of rights. It was a motion that was put forth to this House for a number of years, and it built up enough support over that time that it was eventually carried by another member, the member for Hamilton Mountain. The motion was then passed, but sadly, this has not been brought to fruition.

Many of the elements of the seniors charter of rights called for increasing the government's contributions to the pensions. It noted that we had to look at this issue because many seniors were in poverty. It called for housing as an adequate strategy to deal with poverty and issues like that, and for more inclusion in society by making sure that seniors were not left out of government policy. It even looked at a seniors minister as a potential solution to making sure seniors' voices would be heard as the demographics of the aged increased. As well, there were provisions related to pharmaceutical and other costs that we identified.

We heard quite clearly across Canada that seniors were very concerned about all of these issues, and never would I have imagined at that time that the government would be looking at increasing its date for acquisition of benefits.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer and other experts have noted that we are not in a crisis with regard to that issue. With proper prudent fiscal management, we will be fine.

Second, we are opposed to a corporate tax cut. Right now, a corporate tax cut basically goes to the corporation. There is no guarantee it will actually be spent in Canada. In fact, some corporations are taxed on worldwide profits, so Canada does not actually benefit from some of the taxation on those corporations that takes place in other countries.

We still have continuation of subsidies to the oil patch. That is unacceptable and should be stricken right away. As well, the OAS and the GIS supplements, in the vast majority of cases and unless individuals leave the country with the money, are generally spent in the country, providing a multiplier effect much higher than the corporate tax cut.

I know it has been argued many times that the corporate tax cut is a job creation strategy; it is not. It could be used as one of several tools to try to spur investment, but the reality is that it has not. It is actually counter to what has been happening in the manufacturing sector. Over the years that the Conservatives have been reducing corporate taxes since coming to power in February 2006, we have lost around 365,000 manufacturing jobs. That is shocking.

It is shocking because it also speaks to the Conservative trade policy, which has failed this nation significantly and continues to do so. I especially want to note the auto industry. What we have seen, counter to that, is higher corporate taxes in U.S. states, as well as higher federal taxes, and the United States has been growing its manufacturing jobs. The Obama administration has a job strategy to win back jobs, including jobs from Canada, and we have done nothing on that.

The auto industry was again ignored in this budget. The automobile is the number one value-added item traded throughout the world. Sadly, the government is looking at some trade agreements that actually threaten the auto industry. I would note, on the Canada-European trade agreement, that right now the EU has a $20 to $1 trade surplus with us, so they are dumping autos into Canada.

South Korea has a potential trade agreement. South Korea sells literally hundreds of thousands of vehicles in Canada, and we barely sell any at all—maybe 50, I am told—in South Korea. They have tariff and non-tariff barriers. We also have the potential of a Japan agreement, where again we cannot enter their market.

Japan, Korea and Germany have state-supported auto industries. They are actually involved in crafting policy, providing resources and making sure the jobs are going to stay local. Some of these countries actually have shares in the companies.

The government originally ran away from the auto bailout, the auto loans that were needed. Thank goodness for the public pressure to reverse that decision. Now we have success, but it is still very fragile. The auto industry is very fragile right now.

I would point out the government's lack of interest in the auto industry and the fact that the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council has not met in years. Only the executive has met. There have been very few meetings, and they have not been very robust. It is very unfortunate, because that model brings in the suppliers, the auto workers, the companies, the tool and die mold makers and the dealerships. They crafted a plan that provided a benchmark system to cherry-pick the top items we could actually work on to create a robust auto strategy.

The government's response to the Bush administration's $25 billion auto and energy act was basically a $250 million fund over five years, which is virtually an empty tank right now. That is a big problem.

I do want to talk a little bit about process, as much of that legislation did not come to the chamber. One of those pieces of legislation is a shiprider program. A shiprider program is going to allow United States officers to participate and actually arrest and detain Canadian citizens. That is actually not going to go to committee. A similar bill went to the Senate. It was very extreme. It did not distinguish the new teams. We do not have the details on it. It is sad.

Right now 1,100 jobs at CBSA are being affected through the cuts that are taking place. It is $143 million cut from our Canada Border Services Agency. We are now going to be doing more work with less resources. It involves the investigators, who take drug smuggling, child pornography, human smuggling and all those things very seriously.

The government is actually cutting 25% of the dog teams; 19 dog teams are being eliminated. They cost $100,000 for the investment in training for the human and the animal. Those are going to be sunsetted. That is unfortunate, because they are very specific and get the things that got past the original set of border officers.

It is very important that those positions remain. By allowing this to happen, we are certainly going to see more guns on the streets and more drugs on the streets, and organized crime will benefit. It is terribly unfortunate, because the evidence is there.

The government is cutting a number of the investigators who work with U.S. and other officials to break these cases open. They are undercover, in many respects. They are going to be affected as well.

As I conclude here, it is rather unfortunate that this is taking place, because t is not acceptable for Canadians.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his dissertation this afternoon. I am not sure I understood most of it. He was all over the map.

My question for the member is based on his last few comments. The member is not in favour of the government finding the $5 billion in savings. The math is simple: to balance the books, we either raise revenue or cut expenses. In this case, that is what we are doing: cutting expenses.

What taxes would the NDP raise to be able to balance the books? Does the member have that answer?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the member did not understand my speech.

There are many things that we could do to cut taxes. We could stop the corporate tax cuts to the oil and gas industry.

We have to improve our revenue stream. Under the Conservatives' rule, the manufacturing deficit has gone from $16 billion to $80 billion. That is costing our revenue stream. Those companies provided important value-added jobs and paid taxes. They were not just shipping out logs or oil and gas or other resources. Value-added jobs have been lost in these sectors, and those revenue streams need to be recovered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor West, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

He spoke about the process for this bill. I would like him to comment on the importance of studying the different parts of this bill in committee, especially the parts that deal with the Investment Canada Act and the Telecommunications Act, which will bring about major changes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years, starting with the Martin administration, the government started to add different pieces of legislation into budget bills. When that happens, the normal process does not take place. Those different pieces of legislation are not independent. They are not tabled in the House or debated in the House. They are not passed on to committee, where they would be studied and sent back to the House, possibly with amendments. They would be looked at again and possibly passed.

There is an improvement process. In the previous Parliaments the parties actually co-operated, and some amendments were made to certain bills that made them more important and better. The Investment Canada Act is a good example. That legislation was thrown into a budget bill, so the entire improvement process was missed. That act is coming back in another budget bill because it is still broken.

That is the problem. We are not going to hear witnesses with respect to this legislation and we will not have an opportunity to improve it.

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

Mr. Speaker, putting all of these bills into this one omnibus bill is an attempt by the government to speed up legislation and avoid scrutiny by elected officials. It moves Canada closer to a dictatorship.

I wonder what the member thinks about that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the OECD has best practices for budgeting. It has suggested that a budget be tabled three months in advance of the beginning of the fiscal year so that people can debate it and digest it.

We do not do that here in Canada. In fact, we do not follow any of the OECD's best practices for budgeting.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:01 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When we last left this matter, the hon. member for Winnipeg North had five minutes remaining for questions and comments.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we look at all the acts that would be affected by the budget implementation bill, and with maybe one or two days set aside for debate on each one, how many days of debate would the member come up with as a reasonable number for the bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this particular budget has hundreds of pages, many of which have little if anything to do with implementing the budget. The government is using the budget in an attempt to introduce new legislation through the back door, legislation that should be stand-alone legislation.

By doing that, the government is disallowing possibly thousands of hours of debate, whether inside the House or in committee. It is also denying hundreds of witnesses from across the country the opportunity to participate in decisions on important legislation that will pass as a direct result of the government using this back door. It is unprecedented. Canadians need to be aware that this is more than just a typical budget debate. It is unacceptable behaviour by the Government of Canada.

We call upon the Government of Canada to recognize the importance of democracy and the role that this chamber plays by taking out the 70-plus acts that would be changed by using the back door.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many parts of the budget that are troublesome to me.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question about the changes to the environmental assessment and review processes that are proposed in what the government is calling a budget bill. Why is the government calling this a budget bill? Does the member think the government is trying to hide the huge changes that would be made to the environmental assessment process?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the critic for that member's party and the Liberal Party critic have talked about how devastating the bill would be on the environment. The bill would change legislation with respect to the environment which t would ultimately have a negative impact on Canada's environment.

That is the point I am trying to make when I say that this is supposed to be a budget debate. We should be talking about priorities. The government is cutting over 15,000 civil servants in the same year that it made the decision to increase the number of politicians. We will have more MPs, more political spin doctors. At the same time the government is telling Canadians that 10,000-plus jobs will be cut from the very important and vulnerable services that Canadians need.

This debate should be about those kinds of priorities. That is what the bill is supposed to be about. Unfortunately, because of the 70-plus acts, we have to talk about many other issues, such as the bill's impact on environmental legislation, which is a great case in point.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House but it is a particularly big honour to rise and talk about the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

It is also important for us to give some thought to how we came about this next phase of the economic action plan. We were elected on a promise to focus on jobs and the economy. We were elected on the promise to bring our budget back into balance.

Since we were elected, members on this side of the House have been engaging in their local communities. We have talked to members of the Chambers of Commerce. We have talked to our neighbours and our friends. We have held round tables, not only in our ridings but in ridings across this country. We asked Canadians how they thought the government should proceed toward guaranteeing the future economic stability and prosperity of this country and how we should bring our budget back into balance to guarantee that long-term stability and economic growth.

Canadians were very clear in saying that they wanted the government to look at ways of reducing waste. They wanted government to continue to look at ways of reducing duplication. They wanted to ensure their government kept in mind that they wanted their taxes lower and that the government offered hope and opportunity for future generations of Canadians, and that is what the next phase of Canada's economic action plan offers.

However, it is also important for us to look back to see how we came to this particular point. When this government was elected, it began almost immediately to focus on renewing and restoring faith and pride in the institutions of this country. It began to focus exclusively on how we could improve the economy, not just on that day but for future generations of Canadians. We also knew at that time that there would be some difficult times and difficult choices that would need to be made in the years ahead.

I remember an interview that the Prime Minister gave in, I believe, 2007, in which he talked about the years ahead and that there would be some difficult choices that would need to be made and that there were some troubling signs that the global economy was headed for some difficult waters. Therefore, we made some very clear choices back then to ensure that the Canadian economy had all the tools it needed to continue long-term growth and prosperity. We campaigned on that.

That is why, after we were elected, we immediately set out to stimulate the Canadian economy and to leave more money in the hands of Canadians. How did we do that? We did that by reducing taxes for families. We cut the GST from 7% to 6% and then down to 5% because we recognized that the way we could stimulate the economy was by leaving more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians so that they could invest in themselves, in their families and in their businesses.

However, then we did more. We introduced the national infrastructure program at the time, which was one of the largest infrastructure programs in Canadian history. The building Canada fund, which went across this country to reinvest in our infrastructure, be it roads or bridges. We started down that road.

We looked at our small businesses to see how we could help them to succeed, not only locally but so they could compete and succeed internationally. That is why we reduced taxes for our small businesses. We reduced taxes for our manufacturers. We set out a very aggressive agenda to open up new markets for our small businesses, our medium-sized businesses and our large businesses. We set out to create and open new markets so that those people who generate wealth and create jobs in this country had every opportunity to do that going forward.

In advance of the global economic downturn, we paid down some $40 billion worth of debt, recognizing that there could be some troubled waters ahead.

I remember the time when that discussion was taking place. I had not yet been elected but I remember being at home and listening to how some of the other parties suggested that the $40 billion that had been used to pay down the debt should have been spent in other areas of government. However, we resisted that because we knew that the best thing for the Canadians economy and for Canadians was to start to pay down our debt.

When the global economy did eventually turn, as it did in late 2008 and in 2009, we were in an extraordinary position to meet that challenge and to actually succeed in ensuring that Canadian prosperity and Canadian families could enjoy future economic opportunities.

What did we do in 2008 and 2009 when the global economy started to shift? We started to invest. We again sought the advice of Canadians. We asked Canadian businesses, Canadian families and our partners at the provincial and municipal levels what we needed to do to make sure that hope that opportunity continued in this country. We asked what we needed to do to guarantee that our health care system and the social programs that Canadians rely on could be guaranteed for future generations.

That is when we brought forward Canada's first economic action plan. It was an incredible document that sought advice from all kinds of Canadians. In the first phase of that economic action plan, we set out a very aggressive agenda to reinvest in our country, to make a very large investment with our provincial and municipal partners in roads, sewers and hospitals, as well as massive investments in our colleges and universities and in our recreation and sporting facilities.

We did all of the things that we needed to do in order to give the economy and our small businesses—our wealth generators, and the people who create jobs—the opportunity to succeed as we came out of the global economic downturn.

The results are quite clear. Despite the global economic downturn, this government has created over 700,000 net new jobs. These are predominantly full-time jobs and very well-paying jobs. Canada is leading the G7 in terms of economic prosperity. It is leading the G7 in terms of economic growth.

We know that the first phase of Canada's economic action plan was an incredible and resounding success, and through the last election we said that it was now time for us to move forward. It is time for us to move forward to continue to guarantee long-term growth in this country.

We asked what we needed to do that, and Canadians told us to continue to move forward by reducing taxes but to also start to bring the budget back into balance. That is what this government has been doing for the last year, after consulting Canadians.

The economic action plan introduced by the award-winning Minister of Finance outlines a clear course, a clear path to a balanced budget, but it does even more than that. It continues to reduce taxes for Canadians. It continues to reduce taxes for our small businesses. It gets out of the way of people who want to create wealth and jobs and opportunity.

As part of the consultations for the economic action plan, the red tape commission was formed. That red tape commission criss-crossed this country and asked people how government could assist them and how government could get out of the way.

Part of the economic action plan going forward is a recognition that when government brings in a regulation, another regulation should be removed, so that we do not handcuff the people who want to create jobs in this country. I think that is an extraordinarily important initiative.

The Minister of Finance, along with the Minister of Health, announced a long-term strategy to guarantee that we have sufficient resources and some record funding for health care in this country. We have said to our provincial partners and to our friends at the municipal level that we will continue to work with them and not against them, that the days of unilateral cuts, as we saw from previous Liberal governments, are over, and that this government was going to work with them in the best interests of all Canadians.

We have moved forward with trade agreements with the European Union. We are expanding markets for our manufacturers. We are doing more with respect to environmental assessment to make sure that we not only protect Canadian jobs but also open up new markets. For the manufacturers in southern Ontario, this is an extraordinary benefit. It is the manufacturers of southern Ontario that support the wealth that is being created in the west through our oil and natural resources, so they are very excited by the opportunity.

When we look more closely at the department that I have the honour of working with, Canadian Heritage, we can see the opportunities we are creating there by protecting the investments we have made. This government, throughout the global economic downturn, was one of the only governments that did not just maintain funding for arts and culture but actually increased funding for arts and culture. We did that because we understand that arts and culture are very important to the Canadian economy. They are the source of thousands of jobs and the source of an incredible amount of revenue generated across the country.

We have guaranteed and maintained the highest level of funding for the Canada Council for the Arts in this budget. When we came to office, our museums were struggling; this government increased funding to our national museums. We have created two new national museums in Halifax and Winnipeg and we have guaranteed the funding to those national museums. We are investing record amounts in youth programs across the country.

The future is very bright indeed for this country. Through the continued efforts of the Minister of Finance and all of the members on this side of the House to guarantee that future through this economic action plan by voting with it, we can ensure a very prosperous and happy future for Canadians for generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary talks about future generations, and that is one of our primary concerns in looking at this legislation: the failure to look to future generations, to think about what we owe future generations, both in terms of our fiscal performance and in terms of the ecological deficit we will leave.

One of the pieces of legislation repealed in this act spoke specifically to the question of intergenerational equity through the concept of sustainable development. The Minister of the Environment has put forward the idea that we can eliminate the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy because we now have the Internet.

I would like to tell the hon. parliamentary secretary that no technological gizmo can replace getting CEOs of Canada's leading industries in the same room with trade union leaders, in the same room with environmental experts and in the same room with first nations to come to better decisions for future generations.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course the environment is extraordinarily important to the members on this side of the House. My family was one of the first families to donate a conservation easement across 60 acres of 100 acres of land that we owned just north of Markham. That easement was given to the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust to preserve significant amounts of natural heritage.

This government has continued to do that. Before I was elected and before that member was elected, we worked with our partners, the Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ducks Unlimited, and put significant investments into securing our natural heritage across this country. I know that in my riding we have announced the creation of a new park, the Rouge Park. We are doing a lot of things.

Some can talk about environmental protection; we chose a different path. What we chose to do is to actually act on protecting our environment. That is why greenhouse gases are coming down. That is why we are creating new parks. That is why this government has decided to get out of programs and services that do not work and to focus on those that actually do work for the environment and the Canadian economy.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to say that the environment is being protected when regulations are being dismantled and scientists are being fired.

My colleague said that the government is very careful not to spend too much on politicians and to protect services to people. In fact, the Conservatives are cutting 55,000 jobs in the public service, but they will increase the size of this House by 10%. They will increase the number of seats to 338 when there is no need to do that. We are able to address the imbalance between the provinces by keeping this House at the caucus it has today with 308 seats.

What kind of scandal is this, when politicians are thinking about themselves and cutting people?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member does not know that I actually represent the largest riding in the country. There are 228,000 people who call my riding home. Why should the vote of the people in my riding count for significantly less than the vote of people in the ridings of other members of the House? I represent more people than Prince Edward Island.

I think that the good, hard-working people of Oak Ridges—Markham deserve equal representation. That is why the minister of democratic reform has finally sought to balance that representation here in the House. I am very proud of what the minister has done. I am very proud that this government has actually had the courage to look at how we are represented. I am extraordinarily excited for the people of my region, because their vote will finally equal the votes of people in other parts of this country.

I know that I represent the 228,000 people in my riding very well, but they deserve to have their vote count as much as anybody else's does.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oak Ridges—Markham talked a bit about the history of the economic action plan, how we had to stimulate the economy and where we are going now.

Of course the focus in terms of where we are going now is on having jobs available for our workforce, having a responsible government that spends within its means and moving back toward a balanced budget.

I would ask the member this: if we were not making this very important move to return to a balanced budget, what would be the long-term future for Canada and Canadians?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. We can see what the result is if we look at other jurisdictions around the world that did not focus on the economy and on balancing their budget. We are seeing extraordinary turmoil in Europe. We are seeing the difficulties that our friends to the south are having. That is why, in this country, we have talked to Canadians, and they have told us that it is very important that we return our budget back into balance. They understand that what we had to do through economic action plan one was to stimulate the economy.

However, the hon. member is quite correct. Canadians want us to return this budget back to balance because they know that through a balanced budget we can guarantee funding for health care, for social programs and for all of those programs and services that Canadians depend on and all the things that make this country the best place in the world in which to live.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-38 is a rather crafty bill. It is another one of the Conservatives' strategies to ram things down Canadians' throats. It is a frontal attack on government accountability measures. As the Treasury Board critic, the thing that concerns me the most is how this bill would make our government and our democracy even less transparent and accountable.

A major theme of Bill C-38 was not even in budget 2012, namely the reduction of the Auditor General's oversight powers. This bill eliminates the requirements for a mandatory audit by the Auditor General of the financial statements of 12 agencies. It is important for Canadians to know that.

The 12 agencies are Northern Pipeline Agency Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Canada Revenue Agency, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, the Exchange Fund Account established under the Currency Act, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Polar Commission, the Yukon Surface Rights Board, and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

What is more, Bill C-38 dissolves the Public Appointments Commission. Doing away with this commission will significantly reduce the transparency of the public appointment process and will open the door to more political interference.

For these reasons alone, I am against this bill, and I think that most Canadians are as well.

Democracy is a fragile thing, and it must be protected. We cannot allow a procedural strategy of this government to undermine it.

This bill contains yet more pills that are hard for Canadians to swallow. For example, Bill C-38 will also weaken reporting requirements in the area of environmental protection by limiting the scope of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and increasing the minister's discretionary power. Once again, we see the theme of concentrating authority in the offices of the minister and the Prime Minister.

Bill C-38 reduces transparency with regard to the evaluation of large pipeline projects and allows cabinet to overrule the National Energy Board's decisions about such projects. This is another measure that lacks transparency.

Bill C-38 also reduces the government's transparency with regard to fisheries and oceans. It reduces transparency with regard to the protection of fish habitats and does away with the obligation to examine the possible effects of proposed projects. The bill also attacks the health of at-risk Canadians by reducing government transparency with regard to food safety and by giving the minister the authority to ignore the Food and Drugs Act and arbitrarily exempt certain foods and drugs from the regulations designed to protect Canadians against harmful substances.

That is not all. Bill C-38 does away with the position of Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Why? Because he has been very critical of the agency and the government.

The bill also dissolves the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, thereby reducing the available sources of independent scientific advice that can help to guide the development of government and parliamentary policies. In short, it eliminates any criticism of the government.

Bill C-38 also does away with the First Nations Statistical Institute, once again eliminating an independent source of statistics on first nations that is essential to the development of transparent and effective policies on the issues faced by the first nations of this country.

The bill increases the minister's discretionary power on immigration and refugee measures and—I repeat—it does so at the expense of an independent and transparent decision-making process.

Canadians listening today will no doubt be surprised about all of this and they would be right to wonder why all of these unrelated measures are included in this bill. Are we not talking about a budget implementation bill? Then again, they probably have not seen a budget bill like this, consisting of 420-plus pages. As they can see, Bill C-38, which is meant to implement budget 2012, actually goes much further than the budget document. This massive-paged bill not only contains measures outlined in the budget but, as I pointed out, includes many previously unannounced changes that could potentially change Canada forever. It is a full frontal assault on the principle of transparency.

A full one-third of the 420-plus pages of Bill C-38 is not even dedicated to budget implementation, but rather to gutting one regulation after another, things that are in place to protect Canadians, to inform Canadians. No doubt, my colleagues on the other side of the benches will say that this is about freedom. In addition, the bill includes a series of previously unannounced measures that would contribute to a more secretive environment and government.

Unlike Conservatives, New Democrats believe in a respectful and open Parliament. We believe that it is inappropriate to try to sneak measures through parliamentary procedures and particularly by legislation that would only make government less accountable.

It is even more regrettable, and I cannot believe I am actually saying this yet again, that the government wants to silence Parliament and the people of Canada by passing a time allocation motion on the bill. I am beginning to wonder how many democrats are still left on the other side of the benches. There may be several, but they are probably silenced by the Prime Minister and their caucus, a Prime Minister who unfortunately seems to be more and more obsessed with secrecy and control.

The different provisions affecting regulations in the bill must be debated in the House and in the committees that are responsible for their legislation. Canadians have a right to know these things are being changed. Sneaking them through a budget implementation bill is a total lack of democratic process. Canadians deserve better than secrecy and the government.

What is the solution? Separate the bills and bring out the regulations that are specifically related to the environment, food security and oceans and fisheries. Separate these elements so they can be brought to Parliament for debate. Send them to the committees so they can hear from independent experts who can tell us what effect they will have on our future and on the futures of our children.

I can stand here and take offence to the fact that these measures have been introduced in an omnibus bill, but ultimately the decision is the government's. I hope the government and my colleagues on the other side, particularly those who I know are dedicated with heart and soul to the democratic process, will change this bill.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. When he talked about debate, was he aware that last month his colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster spent 13 hours filibustering by reading tweets in the House. It prevented literally dozens of MPs from getting in on the debate.

The truth is there is a democratically-elected government in our country and no matter what we bring forward, the NDP will be against it. It wants to put forth policies like those in Europe, where countries, whether it is Greece, Portugal or Spain. New Democrats want to bring Canada down to that level. We are trying to support jobs.

Could the member stand in the House and name any policies by the NDP that are consistent with creating jobs, because New Democrats have voted against every one that we have put forward?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly promoting a greener economy creates jobs. Every expert understands that. If we look at examples in Europe, whether it be Sweden, France or Germany, the green economy is booming and we could do the same.

On the first point the member made about a lack of debate, the reality is we are now at 18 time allocations on bills, the most in history. I do not think the member needs to be congratulating himself.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is worth repeating, as the member has pointed out, that we have consistently said throughout this debate that Canadians need to be aware and concerned about what the government is doing with this bill.

Today we are supposed to be debating a budget bill, a bill that deals with the priorities of government. We can see the priorities of the budget when we hear the government of the day saying that is going to increase the number of members of Parliament while at the same time reducing the number of civil servants.

We see a bill that incorporates legislation that would have a profound impact on issues like the environment. By incorporating the two, we are preventing people from having input into a substantial policy initiative. It should have been a stand-alone bill along with numerous other bills that are all being incorporated into this bill.

I wonder if the member might want to add further comment to that issue.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the government's strategy is to make Canadians swallow pills that are hard to swallow by hiding certain measures like this one in omnibus bills.

The NDP is calling for a separate debate regarding the regulations that are to be modified, which could change things for Canada and for our children's future.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to add my voice to that of my distinguished colleague to condemn how this budget is being passed—through force and closure. As hon. members know, this is a completely undemocratic measure, especially since this budget contains a huge number of bills that should be debated outside the budget process.

The budget bill also includes a provision to exclude banks from the application of Quebec laws.

I would like to hear more of my colleague's thoughts on this. For instance, Quebec legislation currently sets a limit on interest rates, a usurious rate, which has been established at 35% by case law, while the federal Criminal Code establishes it at 60%.

What does the member think of that?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for the question.

That is another example that illustrates how this government operates and how it likes to interfere in provincial areas of jurisdiction. The Conservatives bragged about having consulted Canadians regarding the budget and this bill. Clearly, they did not consult Quebec. The federal government has a duty to respect the measures that are in place to protect consumers and Quebeckers.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act.

This act would take important steps toward addressing current challenges and helping to take advantage of opportunities in the global economy. At the same time, this legislation would ensure that Canada's social programs would be sustainable and our public finances would remain sound for future generations.

Indeed, with the economic action plan 2012, our government is looking ahead, not only over the next few years but for years to come. The measures presented in the bill are substantial, responsible and necessary. They will ensure that across the government we are focused on enabling and sustaining Canada's long-term economic growth.

Included within these measures is our government's plan for responsible resource development. I would like to take this time to focus on the plan and why it is so important to my riding of Prince George—Peace River and our national economy.

Canada's abundant natural resources have always been an important part of our economy. Few countries are as blessed with natural resources as we are. Canada ranks first in the production of potash, second in uranium production and third in natural gas, hydroelectricity production and proven oil reserves. We are also among the top five producers in the world of more than 10 minerals and metals, including nickel, aluminum and diamonds.

In 2010 Canada's natural resource sectors employed more than 760,000 workers across the country. In fact, 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 investments, will be proposed for Canada. The potential for job growth is absolutely huge.

In my riding, where natural resources continue to drive the local economy, I have heard from many constituents about the need to grab on to these opportunities.

Currently, companies undertaking major projects must navigate a complex maze of regulatory requirements and processes and approval processes are long and unpredictable.

If we are to compete with other resource-rich countries for those vital job-creating investment dollars, we need to put in place a world-class regulatory system to review major projects. We need a system that ensures timely, efficient and effective reviews, a system that promotes business confidence and investment, while strengthening our world-class environmental standards.

As Pierre Gratton, president and CEO of Mining Association of Canada, said following the tabling of budget 2012:

Canada is in a global competition for mining investment and an effective and efficient regulatory regime can provide a competitive advantage over other jurisdictions.

Since 2006, our government has been working to streamline the review process for major economic projects.

These efforts have made a difference without having a negative environmental impact. However, more work needs to be done.

That is why our government is taking action, in budget 2012, with our plan for responsible resource development. The plan would streamline the review process for major economic projects by providing predictable timelines for project approvals. It would prevent long delays that kill potential jobs and stall economic growth by putting value investment at risk. Most important, responsible resource development would create good, skilled and well-paying jobs in cities and communities across the country, while maintaining the highest possible standards for protecting the environment.

The plan's guiding principle is simple and straightforward. In protecting the environment, our sense of common good should be matched by our good common sense: common sense to clear up the clutter and confusion that comes with having more than 40 federal departments and agencies involved in environmental assessments; common sense in addressing the delays and unpredictability of the current system with its open-ended reviews that often require, not only several months, but several years to complete; common sense in eliminating unnecessary duplication within the federal government itself and between the federal government and the provincial governments; and common sense in making our efforts to protect the environment as effective as possible.

Common good and commons sense, the two pillars of good public policy, are front and centre in our plan to modernize the regulatory system.

As it stands now, Canada's review process has become bogged in procedures delays, jurisdictional overlaps and unpredictable timelines. Major projects are subject to long and potentially endless delays because of needlessly complex and duplicative review process. This tangled web of rules and procedures now jeopardizes the timely and responsible development of our natural resources.

In order to move toward a more efficient and effective regulatory system, we need to make changes.

The goal of responsible resource development is one project, one review, in a clearly defined period of time. That is simple. To accomplish this goal, measures introduced in Bill C-38 would focus federal assessment efforts on major projects that could have a significant effect on the environment. Under the current system, thousands of small projects that pose little or no risk to the environment still get reviewed. This bill would consolidate federal responsibilities for environmental assessments in three agencies: the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. It would reduce unnecessary duplication by better integrating federal and provincial requirements for major economic projects and establish fixed timelines for government activities associated with reviews. They are: 24 months for review panels under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and 18 months for projects under the National Energy Board Act.

These are just a few of the ways our government would make the system more efficient. At the same time, these proposed measures would continue to make the regulatory system more effective in protecting the environment by taking real, concrete and substantive action. We would introduce enforceable environmental assessment decision statements to ensure project proponents comply with mitigation measures, as well as new penalties for violations. We would enhance pipeline and marine safety through initiatives such as a strengthened tanker safety regime and a substantial increase in the number of inspections for oil and gas pipelines. We would strengthen compliance by authorizing the use of administrative monetary penalties for violations of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the National Energy Board Act.

In co-operation with provincial governments, we would allow the greater use of regional environmental assessments to identify and address potential regional and cumulative effects of projects, especially in areas experiencing large-scale developments.

Despite what some may suggest, with natural resource development we do not have to choose between the economy or the environment. The two can, and must, go together. It will, however, take a lot of hard work that would require a comprehensive approach to ensure that we are doing things right.

We Canadians have a wonderful new opportunity before us. The global economy's appetite for the kinds of resources we have is bigger than it ever has been, and it even continues to grow. There is no better time to act than right now. We have to give ourselves every chance possible to compete for the job-creating investment dollars in fast-growing markets in Asia and elsewhere.

I know that it is not only possible but absolutely necessary to develop our natural resources in a responsible way. That means maintaining, and in fact strengthening, our protection of the environment. In resource-rich regions, like that of my riding in northeastern B.C, the future of our local economies will ultimately be decided by the way in which we approach development of our natural resources. I believe in our government's approach to responsible resource development. That is why I am encouraging all members of the House to support the bill.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech on the budget. I did not hear him speak about raising the age of OAS eligibility from 65 to 67. Why did the government not campaign on the fact that it would raise the OAS eligibility age?

A few minutes ago, after question period, I presented a petition asking the government to eliminate poverty in Canada. It was signed by dozens and dozens of people from across my riding. Why is the government raising the age from 65 to 67, which will, unfortunately, cause more poverty for seniors in Canada?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the member's question, even though it has little relevance to what I had just spoken about. What he needs to understand is that in order to have an affordable pension system we need to increase that age. That is the negative part. Also we need to develop our natural resources to be able to provide for social programs like that. We need to do it responsibly, but we absolutely need to do it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member will acknowledge that the budget debate and this bill are very important. The bill establishes the priorities of the Conservative government. I will stay away from how the Conservatives have bundled in other legislation that should have stood alone.

The question I would like to ask the member is in regard to priorities of expenditures. How would the member justify to his own constituents that on the one hand the Conservatives are cutting back thousands of civil servant spots while on the other hand they are increasing the number of politicians inside the House of Commons and the staff that would accompany that increase?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again it has little relevance to what I just spoke about but I will answer his question.

One of our members who just stood up in the House represents a riding of 228,000 people. I represent a riding of approximately 105,000 people. There is clearly a disparity there and something needs to be done about that. That is why our Minister of State for Democratic Reform has introduced the expansion of seats, to address that democratic deficiency.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleague more about what this budget means for the development of our resources, both in western Canada and right across this country of ours. He talked about the—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I hate to interrupt the hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West. There is too much noise in the chamber. When an hon. member is speaking, we ask that other members keep their conversations low enough out of respect for the hon. member who has the floor.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to expand on what it means to debate the issue of proper environmental assessment. How is this going to help increase investment in our country so that we are able to export to the rest of the world and create jobs right here in Canada?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing right now, especially in northeastern B.C., is projects that are literally being timed out. By the time a project has been finally approved there is no longer even a desire to use that natural resource because somebody else has beaten us to the market.

What the member asked is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to expedite those assessments so we can get to those markets in a timely fashion. We want to develop our natural resources responsibly so once again we can add to the 760,000 jobs that we already produced in Canada and make Canada a better place because people have jobs.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-38. Unfortunately, not everyone in the House will have that opportunity because, once again, the Conservatives have moved a time allocation motion. This is the 18th closure motion we have had this year. It is truly scandalous and shameful of the Conservatives to prevent us from exercising our democratic right.

The incredibly massive Bill C-38 will completely change Canada's environmental laws, among others. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, of which I am a member, studied the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act quickly, without bothering to properly assess all the necessary situations or hear from the witnesses it needed to hear from in order to do this report justice. The report was rushed and clumsily written. Yet the changes in the bill are based on this report. These changes, as we see very clearly, will hinder development. My hon. colleague says it is common sense, but I beg to differ. It is dangerous. Putting all our efforts into oil, gas, industries and pipelines will not protect the environment. That makes no sense.

In his speech, my hon. colleague said that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will benefit industry. I am sorry, but an environmental assessment act is there to protect the environment, not to invest in industry. What he said earlier is far from common sense.

This bill is truly worrisome. The cornerstone of federal environmental protection will be totally shattered. It will break. This is all happening quickly without any opportunity for study.

In the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, we pleaded for the chance to study this bill that will truly change things and turn Canada on its head when it comes to environmental protection. Do you know what we were told? That this would be debated and reviewed in the Standing Committee on Finance. That is not where this work should be done. This bill should be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

I know that the report on the Environmental Assessment Act has been read. The NDP presented a dissenting report. I must point out that, when the report was studied, we did not hear witnesses from the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development or Parks Canada. Parks Canada was not even invited. We have learned that many jobs at Parks Canada are being eliminated. Does anyone realize that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development is currently studying a national conservation plan? We want to protect biodiversity. Canada is the country that is doing the least to protect biodiversity.

Furthermore, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy will be shut down by this budget. We are going to abandon a forum that brought the economy and the environment together. Is that common sense? The round table will be eliminated even though the report clearly shows that marine biodiversity is endangered. We have to do something. We have signed an international agreement that says we must protect 10% of marine habitats. How many of our marine habitats are protected at present? Only 1%. We want to develop a great national conservation plan but cuts are being made to Parks Canada. That is truly shameful.

I could provide many more examples. I urge my colleagues to read the NDP's dissenting report on the Environmental Assessment Act. It clearly shows all the work that was not done and makes it clear that this bill is an attempt to hide the problem.

I really want to talk about the fact that they are also going to get rid of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. Right now, are my colleagues in this House aware of the position we are taking and what work is being done on addressing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions?

In terms of the fight against climate change, in 2009, Canada ranked eighth and last among G8 countries and 59th out of 60 major countries in the world, just ahead of Saudi Arabia. That is really bad.

Recently, Inuit representatives appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. They told us that some people want development in the north and want to build pipelines, even though the north is suffering the effects of climate change and polar bears have become a threat to northern residents because the ice is melting and they do not have any place to fish.

Do people know that, right now, the permafrost is almost all gone and all the infrastructure in the north is going to have to be rebuilt? Climate change is not just something that is going to happen in 10 or 15 years; it is something that is happening right now. We absolutely must fight climate change. But this budget contains no concrete measures or efforts to do that.

In fact, the Conservative government has eliminated a great program that worked really well, the eco-energy home retrofit program, which allowed all Canadians to do their part. It was the only program that made sense; the only program that existed to fight climate change.

And what is being done in this budget to fight climate change? More industries are being created and more oil is being produced from the oil sands. They want to increase our production of oil from the oil sands, not to meet our needs here in Canada, but to meet the needs of China and Asia. Is that what Canada's natural resources plan involves? Is that our plan for a diversified economy?

The minister wrote in the budget that this is a long-term budget. No, it is not. It is a short-term budget that aims solely at making money in the short term with the oil from the oil sands, and then they will take the money and run. I am sorry, but they will not be able to go anywhere else, because the issue of global warming is a priority for the whole planet, right now.

We have a target to meet: not more than 2% of global warming over the next few years, or else we are headed for disaster.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which our dear friends the Conservatives are unfortunately going to abolish in this budget, has stated that the longer we wait to invest in the fight against climate change, the more it will cost Canadians.

The Conservatives think that sitting back and doing nothing will bring down taxes. That is not true. The Conservatives have told us many times that it is the NDP that wants to increase taxes, but the only program that is really going to increase taxes is the budget. It will lead to higher taxes for Canadians. That is what is going to happen.

If we do not start fighting climate change immediately, it will cost us more in the long run. And this is in the reports of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Unfortunately, they are going to get rid of the round table, which was fair and which brought together business people, people from industry, environmentalists and the first nations; all these groups were invited to sit at the same table to draft completely impartial reports.

How can we fight climate change and improve the environment when we are cutting back on science? That is serious now. We do not think that science is the be-all and end-all, but science makes it possible to make the right decisions.

In conclusion, I would like to urge the Conservatives to make an effort and allow the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the other appropriate committees to examine the laws that are being amended.

I have not talked about the Fisheries Act, even though dangerous changes can be foreseen in fish habitat. This is very serious and it absolutely must be studied by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, some of that absolutely defied logic.

We introduced this budget on March 29, which was five weeks ago. We had some incredible support from economists across Canada. Avery Shenfeld from CIBC World Markets, Tina Kremmidas from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Craig Alexander from TD Economics and Doug Porter from BMO Capital Markets want us to get this job done and get this budget passed.

We had a member from the opposition who stood in this House for 13 hours taking up time that would have been given to members of Parliament to debate this budget and yet the member who just stood here in the House said that there has not been enough time. I wonder if he has spoken to his colleague and asked why he used that time that was so ineffective and not give other members of the House the opportunity to debate.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can quote people too. According to a group of some 100 scientists—I said 100 scientists—the proposed repeal of habitat protection measures under the Fisheries Act would be an extremely ill-advised action that would endanger some very significant fish stocks, as well as the lakes, estuaries and rivers where they live. The weakening of habitat protection measures, consistent with the description in section 35 of the Fisheries Act, will have a highly negative impact on the quality of water resources and fisheries across the country.

It is impossible to chip away at the Fisheries Act, saying that we will protect only one fish species, but not its habitat or the ecosystem in which it feeds. That will not work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue on with what my colleague on my left made reference to.

We have a substantial piece of legislation that would have a profound impact, not only on budgetary items. It talks about the fishing industry and the environment. I believe there are some 70 pieces of legislation. One could argue that this in itself is almost four years of legislation that is tied into this one bill.

I wonder if the member could provide comment as to how democracy has been served a huge blow because the Conservative government does not seem to prioritize democracy as something that is important to Canadians.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I entirely agree with his analysis. We are currently witnessing a flagrant lack of democracy. We have asked, are asking and will continue to ask the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to analyze the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. As I mentioned earlier, that act is the cornerstone of environmental protection at the federal level.

Unfortunately, they want to weaken the act to the point where my Conservative colleagues claim there will be more industry and pipelines as a result of this legislation. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is supposed to protect the environment, but the Conservatives tell us it will make it possible to have more industry and more pipelines. That makes no sense.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday we learned that the president of Taseko Mines had sent the Minister of the Environment a letter requesting three things: that no aboriginals be appointed to the committee assessing his project; that the hearings not start with an aboriginal drum and prayer ceremony; and that spirituality not be considered an aboriginal right.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether the measures proposed by this government will help in meeting that kind of request.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for his question.

It is one of the federal government’s fundamental duties to sit down with the first nations, with the aboriginal communities, to ensure that their rights are respected. That is one of the important points in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. People must be allowed to speak and to be consulted. Their rights, which are international rights, must be respected.

Unfortunately, no one has taken the time to conduct proper consultations on all these measures, all these changes. A lot of people have not been met, and the job has unfortunately been botched. The Conservatives have botched their job.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak in the House today in support of the government’s economic action plan 2012.

It is an excellent budget that keeps taxes low, creates jobs and ensures growth and long-term prosperity. It is a solid plan that will help my constituents to benefit from a firm economic foundation for Canada and to prosper from low tax and deficit eliminating policies that will benefit our country.

What are we trying to accomplish through our budget? We are focusing on strengthening our Canadian economy, on creating jobs, on streamlining government operations and on ending wasteful spending in order to move Canada to balanced budgets, all without raising taxes and without cutting important transfers to the provinces. I simply must emphasize that we are the only party in the House that advocates for lower taxes and that defends lower taxes.

The economic action plan is important for Canadians, as it is for the people of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell who gave the government a clear mandate to focus on the important issues: jobs and economic growth.

I have assured the people of my constituency that our strong, stable Conservative majority government will not rest until it has led Canada onto the road to certain economic prosperity, and when that has been done, there will still be much more to do.

I therefore hope that the NDP members will join me in supporting the budget this year, a budget that, I have to say, Canadians are satisfied with.

In terms of specifics, our economic budget is one that will bring back the hiring credit for small business. I know how important that is to the business owners in my riding. This hiring credit will help them create jobs and hire new employees, skilled people who will move their businesses to increased prosperity. This and other job creation initiatives will allow businesses to take advantage of economic and market opportunities when they present themselves. Our latest budget extends this valuable hiring credit for another year.

It is also heartening to see the return of the youth employment strategy in this year's budget. This program, which enables businesses to hire skilled youth over the summer, will allow our youth access to mentorship in their own communities, and the skills they help develop within our youth will have long-lasting value.

It is clear to me that federal employment initiatives like this one produce good results in the communities and benefit both students and businesses.

The government will also make a generous $30 million investment over three years in the opportunities fund and will create a special group on job opportunities for persons with disabilities.

These are excellent employment strategies and, again, they will contribute to job creation. These strategies will ensure that persons with disabilities, who sometimes have considerable difficulty finding jobs, will not be left by the wayside.

Our economic action plan does not end here. In fact, there is more.

For example, we have studied employment insurance carefully and we are committed to improving this program so that it better serves Canadians. Our budget, therefore, includes important measures to connect unemployed Canadians with available jobs without penalizing them.

Our economic action plan 2012 proposes introducing a new national working while on claim EI pilot project. It is my hope that my colleagues within the opposition parties will have a careful look at this initiative. The proposed initiatives would remove disincentives to work by ensuring that EI claimants benefit from available work, particularly part-time employment, and are not penalized by EI as they seek a full-time position.

I would like to make a few comments on agriculture as agriculture is a crucial sector for my riding and accounts for approximately two million jobs nationwide.

Our budget continues to focus on establishing and strengthening the right conditions for farmers to succeed, and our farmers are succeeding. Agriculture contributes enormously to our country's economy, with nearly $35.5 billion in exports, which makes Canada the world's fifth largest exporter of agriculture and food products.

To be prosperous, farmers have to have access to the resources they need to remain competitive and meet the increased needs and demands placed on them. Our budget demonstrates our ongoing objective of helping farmers to penetrate foreign markets.

Under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the government has achieved significant victories in this regard, as witnessed by our agriculture sector, which is more vigorous and dynamic as a result of exporting top quality Canadian products around the world.

We have put in place nine free trade agreements already, and we are working on many more. In addition, we are opening markets for our Canadian beef, pork, canola, pulse crops, wheat and the list goes on. Our efforts and our successes have been well recognized by the agricultural sector, by industry and by our opposition colleagues themselves.

Our economic action plan states clearly that we will continue our work to expand market opportunities for our farmers. We will continue to work on their behalf to ensure that people in other countries have access to our high-quality Canadian food.

I would like to say a few words about food safety. Canadians know that the government takes this issue seriously and that here in Canada, food is safe. I know that my opposition colleagues are concerned about food safety. In fact, in both the House and committee, I have heard opposition members ask questions that would suggest that funding for this has been reduced.

I have good news for my opposition colleagues, news that will ensure they do indeed vote for our budget implementation act. The news is that this year's budget includes an additional $51 million for food safety initiatives. I saw some opposition eyebrows raise when I said this, but I invite opposition members to read page 168 of the budget.

I know they secretly support this great initiative, and I would say to them that even if there is not one other thing they can support in this budget, at least vote in favour of increased funding for food safety. It is the right thing to do.

I just do not know how they could possibly vote against food safety, but they will likely find a way.

I know what you are thinking, Mr. Speaker: “Do not despair, have courage; it is increased funding for food safety, which is what they have been asking for”, but let us remember that in the last budget, we increased funding for food safety by $100 million. However, the Liberal and NDP MPs all voted against it. They asked for increased funding for food safety and we gave them increased funding for food safety, but they still voted against it.

Despite this pattern, it is my hope that the opposition will indeed vote in favour of this budget.

Canadians have long awaited the tabling of our economic action plan, and since the budget was tabled it has become apparent that Canadians like our budget and that they support our budget.

Our economic action plan focuses on what is most important to Canadians in these difficult economic times: strengthening our economy, creating new jobs, reducing government expenditures, eliminating waste and eliminating our deficit, all without raising taxes.

I listen to Canadians, as do my Conservative colleagues, and we will be voting for this budget. I sincerely hope that the opposition members, and particularly the New Democrats and Liberals, will also listen to Canadians and vote for this budget, as Canadians want them to do.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary will have five minutes remaining for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the motion.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill C-38, the budget implementation act. Before I get to the specifics of the budget, I want to give an overall view of the budgetary plan that we have been on for a number of years and leading into 2012.

We did two years of stimulus spending in 2009-10. Now we are on a path toward eliminating the deficit over the medium term through our deficit reduction action plan. While doing so, we are continuing our transfers to the provinces and to persons.

We have taken a path to ensure that social programs are sustainable in our country, in part by ensuring that elderly and family benefits continue, but also in terms of ensuring that health, education and social services, with our transfers to the provinces, continue on as well. With transfers to the provinces, we have been funding at 6% year over year, and that will continue for another number of years and then it will proceed at nominal GDP with a base of 3%, which is responsible funding for health care going forward.

At the same time, we will continue our funding at 3% for the Canada social transfer, year over year funding, which funds education and social services of the provinces, so provinces can plan long term in how they want to fund health care, education and social services.

I also point out that we are continuing our long-term plan with respect to taxation, a plan that began in the fall of 2007 with the fall fiscal update by the Minister of Finance, in terms of reducing our business tax rate to 15% federally, encouraging provinces to move to a 10% business tax rate, then moving to a small business tax rate of 11% from 12% and increasing the amount that companies can earn and still pay that lower rate of tax at 11%. They used to be able to earn $300,000 of business income and now they can earn $500,000 of business income.

It is important to point this out that we have had some very long-term strategies in place in lowering taxes, making Canada more competitive, drawing investment back to the country and moving toward a balanced budget over the medium term, something that has been recognized by international organizations as the right path.

I will focus my speech on the issue of innovation. Going back to the release of the science and technology strategy in the spring of 2007 by the government, we are trying to focus our research efforts in four main priority areas and also by investing in research and development, science, technology and innovation.

If we look at the investments we have made over the past number of years, these have been recognized by university and industry leaders across the country, and that is an important point. Many people will say that these are simply austerity times, that we have had our stimulus spending and now we are in austerity times, and that is not correct. We are looking for efficiencies through our deficit reduction action plan, but at the same time we are continuing to invest in innovation.

I will quote at length from a letter from the president of the University of Alberta, Indira Samarasekera, a very distinguished individual. We are very lucky to have her in Edmonton because she is an outstanding person. She says she would like to thank our government for:

—your outstanding support for advanced research in science, technology, and education and training in Budget 2012....Budget 2012 reaffirms the Government of Canada's commitment to post-secondary education and research while further encouraging innovation in the private sector.

As Budget 2012 outlines, innovation is integral to competitiveness in the global knowledge economy. While Canada is a world leader in many advanced research fields, forming stronger linkages between public and private stakeholders will yield important dividends for both sectors. The provision of $37 million to the granting councils to form industry, academic-partnerships is thus very timely. An additional $500 million in funding for the Canada Foundation of Innovation will also ensure that Canada's research infrastructure, which is an important element in attracting talent from around the world, remains state-of-the-art and world-class. By doubling the industrial Research and Development Internship Program, more talented graduate students will gain valuable experience in and exposure to the practices of the private sector.

Given the economic restraint occurring around the globe, Canada is fortunate to have strong economic fundamentals. Budget 2012 reinforces these advantages by recognizing the important role innovation plays in Canada's long-term economic prosperity. The investments included in Budget 2012 provide Canadian entrepreneurs and innovators with access to the resources they need to create jobs, make ground-breaking discoveries and form important linkages around the world.

It is important to note what one of our most distinguished university leaders has to say in terms of continuing to invest in innovation, research and development.

Also, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada warmly welcome budget 2012, as did Polytechnics Canada. I will quote from its press release:

Specifically, we welcome:

the doubling of funding for the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP), which benefits many of our small and mid-size company partners.

This was one of the things that was identified in the Jenkins report. Frankly, need to double this program has been identified by many small and medium-sized businesses across the country. This program is very effective in providing not only financial assistance but mentorship to these small and medium-sized companies that are growing in Canada, which is one of our main challenges.

One of our main challenges is that a lot of our smaller companies have some real challenges in growing into larger companies, or as they grow into larger companies and increase their sales and net volume, they experience some challenges. A CEO said to me recently that with a one million dollar company he could operate fairly well, but when sales increased to $7 million, he had some real challenges. In fact, the IRAP program mentored him through that transition.

I will continue with the press release from Polytechnics Canada, which states:

additional funding for the Strategy for Partnerships and Innovation—a key plank for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council's...industry-facing programs; and

the new multi-year funding for the Canada Foundation for Innovation with its explicit intention to continue the very recent College-Industry Innovation Fund.

This is an important point of which many Canadians should be very proud. If we look at the early or mid-1990s, there was a real problem in Canada that we called the brain drain. Many people, scientists and researchers, left Canada to go to the United States or other countries because they felt they had better opportunities abroad. In fact, I think that has been reversed and I would credit the previous government in part for a lot of the initiatives during the mid-1990s and on, like the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which has been expanded and extended by our government with enhanced funding.

We have introduced a number of new programs in terms of research and development and continue to fund basic research through the granting councils. We are also focusing on the main challenge we have in this area, which is commercialization, to ensure that our small businesses can grow into larger businesses and continue to compete. That is why we set up the Jenkins report. I want to thank Mr. Jenkins for his panel's report and the important work in this area. We are continuing to invest in innovation.

The other area I want to point out is in respect to labour challenges. Whenever I do round tables in my riding of Edmonton—Leduc, the number one issue I hear from businesses is access to labour, skilled and unskilled people. I would love to have members come to my riding to do round tables. I would ask around the table how many people would be needed today and one business person might say that he or she needed 75 people or 125 people today of all types, skilled and unskilled.

This was a crisis about four or five years ago in Alberta and western Canada as well as in parts of Atlantic Canada. In Newfoundland, it is getting to be a serious situation in the lack of labour. This is why we have made a number of changes.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was in my riding in Nisku recently to announce changes to the temporary foreign worker program. It was an excellent announcement in terms of addressing some of the issues. However, we have to address both the immigration side and the employment insurance side. The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development are addressing both in terms of enabling people to access the workers they need.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has spoken very openly about trying to move to a system similar to what Australia has where employers and employees can match very quickly and people could come to our country. However, we also have to engage and work with groups like Polytechnics Canada to ensure that Canadians have the skills and training in the fields that will enable them to move forward and have a very good quality of life.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the job situation in Newfoundland. He also mentioned the job situation in his own riding and said that access to labour is a major issue.

I would like to get the member's comments on the impending changes to the Employment Insurance Act requiring people either to work in certain areas or having to give up their benefits at that time.

There is a plant in Port Union in my riding. It will take some time to get a new buyer for this plant if a new buyer does decide to buy the plant. Here is the issue. If the impending changes force people to move in that particular area, the issue of accessing labour becomes moot. It becomes less of a selling point for that particular plant.

I understand the original hypothesis as to why the government would want to do this, but in the end, for places like Port Union or Newfoundland outports, it could work against it.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question very much. I obviously do not know the specific situation as well as the member does, but I am happy to talk with him about it and see if there is anything I can do with respect to that particular situation.

In general, I would say that this government recognizes that. In fact, the work-sharing program that was introduced by this government was designed to do exactly that. I recognize the problem. Once workers leave a company or an area like Nisku, it is very hard to bring them back. Once they have moved on to another area or another company, it is very difficult to bring them back, which is why we introduced the work-sharing program. It covered part of the cost so that the company did not have to cover all of the cost in terms of that worker during that tough period. That is exactly what that program was designed to do.

Obviously, in terms of the facility itself, management should be looking at the accelerated depreciation if they want to invest further in their facility to upgrade or modernize it if it is closed.

However, in terms of the workers themselves, I am happy to look at whether there are work-sharing programs or other types of programs like that for that specific situation.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my comments are directed toward my colleague's comments on research and development.

I have the honour to serve as the deputy critic for science and technology on the NDP side, so my comments are with respect to the failure to renew funding for Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which succeeded in leveraging significant private capital and received praise from the expert review panel on R and D for the successful commercialization of Canadian green technology.

We know that in the current federal budget there is no new investment in green research, so we are missing out on an incredible opportunity to capitalize on the trillion-dollar global green tech market.

I would like to know my colleague's comments on that. Why are there no new investments in green research?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague to her critic role.

In terms of investments into SDTC, she is absolutely right in saying it is an excellent organization, and I support it very strongly. I have done so on both the industry committee and the finance committee. It is an organization that will continue, as she well knows. It is also an organization we should perhaps look at—and this is something I have talked to the folks at SDTC about—in terms of moving to a model like an EDC, a model they would actually like us to look at, whereby they would bring in some funding and return some dividends to the government.

In terms of research and development in general, obviously a lot of initiatives here go toward what we would call green energy research. One of them is for clean energy generation. There is accelerated capital depreciation for large projects doing clean energy generation, which I would encourage the hydro sector in her province and other sectors to look at as well.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be short.

I want to thank the chair of the finance committee for his excellent speech this morning.

I have young people in my own family. My daughter is 21 and looking toward her future. What does this budget do for the future of young people in terms of job opportunities, not just in Ontario but across the country? Why is it important that we invest in innovation and research to allow for future employment opportunities for them across this country?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer as quickly as I can.

I thank my colleague from Burlington. We do miss him on the finance committee. He was an outstanding member of our committee for many years. I know his daughters are very talented and very bright.

It goes back to my quote from the letter of the president of the University of Alberta in terms of continuing to invest in post-secondary education, in research and development and in the granting councils, so that they can work at basic research or in innovation commercialization and will have a number of job opportunities once they graduate from school.

However, looking beyond that in terms of lifelong learning, we have to move into an area where they may be going to school, going into the workforce, and then going back to school to upgrade their skills or upgrading their skills in the workforce. That is exactly what this budget is looking at doing.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here once again. After closing in on eight years of being in the House, I am standing to talk once again about how to deal with another budget and how we had hoped at some point to decipher this particular document and see how we can elevate debate within the House of Commons.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc, who did a fine job speaking to the bill. I do not necessarily agree with everything he said, but nonetheless he presented very well and always has.

In 2005 the Government of Canada signed new offshore agreements with two provinces regarding three pieces of legislation: the Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord and accords with the province of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

The federal government had worked out an agreement between the provinces to the satisfaction of both Premier John Hamm and Premier Danny Williams. The government proposed something on the order of a large payment up front and beyond that new calculations within the formula regarding equalization. The point was that as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador were getting back on their feet, the clawbacks were really putting them back to where they were before, and the provinces wanted to be the principal beneficiaries of their resources.

In 2005 those agreements were included in a document similar to this, the budget of Prime Minister Paul Martin. I was sitting across the way, just behind the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's, and I remember my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador and the member for South Shore--St. Margaret's vehemently arguing for the Atlantic accord agreements to be taken out of the budget. They said they did not belong there. It was an omnibus bill, and they said it was trickery, tomfoolery. They said the government should not be doing this and that the agreements should be discussed in the House by themselves.

Let us fast-forward to 2012 and look at this budget document. It is a big document, and it contains a lot. One-third of it is about making fundamental changes to environmental assessments.

We can also talk about the fact that this document fundamentally changes many aspects of the governance of this country, including old age security and even the Fisheries Act, which is important to the area I come from because it has major fishing industries.

We are talking about making a unilateral change to the funding of Canadian health care. We are talking about tearing up 100,000 immigration applications that have been worked on for years. We are talking about sweeping changes to employment insurance. All of this is contained in this one document.

People across this country are crying for some of this to be taken out and debated in the House separately. Not only are academics, experts, provincial politicians, provincial bureaucrats and former federal bureaucrats asking for some of this to be taken out of the budget: some Conservatives have said it themselves. It is funny how time tends to change things in the House.

Rather than lecturing the Conservatives about practising what they used to preach, let us talk about Bill C-38 and some of the concerns about it. I will admit that I would entertain some of the stuff in the bill. I look at some of the things as being positive moves forward, but the problem is I only have one vote.

Any time members want to ask me about some of the positive provisions in the bill, I am willing to talk about them. Unfortunately I only get 10 minutes and I have far less time to talk about the negative stuff, but I just cannot help myself, as members can gauge from the laughter across the House. They too are waiting for me to move on to the negative stuff.

The government is talking about moving the old age security benchmark from 65 years of age to 67. The OECD, Canada's chief actuarial officer, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and even the government's own experts agree that the change is not necessary because Canada's OAS program is already sustainable.

I get very many calls from people in my riding on this particular issue, telling me the response they get is only, “Well, don't worry; it's not going to affect you in the short term. It's just going to affect your children or grandchildren, that's all. No need to worry.”

We also want to talk about the departmental cuts that were announced and the layoff of 19,200 federal public servants. On the surface, people might say it is a good cost-cutting measure to cut the number of public servants so that the government can put us in line to control the deficit.

However, here is the issue. The Conservatives are going about it in a way that is not smart and that is certainly not achieving good government services.

In the smallest communities of this country, people are asking, “Where is the Government of Canada? It just doesn't exist anymore.” The only thing that exists is a flag flying above the post office, a crown corporation.

Service Canada cuts in my riding are going to be severe. Processing jobs in smaller communities are now being moved to larger communities. Where is the sense in that? These are jobs that can be done from anywhere.

Granted, the Conservatives want to get inefficiencies out of the system, and I appreciate that. However, this is not an efficient way of providing government services to our smallest communities. The government prides itself on providing good benefits to rural Canada, but the services are just not there. We are going in the opposite direction.

Just today a rally started in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, probably about 25 minutes ago, to save the marine rescue sub-centre, a centre that the government is closing. We never received any indication that it was a duplicate service or that this service could be covered by what is going on in Nova Scotia at the JRCC complex there. Now we find ourselves putting safety at risk up there. I personally think public safety is at risk.

The calls to reverse the decision have gone unanswered and were actually turned down, in the case of the regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly the MP for Labrador.

It raises the question of quick decisions that were not thought through, yet when evidence is put forward that the decision was not a right one and that perhaps we should reflect upon that decision, it is met with absolute denial. It is met with indifference when we say to the government that there are a lot of sections in this bill that should be brought out, discussed and put through the appropriate committee, especially the environmental stuff, as my colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, will attest.

It is unbelievable. The preamble summaries describe something different from what is contained within the text of this particular legislation.

The environmental assessment that we discuss in here, through the fisheries department especially, should be brought through the environmental committee and vetted through that. One-third of this document pertains to that aspect.

I am sure the question will arise, and I have no issue with achieving economic development beneficial to people who have the skills and knowledge to do this type of work, whether it be pipelines, oil and gas, or in the mining industry. However, due diligence is called for. In this particular case, it is sadly missing.

Now, as time closes in, I want to talk about the final part, which is the employment insurance part of it.

Some of the positive aspects include the maintaining of the best weeks part this program, in this case variable best weeks, and the pilot project extended from 2005.

The problem is that the government is trying to get more work generated by this new committee. The government now will have the ability to force people into a situation of having to move halfway across the country, or at least that is what we assume is going to happen.

Unfortunately, the government will not hear of juxtaposing EI with economic development, but in certain cases, in order for smaller communities to reopen a closed plant, this approach does not work.

We have to look at this and realize and get the right information as to why the smallest of communities would suffer from this type of change.

I want to thank the House for allowing me this small opportunity to discuss this in the House. I wish we had more time.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds as if my hon. colleague is holding out a bit of an olive branch to the government side, and he sees many things he may support in this document.

However, I want to double back to something that is a recurring theme in this Parliament and that is the use of time allocation to discuss and debate vitally important issues that affect all Canadians. In the past and in this Parliament, the government has said we have already debated these things, that we debated them in the last Parliament so why would we need to go through the process again, which underlines the Conservatives' anti-democratic inclinations.

I wonder if the member could speak to this issue and whether he thinks it is appropriate for the government to impose time allocation on this massive document that has not 100% to do with the budget it is supposed to be referencing.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Davenport for bringing that forward. I did not get to that part of my speech about the time allocation part. The member touched upon the key component of that, which is to say that the Conservatives argue that a lot of this was debated in the past. At what point in the eight years I have been here did we have a serious discussion about raising the age of OAS eligibility from 65 to 67?

It did not happen. I do not recall evidence being brought forward in this House or any committee that shows this is a necessary action to, in their words, save the system.

The Conservatives talk about downloading to the provinces. Moving the age from 65 to 67 is going to download a huge amount of money to the provinces, but of course, as they say, we are not to worry as it does not affect us. However, they forget to say that this affects our children.

The time allocation part is a sad mistake because of the very essence of this particular document that pertains to, as the member said, so many things that to call it “omnibus” is an understatement. Not only did the Conservatives do that, but they also invoked time allocation.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor only had 10 minutes and he decided to look at what he thought were some of the negative aspects of the budget. When I have my time, I will talk about what I see as the entire positive budget we have brought forward.

However, I have a question on process, and the hon. member did not quite get time enough to finish it. The fact is that the NDP decided it would take all the time to speak to the budget and not give the Liberal Party of Canada any time to speak to the budget. I have been in this House for 15 years and I have never seen that happen, so I would like some comments on that.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, yes, that was not very nice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel this discussion of time allocation particularly keenly as the leader of the federal Green Party with a lot of background as a former environmental lawyer, having worked for much of my life on creating the bills that are now being destroyed. When I worked in the Mulroney government, I charted the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act through the machinery of government at the Privy Council Office to get permission to legislate. I have worked on this legislation for more than 25 years and I am watching it being destroyed, and I may never get a chance to speak in this House. With time allocation, it does not look like I will get to speak now and I certainly did not get to speak on the budget itself.

What does the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor do, as a parliamentarian, when items that were never part of a budget are in a budget implementation bill? The destruction of the federal Fisheries Act was not even hinted at in that budget. How does the Conservative Party get away with sticking it in an omnibus bill when it was not even mentioned in the budget itself?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I find her situation in the House very similar to the Conservative party, and this is the only comparison I draw between the Green party and the Conservative party in the House; they are both a party of one.

However, in this particular situation, she is right because so much of this material was not even brought up as a preliminary discussion in the beginning. Let us go back to the Fisheries Act. The Conservatives attempted to bring in a brand new Fisheries Act years ago, under Loyola Hearn. What is in there now was not even discussed then, when they had a chance to bring in a new act, let alone now.

It is ridiculous.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I will take my time to talk about budget 2012 and the positive changes it will bring to Canada. I will also take a bit of my time to correct the record on some of the things that my hon. colleague across the way from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor had to say.

I will go back to the beginning of his speech when he talked a bit about the 2005 budget and the Atlantic accord. The changes that came forward under our government to the Atlantic accord ended up with Nova Scotia getting a better agreement. Unfortunately, Newfoundland and Labrador was no longer a have-not province and did not reap the benefits of Atlantic accord. Every province in Canada should have that problem. Good for it; I applaud it for that reason. Some of the environmental changes the hon. member talked about in this budget will actually improve the process for oil and gas operations on the east coast of Canada, including of course the very rich oil fields on offshore Newfoundland.

It is worth taking a look at what we are discussing. Budget 2012 is called coming back to balance. We are going to do that in a way that will bring budgetary balance and will also streamline some of the processes we have in this country, be they environmental, banking or employment insurance related, not to be negative but to assist our country to get back to a balanced budget.

It also important to note that nothing in this budget is going to bring in a new Fisheries Act. Since the hon. member is from Newfoundland, I hope he would understand the importance of some government in the House some day bringing in a new Fisheries Act. If he does not, then I am left shaking my head.

I come from a part of the world that is dependent on the fishery. In the southwestern end of Nova Scotia, there are 1,688 boats fishing in the most affluent fishery in Canada, without question. I can say that they are hobbled by a Fisheries Act that dates from 1867. They are absolutely handcuffed by archaic legislation and it is time we moved that 1867 act into the modern era. That does not mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. It does not mean that all the changes that have come forth regarding the fishery get put into the act. I would hope that in this day and age, in 2012, we can look back at that act, say let us move it forward, modernize the fishery and keep all the good things that we have brought into the fishery along the way.

I would like to speak directly to the budget bill and how it affects my home province of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia has always been a trading province, from the days of the clipper ships to the days of the schooners. It was the part of Canada where Champlain first stepped ashore in 1604. We have consistently made a living off the land and off the sea and have traded our resources around the globe. That is the only way Canada can survive and excel today. We have tremendous resources and a great workforce, and we have to trade those resources around the world in a global economy. We are absolutely capable of doing that.

I am chagrined when the union membership across the country stands and says that we should put up protectionist walls and barriers. It would be the end of society as we know it. It cannot be done. We need to trade and we meed to trade on an equal footing. That means insisting that our trading partners have rules-based trading and that they respect our rules and we respect their rules. It is not complicated.

Both of the hon. members before me, as well as the member for Edmonton—Leduc, talked about the major projects initiative. The economic action plan 2012 proposes $54 million over 2 years to continue to support effective project approvals through the major projects management office initiative, which has helped to transform the approvals process from major natural resource projects by shortening the average review times from 4 years to 22 months.

I think just about everybody in this place would agree that if they had a large project ready to go forward, with investors on the hook for billions of dollars from all over the planet, they would expect to get that passed sooner than four years. Surely it needs a good environmental review and proper inspections nut surely that can occur in 22 months without duplication by the province and the feds. The average approval process, as I said before, is 4 years and, if we go to 22 months, I do not think there can be any disagreement from the opposition side of the House.

Consultation under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act would propose that $13.6 million over two years to the Canadian Environment Assessment Agency to support consultations with aboriginal peoples related to projects assessed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to ensure that their rights and interests are respected and that they benefit from economic development opportunities. I think that is called consultation. There is nothing wrong with that. We need to bring the players to the table but it must be done in a timely fashion.

We will strengthen pipeline safety. Every Canadian would support strengthening pipeline safety. I have a colleague who has the sour gas pipeline that goes behind his house. It is safe. Nobody is in danger from that. However, we know it is safe because of a regular inspection system. Again, this is not rocket science. This is good, common sense stuff.

The reality will be that oil pipelines and gas pipelines inspections will increase from 100 to 150 inspections. I am sure that is something that everyone in this House would support.

This is extremely important to the offshore industry in Nova Scotia and the offshore oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Offshore oil and gas developments create jobs and support economic growth in Canada's communities. Continued exploration activity is required to bring new projects to communities and sustain these economic benefits over the long term and depends on modern reliable seismic technology and data.

To advance exploration for new developments, economic action plan 2012 proposes to amend the Coasting Trade Act to facilitate access to Canadian waters for the global fleet of vessels that undertake seismic surveys. This would ensure that private sector companies have the information they require to identify potential resource development opportunities.

In Nova Scotia alone, this budget will mean a lot more dollars for Nova Scotia. It will be almost $2.5 billion when we look at the increase in transfer dollars, the increase in the health transfer, the increase in the social transfer and the increase in the training opportunities that will be made available. This is a good budget for Canada and a great budget for Nova Scotia.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about how consultations about the environment are all well and good, but that they have to happen in a timely manner and not take too long.

How can he talk about beneficial consultation when the government is imposing a time limit on the study of its omnibus bill? Those of us who like parts of the bill are forced to support the whole thing.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, consultations are great if they lead somewhere but if consultations are only an opportunity to obstruct and delay and there is no intent from both sides when they sit down to actually seek a common goal, then the consultations do not work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill would have a very profound impact on all Canadians. For example, increasing the age for OAS from 65 to 67. We in the Liberal Party believe people should have the choice to determine if they would like to retire at age 65. The government believes differently and the budget sets, at least in part, the framework to that.

The budget itself is an issue of priorities. The government has made the decision to cut over 15,000 civil servant jobs, which will have a significant impact on services being provided to Canadians. If we put that in the perspective of what the government did earlier this year when it decided to spend tens of millions of dollars on increasing the number of politicians, not to mention the staffing that will be required for those politicians, Canadians look at it and see a government that is cutting back on the civil servants in the same year in which it is proposing to increase the number of members of Parliament.

How does the member justify that sort of an approach when it comes to priorities for Canadians? It did not need to increase the size of the House of Commons and the government knows that.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the question but I am not sure if the hon. member supports the increase in the number of members in the House of Commons or if he is actually against the increase.

The number of members in the House of Commons needs to be divided up as fairly as possible across the country. We know we have constitutional obligations. However, it is about democracy and about people having representation. There is a cost to that but it is a cost as a Canadian that I am willing to pay and I think all Canadians are willing to pay.

There are a number of other questions there. One of them was on old age security. The member is absolutely right. We do not need to change old age security today. Nothing will happen tomorrow, or next year, or the year after that. However, when we get into 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, the system will collapse in on itself and no one will have old age security. Therefore, we are moving now to put a program in place to ensure we preserve old age security for future generations.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's an opportunity to enlarge on an issue that obviously is not apparent to the opposition. We hear lots of complaints about what is going to be a very long budget debate, about the length of the debate, without any comments on the substance of the budget, this bill.

Could the member inform the House what the benefits for all parts of Canada are of having such an attractive jurisdiction for business and job creation in the country. Whether it is lower taxes or responsible resource development, whether it is affordable social programs or budget balance, these are all benefits that will bring jobs and investment to every part of the country.

Could the member describe some of the--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

A short answer, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a short answer will be very difficult. However, for me, the real success of the budget bill is the way it dovetails the budget in with our trade initiatives because our trade initiatives are leading to jobs and opportunities for Canadians and jobs and opportunities for workers in foreign lands to trade with Canada. This is a win-win situation for all on a planet that is not that stable and we need people to do well. First and foremost, we need Canadians to do well and we will do well because of the budget.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, our people are growing older and living longer. What does that mean and what should we do about it? I will start with old age security.

In 1975, there were seven taxpayers for every senior. Right now, it is four. In 20 years, there will be two taxpayers for every senior. What is more, people now collect OAS for longer.

When Canada introduced old age security in 1951, the average life expectancy was 79 and eligibility was 70, meaning that the average person did not collect old age security at all. Today, eligibility is 65 and life expectancy is 82, meaning that the average person gets 17 years of OAS.

As we project forward, life expectancy is growing by 47 days per year. Put morbidly, the average dead person this year is 47 days older than the average dead person from last year. In 2031, people will die on average at about 84 years old, which means that under the current rules they will collect OAS for almost two decades. This is a benefit, I remind members, that was expected to be collected for only a very short period of time.

Put together, these facts mean that in two decades the number of people on OAS will double, the cost will triple and the number of taxpayers supporting each retiree will fall by half. By consequence, OAS will rise from 15¢ of each dollar the federal government spends to 25¢.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute calculated, “...by 2040 Canada would face a $67 billion deficit (in today’s dollars) based on current policies and demographic change”.

We need to think of OAS as a glass of water. Retirees can only drink out of the cup in benefits what workers pour into it in taxes. If Canadians are drinking out of the cup faster than what is poured in, then someone goes thirsty. We can look to Greece and Portugal where government debts are rated at junk status to see the consequences of drinking from the cup of profligacy.

We reject that failed model and choose the Canadian way instead. Our plan lowers the cost and therefore protects the integrity of the old age security system with a gradual increase to 67 years of age over the next decade and a half without impacting anyone currently over the age of 54.

The opposition parties oppose this move. In fact, they are already promising to increase the costs associated with this program. The NDP deputy leader moved and the Liberal leader seconded bills in this House that would allow people who have only lived in Canada for three years to collect old age security. The cost to taxpayers would be another $700 million. How would the opposition make up the $67 billion gap that I described earlier and how would it further fund billions of dollars in new promised entitlements?

The oppositions' election strategy is a cunning one. They would tell voters that they will give them a lot of free stuff and make someone else pay for it, and who better than big corporations. Who are these big corporations? Perhaps they mean Canadian Natural Resources Limited, the country's largest independent oil producer with over 100,000 barrels from the oil sands every day. It makes them a perfect target for the NDP.

The NDP promises to raise taxes on that company's profits but where do these profits go now? Well, they go to the shareholders. One of the biggest shareholders is the Quebec pension plan with $576 million invested. When the company profits it pays more money to the public pension.

Based upon today's dividend, this oil company pays the Quebec pension plan $6.3 million. That is enough to pay the pensions of 1,100 Quebeckers. There is only one problem. Canadian Natural Resources can only pay Quebec pensioners after it pays taxes to the government. Business taxes up, pension benefits down.

This is not an isolated example. Over half of the CPP's assets are invested in businesses, including the Canadian Oil Sands Trust, Suncor Energy, Imperial Oil and Athabasca Oil Sands Corporation. When these businesses profit, the CPP has more money to pay out to Canadian retirees. Raise taxes on those companies and they will pay a lower return to the CPP.

Take the Canada Post pension plan. It is no different. Its top five holdings are: the Toronto Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Nova Scotia, Suncor and Canadian Natural Resources. Banks and oil companies, the twin villains in every left-wing storyline, pay dividends to the pension fund of these unionized postal workers. These dividends come from after-tax profits. If the business tax rate rises, the after-tax profit remaining to the pension fund drops. In that sense, the opposition's proposed business tax hike is really a tax on the pensions of unionized blue-collar workers.

What happened to solidarity? The answer is that solidarity is incompatible with the opposition's overriding sentiment: envy.

If we do not have a job, the opposition tells us it is because someone else does. If we do not have enough to retire on, it tells us it is because businesses are too profitable. If a company fails, the oppositions tells it that it is because someone else is succeeding. If we are doing badly, it says it is because someone else is doing well. In sum, the opposition suggests that “them” has too much and “us” has too little. So it will take from the “them” and give to the “us”. Yet “us and them” does not work when our destinies are intertwined.

The retired Ottawa mailman relies for his pension cheque on the earnings of an Alberta oil sands company. In order to buy the machines and hire the workers in the first place, that oil sands company must seek investment from the mailman's pension fund. In that sense, the two are symbiotic and interdependent. Millions of voluntary transactions like these connect us all. Independently of government, through the free market, we truly are all in this together. Class distinctions start to fade. Billions of everyday Canadians now own shares in the largest corporations, through their pensions, RRSPs and tax-free savings accounts.

While some try to turn workers against business owners, free enterprise turns workers into business owners. That is the Canadian way: a low-cost government, a free people, a shared destiny and a bright future.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a wonder to behold when this Parliament gets an economics lesson from the government side, a government that has racked up the biggest deficit in Canadian history. This sort of nonsense is unbelievable.

The member likes to obfuscate in this House on a daily basis. In this instance, he is talking about the supposed inability of Canada to sustain its OAS. The government always compares us to the economic basket cases of Europe. The amount of GDP that Greece and Portugal spend on their public pensions is 12% and 11%, respectively. Canada spends 4%. How dare the member try to compare our expenditures on public pension with that of these members of the eurozone? It is this kind of prevarication which this side of the House rejects and which Canadians are increasingly rejecting and are angry about.

I wonder why this member insists upon bending and weaving through the real issues of the--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's economic policy is not a matter of theory anymore. It is not a matter of promises. It is a matter of real-time existing case studies. NDP governments exist more or less in Greece, Portugal and across Europe. Nine euro currency countries follow NDP policies and they have now been downgraded. Greece and Portugal have now junk status government debt. Their government debts are 1.5 times the size of the entire economy. That is the result of NDP tax-and-spend policies.

The only criticism that the leader of the NDP has had for the eurozone debtor nations is that he believes they are not spending and borrowing enough. He said that a week ago today. We on this side of the House of Commons reject that failed model. We support the Canadian way, a low-cost government, a free people, a shared destiny and a brighter future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the point raised by my hon. colleague about the fact that people are living longer, especially since OAS was first established.

The health-adjusted lifespan of the lowest 10% of income earners has not increased. That means that when they get to about 60 or 65 years of age, life will be very difficult for them because of health issues. If the government really wanted to trim the cost of OAS, why did it not protect this most vulnerable part of our society, the lowest income earners, the lowest decile of income earners, who really need OAS and GIS?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

We are protecting old age security, Mr. Speaker, by making it affordable for the long run. That is especially important to people most in need.

We do not protect pensioners and seniors by raising taxes on the companies that pay benefits into the pension funds, RRSPs and tax-free savings accounts that Canadians rely on for their retirements. As a result, we recognize the need for a low tax plan that would create jobs, wealth and long-term prosperity so that companies across this country can pay for the retirements of the people who need it most.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 29, the Minister of Finance tabled budget 2012 in Parliament. This budget includes reckless cuts to services that Canadians depend on, such as old age security, health care, provincial transfers and environmental assessments.

The Conservatives claim that their budget focuses on job creation. However, they themselves admit that their budget will result in the loss of 19,200 public sector jobs. The fact is that it will raise the unemployment rate. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that this budget will actually result in the loss of 43,000 jobs in Canada. That, combined with this government's previous cuts, brings the total number of jobs lost to 102,000.

Bill C-38 is the 2012 budget implementation bill, but it is about much more than just the budget. This massive 421-page bill includes not only the measures described in the budget, but also many changes that were not previously announced.

This bill is not like other bills. It is over 400 pages long. This bill will have a major impact on Canadians. At least one-third of Bill C-38 is dedicated to weakening environmental protection and rules.

Furthermore, this bill introduces a series of measures that were not previously announced and that will result in reduced transparency and greater secrecy around the government. These measures include decreasing the Auditor General's powers.

Today I wish to draw your attention to one aspect that I find extremely worrisome. It has to do with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It is clear that several parts of the agency are about to be privatized. These cuts to food inspection represent a step backward. We know that the listeriosis crisis in 2008 came about because of a lack of inspectors. Would hon. members not agree that the government should take the safety of Canadians seriously and that it should be transparent when communicating with Canadians?

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is one of a number of agencies that will be excluded from the Auditor General's supervision. Bill C-38 eliminates all references to the Auditor General in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. For instance, the section of the act that was previously called “accounting and audit” will henceforth be called simply “audit”. Mandatory financial and performance audits by the Auditor General have also been eliminated.

Another important and troubling fact is that Bill C-38 eliminates mandatory financial audits by the Auditor General for 12 agencies.

Bill C-38 also amends the Seeds Act to give the president of the CFIA the power to issue licences to persons authorizing them to perform activities related to controlling or assuring the quality of seeds or seed crops. This amendment opens the door to having private companies do food inspection related work. This also sends worrisome signals about the growing likelihood of privatization of some parts of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

This bill will also significantly change how the Canadian Food Inspection Agency monitors and enforces non-health and safety food labelling regulations. In other words, when a company states that its products do not contain any traces of peanuts, for example, the consumer will have no way of knowing whether that is true or not. This government believes that it is up to the consumer to judge the trustworthiness of labels. Parents with children who have peanut allergies will not know whether they can trust what the company is saying.

If they have any doubts, they will have to go online and address their concerns to the companies and associations involved.

In essence, the government is suggesting that we wait and see whether anyone has an allergic reaction. If so, then the consumer will have to go to the company's website to tell the company that it lied. The government is not getting involved.

The government is completely withdrawing from the process and is making individuals responsible for food labelling regulations. That makes no sense. Companies will say whatever they want, in order to sell their products to as many people as possible.

These changes scare me and I know I am not the only one who is scared. A woman in my riding wrote to me to tell me how much these changes would affect her family, as her son has a nut allergy. She is very worried about him and rightfully so.

I would also like to go over some of the comments made last week by my Conservative colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, when talking about budget 2012.

He asked the opposition to at least vote for increased investments in food safety.

I would now like to explain why I am voting against them. First, the government is not giving us the opportunity to vote for individual measures because it has decided to put together a gigantic budget bill that encompasses radical changes, such as the increase in the eligibility age for old age security benefits.

So no, I will not be voting against more investments in food safety; rather, I will be voting against an enormous bill that seeks to change environmental laws, the immigration system and employment insurance, among other things.

Second, what my colleague has not mentioned are the $56.1 million in cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Let us do the math. If we add $51 million to a program and then take away $56 million, what do we have left over? A negative figure, or cuts. It leaves us with a weaker inspection program.

That is why I will be voting against the budget implementation bill.

Canadians need transparency. It is not by sneakily passing measures that will have a major impact on Canadians that the government will earn the trust of the people.

Introducing such a wide-ranging bill and allowing so little time to debate it undermines what Parliament is here to do, because members will not have the opportunity to get all the information they need about the bill's content and impact.

It is sad that the government is continuing to ignore what really matters to Canadians: environmental protection, old age security, health care and job creation.

How can we properly do our job as elected representatives of the people when the government is not giving us the time we need to get all the information we need?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said repeatedly that MPs are not getting the information they need for proper oversight. He also released a report clearly showing that the old age security program is completely sustainable as it stands now. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has even said that the program would be sustainable if benefits were increased.

Why is the government continuing to make Canadians pay? Why is it ignoring the various reports that clearly prove certain facts? Why is it so determined to fast-track a bill that includes so many cuts? Who will benefit from these measures?

Those are some of the questions I am asking myself as a mother and an MP. What sort of future do we want for future generations? For all these reasons, I will vote against Bill C-38.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises some valid points and I want to highlight and pose a question for the member in regard to what is encompassed in this legislation.

Normally we would talk to and have a good healthy debate and questions and answers strictly with regard to budget items. However, in this budget the government has made changes, some of which are exceptionally profound in terms of issues such as our environmental legislation. All of that has been bundled in through the back door of the budget debate. I would ultimately suggest that it should have been sectioned out. There are probably three years worth of legislation packed into the bill.

How does the member feel about the manner in which the government has limited debate on the huge legislative agenda behind the budget debate on which we are all expected to vote?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a huge bill. It is over 400 pages. It is full of information. As has been said before, the devil is in the details.

It would be a good idea if the government sent agriculture issues specifically to the agriculture committee and environmental issues to the environment committee. It is as if it is scared to have an open and informed debate on this because it knows that if it were divided, it probably would not pass. Canadians are not for this at all.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for her speech. I have a very simple question for her.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the program is affordable as is, but all of the other government authorities that we have access to, as well as all of the authorities in other OECD countries, not to mention most experts and informed observers in Canada, disagree, so who is she going to trust? The lone holdout, or all of the other experts in the field, including government experts who unanimously say that the system must be reformed in order to preserve it for future generations?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his question.

We trust the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He says that the system is fully sustainable. This situation is not unexpected. Forty years ago, we knew that the baby boomers would be turning into seniors around this time. So we are ready, and the system is fully sustainable. We trust him.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague brought up a couple of really important points. One was as a parent thinking about the future and the increasingly large gap between the opportunities for young people and those for middle-aged and older workers.

Does the member have concern, and has she heard this concern from other parents in her riding, around the issue of generational inequity and the fact that the budget and the government seems to have no interest in rectifying this huge gap?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a mother, I want to look to the future and hope that it is brighter for our children. It seems the future will be a bit more dim for our kids under the Conservative government.

We hope that with amendments and maybe by sending correct parts of the bill to the right committees we might change things and could then look toward a more positive future, but that is very hard to do with the government.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged and honoured to speak to the budget implementation bill to do with the budget presented by our government. It is ironic that following a federal election in May and then a provincial election in Manitoba shortly thereafter, we have two governments basically on the same track in the sense of process, but on exactly opposite ends with regard to what people want and expect from their governments. I plan to draw some of those comparisons to the recently released budget in the province of Manitoba and the budget that the Government of Canada has put forward.

In budget 2012 we talk about a road map to the future. In the last election, we made commitments to the people of Canada that we would keep taxes where they were or reduce them. We would create no new taxes and balance the budget in a period of time so we could move forward with some of the other needs and requirements of the people of Canada. Manitoba, on the other hand, made very similar promises in the last campaign. It would not raise taxes or establish new taxes and it, too, would move toward a balance budget.

However, when we look at the actual details of the two budgets, we see a completely different story. It is important that Canadians see for themselves what can happen when a government is run by Conservatives, who listen to the people of Canada, consult with them and make a plan that meets their needs, as opposed to a government in Manitoba that completely ignores the people of the province and continues to bear huge tax burdens on them and their children well into the future.

Our budget was about jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canada. We have done many things in the past several years in previous budgets. It is only right that I take a look back at what we have accomplished, make comparisons and see where we will go in the future.

The federal government is proposing no new taxes and a reduction in taxes in certain areas. We have extended the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing and processing equipment, encouraging purchases. With a strong dollar, the manufacturing side is looking to renew a lot of its equipment and would do so with a capital cost allowance that would allow companies not only to write it off faster but would also allow them to update their equipment to make them more efficient, more effective and environmentally friendly. We have also increased the small business limit to $500 and reduced the small business tax rate to 11%, all things Canadians told us they wanted and required to move forward, and we have delivered on them.

We have also lowered the federal corporate income tax rate to 15%, making us one of the most, if not the most, competitive jurisdiction of the G8 countries. That speaks well to the investment that is going to flow into Canada. It has already started and will continue to flow because people with money to invest look at countries that are safe, reliable and predictable in their plans going forward. We have had a consistent track record since 2006 of reducing taxes, creating new jobs and wealth for Canadians and opportunity for investment.

We have also increased the lifetime capital gains exemption to $750,000. Why is that important? We have had many discussions here on other issues, but, as we know, over time costs go up and returns have to go up to match them. Allowing businesses to take the $750,000 tax exemption creates better opportunities for the future.

As I said, I want to draw some comparisons, and I will do that now.

The NDP government in Manitoba is planning to overspend this year's budget by $500 million. That is $500 million more in spending than the core revenue it is bringing in. This is what an NDP government does to the country. It has foisted taxes and new charges on the people of Manitoba to the tune of $184 million. In a time of restraint when countries are collapsing under the burden of financial difficulties, we have a province that continues to tax its people to the nth degree. I suggest the people of Manitoba were fooled when they were told by their current government that there would be no new taxes foisted upon them.

The Manitoba government has expanded the provincial sales tax to include more services and insurance premiums, adding $95 million more tax burden on the working people of Manitoba. Not finally but one of a few measures, it has increased gas taxes by 2.5 cents per litre, taking another $44.5 million out of Manitobans' pockets.

I often think back to when we moved to the metric system. We all knew what the price of a gallon of gas was. When 2.5 cents is added to a litre it does not seem like much but it is over 10 cents a gallon for anybody who remembers what a gallon was worth. To add that to the people of Manitoba in one fell swoop, without any discussion, after promising it would not do it, shows what we get with a government that is not committed to making the hard decisions to move a country forward, to move a province forward.

In a short time in office, our government has cut taxes 140 times. That speaks to an investment community that knows it has a government that is on a path of lowering taxes, creating wealth, creating opportunities and creating jobs.

We have created nearly 700,000 new jobs in the last little while, which is unbelievable in a world where the economies of so many countries are struggling just to see the light of day. We only need to look back to yesterday's news to see how important that is in certain countries in the world.

Our government, with its low tax policies, has removed one million low-income families, individuals and seniors from the tax rolls. Why is that important? The opposition tells us that people are in a situation where they are unable to pay their taxes or are barely scraping by. Well, one million more of them have an opportunity to spend their money the way they choose as opposed to being taxed by the government and then having it given back to them in dribs and drabs as some are proposing.

What else have we done? We have increased the amount that Canadians can earn tax free, again a decision made by a government that wants people to become independent, to think for themselves and to make their own financial decisions, not have governments telling them where and when they should make payments. We do that by lowering taxes. It puts more money in their pockets and gives people the ability to make their own decisions that affect their life, their family life and their community life.

We provided income splitting for seniors, one of the greatest things that could have happened in the sense of allowing people to share incomes to lower their taxable rate. We lowered the GST from 7% to 5%. We introduced a children's fitness tax. We brought in the tax free savings account. I know many people of my generation were RRSP buyers. At the end of every year we would do that to reduce our taxable income. Now that money can actually be put into an account and taken out tax free as it grows in the future. If I were giving advice to anybody in Canada today, it would be to take a long, hard look at that tax free savings account as one of the many vehicles that we now have to prepare for our retirement plans, for the future and for our family's future. It is important for people to look at this.This is not a paid political announcement but people should check with their accountants to ensure they are getting all the benefits.

When we look at what we have done across the country, a typical Canadian family today is saving $3,100 in taxes. Imagine having that every year and being able to make a decision on how to spend it or what to do with it, whether to invest in our children's education or our retirement, or whether to buy that retirement home we have been looking for. All of those things are doable and possible when we have a government that is committed to low taxes.

I opened by making the comments that our plan is to keep taxes low, create new jobs and opportunity, create the environment for that to happen and, in doing so, we will create long-term prosperity for Canadians. It is what we told Canadians we would do in the last election and it is what we are doing today.

I urge all members to take a hard look at it and, instead of finding what they can vote against, they should look for the positives that they can vote for and support this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Brandon—Souris for his speech.

Since he brought up the subject of Manitoba and lower taxes in his speech, I wonder if he could talk about the fact that, when the NDP came to power in Manitoba, the tax rate for small businesses was 8%. Since December 2010, as he probably knows, that tax rate has been zero. Small businesses no longer have to pay taxes. This is stimulating Manitoba's economy and it is great for Manitobans.

There are about 100,000 businesses and 97% of them are small businesses. This is an excellent measure. I really do not understand why he is trying to scare people by saying that the NDP might raise taxes, when really, if we look at the facts, Manitoba has an excellent government and very good economic measures.

I would like to hear his comments on that.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was part of the provincial government in 1999 when the NDP won the majority and took over government. The NDP claimed that there was no money left in the till until it y found $1 billion. It spent that billion and continued to spend at a reckless amount. It is still spending above $500 million more in a province of 1.2 million people. That is what the NDP government is committed to spend and that is more than it will take in revenue this year. Plus, it continues to tax every living breathing individual and beyond now with the services it is now taxing people for.

It is simply an obvious case of numbers and the numbers do not add up for the Province of Manitoba. I do not want the NDP to ever be responsible for the numbers of Canada.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to a lot of talk about Manitoba. I am not sure if this is the right forum to get into arguing about the Government of Manitoba. One either wants to be an opposition member in Manitoba or a government member here. Therefore, I will stick to the budget that we are dealing with in this House as we talk about Bill C-38, and I have a very quick question.

A section in the legislation amends the Salaries Act to abolish the Public Appointments Commission that the Conservatives so excitedly brought in. I was wondering why they would do that.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, like all good governments, when we look at departments and do a strategic review of expenditures everything is up for discussion.

I would advise the member, and I suspect he was here at the time, that back when the commission was formally introduced, the opposition, in a minority government, railroaded the government into refusing the person we put forward as the chair of that committee and, therefore, we saw no more need for it.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, all of us on this side are grateful for that excellent speech from the member for Brandon—Souris. It is a gold mine of information about an implementation act that has benefits across the board for Canadians.

However, the opposition members continue to complain about this being the shortest debate on budget implementation in a generation, even though no Liberal budget was ever debated this long under its government. They also complain that it covers too much ground. Could the member comment on the inter-relatedness of all of these measures?

To have a strong economy, an attractive jurisdiction for trade and investment, we need a stable financial sector. We need a responsible approach to resource development. We need jobs and growth and all of the enablers that go with it. Could he remind this House why all of these measures are needed in one bill?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, like all budgets and like all future budgets, there must be a thread of connectivity to them. If we do want more investment in our natural resource sector, we need to look at ways of expediting the approval or disapproval process for all the investments that will come into Canada over the next several years. We want to ensure that the people looking at Canada as an investment area will find Canada the most attractive. We have moved a long way in this bill. Obviously, a lot of things are being contemplated in this implementation bill but all, I would suggest, are necessary to move Canada forward.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a fascinating debate so far. We have heard the government blame the NDP for the economic collapse of Portugal and Greece. We heard another member tell us that all is not quite right in Manitoba these days. The member seems to be confused about which jurisdiction he represents. It has been an amazing day.

Some days one imagines that all members on the government side come from Pleasantville. In their world no senior has a problem paying rent. In their world seniors have a choice of putting their excess money in a tax free savings account or buying a retirement home? That is the kind of conversation those members have.

I am not quite sure what is being served in the government lobby before the Conservatives come out and say their speeches but one wonders if maybe they need to check the ingredients. However, the ingredients may not be accurate because, according to provisions in the budget implementation bill, food labelling will not be as accurate or we will not be as sure of their accuracy. The budget implementation bill that we are debating today contains elements that have nothing to do with the budget, which is what we are trying to get to the bottom of.

I will talk about a couple of things about the budget. The budget does nothing to address the chronic unemployment rate of our young people. The official rate for youth unemployment right now is just over 14%. However, everyone knows that the unofficial rate will be closer to 20%. That brings us into the range of the unemployment rate among young people in those European countries, such as Spain, that the Conservatives love to talk about. We are creating an economy in this country that leaves out our youth.

Government members like to talk about the great future of our economy. They also like to extol the virtues of Conservative fiscal management. They all have short memories. When the last majority Conservative government left office, it saddled Canadians with a massive public debt and deficit. Other Conservative governments enjoyed chumming up to those in the Bush administration in the United States. When it left office, it saddled the American people with huge, onerous public debt.

The present Conservative government has the largest deficit in Canadian history but those members try to ignore that fact as they talk about the choices that seniors have in our country.

I am honoured to serve the people of my riding of Davenport and to speak on their behalf today. I want to talk about a woman I met last week in my riding who is a small business owner. She works about 13 or 14 hours a day on her business and is also looking after an elderly parent. She asked me about the new rules with respect to OAS. She told me that she was working tirelessly and that she was looking forward to reaching the age of 65 but said that she was under the cutoff and that she would need to work until she was 67 years of age. Suffice it to say that she is not happy. The sentiment I heard from her is the same sentiment that I hear from people right across my riding and in fact across the city of Toronto.

People work hard, play by the rules, pay their taxes, raise their families and sometimes look after their parents. What do we see from the government? We see the government making cuts, for example, to immigrant settlement services in the city of Toronto. Those cuts will make it much harder for new Canadians to settle and get a foothold in our country and in our economy.

Raising the age for OAS is going to drag on the economy because we know that people who have very little means are going to spend just about every dollar they have on the economy. That is part of what a vibrant economy does. However, what is happening here is a delay for two years. If that had happened today, we would have thrown about another 100,000 seniors into poverty. Canadians remember, but we have to remind the government that it did not once mention OAS in its platform in 2011. In fact, what the Conservatives said was that they were not going to cut OAS, that they were not going to cut seniors' pensions. They have indeed done that.

The Conservatives also talk about 12 years from now being somewhere off in the distant future. That is just 12 years and it is going to go by in a heartbeat. For the woman in my riding who is working 13 hours a day trying to keep a business going, raise a family and look after an elderly parent, that 12 years is going to go by in a flash. However, she is going to have to work another couple of years before she can access what everyone else before her has been able to access in this country. This is not fair. Not only is it not fair, but it does not make economic sense in our country at all. Again, the government likes to talk about its savvy economic chops when it has yet to address the issue of 300,000 job losses in the manufacturing sector since the recession.

One member decided to take a whack at Manitoba. I guess the Conservatives are getting bored with taking a whack at Ontario, which they have done since I entered this House in May 2011. Ontario's manufacturing base has been battered and the government refuses to acknowledge that the economic platform and the one presented in this budget fail to address the employment and manufacturing crisis in Ontario. The Conservatives can talk all they want about the jobs, but $12 an hour is not enough for someone to afford shelter and certainly not enough to raise a family. These are the issues that Canadians are concerned about and want action on from their government. The fact that we are in a time allocation yet again underlines what Canadians increasingly understand, that while the government talks the talk of accountability and transparency, it has absolutely not walked the walk since it came here in 2011.

This is the kind of obfuscation and prevarication that Canadians are getting tired of from the government. We need a real debate about the economy and about youth unemployment. Not only are youth unemployed, but youth are increasingly saddled with increased student debt. So now the Conservatives are telling young people that when they leave school they are going to have a $25,000 to $50,000 debt and, by the way, they are not going to be able to find a job. I hear this in my riding all the time. I talk to parents whose 25-year-old children are still living at home; they have degrees, they have done the things the government says they should do, they have a higher education and they still cannot find a job. The government has not addressed that situation, and it has certainly not addressed it in Ontario. We look forward to that debate and to turning things around in 2015.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite about jobs and, in particular, what he thinks about this government's jobs creation record and the fact that we have created 700,000 new jobs and, most importantly, that 90% of those jobs that were created since 2006 have been full-time jobs.

In my mind, it does not matter how old people are. These jobs are available to students who are graduating. They are available to middle-aged Canadians. They are available to older Canadians.

Does the member opposite believe that our strategy, which is to keep the economy strong and to look after the long-term prosperity of our country, is the right one to create jobs?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting a year for someone from the government side to ask my opinion about its jobs policy. I can tell my hon. colleague across the way that there are people in my riding who have not one job, not two jobs, but three jobs. The reason they have three jobs is that none of them pays enough to properly afford their rent or child care or to put food on the table. They are in a mad scramble. That is not just a pretend story; that is a real story. It is happening right across the country, and the government is absolutely blind to it. That is what I think about the government's jobs record.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things many Canadians looked for in the budget debate was some demonstration of leadership on the health care file. Health care is the single greatest expenditure for virtually every province. There is a dependency on Ottawa not only to provide leadership in terms of standards and so forth, from coast to coast, but also to provide money and the secure feeling of a commitment that the government will be providing in the years ahead. I am referring more so, I guess, to the health care accord.

I wonder if the member might want to provide comment. Given there is so much in the budget, one of the things that seems to be lacking is any genuine commitment to the future of good quality heath care, based on the Canada Health Act. That is something I believe many Canadians are concerned about.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, Canadians are looking for a real debate on health care, and they do not want to read the story in the fine print of an omnibus bill to implement the budget.

That said, I think all of us on this side of the House look forward to supporting my hon. colleague from Parkdale—High Park's reasoned amendment that we should not be supporting this budget implementation bill.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened enthusiastically to the speech given by my hon. colleague. It was very interesting.

I would like to know a little more about the lack of leadership shown by this government, particularly concerning food inspection, but also concerning the environment and heritage, since we have also been talking a bit about these things.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to speak a little about the heritage file.

The government has cut about $200 million from heritage. One thing we have to remember is that when we invest in arts and culture in our country we make back our money at least twofold. Arts and culture is a major economic driver in the country, and to withstand the savage cuts that are in the budget makes absolutely no sense. It makes no sense on a nation-building front, but it also makes absolutely no sense on an economic front.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in economic action plan 2012, our government is looking ahead, not only over the next few years but for the next generation. The reforms presented are substantial, responsible and necessary. They would ensure we remain focused on enabling and sustaining Canada's long-term economic growth.

More specifically, economic action plan 2012 would help create high-value and well-paying jobs by investing into entrepreneurship, innovation and world-class research. It would support jobs and growth by investing in training, infrastructure and responsible resource development, thereby providing new opportunities for young Canadians, first nations, newcomers and unemployed Canadians.

We believe in sustainable public finances, which is why we have found fair, balanced and moderate savings in government spending. Budget 2012 would take important steps to address the challenges and help take advantage of the opportunities in the global economy, while ensuring sustainable social programs and sound public finances for future generations here in Canada.

Our government recognizes that Canada's seniors have contributed enormously to our country and continue to do so. This is why we introduced new measures to improve their quality of life and expand their financial opportunities.

The ThirdQuarter project is an innovative online approach to help employers find experienced workers over 50 who want to keep using their skills in the workforce. We propose $6 million to extend and expand this successful project across the country.

Our government is also committed to improving the flexibility in choice for senior workers. For those wishing to work longer, we would provide them with an opportunity to voluntarily defer taking up the old age security benefit, starting in July 2013. Those who wish to do so would, of course, receive a higher annual adjusted pension.

With regard to OAS, our government is committed to sustaining our social programs and to securing retirement for Canadians. However, to ensure the sustainability of OAS, the age of eligibility must be raised. As a result, we would be gradually raising the age of eligibility from 65 to 67, starting in April 2023 and being at full implementation by January 2029. This is nothing new, as 22 of 34 OECD countries have increased or are planning to increase pension ages in their own public pension programs. Australia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United States are increasing their statutory pension age to 67. The United Kingdom and Ireland are raising it to 68. The Netherlands will raise it to 67 and then link it to life expectancy.

Canada is linked to the global economy now more than ever. Increasing our age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67 is no longer a choice but a necessity.

The facts on OAS speak for themselves. The number of Canadians over the age of 65 will increase from 4.7 million to 9.3 million over the next 20 years. The OAS program is dated from a time when Canadians were not living that long. Canadians who are privileged to live today have healthier lives. Consequently, the cost of the OAS program would increase from $36 billion per year in 2010 to $108 billion per year in 2030. Meanwhile, by 2030, the number of taxpayers for every senior would be down to two, from four in 2010.

To ensure sustainability of OAS, the age of eligibility must be raised from 65 to 67. We have ensured that the changes are made with substantial notice and with an adjustment period and that they would not affect current retirees or those close to retirement and would give others plenty of time to adjust to the changes and plan for their retirement.

Along with supporting our seniors, we must support our students. We all want Canada's students to succeed in the global economy with the help the best education possible. That is why since 2006 our government has provided the much-needed support for our students.

However, in budget 2012, we would be doing even more to ensure Canadians are better equipped and better integrated into the workforce. We would be increasing support for youth employment opportunities with an additional $50 million spending on improving skills links and career focuses for students, through the youth employment strategy. We would also be doubling graduate interns in innovative firms by investing an additional $14 million, to double the resources of the industrial research and development intern program. This would place even more students into practical hands-on research internships in Canadian companies.

The goal is to have as many Canadians working as possible. Budget 2012 would take action to create jobs now and provide more opportunities to Canadians.

To create jobs now, we will be extending for one year the hiring credit for small businesses, a practical, proven measure that encourages businesses to hire more workers. We will provide new funding to improve border infrastructure and we will make new investments in local infrastructure through the community infrastructure improvement fund.

To provide more opportunities for Canadians, we will make it much easier for Canadians who are out of work to identify new opportunities and for employers to find workers they need. For EI recipients in areas of sporadic employment, we will initiate modest changes to the program to better focus our support for Canadians who are eager to work.

We will provide new incentives and opportunities for members of the first nations living on reserve to participate fully in our economy and to gain greater self-sufficiency.

Finally, we will take action to build a fast and flexible economic immigration system that will be better able to fill gaps in our labour force while at the same time attracting more of the entrepreneurs we need.

As a member of the Red Tape Reduction Commission, I am very pleased to speak on our government's continuing commitment to reducing regulatory burdens faced by businesses of all sizes. In January 2011, our government created the commission, fulfilling a budget 2010 promise. After a year of extensive Canada-wide consultations, the commission brought forth recommendations to reduce irritants to businesses that impede growth, competitiveness and innovation. One of our findings was implemented by the government earlier in the year: the one-for-one rule requiring the government to eliminate an existing regulation whenever it adopts a new one. This assures that at the very least, red tape will cease to increase.

As a former small business owner, I appreciate first-hand the vital role small businesses can have in creating jobs. Our government recognizes this too. That is why in budget 2012 we are committed to helping them grow and to succeed. We have concluded a number of key measures to support the growth of small businesses, including the extension of the hiring credit for small businesses, a temporary credit of up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2011 EI premiums over those paid in 2012. This temporary credit will help about 536,000 employers defray the costs of additional hiring.

We will be increasing direct support for business innovation by providing $110 million per year to the National Research Council. This in turn will double support to small businesses through the industrial research assistance program and expand the services provided to businesses through the program's industrial technology advisers.

There will be $95 million spent over three years and $40 million per year ongoing to make the Canadian innovation commercialization program permanent, which will help Canadian businesses demonstrate their innovative products and services through federal procurement.

Finally, $14 million will be spent to expand the industrial research and development internship program in order to place more Ph.D. students into practical research internships in businesses.

Speaking of Ph.D.s, situated very close to my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook is McMaster University. I was delighted to see that it will be receiving $6.5 million over three years for research projects to evaluate ways to achieve better health outcomes for patients while also making the health care system more cost-effective. Having met with a number of constituents attending McMaster University, I am sure they will be pleased with our government's commitment to this sound institution.

The global economy is changing, and the competition for the brightest minds is intensifying. The pace of technological change is creating new opportunities while making older business practices obsolete. Canada's long-term economic competitiveness in this emerging knowledge economy demands globally competitive businesses that innovate and create high-quality jobs. Budget 2012 announces a commitment of over $1.1 billion over five years to support research and development and $500 million for venture capital. These investments and actions will keep our economy strong, create high-quality jobs and ensure that Canada is a premier destination for the world's brightest minds.

In closing, let me say that I believe this budget delivers our promise to maintain a steady course toward both economic recovery and deficit reduction. I applaud the Minister of Finance and I urge all of my colleagues to support Canada and support this budget.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The time for government orders has expired. Questions and comments for the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook will take place when the House returns to this matter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of my constituents in Gatineau, but I am not proud to rise on Bill C-38, which should be extremely important because of what the budget contains. It is a huge document. The only bill I have ever seen that was bigger was Bill C-10, which was quite lengthy.

Bill C-38 is a hefty bill containing 753 clauses, only 51 of which have to do with taxes. The other 702 clauses set out a new way of governing. If that is not doing a bad job, I do not know what it is. That may be why the people of Gatineau are so fed up with this government.

Not a day goes by when I do not receive tons of messages via email, Facebook and Twitter from people in Gatineau who are fed up with the way the government does things: always acting without any transparency, in secret, without considering whether what they are doing makes sense or debating with the opposition to try to make the best laws here in Canada, and always trying to pull a fast one in big bills like this one.

The Conservatives are lucky to be in the majority with their big 39% of the vote because otherwise this bill would likely cause the same reaction as in 2008 when the Conservatives tried to slip into the economic and fiscal update two politically explosive measures, which had never been debated before: the abolition of public financing of parties and of the right to strike in the federal public service. It seems as though the Conservatives were not put off by the spontaneous reaction of the Canadian public on that occasion. The Conservatives do not give two hoots and believe that they have the majority with their impressive 39%, and they are trying to pull the same stunt yet again.

I certainly will not be encouraging the people in my riding of Gatineau to like this government any more than they do. They already tell me every day that they are not really happy with the government and that they are very much looking forward to 2015.

That being said, when you consider the overall impact of Bill C–38, it is enough to give you shivers down the spine. Moreover, I would ask the Conservative members to do more than simply rashly and blindly do what the first and second rows tell them to do. Indeed, they will have to explain in their respective ridings why particular ways of doing things have been instituted because Bill C–38 is going to affect a number of issues that are extremely important to Canadians.

By the way, for those who are not already aware of it, our debate is still subject to what I call a gag order. The government likes to call it a limited time for debate and boasts that it has allocated four long days for debate. The government has told us that the member who was finance critic before the end of the leadership race, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, has already used up all the available hours.

But the fact is that it was not a filibuster. It was simply a demonstration of the fact that we used the only time the government allocated to us, whereas normally in this House members are given an opportunity to express themselves, not necessarily to their hearts content, but in keeping with the principles of representation. I thought that we were here to represent our constituents, but that does not seem to be the case. I consider myself lucky to be one of the chosen few who will be able to rise during the couple of days that the glorious Conservative government has allocated to us to speak about such an important bill.

If I were to put on my justice critic hat, I would say that there is even a chapter that applies to this in Bill C-38. I would not have a clue what it is doing there. Perhaps it is for economic, budgetary or other reasons? Not at all.

It would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to eliminate the requirement of a hearing for certain reviews.

When you read this kind of thing in a budget implementation act, in Bill C-38, you wonder whether someone has made a mistake. You look at the printed pages and the computer screen in order to see whether some other sections or some other legislation has been mixed in with it. But no, this is really what Bill C-38, the budget implementation act, says.

In fact, it announces plans to review the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. Bill C-38 also talks about implementing the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America.

Just by themselves, these are all things that could take a some time to study and to determine whether this procedure is correct and in line with Canada's rules of law and natural justice.

Unfortunately, once again they are using the sledgehammers on us, just to satisfy their ideology that aims at reducing government with no other common thread than that of reducing for the sake of reducing and minimizing the things that they do not believe in. There will be changes to old age security, employment insurance and the Canada pension plan.

The people watching us know that we have talked a great deal about increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67, something that makes many people feel insecure, even those who are already in that age category and who will not necessarily be affected by the change. These people are well aware that if the government is now able to do this to the generation that is coming up behind them, nothing will prevent it from saying anything, any time, anyhow, and from changing the things on which they were once able to rely.

There is nothing that is certain in life any more, and this is perhaps the message I am sending to the people who are watching, and particularly to the voters in my riding who sent me here with 62% of the vote, unlike the Conservatives who received 39%, and who are pulling out their hair at hearing it said so often that it does not make sense. Is there anything that is untouchable in the opinion of this government? Are there rights that are not rights?

Another example is the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which is being repealed. In Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, the government has decided that the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act will be repealed. This act was created in the 1930s to set wage standards and minimum hours of work for construction workers working on federally funded projects. Under the act, salaries are set in accordance with current industry norms, and hours are set according to provincial standards. Eliminating these minimum standards will allow employers to circumvent rates set by unions. Congratulations. This is yet another attack against those the government likes to call “big union bosses“.

I have some news for them. Thanks to all of that and perhaps to certain “big union bosses” and certain battles that have been fought over the past decades, children of a certain age have been prohibited from working, because it simply did not make sense. Pregnant women are no longer forced to continue working if their work becomes too dangerous. The government must stop painting people who fight for legitimate causes as brainless criminals who are doing this simply to upset the public. What upsets the public is when they see bills like this one, bills of this size, into which the government tries to slip all kinds of measures, because it cannot do so through separate bills, since it is afraid of attracting too much attention.

I will leave it to my colleagues to give plenty of other examples of things that will have a serious impact, for the examples I have given are merely small ones.

On behalf of the people of Gatineau, I say shame on this government for introducing this bill, which demonstrates its clear contempt for democracy and contempt for the most fundamental rights of the people of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was very interesting.

I completely agree with the criticisms that the member has made of the budget implementation bill. I appreciate the stand the official opposition is taking that key laws must be removed and not passed all as one.

However, I am wondering if the member could help me as well. I know the Minister of Finance cannot, as stated in the House of Commons Practice and Procedure, include measures that were not mentioned in advance of the budget. I cannot find any reference in the budget to destruction of fish habitat laws, to changing the Species at Risk Act to allow the National Energy Board to permit destruction of species at risk, nor do I find any reference to changing the Navigable Waters Protection Act. How is it that those could even be purported to be part of a budget 2012 measure?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. I would have to say that I do not have an intelligent explanation for what the Conservatives are doing. Many measures in the bill are absolutely incomprehensible.

She gave some examples. but there are many others. We wonder how the government could be in favour of putting an end to the Kyoto protocol.

Just imagine: a single sentence in Bill C-38, the budget implementation bill, announces that the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, Chapter 30 of the Statutes of Canada, 2007, is repealed, effectively killing the Kyoto protocol. That is what this government does after we entered into international agreements and gave our word as a country.

I want to tell the people who are watching—and I say this with no ill will, because it is the truth—to be careful when dealing with the Government of Canada, because its word is not worth very much.

With a government that is prepared to do something like that, it is any wonder that the budget said nothing about the measures my colleague mentioned, yet they showed up in Bill C-38, the budget implementation bill? Nothing in this House surprises me anymore. There are things that disappoint me every day, but nothing surprises me anymore.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the members opposite are very concerned about the amount of time for debate on this bill, although it will have been the longest debate of any budget bill in 20 years. However, has the member complained to her own leader? Did she take a walk up to his office and ask her leader what happened? Why did one member of the NDP caucus get 13 hours to speak in this House to this bill when 78 members of that party could have taken 10 minutes each to speak to the bill? Did she raise that issue?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that, when it comes to strategy, it is the Conservatives who assign time limits, something they do not seem to understand. It is not as though our colleague filibustered by himself for hours on end. Our time was allocated. Our message was the result of a collective effort. Moreover, I commend all my colleagues and our critic. It was the game that the Conservatives forced us to play, and in that respect, we came to the party. We sent a message, of which I am extremely proud. That message demonstrated that we are a solid, official opposition that spent the many hours that the member just referred to opposing the Conservative government's budget.

In previous parliaments, we were used to having the Liberal party as the official opposition. We did not hear a peep out of them. They talked furtively in the corridors but, when it came time to take action, they voted alongside the government and allowed everything to go through.

I am much happier to see my colleague rise. We were able to give him the information he required and everything that the people from our ridings had to say on the issue. So we are actually extremely proud. It was an effort. It was a message, a signal sent to the Conservatives, who do not listen to Canadians. It is true that they listen only to the 39%, their big majority. That is why they seem to be acting out. However, the fact is that they are the ones who are imposing time limits. And that is a violation of democracy.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the budget implementation bill today.

My overall take may be from a somewhat different perspective than most members in this House. Most of the debate on this bill has been centred around what the bill does to deal with today's issues for Canadians who are working hard and trying to pay their bills, to thrive and to improve their lives across Canada today, adult people.

However, in my three years in this Parliament, I find we do not talk often enough about our young people, our children, teens and grandchildren. What about their future?

My generation's parents fought World War II. They suffered a great deal in that war, immeasurably, great losses and thousands of them never came back. However, since that time, the generation as a group has for the rest of their lives been the best off economically of any generation in history, something they earned the hard way.

That is not to say that they are all well off, as that is certainly not true, but Canada's seniors have benefits as a generation that they only dreamed of during the war. In their senior years, they have, as a group, the largest accumulation of wealth in history. Those who never earned enough to buy a home or save are the first generation in history with unlimited free health care. They have CPP, OAS and many are able to live in the many senior residences we have, supportive housing and long-term care facilities across Canada. They are living the longest as a result.

For those whose incomes are still low, this government has taken hundreds of thousands off the federal tax rolls altogether. We reduced the GST by 2% and other taxes in many ways, including the family caregiver tax credit in this budget, to help improve their quality of life. This is something Canadians should be very proud of. This is, for their generation, the fulfillment of the Canadian dream.

What about the next generation, the ones who are still working and raising families now? We have reduced their taxes in many ways, including for public transit users, homebuyers and those whose children have disabilities. We have increased health care funding by 6% every year since 2006. However, they are feeling squeezed. In fact, their total tax load, including provincial taxes and property taxes, and debtload is a big problem and this reflects on their children.

Family debt is now at an all-time high at a ratio of 1.51 to net income. Low interest rates and some pretty easy credit have proven attractive for consumers but in Ontario, where our federal government has lowered taxes in 140 ways, putting $3,000 for the average family back into their pockets, the Ontario Liberals have been putting their hands into those pockets with the so-called health tax, the HST and the eco tax.

Every time the people of Ontario turn around, their paycheque shrinks and things cost more. That is a key reason that household debt is so high.

Our local bankers tell me that in my community of Oakville there are young couples carrying mortgages of up to $500,000. This is a concern because in Ontario not only have electricity rates gone up in recent years, but they are poised to double in the next five years again, to pay billions of dollars to our wind generation machines, windmills that only produce electricity 20% of the time.

In Oakville, the Liberal caucus majority on the town council increases taxes every year with abandon, this year 6.3%, without a thought of how families will be able to pay it. With a $15 billion deficit and $242 billion debt, it is only a matter of time until Ontario's Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty breaks his prime election promise for the third election in a row to not increase taxes and creates yet a new tax. It may be a tax on car license plates or a new provincial property tax or even a levy on Ontario's 400 series highways or he may just increase the HST. Premier dad will tell us, “It hurts me just as much as it hurts you.” Not quite.

When interest rates begin to climb, as they surely will in the coming years, Ontario families could face the perfect storm: increased mortgage payments, double hydro costs, increased municipal taxes and Dalton McGuinty's new tax, all at the same time.

Ontario families and others across Canada are in a very precarious financial position. The Conservatives understand this. We committed to reduce the burden on families and this budget keeps that commitment to not increase taxes despite the recession.

After decades of electing governments that tell them they do not have to pay their bills because the next generation will do it for them, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, France and the U.K. have all increased taxes on people to balance their budgets. While that is going on in Europe, our taxes are not going up, and our budget will be balanced, as promised, by 2014-15. This is a tremendous accomplishment. Then we will begin to pay down debt that successive generations have created and would otherwise hand down to our children and grandchildren as we did before the recession from 2006-08. That was almost $40 billion worth.

Deficits are really postponed taxes, taxes we leave to our children and grandchildren to pay. Without balancing our budget over the medium term, as this budget will do, we would be greedily taking what should be theirs.

How bad is the debt that we hand to our children? Well, I am going to be a grandfather for the first time in June. I am proud of many things in this country that my granddaughter will benefit from for her entire life, but not how previous generations took too much for themselves and left the bills for her to pay.

At a $602 billion debt federally, and in Ontario another $242 billion, we could present every baby born in Ontario with an invoice stating their personal share of that total debt: $36,800. This is their gift from previous generations. Happy birthday.

However, this budget will put in place what we need to do to stop squandering our wealth on unnecessary interest rate charges over the long term, begin paying down debt in 2015 and leave our children and grandchildren a future where a huge portion of their earnings would not be confiscated to pay for our lifestyle. To do anything less would be more than irresponsible: it would be immoral.

This budget takes a big step in the right direction for a brilliant future for Canada by presenting a better future for our youth. All members should be supporting this budget.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my distinguished colleague a question. Since he spoke about Ontario families, I would like to talk to him about a situation caused by the budget and that is the closure of the Kapuskasing experimental farm.

This farm contributes to agricultural research and development. It helps farmers to be more productive, to develop the cattle industry, and to promote, for example, the use of more effective feed for cows. The research conducted at the farm also helps the residents of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Furthermore, there is a partnership with the UQAT agri–food research centre in Notre-Dame-du-Nord.

I would like to know what the hon. member has against the farming families in Ontario and northern Quebec, who will be affected by this budget. They will end up being unable to develop their industry or to move forward. We are supposed to be stimulating the economy but, when an attempt is made to find tangible ways to help farmers be more productive, the government turns its back on them. What does the hon. member have against farmers in Ontario and Quebec?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I say to my friends on the opposite side that it is a fully private matter for one generation to spend all their savings within their own lifetime. It is like a bumper sticker that says, “I'm spending my children's inheritance”. However, it is a completely different thing to spend that inheritance and then also leave a mortgage behind for the next generation to pay.

I know that members opposite will always find many good reasons to spend money now and leave it to be paid later, but if we continue to do that, we will end up like Greece, Spain and Portugal, unable to pay our bills or even to borrow money to increase our debt. It is not a responsible way to move forward.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, as I said in my remarks, what is important is the physics, chemistry and biology of the environment. The histrionics of my friend opposite and all my friends opposite where they throw everything up in the air, having had no experience in environmental management themselves, I find simply incredible.

By focusing on results, by eliminating extraneous and extensive processes, we would see a significant improvement in environmental outcomes in what counts: water quality, fish populations, air quality and so on. Actually, if one looked at environmental indicators from various reports, one would see that, over the life of this government, the environment is improving in terms of air quality and water quality. My colleagues have to look at the numbers as the numbers tell the true story, not --

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague asked the rhetorical question whether we should internalize costs for all natural resource industries as if it were some scary socialist thing.

Let me read a quote from someone I will identify momentarily, “The legitimate role for government is in so far as it can to, to control and check negative externalities.” Who said that? Milton Friedman, the go-to guy for principled Conservatives in favour of less government and more private enterprise. Milton Friedman said that it is a legitimate role of government, something he always wanted to minimize, to control and check negative externalities.

What does my hon. colleague think about Milton Friedman and does he respect Milton Friedman's opinion?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, I respect him. Friedman and I agree. Government should be controlling negative externalities.

Let me give my hon. friend a specific example. In 1989, the then Mulroney government implemented the pulp and paper effluent regulations. In the mid-1990s, I became an environmental director at a paper mill. I joined the paper mill just as we were finishing constructing a $25 million waste water treatment plant. Those kinds of treatment plants had to be installed at all pulp and paper mills right across the country. That provided a significant improvement in the effluent for pulp and paper mills.

So, of course, we need to minimize and control negative externalities. Conservative governments have done that and will continue to do that.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to talk about this bill today. It is also practically a miracle, given that the government has limited the time for debate. I want to point that out right away so that as many people as possible understand what non-Conservative members have to deal with every day. The government is constantly imposing time limits and gag orders, as my colleague mentioned earlier.

Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget, is the biggest bill that has come before the House this year. The country's finances will be managed and programs will be cut or saved based on what is in this bill. The Conservatives are eliminating many programs.

Not all members of my party or all opposition members will have a chance to talk about this bill, and that is utterly ridiculous.

The bill is over 400 pages long. It is a complex bill that should be studied much longer. Yet the opposition members are up against the time allocation imposed by the government, which is limiting debate. Basically, there is no way to address everything that is in this bill. This is an omnibus bill. As we have said repeatedly on our side of the House, there are many things pertaining to finances in this bill and many things that have nothing to do with finances. With this omnibus bill, the government tried to include all kinds of bills that it wants to pass quickly, without examination and without giving the appropriate committees a chance to study them.

I thank my colleague from Drummond, who pointed out that everything having to do with fish habitat will not be examined by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development or the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Instead, it is the Standing Committee on Finance and its subcommittee that will examine the future of fish habitat in our country, which is ridiculous.

There are several aspects that I wanted to address. I will try to do so as quickly as possible, since I do not have much time. Earlier, a colleague across the floor was talking about youth and how proud he is to see so many things for young people in this bill. I am part of Canada's younger generation and, I must say, if I were an ordinary citizen—I mean if I were not an elected official—and I still had student loans to pay back at age 27, I would find my future very depressing.

There has been a lot of talk about the retirement age. In fact, it is very easy for the government to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 in the next decade, and it is smart for the Conservatives to include this change in this bill. People will be a bit confused, and 10 years from now, when the change affects them, they will think that the government of the day is to blame. The current government is trying to confuse people so that they will forget what is happening.

What is happening is that the government has raised the age of eligibility for old age security benefits by two years. What impact will that have, aside from shifting the cost to the provinces? It will mean that the most vulnerable people in our society, often women, who receive provincial social assistance benefits, are going to have to wait another two years. Social assistance benefits do not pay as much as old age security benefits. These people are going to have to live two more years in dire straits. This is going to affect my generation, not people who are over 55 now. It is going to affect today's young people, tomorrow's seniors, who are going to have to work for two more years.

What has the government done for young people? It has done away with the Katimavik program, in which my sister, many of my friends and many people in my riding participated. It was a great program that taught young people the value of bilingualism in Canada, because it gave them an opportunity to learn both official languages. In addition, the program allowed young people to work in other provinces and discover Canada. It gave them the chance to gain leadership experience and become independent. It was a wonderful program that did not cost much compared to what the ministers in this government spend. Yet the government decided that for ideological and political reasons, it did not like this program, so it scrapped it.

The unemployment rate is highest among young people and there is nothing in the government's budget to address youth unemployment.

The government says that it is going to inject millions of dollars into helping the unemployed find jobs. In the meantime, it is cutting positions in the public service and in areas that interest young people, such as the environment. It is cutting funding for community groups that provided jobs. Young people from my generation that are graduating from university are ending up unemployed. The same is true for those finishing CEGEP or secondary school.

We are certainly grateful for the extra $50 million the Conservatives are going to invest in hiring under the youth employment strategy, but that is not enough. It is a far cry from a job creation strategy for unemployed youth.

A young person in my riding is worried about the skill link program. There is nothing in the budget for that program either. I find it worrisome and I do not understand how the member opposite can say that this budget is so great for youth.

Things with the environment are no better. We are living on a planet that is experiencing global warming. We have seen it over the past few weeks. A month ago it was 27^oC out, and the following week it was -5^oC. That is not normal. Young people are the ones who are going to suffer the long-term consequences of the Conservatives' current inaction.

As I said earlier, the most ridiculous aspect is that all the environmental measures in this budget will be studied by the Standing Committee on Finance. That is nonsense.

This bill has consequences for the future, for my generation and for everyone. Life expectancy is longer now. People who are 60 today, and who will live to be 80 or 90, will feel the effects.

Pollution is part of our lives today. I have asthma. I moved from Sherbrooke to Montreal and I felt the effects of living in a big city where there is more smog and more pollution. It is not inconsequential. This is happening right now and the Conservatives are doing nothing about it.

It is shocking that nothing is being done for aboriginal youth. We have talked about education for aboriginal youth. The government tries to boast about putting money into education. However, Cindy Blackstock, who is with the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, took the government to court because it was shocking to see that nothing was being done for aboriginal peoples and to show the gap between funding for aboriginal children and all other children in Canada.

The government took the case to the Federal Court—we do not know if it will go to the appeal court—and it claimed that aboriginal children cannot be compared with children from another country because their situations are different. I am sorry, but a young Canadian is a young Canadian. Aboriginal children should have the same right to education and the same right to health care as other children.

At the same time that it was boasting about helping aboriginal peoples, the government cut funding to the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. These two groups can no longer continue with their health initiatives. The government is harming the health of Canadian aboriginal children, while boasting about giving money to aboriginal peoples.

Getting back to the environment, this budget puts the kibosh on Kyoto. There is one sentence somewhere in the budget that says the Kyoto protocol will no longer be in force.

I see that I have just a minute left. I do not have much time, but I want to quote Devon Page, executive director of Ecojustice, who said that this budget is “a clear attempt to speed through new legislation and avoid parliamentary debate. And we think it’s wrong. Overhauling the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the communities we live in needs vigorous debate. That’s how democratic societies operate.”

That suggests to me that this executive director thinks our country is not democratic. Personally, that makes me worry about my future.

I have a few seconds left. I would have liked to talk about immigration, a little more about the environment, and transportation. There is nothing in this bill for public transit, even though we would like to see a national public transit strategy. I would have liked to talk a little more about the economy, but I cannot because there is a time allocation motion that denies us the right to speak.

I will answer questions to the best of my ability. The main thing is that we cannot support this bill. It is ridiculous.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some attention to the member's speech. I appreciate her enthusiasm as a youthful member of the House.

The member spoke about there being nothing in the budget for aboriginal people and nothing for cities. I just want to address those two items.

There is some $275 million in there for education on reserves for first nations people. There is some $330 million for water upgrades on reserves. That is in addition to the millions and millions that have been going into reserves over the last few years of our government.

In my own riding, we have a brand new school out in Ahousaht. That is where the national chief is from. We have another school in Hesquiaht. They are beautiful schools that drive these communities.

On the cities, there is just one little point: the gas tax fund is $2 billion available each and every year for municipal infrastructure. It is very much appreciated in my part of the world. I wonder why the member does not feel that is helping our communities and our cities.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to tell my colleague how lucky he is to have money in his riding. I do not have a Conservative riding; therefore, I do not have any money. What I did have in my riding was scrapped. There are going to be fewer jobs in my riding because it is not a Conservative riding.

Investing $265 million in education is a good thing, of course. However, as I said earlier, the money had to come from somewhere. It was taken away from the aboriginal nations—from groups involved in health care, and groups that did very important work for the aboriginals in our country—and put into education. That is what happened. Although more money was invested in aboriginal education, there was not more money for aboriginals overall. The funds were merely transferred: money was taken away from aboriginals in the area of health care and given back to them in the area of education, and the Conservatives think that that is just fine.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of Orwellianspeak in this House over the budget.

The budget contains the words “long-term sustainability”, yet it contains within its pages the provision that would remove the protection of fish habitat from the Fisheries Act and instead replace it with doing serious harm to fisheries.

Experts around the country are routinely panning such a shortsighted change to our fisheries, because for long-term sustainability of our fishery we obviously have to protect the habitat.

I did a bit of research and found that when the present government took office, the debt of Canada was $457 billion. It is $586 billion today. The current government has run up the highest deficit in the history of Canada.

I wonder if my friend can comment on whether or not she thinks it is fiscally prudent for a government to increase Canada's debt by $130 billion in six years and run the biggest deficit in Canada's history, second only to Michael Wilson, a previous Conservative finance minister?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives often boast that they are the best money managers. That is not true at all. In fact, our country's debt has increased from $475 billion to $600 billion. It is a pity for generations like mine, generations of young people.

I should point out that all economists agree that cutting the GST was not a good idea. I also want to point out that we are talking about job creation, which will help our government. What we are seeing are cutbacks. The government is telling us that more jobs are being created in the private sector. We know that the Conservatives want to encourage the private sector. Obviously, when 19,000 jobs are cut from the public sector, it is bound to have that effect. Getting rid of jobs is a very unhelpful thing for this government to do. I am quite concerned that this will again have repercussions on our deficit.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House of Commons to speak to budget 2012, which reflects the unique needs of all Canadians and the strengths of our country, rich in diversity, talent, innovation and resources.

This is a budget we should all be proud of and excited about as we excel into the future. There are several components of budget 2012 that I would like to speak to today, areas that are of particular interest to my constituents, who, over the last year, have shared with me their priorities and concerns and their vision for the future, a vision which can be captured by key measures introduced in economic action plan 2012.

An important part of this budget announces $150 million over two years for a new community infrastructure improvement fund to support repairs and improvements to existing community facilities.

The city of Mississauga, located just outside Toronto, is easily accessible by highways and close to an international airport. This gives the city a strong competitive advantage in attracting business investment. However, to accommodate this growth, investments in infrastructure are imperative.

Through the economic action plan, over 30,000 projects were completed to build and enhance infrastructure across the country. These projects created jobs for Canadians and will facilitate growth and prosperity for many years to come.

Our investments have not taken a one-size-fits-all approach. They have been carefully focused to address the individual needs of communities across this country.

Since 2006 our government has made several important and impactful investments in Mississauga. To name a few, we have invested $15.6 million in Sheridan College and $35 million in the University of Toronto Mississauga Campus. Over the last year, thousands of residents have gathered in the new city square, where our government invested $13.3 million. Since being there to mark the completion of the project last year, I have visited several times for community celebrations. This project has really contributed to the spirit of community in downtown Mississauga. Furthermore, many residents have been impressed by investments in the redevelopment of the Burnhamthorpe branch library, where our government invested $5.5 million.

As Mississauga continues to grow, it has been important to recognize existing infrastructure that needs maintenance in order to keep up with the growing interest of individuals and families in settling here. Across the city, over $12.3 million dollars was invested in replacing old water mains, which will be necessary to accommodate the great future we have envisioned for the city.

As a result of our government's investments in critical infrastructure, many jobs were created and citizens in my riding experience a better quality of life. We have become aware of what can be accomplished when there is collaboration between all levels of government and a focus on the specific needs of a particular and unique community.

Our government's continued investments in infrastructure provided through budget 2012 will ensure that we will build on the improvements I have highlighted and that our cities can continue to prosper.

The budget also addresses the need for driving innovation and small business investment across Canada to secure our economic advantage. While Canada's GDP is well above pre-recession levels, we still lag behind the other G7 countries in driving innovation. That is why we are focusing resources in ways that the private sector needs them most, through direct investment. This will ensure that we are at the forefront of research and development and that jobs that result from these advancements are brought to Canada rather than lost to foreign firms.

Our government's investments in innovation and small business through budget 2012 will help these companies grow in their capacity to serve and employ residents of Mississauga, which is important to the long-term prosperity of our city.

Building on actions taken since 2006, budget 2012 provides direct investments for research and development to the tune of $1.1 billion over the course of five years, allowing for investments in the industrial research assistance program to be doubled.

Additionally, budget 2012 would help small businesses invest in growth opportunities by investing $500 million to help them in accessing early stage risk capital.

Because of our government's focus on driving economic growth and creating jobs, 700,000 more Canadians are working now than in July 2009, exemplary of Canada's position in having the strongest job growth among the G7 countries over the course of recovery.

However, our government understands that many Canadians are still unemployed or underemployed. Economic action plan 2012 shows our commitment to helping Canadians find meaningful employment.

Another part of our plan to support job creation, budget 2012 intends to reduce disincentives to work by investing $74 million over the course of two years to introduce a new national working while on claim EI pilot project. This pilot project would cut down the clawback rate in half and be applied to all earnings while an individual is receiving employment insurance. This would make it easier for Canadians as they search for permanent and meaningful full-time jobs.

The riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville, which I am proud to represent, is an excellent example of the contributions immigrants have made to this great country, to building our economy and to Canada's strength of diversity in heritage. Canada is attracting some of the world's best and brightest immigrants who have the potential to address our labour needs, supporting the growth of innovative and knowledge based industries.

Budget 2012 expands on the accomplishments of budget 2009 where funding was given to support the recognition of foreign qualifications. Budget 2012 would add six additional occupations to the list by the end of 2012, ensuring that the provinces and territories can address labour shortages quickly and effectively. This proves our government's attention to the evolving needs of our economy.

Over the last year, I spent a great deal of time working with the settlement organizations in my riding that often speak to the difficulties foreign trained professionals have in becoming accredited in Canada and bringing their education and experience to the benefit of Canadian business. In February 2012, our government launched the foreign credential recognition loans pilot to provide funding to these community groups to help them grow in their capacity to provide financial assistance to those professionals who are on the road to bringing new business and innovative ideas to Canadians.

Today I have highlighted only a few of the ways that budget 2012 would impact my constituents and all Canadians in real and meaningful ways in their everyday lives, bringing to light many of the priorities of my constituents.

However, it is also important to note that the budget is not short-sighted. It takes into consideration a long-term view for the prosperity of Canada. Budget 2012 introduces measures that would lay the foundation for the prosperous future of our economy. It builds on the momentum and accomplishments we have realized over the last few years and demonstrates a strong vision for building the long-term future of Canada.

It is clear that budget 2012 builds on the accomplishments of our government to support the economy and job creation. Ellen McGregor, chair and co-owner of Fielding Chemical Technologies, Canada's leader in chemical and refrigerant recycling, a business located in my riding, has applauded our work to date and the measures taken in the budget by stating, “Our government is approaching the management of the country like the management of the best-run company, or for that matter, a best-managed household. This budget's measures focus on debt reduction balanced against the goals for increased growth and prosperity. I applaud [the Prime Minister] and his government for the courage it takes to reduce government spending while stimulating job creation and supporting key social programs, for which Canada is proud”.

Budget 2012 not only reflects our government's focus on job creation and economic growth, but also proves a sound understanding of the needs of Canadians, the challenges we face and the realities of a global economy. I am thrilled for the benefits it will bring to my riding and to all Canadians.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague.

I do not know if my colleague and I are looking at the same document, but Bill C-38 is supposed to be a budget implementation bill. The member seems very proud to say that it is not a short-sighted bill. Maybe not, but it will massacre nearly every system that exists in Canada for years to come.

What does he think of a budget implementation bill that has 753 clauses, of which only 51 have to do with taxes? The other 702 announce a new way of governing and have nothing to do with any budgetary matters.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the member would be confused with the document.

In my speech I focused on the process. This is not a two year, one year or half a year process. This has been going on since 2006 and it is a process that will be going on for many years to come.

It takes planning and a certain implementation to ensure that this country grows, businesses grow and that people find suitable employment to take care of their families and put food on the table. This is what we are implementing. It is not a process that will end today or after this bill. This will continue for many years to come.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Gatineau. I do not know what document the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville was speaking to but he did talk about debt reduction.

Yes, there is debt reduction in the bill, but it would certainly increase the gap between the rich and the poor. Bill C-38 is clearly a charter of rights for the corporate sector so that it can exploit and extract resources without any recourse from the people of Canada on our environment and industries. We know that corporations are not investing the billions of dollars they have invested.

Regardless of our differences, 70 pieces of legislation would be affected by this bill. Will the member at least stand in his place and agree to split the bill so that this place can have a debate and Canadians can see the real impact and the real damage that this bill would have on this country?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that question was raised several times during today's question period.

The answer is simple and our Minister of Finance answered it. This is a large budget that affects a high number of implementation bills. That is what we are discussing here today. After we debate it here in the House, the bill will go to committee where everybody will have time to discuss it and look at the details.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is very passionate in relation to his belief in what the Conservative government is doing.

One of the first steps we took as a government was to cut $37 billion in debt when we first took office. Of course, that has brought us to the tremendous place of having the lowest debt ratio in 25 years. I wonder if the member would speak to that in relation to how his constituents feel about paying off the mortgage and getting to the lowest debt ratio in 25 years.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think my constituents are much different from the constituents of other members on both sides of the House. They are looking for stable employment, safe communities, safe streets and a good future for their children, and that is what this government is giving them and that is why we were re-elected a year ago. We are implementing responsible economic policies. This is the plan that has been working for the past five years and we will continue it for the future of our great country.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with ever-increasing sadness that I rise in the House today, because every time I do so, I am left with the impression that the reasons my constituents elected me are being scorned. That said, I have 10 precious minutes to try to give an informed judgment on a document that is over 400 pages long, and this is only because I am one of the rare, lucky ones who is able to speak in this shortened debate. Understandably, then, I will not launch into a comprehensive study of the economic elements. Instead, I will try to point out what is wrong with this proposed legislation as clearly as I possibly can.

The first thing that struck me is the discrepancy that exists between the bill's short title and the objectives or intentions of the bill in question. I would add that I am often surprised by this. In this case, for instance, the short title of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, is this: the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. Ouch.

Before getting into all the contradictions and ambiguities of such a title, I want to say a few words about the bill itself. It is clearly stated that this bill concerns the budget, and that it also implements other measures. This bill therefore goes beyond implementing the budget. It introduces a series of measures that were never announced in the budget. These measures are very different in nature. I will name a few in passing: eligibility age for old age security benefits; the environmental protection and regulations system—we immediately see the link between old age security and the environment; the authority of the Auditor General—also closely linked; and then, why not throw in the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act? I will stop there because I do not have enough time.

Under the pretext of balancing the budget—in a forced march and for purely ideological reasons—the government is in fact imposing on Parliament and all Canadians a hidden agenda that will quickly change everyday life for the people in this country, and unfortunately, not for the better.

We feel that what the government is doing is contrary to parliamentary practice and procedures. A budget implementation bill should not be used as an opportunity to limit debate and push through detrimental measures designed to reduce government transparency and accountability. Let us be clear in case Canadians have not fully grasped what is happening here: Bill C-38 is actually an omnibus bill that goes far beyond the budget and unilaterally imposes the Conservatives' decisions without allowing for real debate.

I have envisioned many different political scenarios, but reality today is beyond anything I ever could have imagined. I get the feeling that within a year, there will probably be one catch-all bill a year, with seven days of debate, and the House will be on holidays for the rest of the year. I feel I am being very well paid for all the work I am not being allowed to do.

Why does Canada have a Parliament with two chambers if the government is going to use all its power and questionable tactics to limit debate, get around parliamentary rules and tune out the official opposition? Is that the Conservatives' idea of democracy? The Conservatives need to do more than just keep shouting all the time that they won a strong mandate if they want to have real legitimacy. They also need to respect this country's institutions as they govern.

Most of the major changes in Bill C-38 do not address Canadians' concerns. Canadians are telling us that they want more good-quality jobs, better environmental protection and a better health care system. Nothing in this bill reflects the real concerns of Canadians. As I was saying earlier, more careful analysis of this bill reveals the discrepancy between its short title and its real intentions.

The short title of Bill C-38 is the “Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act”. I will repeat these three components: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

In recent months, the government's decisions have led to job losses, jeopardized economic growth and put Canada on the list of slackers in both environmental protection and sustainable development.

With regard to this last point, we have reason to be especially worried about the bill's provisions. In this House, we all know that it is our responsibility to protect the environment, fight climate change and preserve the diversity of living things and our ecosystems. Our duty is to leave a healthy and viable natural environment to our children. The vast majority of developed countries are putting environmental strategies in place, making significant international commitments, and signing binding and necessary agreements to fight the destruction of our ecosystems. However, this government is once again swimming against the current.

For example, this bill changes the regulations that protect fish and govern the deposit of toxic and deleterious substances into fish habitats. More seriously still, this bill repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which shows just how little the government cares about issues that affect and will continue to affect all Canadians. This means that the government will no longer have to report its GHG emissions. That is a major step backward for our country and all of our international partners.

Canadians want us to take action to fight climate change and protect our environment, but the Conservatives are determined to dismantle environmental protection rules and attack environmental protection groups. Many of the provisions in the bill point to the fact that environmental protection has completely disappeared from this government's agenda.

The government has gutted the federal environmental assessment regime to speed up major projects, such as oil pipelines. It has delegated the environmental assessment process to other authorities. It has made sure that projects in other countries are not subject to Canadian laws.

This budget is not good for jobs and labour, either. For a few weeks now, there has been announcement after announcement, and jobs are being lost across the country. Everywhere there is talk of cuts, job losses and, inevitably, cuts to services for Canadians. The Conservatives' ideological vision will have a direct impact on the health of Canada's economy. Their approach to the budget is an accounting approach, aimed solely at reducing the deficit. In the medium term, the Conservatives' budget policy will seriously hurt this country's economic development.

I will take a specific example. In my riding, the Forges du Saint-Maurice National Historic Site will be hard hit by the government's cuts, which will mean job losses and a shorter season for the site. These cuts are like a death sentence for this major historic site. Investments depend on the number of visitors to the site, but because the government is not investing in the site, fewer and fewer people are visiting it. Because the number of visitors is down, funding is being cut. It is like the Hygrade wiener slogan, only in reverse. It is a downward spiral.

The closing of this park will have an even more serious impact on the whole region. The money the government thinks it is saving with these budget cuts will be lost elsewhere.

One minute to condemn so many policies is simply not long enough. I am very sorry for my friends at the Vieilles Forges park. I will definitely come back to this issue during question period and I will not back down.

In closing, unfortunately, this bill represents a shift even further away from this wishful thinking. Transparency is not a strong point of the Conservatives. Bill C-38 contains many measures that will reduce transparency and limit accountability requirements.

Consider three quick examples. Section 1 of part 4 amends a number of laws to remove the Auditor General's requirement to conduct a financial audit of certain agencies and assess the performance reports of two public organizations. Section 15 of part 4 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to abolish the position of inspector general. Section 25 of part 4 dissolves the Public Appointments Commission and its secretariat.

Once again, I could go on. I will stop here and simply say that nothing in this budget will serve the Canada of the future, which we should be building today.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his inspired and inspiring speech about a disappointing government bill.

I would like to focus more on the form of the bill than on its substance. This is the 18th time the government has imposed closure, this time in order to ram a 431-page brick down members' throats with just seven days of debate. Some Conservative members are saying that this is part of a long process that has been going on since 2006, but that is baloney. I am one of about 100 new parliamentarians, and we were not in the House prior to May 2, 2011. We have the right to do our job, which is to carefully study bills. A bill that amends 69 different pieces of legislation is an elephant, a mammoth.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the Conservative government's practice of introducing huge bills and imposing closure. It is completely antidemocratic.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer would be to use the word “abject” to describe this bill.

I totally agree with my colleague. A lot changed in the last election and this government does not seem to want to take that into account. It is muzzling those who have not taken part in the debates. Canadians sent a very clear message: in the game of politics, this government ended up in power with 39% of the vote. That means that 61% of the population has to be able to express itself through the voices of the hon. members from the other parties. It would seem that the government wants to muzzle us. In fact, more than “it would seem”, it is indeed muzzling us. I think that 18 closure motions in one year is an all-time record in the history of this country's Parliament.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right in respect of one thing. We should talk about the substance of the bill and we should talk about the content of it. It is a big bill, but we are in big times. We are in important times for the world, an economic global crisis. Of course we will respond to what Canadians need in a big bill because they need big changes.

Could the member speak about why his party, the NDP, voted against some of the things we did? For instance, we cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We removed over one million Canadians from the tax rolls. We increased the amount that Canadians could earn tax-free. We reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, which puts nearly $1,000 back in the pockets of every Canadian.

Those are things that Canadians said they wanted. Those were things that Canadians said they needed. We responded accordingly because of the time.

Why would the member and his party vote against those things about which Canadians have talked? We bring forward good measures and they vote against them. Why?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple. My eminent colleague is concerned with the substance rather than the form. However, the form is just as important as the substance.

I have been observing the following Conservative strategy for a year. Along with the few good measures that we would be prepared to support, they try to ram through 28 totally unacceptable measures on the pretext that the measures are part of a package deal that we can take or leave. One of our motions sought to divide up this bill so that the elements we find acceptable could move along more quickly. It is quite appalling that the Conservatives want to ram through so many abject measures in this way.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since they want us to talk substance, we will talk substance.

Earlier, I was struck by my colleague's remarks on La Mauricie National Park and the Forges du Saint-Maurice.

I was wondering about the devastating impact on jobs. In my colleague's honest opinion, is the government trying to do its worst or is it just being lazy?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is both. I was particularly surprised in this case. Call me naive, but I was expecting more funding for the Forges du Saint-Maurice given that the first cannonballs for the War of 1812 were made there. I thought that great things would be happening this year. Instead, the government eliminated 26 jobs and cut the season down to two months, July and August, which is ridiculous.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured and pleased to speak to this fantastic budget that has come forward from our government. We have a global recession and Canada looks better than any other country in the world. Why? Because it is all about the policies that our government has put in place, balanced policies, ripe with job growth, entrepreneurship, innovation and research, all measures that cause a country to grow.

Our government has improved conditions for business investments with responsible resource development. So much has happened in our country. Many people want to come to Canada because this is a country where families can grow and prosper.

Unfortunately, I come from a province that has an NDP government where 40¢ on the dollar has to come from our federal government to keep Manitoba afloat. Therefore, in a time of economic fragility, when other countries are looking to Canada for the leadership it has shown, through balanced and careful strategic planning, we have been able to keep our economy very stable.

I am so pleased that my province of Manitoba will continue to receive significant support through the major federal transfers for 2012-13. It will reach an all-time high of $59 billion, $3 billion more than last year. In this time of recession, Manitoba, which gets 40¢ on the dollar from the federal government, will continue to receive more.

Why? Because there has been a job creation implementation plan that will help Manitobans get back to work. There is a revised EI plan that will cause people to want to get off EI and get jobs. In addition to this increased support, there is an extension by one year of total transfer protection to provinces to ensure that no province, such as Manitoba, experiences a decline in its combined entitlements under the CHT, CST and equalization. Therefore, for Manitoba, major transfers will total almost $3.4 billion in 2012-13. This long-term growing support helps ensure that Manitoba has the resources required to provide essential public services and contribute to shared national objectives, including health care.

I have been mystified to hear in the House, over and over again, that the government has cut the transfer payments and the health care budget. In fact, it has been increased by 6% to Manitoba. I am just astounded to hear this other kind of message go out there, but Manitobans know that this has happened.

Post-secondary education and other key components of Canada's social programs have been uplifted in Manitoba. There are almost $1.7 billion through equalization. That is an increase of $70 million since 2005-06. The rest of the globe's economies have gone down and we have stabilized and have the opportunity for families to grow.

There are almost $1.1 billion through the Canada health transfer, an increase of $278 million since 2005-06 when our government came into power. Since we were able to get a strong, stable government mandate from the people of Canada, this government has not let Canadians down. It has done everything it has promised to do.

There are $429 million going to the Canada social transfer, an increase of $96 million since 2005-06. There are $201 million in total transfer protection.

Manitoba will also benefit from direct targeted support in 2012-13, including $18 million for labour market training, as part of a commitment of $500 million a year in new funding to provinces and territories, beginning in 2008-09.

There is $9 million for the wait times reduction fund as part of the 10-year plan to strengthen health care.

I am so pleased to say that there is reassurance for families. Families feel that quite honestly our government has contributed to their well-being. They can grow and prosper, even in a province like Manitoba that gets 40 cents on the dollar from the federal government.

We can see things moving in a very positive way, a very careful way, a very well thought-out way. Families are so afraid that the economy in this country will tip and go down, but they are not that afraid anymore because they are getting benefits from the government that allow them to have a lot of tax breaks, that allow that money they earn, that they spend hours earning, go back into their pockets instead of into government pockets.

We cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. Our government removed over one million Canadians from the tax rolls. We increased the amount Canadians can earn, tax-free. More money goes in the pockets of Canadians, so they can spend their money the way they think is best, without the government telling them how to do it.

We reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, putting nearly $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family of four. Families know how to spend their money better than any government official, better than any member of Parliament. Canadians want to be able to retain their own hard-earned tax dollars and be able to make a better life for their families.

Others things happened that made it possible for families to increase their quality of life, for instance, the children's fitness tax credit. A lot of families were not able to send their kids to different fitness organizations, but the tax credit has helped a lot. The children's arts tax credit was also added on, and the family caregiver tax credit.

As members know, in this country, in three years, we are going to have more seniors than we have young people. The family caregiver tax credit is so beneficial when one has a critically ill loved family member and one has to make that sacrifice of being the caregiver one wants to be.

There is the first-time homebuyers tax credit, registered disability savings plans, volunteer firefighters tax credit, working income tax benefit, child tax credit and textbook tax credit. My own daughter has gone through five years of university, and we all appreciate that textbook tax credit very much. That is for Canadian families.

There is the public transit tax credit to encourage people to use the bus, the Canada employment tax credit and the deduction of the cost of tools for tradespeople.

Our government has been clear in trying to build on the benefit of families, ordinary Canadians, people who can grow and prosper in this country, not to be afraid, to be proud of what they are doing as families.

Since taking office in 2006, our government has been lowering taxes, with more than 140 tax cuts altogether. I know this helps hard-working families get ahead. Right now, today, families are paying over $3,000 less in taxes in Canada than they have ever done before.

The budget is big. It is a big document because, as a previous speaker said, there are a lot of things that have to be done in this country. However, this budget has to go through to allow all these things to take place in this country and to allow people to continue to grow and raise their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from Kildonan—St. Paul who is one of the hardest working MPs and who has done so much for people in the human trafficking area.

I rarely get to ask her a question so it pains me to ask her one on this issue. Bill C-38, despite the few things I like, such as allowing recovering people to work while they are on EI, claim that and not have it all clawed back, contains some measures that are good but overall I am so very deeply aggrieved by the number of bills that are thrown into Bill C-38 that are not part of proper fiscal measures, particularly those overhauls of the Canadian Environment Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act and so on.

I would like to ask my hon. friend if she does not think there is some chance that the Minister of Finance might relent and pull out those sections that are not properly part of a budget, so they can be properly and separately debated?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is an amazing woman and has done a lot of things in this country. I respect her question. However, in a time of economic downturn, in this very fragile economy, choices have to be made and the bottom line is job growth. The bottom line is to make sure people can have jobs to feed their families. I would think that a government with true leadership would pick those priorities very carefully.

Sometimes it is painful when other things cannot be included because we want to be all things to all people. What a government does and what Canadians expect is for the government to keep them safe, to make sure they have the job opportunities and to keep this country stable. That is what we are doing.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the member for her good speech, but I could not help noticing what could be described as a triumphalist tone near the beginning when she seemed to imply that all of the credit for Canada's better-than-average performance goes to the government. Does she believe that the Conservative government planted the oil in Alberta or the minerals across the country? Does she not understand that the reason Canada's banks are doing well is because the previous Liberal government refused to go the route of bank self-regulation, as in the U.S.? Does she not understand that the healthy fiscal position is because the government inherited a $13 billion surplus, which it proceeded to fritter away in short order? I think a more—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I admire my very esteemed colleague's hyperbole, which is great, but by the same token I want to remind the very esteemed member that the previous government cut $25 billion in social transfers to this country. That cut health care in a big way. I would invite the member to join in and vote for this budget. I know his heart is in the right place. He wants to see Canadians grow and prosper and I appreciate his doing that. I will give him credit when he does it, I promise.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has done a tremendous amount of work to stop human smuggling around the world, especially here in Canada, and to bring it to people's attention.

I am wondering if she could comment very briefly on regulatory changes we are making. As the previous Liberal member said, there have to be some good changes and we have made some, such as one project, one review for Canadians to know with certainty what is going to take place, but also the $2.5 billion in annual tax relief for seniors and removing more than 380,000 seniors from the tax rolls, including pension income splitting, which is so popular with seniors.

Could she comment on those two things, please?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his very insightful comments and also his knowledge about business. He himself is a very successful business person because he understands.

With regard to seniors, I would like to comment on the OAS. I talked a little earlier about making sure that there is balance and that we have the programs to sustain this country, and OAS is one of them. We would raise it to age 67 in the year 2023, but outside of that the reason why it would be done is that we want it there for all people.

I understand my time has run out, but I would be glad to answer the question at another time.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have just four problems with this bill: first, the fact that it increases the retirement age from 65 to 67; second, the nature of the cuts; third, the lack of transparency, and finally, the lack of democracy.

Let me please, in my time available, deal with each of these four issues.

Raising the age for old age security from 65 to 67 is undemocratic, unnecessary and unfair. It is undemocratic because the government ran in the last election without a mention of this important policy step, and it only did it once elected. It is unnecessary because every expert has said that our system is indeed sustainable. The Chief Actuary of Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the OECD have all said it is sustainable. Yes, it will go up by .8% of GDP between now and 2030; then it will come down. But that amount is highly affordable compared with the situation other countries face.

It is undemocratic, it is unnecessary and it is unfair because it picks on the most vulnerable citizens in Canada. People like us, working largely in sedentary jobs, or not physical labour, may be able to go on working until we are 80, but people who do hard physical labour in their jobs may find their bodies are not able to continue after 65 and they would then be put on welfare. Also, those in the lower income categories eligible for GIS would not be able to collect that for a further two years, so it would cost the most vulnerable Canadians something in the order of $30,000.

If members do not agree with me and they argue that it is not sustainable, that is wrong, but let us say they do, there are other ways to limit the cost of old age security, which would not have those same negative effects on Canada's most vulnerable citizens. For example, the government could cut off the income at which OAS gets cut off to a lower level. That would save money and it would hurt the higher income people rather than the lower income people.

There are many ways to skin a cat, and the government has chosen the way that would be most hard on the most vulnerable.

Coming now to my second point, which is the cuts, Liberals are not necessarily opposed to cuts in principle, if they are necessary. After inheriting a $42 billion deficit in 1993, the government moved quickly to balance the books and paid down debt for almost 10 years. Later on, in 2004-05 we found expenditure savings or cuts of $11 billion spread over five years. We are not necessarily opposed to cuts in principle, but my beef with the Conservative government is the things it did cut and the things it should have cut but did not cut.

In the first category, the things the government did cut, which were wrong to cut, the most egregious case in my view is the fact that 50% of the employees of Statistics Canada received messages that they might be laid off. This is coming after the disastrous ending of the long form census, which means Canadians will no longer know the nature of their country, as they once did. This shows the government's tendency to cut things that are information-based policy-makers in favour of ideology-based policy. Statistics Canada cuts, as well as major cuts to environmental scientists, go to the heart of our knowledge. If the government is going to cut, that is not the place to cut.

Second, public safety is always job one for government. I am concerned that cuts to food inspectors at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency could bring on another Walkerton.

Despite the fact that Elections Canada is involved in a major electoral fraud investigation, the government chose to cut Elections Canada by $7.5 million, all in the first year.

That is enough on the cuts I do not like. I will now speak about things the government could have cut.

The government could have put the F-35 out to tender. In a book coming out today, the former ADM for materiel, Alan Williams, makes a strong case that this F-35 business has been mishandled from day one. He has also indicated that a competitive bidding process would save the taxpayer some billions of dollars. Similarly, I do not think we need to spend billions of dollars on prisons. I note that the government has had a 230% increase in its advertising budget since 2006, much of it partisan. There are many areas where the government could have found additional funding to cut. There are many things it did cut which it should not have cut. That is a second very good reason to oppose this budget.

The third problem I have with it is the lack of transparency and accountability. When we were the government in 2004-05, we found $11 billion worth of cuts over five years. Every single cut was itemized in the budget by program and department. The current government brings in cuts seven years later and nothing is itemized in the budget. We are left to hear gradually, from leaks or union leaks, which people have lost their jobs. Technology has not regressed since 2005. There is no reason the Conservatives could not have itemized all the cuts in the budget the way we did in 2005. Then Canadians would have known which programs would be affected and which people would lose their jobs. The technology is there: the Conservatives could have released this information in a timely fashion. The only reason they chose not to was because they figured out that Canadians would not like to hear the news.

I come now to my to my final point: lack of democracy. Many people have already alluded to this, but it is absolutely unacceptable in a democracy to have an omnibus bill which contains 70 different pieces of legislation and to rush this through without taking it to committees of the House of Commons other than the finance committee. It is egregious. I have not seen anything like this before. I know it is true that a majority can eventually get everything it wants through the House. That is what the Conservatives have and that is what the people of Canada chose. I do not object to that. However, there should be a process of analysis, calling of witnesses, investigation of the implications and possible amendments. Yet none of this is happening because the government is rushing through this huge piece of legislation and not taking it to the relevant committees.

In closing, as I said, there are four things I do not like about this bill. First, it is totally unfair to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67, and it is unnecessary. Second, the nature of the cuts is no good. The bill makes cuts where it should not and does not make any where it should. Third, there is a lack of transparency and information. The government is not telling us where these cuts will be made. Finally, there is a lack of democracy. For all these reasons, the Liberals will certainly be voting against this bill.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the floor. I am sure if he had had more time he would have said that this Minister of Finance is the finest he has seen in the last 20 years. I know he just did not have enough time to get that out. However, I did listen to him talk about the F-35. Would he like to explain to the House and to Canadians who it was and which government it was that bought the Victoria class submarines and the process used, and who started the process on the F-35 for Canada?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was before my time. I do not know the exact process used to buy the submarines. I do know something about the F-35 because I was defence minister in those days. I can tell the hon. member, as is detailed in Alan Williams' book that came out today, the Liberal government of the day put some money into that project for industrial benefits for this country. That paid back quite well. We had nothing to do with the choice of the plane. That was purely an American decision. There was zero commitment to buy it at that time. That is how we got into that thing. Alan Williams describes in great detail in his book a process that has been back to front. The military specified what plane it wanted first, whereas it was supposed to specify its needs and Public Works was supposed to take it from there. So it has been a total mess from 2006 onward on the F-35.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about old age security.

We have heard the Conservative members say that people will have enough time to prepare. Many people in my riding had planned to retire at 55. They had mapped out their financial affairs in order to retire at 55, based on the assumption that, at 65, they would begin receiving the old age security pension. I would like to know if someone who is currently 53 years old will be able to prepare for the change in two years.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague: it is hard to make any long-term plans, but this issue of age is not my main point. Here are my main points: first of all, it is unnecessary because the current system is not posing any problems for Canada; second, it is unfair because MPs are not the ones who will be affected by this measure, but rather more vulnerable individuals. Poor people and poor seniors will be the ones to have problems and that is therefore incredibly unfair.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments. I have heard it mentioned several times from members opposite today and I have a very simple question. Politicians like to attend openings of new facilities to cut ribbons. Would the member tell us where the newest prison in Canada has been built?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question, but it is clear from research that has been done that unless the Conservatives are planning to double bunk every prisoner in the country, there will be a need for new facilities over time. Estimates of the cost vary, but have typically been in the billions of dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot of debate in this House about precedence in terms of the length of debate time for budget implementation bills and the length of budget implementation bills. My colleague has been here for much longer than me. Has he ever seen a budget implementation bill that covered more than 70 unrelated bills with time allocation applied?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. I have been here since 2001 and we have had budget implementation bills but nothing on the scale of 70 pieces of legislation being changed and debate being shortened in this way. This is truly an unprecedented move in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to stand and enter this debate today on Bill C-38. It is a budget implementation act. I appreciate there is a lot of engagement around the House today from members opposite and members on this side of the House. As all members will recall, budget 2012 was tabled on March 29. It launches the next phase of our economic action plan.

The budget was applauded by economists from coast to coast. The member for Markham—Unionville just spoke. As he is a former economist, I was waiting for him to echo some of the economists across Canada, representing the major banks, who applauded the budget.

There is a reason that economists from across the country have applauded our measures in the budget. All over the world, nations are reeling from the chaos of a worldwide economic meltdown that struck in 2008 and worsened through 2009. Even this week, we saw major changes in two countries in Europe. With France and Greece reorganizing new governments and new leaders, political fallout is taking a toll on social stability.

By contrast, Canada has been shaken, but remains stable. The World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Fund, Moody's and Forbes magazine have all applauded Canada's economic performance and predict we are positioned to lead world economies in the next years. The reason economists have embraced our budget is because they recognize the choices made in our economic action plan that keep Canada moving in the right direction.

Phase two of the economic action plan is a plan for jobs, for growth and for long-term prosperity. Budget 2012 takes important steps to address the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities of a global economy while ensuring sustainable social programs and sound public finances for future generations. The budget contains reforms that are substantial. They are responsible and they are necessary. They are reforms that will ensure that across government we are focused on sustaining Canada's long-term economic growth.

Just as we did in the first phase of Canada's economic action plan, the focus of this budget is on boosting economic growth and job creation. It is on stimulating innovation, investment, education and skills. Let me just list, in broad strokes, the major initiatives in Bill C-38.

The initiatives would be making major investments of over $1 billion to support science and technology; providing $500 million to spur growth of innovative start-up companies; ensuring responsible resource development by moving to one project one review, with a clearly defined time period for major economic projects while continuing to protect the environment; opening new markets and expanding international trade, bringing Canadian goods to the world; extending the hiring credit for small business for one more year to make it more attractive for small business to grow and to hire more workers; providing $150 million over two years for the new community infrastructure improvement fund; providing $5.2 billion over 11 years to renew the Canadian Coast Guard. That is something that is going to impact communities on both coasts of this great country and in the north. It is essential, and it will serve our communities for many years to come.

We would be focusing on employment insurance and promoting job creation by removing disincentives to work and supporting unemployed Canadians by connecting them more quickly to jobs. We would be providing $275 million over three years to support first nations education and to build and renovate schools on reserve. The measures over the last couple of years, which this initiative builds on, have made a huge difference in first nations in coastal B.C.

I mentioned earlier in a question and comment about a new school in Ahousaht. Some 800 people live in that community with only boat access. The new school is a huge asset in that community and it is going to impact education, which is a priority for the national chief. The Chief of the Assembly of First Nations is from the coast of British Columbia. In addition to that on reserve, some $330 million would be going into upgrading water systems on reserve. It is extremely important for our remote, rural communities.

We would be building a fast and flexible economic immigration system to track immigrants with the skills and experience our economy needs. Our Minister of Immigration has been doing a major overhaul to make sure we attract the kinds of immigrants who are going to contribute to long-term prosperity in Canada, not only for their own families, but for our Canadian economy at the same time.

If we pause and take a look back, it is helpful to remember that after forming government in 2006, this government paid down nearly $40 billion on our national debt.

That positioned us well, inasmuch as in the ensuing recession period we had to run a deficit to provide the much-needed economic stimulus and keep people working.

The economic action plan launched a massive infrastructure investment plan. Yes, we hired more federal employees to ensure the money was well administered and went to projects that would position Canada well, creating economic opportunities that are having a positive impact right now across Canada from coast to coast.

We also launched a work-sharing program. We expanded EI benefits. We launched retraining programs for displaced workers and invested big time in education and science infrastructure. That was through the knowledge infrastructure program. All of this was to keep people working and to prepare for tomorrow's jobs.

The net result of prudent planning is that Canada has emerged as one of the top-performing industrialized countries.

Since the peak of the recession in July 2009, our economy has seen almost 700,000 new jobs, and most of those are full time. Canada is the only G7 country that has come out of the recession with more jobs than we had when we went into it.

Keeping taxes low for Canadians has been a key policy for this government. Since 2006, we have reduced the tax burden of Canadians through some 140 measures. As a result, the average Canadian family of four saves about $3,100 each and every year.

The budget contains measures to create employment. Included are a $1,000 hiring credit for small business and incentives for apprentices of up to $4,000 for tools, tuition and travel expenses. That would be for the Red Seal trades. Improvements to EI and the temporary foreign workers program would help connect Canadians with available jobs, including those seniors who are willing and able to work and who wish to continue working.

I made reference earlier to mega-investments in science, technology and innovation through granting agencies such as Genome Canada and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. In addition, there is $105 million to fund innovation in the forestry sector, which is extremely important to generate value-added production, something that we are very interested in, in coastal British Columbia. Investments in the Coast Guard fleet and helicopter renewal valued at $5.2 billion will be of benefit to coastal communities.

There are huge investments to help improve the living conditions and opportunities for vulnerable people in remote settings. I mentioned the water systems on reserve, but there are big investments in education on reserve. That $275 million across the nation is going to make a difference.

In order to ensure the sustainability of old age security, the age of eligibility would be gradually raised to 67, starting in 2023 and fully implemented in 2029.

In two decades, the number of retirees will double and costs will triple. Meanwhile, by 2030, if the system is unchanged, the number of taxpayers for every senior will be down to two from, currently, about four. In 2010 there were four; when the program was initiated, there were seven.

We have ensured that the changes are made with substantial notice and with an adjustment period. They would not affect current retirees or those close to retirement and would give others plenty of time to adjust to the changes and plan for their retirement.

Overall, in British Columbia we would benefit from $5.6 billion in health, education and social transfers, fulfilling our promise to balance the federal budget without cutting transfers to the provinces.

The budget is focused on jobs and long-term prosperity. As with the previous phase of the economic action plan, it addresses the changing worldwide economic situation and is designed to keep Canada competitive for the benefit of all Canadians.

Let me quote from the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Berry Vrbanovic. He said:

Canada's municipal leaders welcome today's commitment by the federal government to continue working with cities and communities to rebuild the local roads, water systems, community centres and public transit that our families, business and economy depend on.

He goes on to say that:

Today's budget continues building a new infrastructure partnership that creates jobs and strengthens Canada's future economic foundations.

Of course, I know that our municipalities in coastal B.C. are very appreciative of that gas tax fund, the $2 billion fund that we increased even during tough economic times. Our great finance minister extended that gas tax fund to $2 billion to ensure municipalities have the funds to move ahead with important projects.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my eminent colleague's speech, and I was surprised at how many economic issues he addressed in so short a time. It was almost like listening to a budget debate.

My question is very simple: does he not believe that it would be quite appropriate to split this omnibus bill in order to deal with various issues individually, as we should?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is a new member in the House. Some of us were here through three minority parliaments on our way to the present majority government situation. We advanced and discussed many of these issues over the previous five years of minority government.

The economic situation worldwide demands that we move ahead on a number of projects that were held up in minority parliaments. Many of these issues have been debated for years. It is time to move ahead and to get Canada's economy moving. It is time to keep jobs going at a time of economic recovery and to keep moving in the right direction. It is time to move beyond the stimulus measures of the previous two budgets to balancing our budgets.

That is what our government is doing: keeping an eye on the ball, an eye on the economy and an eye on what is happening worldwide. Our government is advancing international trade and making sure that we create the jobs that will keep Canadians employed.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I basically disagree with everything the member for Nanaimo—Alberni gave in his response to that last question, because he is just talking foolishness. However, I do respect my colleague a lot. He and I sat on the fisheries committee for many years, and I know he is very concerned about the fisheries.

Therefore, I ask him this: given the number of changes to fisheries and environment in this 425-page budget implementation bill that will change 70 pieces of legislation, does he, as a former member of the fisheries committee, really think that giving limited debate—and mainly to the finance committee—is fair to the fishermen and to the provinces concerned about fisheries? Does he think that the impact of basically transferring that responsibility from the feds to the provinces is really fair and does justice to this piece of legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed I remember the years when the member was chair of the fisheries committee. Actually, in those days he was pretty collegial, for the most part, on fisheries issues. Members from coast to coast have a focus on trying to do what is right for their communities.

However, the member would also know that the Fisheries Act that we deal with in the House is one of the oldest pieces of legislation still in existence. It goes back to 1868. There are all kinds of provisions in there. There are definitions that are outdated. The authorities are not established. For example, aquaculture was not even considered in those days, so the act desperately needs to be updated.

The changes we are introducing will bring reasonable change that will keep the focus on the kinds of water resources that impact the fish that are important to our communities economically. These changes will take the effort off highway people who are trying to replace a culvert or do a little repair on a bridge or a farmer who is trying to drain his flooded land, as has happened recently in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.

That is what these changes are about. It is time to move ahead.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his speech today. He is a great colleague. I know he has spent a large amount of his time here developing expertise in innovation, specifically in medical innovation.

This budget supports the provinces, as he said in his speech. It supports education, the social transfer and health transfers. However, he also brought up Genome Canada and the important funding that is part of that.

Could the member also explain to me as a new member what that kind of support to research means, not only to science but also to the people across this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government has been promoting science and technology and being competitive on the world stage through the last number of budgets. It is a knowledge-based economy that drives our economy and gives us an economic advantage. The investments in Genome Canada offer great promise for moving ahead on a number of important issues and understanding how biology works. We are hopeful that it will lead to great opportunities for Canada and for the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, investments that help stimulate the kinds of improvements that will keep Canadian businesses competitive and leading the world.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I invite the hon. member Burnaby—Douglas to resume debate, I will let him know he will have about two and a half minutes, and then I will need to interrupt him.

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak today about Bill C-38, the budget implementation act. This enormous omnibus bill is a disservice to the House and to Canadians.

Many parts of this huge bill are of concern to my constituents, but one in particular is of concern to them. It is with regard to the changes to the environmental assessment process. To refresh everyone's memory, the Kinder Morgan company currently owns and operates an oil pipeline that transports 300,000 barrels of oil per day between Edmonton and Burnaby. Most of my constituents tolerate this existing pipeline. It supplies oil and gasoline to metro Vancouver and keeps the local refinery in business. They tolerate it because they are not hypocrites; they use oil and support the local supply chain.

However, Kinder Morgan has just formally produced a new proposal to build a new heavy crude oil pipeline to transport 550,000 barrels per day along the existing pipeline route. This will not serve the local population. This will ship oil in raw form by tanker to foreign countries, bring almost 400 new giant oil supertankers to the Burrard Inlet and require massive dredging beneath the Second Narrows Bridge.

It will build a new pipeline along the existing route, which runs through extremely densely populated areas, including Burnaby, Port Moody, Coquitlam, Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford, Kamloops and many other urban centres.

I have walked this route, and much of it goes by shopping malls, housing co-ops, public parks, schools, modest homes and million-dollar mansions. There is a 30-metre right of way required by the National Energy Board, and a 60-metre safety zone. Members can picture a trench as wide as a highway going through many of these urban centres.

More worryingly, the National Energy Board can expropriate lands, and many people in my riding are fearful that they are going to be forced from their homes, schools and community amenities. In fact, the uncertainty surrounding this proposal is already causing property values to drop along this line. These concerns are real. Thousands of local residents oppose this pipeline, and they have contacted me to discuss these changes.

If we turn to the proposals in this giant budget bill, we see that the changes to the Environmental Assessment Act mean that there may not even be public consultation under this act. It is up to the discretion of the minister. Even if there is consultation, it would be limited to 24 months, and then, after the consultation, the minister could simply ignore it.

I urge the government to clarify what its intentions are with specific reference to the Kinder Morgan proposal and I ask it to withdraw it and debate it on a separate occasion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas will have seven minutes remaining for his speech when the House next debates this bill and, of course, the usual five minutes for questions and comments.

The House resumed from May 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I support the 2012 budget.

I wholeheartedly support the 2012 budget because it is good for Canada and good for southern Alberta.

The budget was not simply handed down from on high. The opposition and left-wing media do not know what to make of our government, diverse in its membership and truly national in its character. They have never seen such a strong, united party. They cannot understand it.

Since they do not believe that a free group of people can willingly co-operate and believe that people must be told what to do, they assume the only way we could be so united is by means of a heavy-handed leadership. However, Conservatives are united because we believe in what we are doing.

We blindly support the budget because together we helped to develop it, and we did this by counselling with the constituents in our respective ridings because we know who put us in our seats. We know who we represent.

The overwhelming message that I received from my constituents throughout the year was, “Keep on keeping on. Your plan is working. Continue to keep taxes low. Continue to reduce redundant red tape. Continue to facilitate trade among the provinces and continue to open up new markets around the world”.

They understood the need for the economic stimulus provided in past budgets, but they also understand that the global economic crisis that still rages in the world today is in fact a debt crisis, and that no one can spend their way out of a debt crisis.

They support our commitment to eliminate the deficit and balance the budget over the medium term. They support our commitment to maintain our vital and cherished social programs and government services and they know that we can do this and still cut government spending. When it comes time to make cuts, the overwhelming message I have been hearing is to reduce government waste.

One good thing about the NDP becoming the official opposition is that it more clearly draws the line in the sand and more clearly defines to Canadians their options in getting to where we want to go.

Conservatives trust the people. We believe that Canadians are generally good, kind-hearted, hard-working, industrious and smart, while the socialist NDP believes that people left to their own devices cannot be trusted. NDP members believe people cannot be trusted to do the right thing, to take care of the poor and needy, to figure out a way to make a living, and they believe that people who do figure it out should be punished for their ingenuity and have the fruits of their labour taxed away. They believe the only people who can be trusted are the people who make up a socialist government. These people must go through some supernatural change, because somehow they become magically pure-hearted and unselfish and, of course, smarter than the collective wisdom of the people working together.

The underlying message of the budget is that we trust Canadians. We trust them, so we listen to them. We trust them, so we let them keep their own money and decide for themselves how to spend it. We trust them, so we cut back on unnecessary overregulation, open up trade with other countries around the world and create a business-friendly environment to unleash the power of Canadian entrepreneurs, who will continue to create wealth and opportunities and increase prosperity for all their fellow Canadians.

Of course, some people have criticized some of the spending reductions; every voice matters, but just because a person or group of people speaks loudly or more often does not mean they speak for all Canadians.

A lot of the complaints come from people who expect to be exempt from the government-wide modest budgetary constraints or expect to maintain more than their fair share of the public pie. It would be nice to have a budget that provides everything for everyone. Socialism promises everyone a loaf of bread, but soon no one has any bread, because the bakers are standing in line for their free loaves.

The Conservative government, along with most Canadians, understands the inescapable truth that everything eventually must be paid for. We cannot get something for nothing. It does not matter how hungry we get or how unfair it seems; if we do not plant potatoes, potatoes will not grow.

Let me turn to some third party comments about the budget. In the National Post, David Frum said this:

Under Stephen Harper, Canada can fairly claim to be the best-governed country among advanced democracies in the world. [This year's] federal budget locks up Canada's lead.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would remind the hon. member that it is not permitted to name sitting members in the House, even in a quote.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, referring to our Prime Minister and his budget, he says:

[His] budgeting is impeccable in its caution. By 2015-2016, Canada will have reduced both spending and debt to pre-recession levels. Nobody else on earth will be able to say anything like that.

The key in balancing the budget is, well, balance. When the crisis hit, the task was to provide just the right amount of economic stimulus: enough to keep the economy going, but not so much that the country's economic crisis slipped into the debt crisis that plagues the eurozone. Now the trick is to reduce the deficit, but at a rate that will not plunge the economy back into recession. This second task is especially tricky because it requires not only sound judgment but something even rarer in politics: discipline.

There is a famous experiment in which kindergarten kids are presented with a marshmallow. They can eat it right away, but if they wait just 10 minutes, they can have two marshmallows. It is amazing how many kindergarten kids are able to recognize the principle of restraint, the principle that making a small sacrifice now for a big payout later makes sense. The opposition does not seem to share that sense of foresight.

There is no avoiding the fact that if difficult decisions are not made now, even more difficult decisions will be unavoidable later, or, more accurately, they will not be decisions but inescapable consequences, and they will not just be difficult, they will be devastating.

During the several pre-budget consultations I held across my riding, the general consensus was support for this disciplined and balanced approach to managing the country's economy. People also believed that the majority of the deficit reduction savings could and should be found by eliminating waste, duplication and inefficiencies in virtually all government programs.

I am happy to say that 70% of the expected savings come from eliminating government waste, and it is not all cuts. My constituents, along with the majority of Canadians, said that we should invest in economic growth and job creation, research and innovation, infrastructure and development, education and skills. Our budget places a strong emphasis on all of these areas.

Some of our opponents criticize us for focusing so much on the economy. They say that all we care about is money, but then they follow up with a demand that we take somebody else's money to fund their favourite project.

Members may ask why the economy is our priority. It is for two main reasons: first, it is the priority of the vast majority of Canadians. It is their priority for the second reason, which is that in this day and age, things cost money.

We all love our health care system. We love our education system and our roads, libraries and parks. We want to support our veterans, seniors and those who stand in need. We want to live in safe communities and in a safe world. That is why, since we were first elected in 2006, our government has been focused on creating jobs and economic growth. That is why ultimately our goal is to ensure long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

As the Minister of Finance said:

We see a Canada, whose wealth, while immense, will be measured ultimately in the greater happiness and security of its people.

This is a good budget. Because of it and because of our budgets that have preceded it, we can see in the distance every reason to hope. We see young Canadians confident in their future, retired Canadians secure in their senior years, aboriginal Canadians realizing their vast potential and new Canadians strengthening our country as they have done in every generation. We see every region of the country more prosperous than ever in our history. We see Canadian businesses and universities coming up with things that no one has thought of before, leading to new opportunities and a better life for Canadians and for people all around the world. We see Canada for what it is and what it can be: a great, good nation on top of the world, the true north strong and free.

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

Madam Speaker, since the member's speech talked about jobs and how the Conservative proposals are creating more jobs and better prosperity, I would like him to tell me why we have a record number of temporary foreign workers in Canada today.

There are over 300,000 people who have been brought to Canada, many of whom are working in very low-wage jobs in the service sector. One-fifth are in the city of Toronto, which has an unemployment rate of over 8%, and now his government is proposing that they can be paid 15% less than other Canadians. How can undermining Canadian jobs and pay levels be good for Canadian workers?

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the reason there is a record number of foreign workers coming into the country is because there is a record number of available jobs.

My colleague referred to the 15% below average of what Canadians are receiving. That is not true. Foreign workers can only receive 15% lower than the average if other Canadians are receiving 15% lower than the average. A lot of people who work 20 or 25 years make a lot more throughout those years of work than someone who is starting out. That changes the average salary. As a result of market conditions, if the majority of Canadians are receiving 15% less than the average wages, then immigrants can receive that as well so that they are not paid more than Canadian workers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I take exception to the member's comments in different ways.

The Government of Canada has done nothing to preserve aerospace jobs in Quebec, Manitoba and Ontario. When Air Canada was in clear violation of the act, the government did nothing to protect those important aviation jobs. The Government of Canada had a choice. It could have taken Air Canada to court in order to preserve those jobs, something that it should have done but chose not to do. Thousands of jobs have been lost. That is one issue that I take exception with when the government talks about jobs.

The second issue is in regard to why the government bundled so much legislation in an attempt to sneak it through the back door by using it in a budget debate. You, in essence, have three years--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would remind hon. members to address their comments through the Chair.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, when the Liberals were in government they voted to send those jobs from the member's province to Quebec.

We believe in the free market system. The markets will go where business is best. We will do all we can to generate thriving conditions in all the provinces with the support of the provinces and the Canadian people.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, based on where my colleague's riding is located, could he tell us the importance of Canada's energy supplies as a trading country to the long-term prosperity of Canada?

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the energy sector is not just important for Alberta, as important as it is for Alberta, but it is important for all of Canada. We need to do all that we can to support this industry, and not just support it within Canada but support different ways to export our energy to countries that need it. We need to do all that we can to prevent anything from blocking the way in a safe and responsible manner.

Whether or not we like the energy sector, we all need clean air and clean water, and we understand that fact.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to say that I am pleased to rise in the House this morning to support the motion of the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park, whom I would like to commend for this motion and for the clear-headed manner in which she has faced the challenges we have encountered since the tabling of this budget.

Obviously, the purpose of Bill C-38 is to implement budget 2012; however, it goes much further than the budget itself. The bill contains not only the measures described in the budget but also many changes that were never announced before. Personally, this does not really surprise me.

The biggest problem is that this bill introduces a series of measures that are not part of the election promises made by the current government and that will decrease the transparency and increase the secrecy of the government. This government is not a very good example of transparency. It has demonstrated that much over the past year, and things are only going to get worse over the next three years.

This bill contains measures that decrease the Auditor General's authority. Must I remind the House that the Auditor General is an independent and reliable source of objective, factual and, above all, non-partisan information that Parliament greatly needs to oversee government spending and activities?

Finally, any decrease in the Auditor General's powers will reduce Parliament's ability to provide oversight and hold the government to account, as mandated by all Quebeckers and Canadians. In my opinion, this is a very serious attack. The Auditor General ensures that public money is spent properly. We really have a problem with this. I just cannot understand how the government can assume this power. It is completely beyond me.

The 2012 budget makes ill-advised cuts to services on which a large number of Canadians are very dependent. Yes, I am referring to the old age security program, health care, provincial transfers, environmental assessments, and many other matters.

As I was saying earlier, yesterday, my colleague from Parkdale—High Park, seconded by my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, moved an amendment to the motion. The amendment clearly explains why the House cannot support the 2012 budget implementation bill.

The House cannot support the bill at second reading stage for various reasons. First, this bill considerably weakens the confidence Canadians have in the work of Parliament. I think that is very serious. I think that in the past year, that confidence has been undermined, and it will only diminish further. Now we know why people are cynical about politics and why young people no longer vote.

Second, the bill decreases transparency and erodes fundamental democratic institutions by systematically over-concentrating power in the hands of ministers and the government, which is not good.

Third, it shields the government from criticism about extremely controversial non-budgetary issues by bundling all those issues into an omnibus bill masquerading as a budget bill. It is hard to know where this will end.

Fourth, it also undermines the critical role played by such trusted oversight bodies as the Auditor General of Canada, the CSIS Inspector General and the National Energy Board.

Fifth, it silences institutional checks and balances to the government's ideological agenda.

Finally, something we have been talking about at length and must continue talking about in order to keep the public aware of the situation is that this budget raises the eligibility age for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement from 65 to 67. I do not understand this reckless approach to balancing the budget. A number of experts have said that the money is there, and they have the numbers to back their claims. The easy excuse is that the baby boomers are leaving the workforce, which means more people are retiring, but we have known that since the 1980s. We saw that coming and we are prepared for it.

This budget also includes provisions to gut the federal environmental assessment regime and to overhaul fish habitat protection, for instance, in a way that will adversely affect fragile ecosystems and Canada’s environmental sustainability for generations to come.

When I hear the Conservatives talking about the future, I do not understand. They are talking about the future, yet they are jeopardizing the health of Canadians and abandoning environmental measures. This makes no sense. This budget also calls into question Canada’s food inspection system and public health regime by removing critical oversight powers of the Auditor General, who works in conjunction with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

This paves the way for opportunities to privatize a number of essential inspection functions. This will mean, on the one hand, that wealthy people will have the means to eat well and have their food inspected in order to avoid illness, while on the other hand, poor people will not be able to afford decent food and have it inspected. This is just one more aspect of this bill that is completely unacceptable.

Nor does this budget include measures to help the growing number of unemployed workers in Canada. The budget talks about job creation, but when I read the bill, I saw nothing about job creation. All I saw was job cuts. There is a disconnect between those cuts and the talk of job creation. The main thrust of this bill was not mentioned in the budget that the government tabled on March 29.

Throughout this 421-page bill, the government is trying to introduce new measures under the guise of budget implementation. Quebeckers and Canadians will not stand for that. Bill C-38 proves once again that Quebeckers and Canadians cannot trust the government. It proves once again that the government does not care about what Canadians need.

The government knows that its bill is unacceptable. That is why it has invoked closure once again. Unfortunately, this strategy is turning into a tradition in this Parliament. Still, we are starting to get used to it. It undermines the work of the House, where MPs have an important responsibility to debate bills. Once again, it proves that this government lacks transparency.

I could spend an entire day talking about this completely irresponsible bill, but Quebeckers and Canadians are much more intelligent than the government seems to think. I will now talk about the effects that this bill will have on my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, a very rural riding located close to Montreal, Quebec.

First, the attacks on the environment affect all ridings, obviously. At least a third of this bill is dedicated to environmental deregulation. The government is implementing all the measures that it announced, but it is also introducing new measures that it did not announce. Clearly, Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol is of great concern to my constituents and to all Canadians since it will result in a great deal of deregulation. I cannot emphasize this enough: this is yet another example of this government's lack of transparency when it comes to environmental assessments.

The executive director and senior counsel at West Coast Environmental Law said that, by gutting Canada’s long-standing environmental laws, the budget bill gives oil and gas companies exactly what they have been asking for—fewer environmental safeguards so they can push through resource megaprojects.

I am out of time. Nevertheless, I think I said everything I wanted to say even though, as I said before, I could talk about this bill all day.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member opposite and at one point in her speech she said we were eliminating the environmental assessment program from the federal system.

One of the obligations we have in this House is to be forthright in the information we are giving Canadians. In reality, what we are doing is committing to a one-project-one-review system, which would give a predictable timeline to prospective projects, so people would know within a reasonable amount of time whether that project could proceed. We are not eliminating the federal system of environmental protection.

In reality, the NDP is opposed to the development of our natural resources. The NDP has called for a moratorium on the oil sands, which would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it is opposed to our nuclear sector, which employs more than 30,000 Canadians in high-paying jobs. It is okay for the NDP to stick to its rigid, ideological opposition to development, but it is not okay for NDP members to misinform Canadians. I would ask the member to clarify her statement that we are eliminating the federal system of environmental protection.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He may have misunderstood what I wanted to say. Once again, he could quite easily look up what I said, word for word, in the blues or on tape. I said that environmental assessment as we know it is being replaced by a new environmental assessment regime. I did not necessarily say that the process was being abolished.

However, I am worried because this new environmental assessment regime does not take into consideration the recommendations put forward by environmental groups and experts. Personally, that is what really worries me.

This is a good example of a process that does not provide Canadians with good information. The experts are not being consulted and organizations working to protect Canada's environment are not being heard.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Parkdale—High Park posed a question in regard to working visas, somewhat implying that the NDP has issues related to working visas. I am curious to know what the NDP's position is with regard to working visas. Are NDP members saying that the federal government is issuing too many working visas? Would they like to see the number of working visas restricted in some way? Canadians are most interested in issues of that nature because it has a fairly significant impact on the economy. What is the NDP's position on working visas?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, the topic of this morning's debate is the budget and Bill C-38, the 2012 budget implementation bill. We are not discussing work permits or anything else.

I did mention a number of concerns we have with this budget, especially with regard to the environment and seniors, and also job creation and giving people who receive employment insurance a hand up. We know that the Employment Insurance Act has been undermined in recent years. Although there is talk of job creation, I do not see it in this budget. Those are our concerns this morning.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could comment on the government's move to eliminate the Auditor General's oversight from a dozen agencies and bodies within the government, and on what that says about the Conservatives' lack of transparency as a government.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, of these eliminations, the thing that concerns me the most this morning is the cuts that affect food inspection. Many jobs will be lost in my riding and the health of Canadians is in jeopardy.

All the cuts in this budget are harmful either to the health or the well-being of Canadians. That includes all Quebeckers and the people in my riding. That is what concerns me. I will continue to oppose this budget.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act.

I want to begin by saying how proud I am of our government. I am so pleased to represent the people of Portage—Lisgar in the Conservative government and see the way we have reacted and responded over the last several years to a very tough recession that impacted the entire world. Our government responded with sound and responsible fiscal management, stimulus when it was needed and restraint when it was needed. I am very proud to see this next phase of Canada's economic action plan 2012 and to be able to support Bill C-38.

Our government has been clear that the economy and jobs are our top priority and remain the top priority of this government because they are Canadians' top priority. Several of my hon. colleagues have spoken on this legislation and the importance of taking action to support the economy now and over the long term while keeping taxes low and returning to balanced budgets. I would like to spend a bit of my time today discussing the components of Bill C-38, highlighting our government's commitment to small businesses and job creation for sustainable long-term prosperity.

As well, I want to take a few moments to speak on the parts of this bill that pertain to the public safety of Canada. I am sure that all hon. members in the House agree that jobs and the economy are the top priority for Canadians, and that is why it remains the top priority for this government. This is why we are addressing short-term labour market challenges and meeting long-term market needs.

Small businesses are significant job creators in Canada, and our government recognizes the importance of this as well as the challenges they face. That is why economic action plan 2012 proposes $205 million to extend the small business hiring credit for one year. This means that a temporary credit of up to $1,000 will be available to approximately 536,000 employers. In my riding of Portage—Lisgar, as well as across the country, small businesses play an important role in creating jobs and keeping our economy growing, and it is very important that our government continues to support small businesses.

This economic action plan will help further unleash the potential of Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to innovate and thrive in the modern economy, benefiting all Canadians for generations to come. Just last month in my riding of Portage—Lisgar, our government gave a $2.5 million repayable loan for infrastructure development to Canadian Prairie Garden Puree Products Inc., located in Portage—Lisgar.

I am very proud to announce that this investment will benefit not only local growers and producers but the entire region because it will allow producers to use more of their harvested crops. Many times the crops are odd shapes and sizes and cannot always be used for direct sale, and about 40% of produce is not used. Canadian Prairie Garden Puree makes that produce into a puree and it is able to sell it. It uses an excellent patent program, and I am very proud that our government is able to partner with this company to create jobs and support producers.The loan will allow creation of a number of jobs in the region, while ensuring the company operates more economically and leaves a small environmental footprint.

This project is the first project funded by the agricultural innovation program, an excellent program, which was a $50 million initiative announced as part of Canada's economic action plan. The agricultural innovation program is part of the government's commitment to help Canadian producers benefit from cutting-edge science and technology. This is what our producers have been asking for. They have asked our government to expand trade but also help with research and development because the best produce in the world is grown right here in Canada. I am proud that our government is responding to the needs of Canadian producers. This program boosts the development and commercialization of innovative new products, technologies and processes for the agricultural sector while aiding in the sector's ability to secure opportunities in domestic and global markets.

I have mentioned a few examples of how our government is helping sustain a business environment that encourages innovation by supporting financing opportunities for businesses with the potential to become globally competitive, while creating a regulatory environment that promotes competition, business investment and economic growth.

In addition to strengthening our economy and building on our government's strong track record of job creation, Bill C-38 contains some very important provisions that would further enhance our ability to keep our streets and communities safer for all Canadians, while also improving the way government operates.

Bill C-38 contains provisions that would help us crack down on organized crime groups, gang members and other thugs who often earn a major portion of their illegal income by smuggling contraband goods, such as guns and drugs, or by smuggling illegal migrants across our border with the United States.

The relevant provisions would implement the Canada-United States framework agreement on integrated cross-border maritime law enforcement operations, and a key feature of those operations would be authorized, specially-trained and designated Canadian and U.S. law enforcement officers to work together to enforce the law on both sides of our shared border.

This is an excellent pilot project. It shows the great co-operation we have had and continue to have with our partners who are guarding the U.S. border. Again, even in my riding of Portage—Lisgar, I have seen firsthand the wonderful work and the great co-operation that is happening with CBSA as well as the U.S. border officials.

Integrated cross-border law enforcement operations move beyond the existing and traditional co-operative partnership approach to conducting border law enforcement activities. They would involve specially-trained and appointed Canadian and United States law enforcement officers working in integrated teams, transiting back and forth across the border to deal with cross-border criminality while still respecting the sovereignty of both Canada and the United States.

In Canadian territory these teams would enforce Canadian law, and in U.S. territory they would enforce U.S. law, while under the direction and control of a designated officer from the host country. What that means is that organized crime would no longer be able to exploit the border to evade arrest and prosecution. Instead, law enforcement would be able to continue to pursue and arrest criminals, regardless of which side of the border they are on.

This is something Canadians have asked us to do. They want to make sure our borders are secure while, at the same time, we have a strong working relationship with our United States partners. We want to make sure legitimate goods, travel and trade can occur across our borders, but we want to eliminate illegal activity. This is just another fantastic initiative that would strengthen the relationship we already have.

In addition to these measures to protect the safety and security of Canadians, Bill C-38 introduces measures to streamline and improve the way several public safety portfolio agencies operate while, thankfully, eliminating duplication and waste and saving taxpayer dollars.

First and foremost, the legislation before us today would consolidate the responsibility for reviewing the activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, into a single arm's-length organization: the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC. Such a move would save taxpayer dollars while ensuring oversight of CSIS continues. The unique responsibilities of the Office of the Inspector General would now be merged into the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which would continue to report to Parliament on the activities of CSIS.

Bill C-38 would also make changes to the process for conducting certain reviews of conditional release decisions. This would include the elimination of mandatory hearings for reviews of cases following a suspension, revocation or termination of parole or statutory release.

Specifically, Bill C-38 would, in most cases, replace these panel hearings with an administrative file review of decisions where there has been a suspension, revocation or termination of an offender's parole or statutory release.

In these cases, offenders would still be allowed to make written submissions to the Parole Board. The Parole Board would continue to be required to conduct this review through a panel hearing for decisions related to cancellation, and the board would continue to have the discretion to conduct in-person hearings, in any case. What we would, therefore, be doing is maintaining current procedural safeguards while, again, streamlining the way reviews are conducted.

I will conclude by saying, once again, that Canadians have asked this government to respond to the economic crisis responsibly. I ask all members to support this important bill.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, many of my colleagues have pointed out the subterfuge associated with Bill C-38. It is an unprecedented bill in that it goes far beyond any budget implementation bill ever presented in the House of Commons. It seeks to repeal, or change and undermine some 60 or 70 pieces of legislation that are far removed from taxation and spending matters normally found within a federal budget.

One of those pieces of legislation, which I would ask my colleague to comment on, is the federal Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. This was put in place to protect the wages and hours of work for non-union construction workers on construction projects. It recognized the vagaries of the construction industry, with a transient workforce, et cetera. Some standardization of wages was beneficial in order to take wages out of competition so that contractors would win jobs based on their productivity and competitiveness, not on their ability to find cheaper and cheaper wages.

By throwing this particular act out the window, with the budget implementation bill, the government is undermining and destabilizing the entire construction industry, the largest single employment sector in the country. How does she think it benefits anyone to drive construction workers' wages down by virtue of eliminating the minimum wage laws?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member on a number of points that he raised.

First, this budget bill is very common in that it is including many things. We can see when we look at the actual document that it is a huge budget. The bill is doing what Canadians have asked us to do, to get on with the business of the country and get the bill passed.

In regard to workers, different provinces are attracting different workers through their taxation measures. For example, in Manitoba, taxes unfortunately are going up under the provincial NDP government. In my riding of Portage—Lisgar, as well as other places in Manitoba, there is still a need for skilled labour, for workers. In other parts of the country, for example Alberta, they cannot get enough construction workers.

I am very pleased that in our immigration policy we are making a new stream for skilled labour and skilled workers to come to Canada. We are still taking advantage of the domestic labour force that we have, but bringing in skilled workers where they are needed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when the Prime Minister was a few years younger, when he was in opposition, he took great exception to the Liberal government bringing in a budget of 20 pages, that possibly affected one or two other bills. Apparently he was quite appalled by it. It was even reported on last night. That was then. Today, we are debating a bill of over 400 pages. There is enough legislation within the bill to justify a three year mandate in terms of its impact on the legislative process.

My question is, what has caused the Prime Minister to have this change in attitude? It was not acceptable to have a minor change in the Liberal government. Now, with his majority government, he feels he has the mandate to make huge legislative changes through the back door of a budget. What has changed? Why is the Prime Minister--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary. There is a minute left.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, speaking of mandates, Canadians gave our government a mandate by giving us a majority government in order to implement the policies that we have presented.

Canadians have appreciated that when we make a promise, we keep the promise. When we say we are going to do something, we do it. For instance, Canada's economic action plan 2012, focusing on long-term prosperity and growth, is something Canadians have asked for. This budget implementation bill needs to take the budget and actually implement it.

It is interesting that the opposition members, within minutes of us presenting the budget, already decided that they were going to vote against it. The Liberals decided they were going to vote against it before they even read it. When we are talking about mandates from the Canadian people, we can see that Canadians did not even give the Liberals a mandate to be the official opposition.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation bill.

This budget and the act we are discussing today clearly reveal the government's overall plan and priorities. Today, I would like to highlight some of those priorities of particular relevance to B.C.: jobs and growth, resources, the environment, seniors' concerns, and health and fitness for all Canadians.

The recent budget reiterated that the government is committed to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Our government is committed to expanding avenues of trade while responsibly developing our natural resources. Our government is committed to all Canadians, to aboriginal peoples, families, seniors, youth, immigrants and entrepreneurs, from coast to coast to coast.

When Conservatives formed the government in 2006, the focus turned to the strengthening of the Canadian economy, creating employment opportunities and laying the foundations for sustained growth. As a result, our nation has weathered the storms of recession in the past few years better than virtually any developed, democratic country in the world. Many nations look to Canada as the model for creating and maintaining a high degree of financial security. The stable course was set years ago. The current act reflects our Prime Minister's firm, steady hand on the wheel for the next leg of the journey.

For the people of B.C., this budget means jobs. In the coming 12 months, the budget proposes to invest $67 million in B.C. for labour market training, part of the continuing commitment the government made to Canadians in 2008 to provide new funding every year.

In the riding I represent, the whole North Shore and hundreds of workers at Seaspan Marine Corporation welcomed the news that the company had won an $8 billion contract to build non-combat vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard. This budget supports such forward-thinking programs for continuous growth. Thanks to the act, those hundreds of workers at Seaspan will soon be joined by hundreds of more skilled tradespeople who will enjoy the guarantee of employment and the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution for many years to come.

Jobs do not materialize out of thin air. They come from plans such as those featured in this act, committed, targeted investments in post-secondary education for our youth, improving access to training for those with disabilities or people returning to the workforce, and adapting our immigration system to keep pace with the speed of business.

This budget lays out ways in which our economy may advance, unfettered by labour shortages or narrow business plans.

In the riding I represent, we appreciate innovative approaches such as the international education strategy receiving ongoing support after its introduction in the 2011 and 2012 budgets. This plan will benefit Quest University, Capilano University, Vancouver Island University and other schools to attract more international students and researchers, translating into a broader knowledge base necessary to compete in the world market.

The act reflects the priority of the government to expand Canada's trade potential by pursuing new markets worldwide. Having negotiated several trade agreements in a few short years, our government is committed to pursuing the Canada-Europe trade agreement which presents abundant opportunities to Canadian business.

We are also committed to the Pacific Rim, led by our dynamic Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway. We are increasing the flow of trade and investment traffic across the Pacific. The riding I represent includes a very active group of Canadians of Asian background, some of whom produced an extraordinary celebration of Asian New Year earlier this year. They highlight the importance of our government and our parliamentarians' relationships with Pacific Rim communities.

For British Columbians, one of the most important aspects of this act is the commitment to develop our abundant resources while maintaining a respectful balance between economic aspirations and environmental stewardship. With a proposed $54 million over two years towards the major projects management office initiative, significant natural resource projects will unfold with greater efficiency, providing the foundation for employment, not only at the primary but also at the secondary and tertiary levels of the economy.

This is good news for the fisheries advisory group in the riding I come from, where Dave Brown and the group work with me to protect and sustain our marvellous fisheries resource.

The act also puts emphasis on sustaining our environment. There is $35.7 million proposed over the next two years to further improve the safety regimen for oil tankers and pipelines, to support ongoing environmental studies and to better prepare for emergencies.

This act also proposes an additional $13.5 million over two years to support the work of the National Energy Board that we may further reduce any risk, with more oil and gas pipeline inspections, moving from 100 to 150 per year, and double the number of annual audits designed to discover and resolve potential issues before they become a concern for Canadians.

These unparalleled safety precautions for oil tankers were recently the subject of an excellent series by the North Shore Outlook, a community newspaper serving a region of the riding I represent. Outlook's in-depth coverage highlights the great importance of secure transportation for such resources, from both an economic perspective and an environmental perspective. This government's investment in safety reflects a sharing of that priority.

The riding I represent in B.C. is not unlike many others across Canada in that our people are aging as a demographic. Though we appreciate the beauty and wisdom of our seniors, our nation is coming to understand how this fact is affecting our economy, our health care system and our social fabric. That is why the budget and the act take a visionary, necessary step in a potentially controversial direction. The very gradual rise in the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 initially to 67 is a plan for long-term security. This slow and steady change to the OAS program takes some of the fear out of the future, because this change would mean we could enjoy financial support for generations to come. Some day our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren will thank us.

As the founder of the 2010 parliamentary fitness initiative, it literally does my heart good, as well as the hearts of millions of Canadians, to know that in this budget and act, our government continues to support important programs such as Participaction. In response to the budget, my friend and fitness advocate Rick Hansen said, “The Government of Canada has been a critical partner in my 25 year journey towards a healthier and more inclusive world, and we are extremely grateful for their continued support.”

Health and fitness experts from as far abroad as The New York Times, like writers Gretchen Reynolds, to North Shore News contributor Shaun Karp, all agree that daily physical activity improves our general level of health and reduces our chances of developing chronic or debilitating disease.

Ms. Reynolds in her recent book, The First 20 Minutes: Surprising Science Reveals How We Can Exercise Better, Train Smarter, Live Longer, encourages movement as opposed to exercise, any kind of movement, and she did not even know about the 2010 parliamentary fitness initiative. She stresses that the road to good health is not competitive, strenuous exercise. One does not need to run for miles or work out for hours. One simply needs to move, garden, stroll, take the stairs or park further away from the mall entrance.

For parliamentarians, we should take the opportunity to run or walk on Tuesday mornings and swim on Thursday mornings with our colleagues. In keeping with the government's encouragement of healthier living, I have created two special days here on the Hill. The Inaugural Bike Day on Parliament Hill will be held tomorrow, May 9, and National Life Jacket and Swim Day will occur the following Wednesday, May 16.

Beyond the Hill, the first ever National Health and Fitness Day will happen on the first Saturday in June, June 2. All 12 of the local governments in the riding I represent have resolved to mark National Health and Fitness Day by opening their municipal recreation and sports facilities for free or at a reduced cost to introduce first-time users to the opportunities in their midst and to foster healthier habits for long-term benefits.

Our very active Minister of State for Sport stated recently:

National Health and Fitness Day is a perfect opportunity to remind Canadians of all ages about the importance of physical activity and sport. Whether it's riding your bike, running around a track, or playing on a house league soccer team, the options for maintaining an active lifestyle are endless. As Minister of State for Sport, I encourage all Canadians to join in and celebrate this special day that highlights the importance of physical fitness and healthier, happier communities.

In the final analysis, that is what we are all about: a healthy economy, a healthy climate for jobs and growth, healthy international relationships with many free trade agreements under negotiation, and a healthy stewardship of our environment and our economy for this generation and generations to come. That is why I am proud to support this act. I look forward to the questions of my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke of good governance.

I do not believe this bill is a matter of good governance. Take, for example, the fact that this bill repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.

Instead, the bill talks about measures to protect the pipelines and whatever the oil companies propose. The government is taking money out of other envelopes and using it to fund oil companies and corporations, which should be using their own money to do this work themselves.

Can my colleague explain all this?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to respond and I want to thank the member opposite for her question.

What people need to understand is that when it comes to the environment and the economy, we do not have to choose one over the other. We must develop our environmental stewardship. We must also inform everyone that Canadians have the best research and innovations in the world in this sector.

That is why it is important for us to dovetail our federal and provincial processes. It ought not be ineffective in order to bring them both together to make our extraction of natural resources more efficient while we become the world's leading stewards of the environment.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have a quaint saying where I come from, which is that fair wages benefit the whole community. This saying is based on the notion that a consuming middle class is one of the greatest strengths on an economic basis.

It is a mystery to me why we find, within this particular budget implementation bill, the repeal of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. In all federal government building projects there will now be no requirement to pay fair wages. It used to be that the government would set, not a union scale wage but a prevailing wage somewhere close so there would be fair competition and wages would not be driven down in the construction sector. Who benefits from driving down the fair wages of ordinary working people? Only the merit shop and CLAC will benefit because they are trying to bust the unions in the construction sector.

This bill was put in place to protect non-union employees from being exploited by those who would seek to achieve contracts by finding cheaper labour. There goes the Canadian dream--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I must give the hon. member time to respond.

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is because I respect my colleague opposite that I must respond with questions of my own.

The member represents a party that wants to drive up taxes. Surely the incentive for our wonderful thriving middle-class in Canada is that taxes have been reduced and that there is hope in the future because of the free trade that is being encouraged by this government.

The type of environmental processes that we have been talking about throughout this debate would encourage good stewardship of the environment while we produce jobs. We have created 600,000 going on 700,000 jobs since July 2009 and they all reflect a commitment to the economy and to the hope of future Canadians.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism)]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague could explain how this budget will help natural resource development in his own province.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

The minister is one of the hardest working MPs in the House, so I am delighted to go shoulder to shoulder with him. He is aware of how British Columbia depends upon the responsible extraction of natural resources for our economy and, therefore, we are proud stewards of our wonderful environment.

I come from the most beautiful place on earth. We care about our environment but we also want to ensure that the provincial and federal arms are working together so that we do not repeat unnecessary steps in the approval of resource projects. We are ensuring that provincial and federal regulators are working together. That is a big thrust in the bill. I am proud to believe that hundreds of thousands of new jobs will result.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I will not address the budget's assault on environmental protection, including water monitoring; the weakening of food inspection; the government's puzzling decision, in light of its professed monopoly on loyalty to our military, to reduce the number of medical professionals involved in suicide prevention and PTSD monitoring; and its targeting of the CBC, a vehicle for holding all governments, regardless of political stripe, to account through world-class reporting and for facilitating homegrown cultural expression that reflects and strengthens Canadian values and identity. Rather, I will focus on the budget's impact on younger Canadians.

I would not go so far as to say that the budget is an attack on younger Canadians. I will not use that kind of intemperate language. However, I will say that the budget is neglectful of younger Canadians. It fails to consider their legitimate needs and, as a result, it fails to build for the country's future.

Canada needs to excel as a knowledge economy if we wish to prosper in the world of the 21st century. However, the budget does nothing specific to encourage young people to pursue a post-secondary education or otherwise to reduce the financial barriers that prevent some from pursuing such an education.

There is nothing in this budget, like Paul Martin's highly successful cash grant, for those who invest in a registered education savings plan for their children's post-secondary education. As we know, the federal government today contributes $2 for every $10 Canadians invest in their children's RESP. Nor do we see the budget introduce a version of the Canadian learning passport.

The Canadian learning passport was an idea in the 2011 Liberal election platform. It was based on the principle that, “if you gets the grades, you get to go”. The idea of the passport was to offer all high school students intending to go on to college or university $1,000 in trust for each year of anticipated post-secondary education up to a maximum of $4,000 and $1,500 per year up to a maximum of $6,000 for students from low-income families.

Now that is smart public policy that would achieve a triple objective: first, supplying our economy with the skilled labour it needs for the 21st century; second, preparing our youth for the jobs of tomorrow; and third, achieving an important measure of social justice by removing barriers to education for all youth, including those from low-income families.

On another matter of importance to Canada's future, we must not ignore the relationship between university scientific research and the education and career success of today's young people. University research produces concrete benefits for student researchers. It provides students with an important practical avenue of intellectual development so they can later make a meaningful contribution to a science-based economy. I noticed in this regard that the budget eliminates a very financially modest but highly successful program in the area of science and engineering research: the research tools and infrastructure program, known as RTI.

RTI provides funding for the purchase and repair of lab equipment of a value of up to $150,000. This amount is way below the threshold for CFI funding that targets multi-million dollar multi-applicant projects. It is not an exaggeration to say that the RTI program is the lifeblood of most NSERC-funded university research because it provides researchers with a reasonable chance of obtaining the equipment they need to do their work.

As my colleague from Kingston said last week in a question he asked in this House, for research scientists, eliminating the RTI is like sending a carpenter to work without a hammer. Furthermore, a well-known university researcher in Montreal has written to me to say that by the government nixing the RTI, “We will lose staff, we will lose students, we will lose knowledge”. I do not know why the government made such a short-sighted decision.

Speaking of opportunities for young people, we must not forget the brutal cancellation of Katimavik. Katimavik provides a unique experience for young people seeking to discover their strengths, skills and independence at a difficult crossroads in their life.

After the announcement of Katimavik's demise, Katie Wheatley, a constituent of mine and a Katimavik alumni, wrote to me with the following testimonial, “Coming out of the Katimavik program has left me with complete bilingualism, invaluable work experience, an incredible sense of accomplishment and empowerment, and a brighter future”. What more is there to say?

What leads us to question the government's objectivity in its decision to terminate Katimavik is the fact that the decision is retroactive. It has left candidates already accepted for next year's edition of the program flat-footed, deeply deflated and scrambling to make new plans. One could even say that the decision is, if not legally then morally, tantamount to a breach of contract. This breach of contract carries an air of vindictiveness. It is an open secret that the government pulled the plug on Katimavik mostly because the program was the brainchild of the Trudeau government.

Finally, the change to OAS eligibility will impact on younger Canadians since the change will apply to anyone born after 1958. The generations that will be hit by this change include those whose members' professional careers often took longer to launch than what was the case for previous generations. Many younger Canadians today are struggling with career and income and this change will exacerbate the challenges they face down the line.

The Liberal opposition is four-square against the budget's change to OAS eligibility for other reasons as well. First, various experts have argued convincingly that raising the age of eligibility to receive OAS is not necessary to sustain the system.

Second, the Liberals believe that many Canadians who have held physically demanding jobs may find it very difficult to work beyond age 65. Many, in fact, will be forced to retire before age 65. An example is nurses.

A constituent, Anna-May Barrett, called my office to remind the government that being a nurse is a physically demanding job, with overtime, staff shortages and increasingly longer shifts and yet the government's decision on OAS eligibility appears to ignore this reality.

Third, the OAS provides much needed financial assistance to many would be low-income seniors who would otherwise find themselves below the poverty line.

Fourth, many women who chose to stay at home may not have other pensions to draw on at 65 years of age. This new delay in receiving OAS will prejudice these Canadians and deny them a measure of economic freedom they were counting on.

I would add that I believe it is vital for a healthy democracy that Canadians be able to trust their government. Many Canadians will consider the decision to change the age of eligibility for OAS a betrayal of that trust, especially in light of the commitments made by the Prime Minister during the recent election campaign that a Conservative government would not change retirement benefits. A Liberal government would reverse the change to OAS eligibility, bringing the age at which all Canadians would be eligible to receive this benefit back to 65.

Another Liberal idea that was promoted during the last election campaign is missing from this budget, the idea of a supplemental Canada pension plan. The Canada pension plan is extremely well-managed. It is recognized internationally as a very low cost, cheap to administer program that brings higher rates of return than other large pension plans. Therefore, why not allow Canadians to invest even more in this high return pension system? Why not commit to working with the provinces to devise a pan-Canadian improvement to the CPP-QPP system that would allow Canadians who might have extra money to save for retirement to invest that money with the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board?

Those are the kinds of constructive suggestions that, if included in the budget, might allow the opposition to see things a little differently.

Since my colleague from Papineau is here, I would like to comment on a video I saw recently of the very first televised question period in the House of Commons. The question was from the hon. Joe Clark and the economic situation was quite similar at the time to today. Mr. Clark asked a respectful question of the government about its plan for economic recovery. The prime minister at the time, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, stood and, instead of slamming the opposition and impugning its motives, he said that the Liberals were hoping that the opposition would provide some constructive ideas that the government could include in its plan for economic recovery. That is the kind of openness we need today in our democracy.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about investing in research. The Conservative government, in its somewhat narrow view, is investing almost exclusively in applied research. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the general importance of investing in basic research.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.

Yes, we need to invest in applied research, but pure research—theoretical research—is what moves our society forward in the long term. It is that kind of research that incites the world's top researchers to come and work at our universities here in Canada. In turn, those researchers then motivate students from around the globe to come to study and work with them in Canada, and this all contributes to strengthening the research base we need in order to ensure a prosperous economy for the 21st century.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for noting a way that we can work together. We have asked the government to split the bill and to focus on many of the positives that could be in the budget.

The government has done very little when it comes to pensions. Would the hon. member elaborate a bit more on the supplementary Canada pension plan, which was part of the Liberal policies, and why it is so important for Canadians to have that opportunity?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague has been working extremely hard and diligently on developing a policy that would properly protect Canadians in retirement.

Many constituents in my riding worked for Nortel. Also some work for Air Canada. The message I get from them all the time is that they are worried. In the case of Nortel, they have taken a major hit in their pension because of that company's bankruptcy. However, some of my constituents work for big companies that are in financial difficulty and they are worried about the future of their pensions.

These Canadians are not looking for another private pension plan in which to invest. They want to invest in something solid that is risk-diversified and that has low administrative fees. By bringing in a supplemental CPP/QPP, we would be providing those people, my constituents, with an additional opportunity. We would expand choice, and that is a good thing.

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

Madam Speaker, I just received an official request for support from the Beauport women's resource centre, asking that the Women's Health Contribution Program be maintained. This program has existed for 16 years and provides evidence-based facts and vital information on women's health.

This organization and all women's health organizations are asking that this particular program be renewed. I would like to hear the member's thoughts on this.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is an important program that the government should neither neglect nor eliminate.

Our society and our economy are extremely complex. If we want progress, we need sound policies, policies based on research and data collection, so that we have a better understanding of the reality we are dealing with. Programs that support data collection and analysis make a positive contribution to society and, in this case, to the well-being of Canadian women.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour and a privilege for me to speak to this very important budget bill.

I listened to the speech of the member of the Liberal Party. One of the reasons I did not ask him a question was I thought he completely missed the intent is of the budget.

Let me just state what is most important about the budget. The budget has certain key points. One of them is to balance the budget. This is the promise we made to the electorate. We have fulfilled this promise by ensuring that our budget will be balanced by the year 2014-15.

How do we balance the budget? It is very simple. We are cutting inefficiencies in the government. That is why the government tasked the committees for the departments to come out with efficiencies so we could operate efficiently, with a reduction of 10% in their expenditures. At the same time, we are ensuring that the regime of doing business and ensuring our core services are maintained. It is very important that we have a sound, economical management of our economy.

I have many facts from economists who state that this budget looks to the future of Canada by ensuring it is on a path to prosperity.

As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, this gives me the very rare privilege to travel overseas on behalf of Canada at international conferences. What did I learn from that? A lot of people were asking this one very simple question. During the turmoil taking place in international markets, in the U.S.A., in Europe, everywhere, the question everybody asked was how we managed not to fall into that severe recession. They were very impressed with what was happening with Canada. Our economy is tied to the U.S.A., which is one of the largest economies going through recession. Europe is going through a recession. Yet Canada did not feel the severe effects of the recession. Why? Because the government took proactive steps to ensure that we were insulated from all the aftershocks that took place around the world.

The credit goes to both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for steering the economy during this critical time since 2008 and for creating over 700,000 jobs. In comparison with all the others, we are sitting in a position where we are not feeling the tremors of the international markets that are taking place.

If we leave that to the anti-trade NDP party, we would feel those tremors. If we leave that to the Liberal Party, we do not know where it is going. We had a debate in the House about giving pensions to self-employed. Guess what? The Liberal Party opposed that.

Clearly we need sound financial management, and this government has provided that.

Let us see what happened this weekend in Europe. The elections in Europe will have a tremendous effect because people have voted for more expenditures. The situation Greece faces today will have a national impact. In case my colleagues on the other side did not bother to watch the report on their favourite television channel, the CBC, because Greece's economy has collapsed, its great Olympic athletes will be unable to attend the Olympics.

That is why it is very important to ensure we never get into that situation taking place in Europe or in Greece. In fact, we are quite concerned with what is going on in France. Hopefully, it will address that issue.

In the Daily Telegraph, the finance minister said quite clearly, in talking about the crisis in Europe, that Canada was taking care and looking after its own house. This budget is about that. He said that there should not be an IMF bailout for the Europeans. The Europeans have the same ability as Canada to look after their house. They should be doing that and not asking for money from the International Monetary Fund, or from other countries, to bail them out because they do not have their house in order.

We should take lessons from what has gone on in Europe to ensure that those conditions do not exist in Canada. This budget is about that.

Everyone will be debating the budget. We have heard the opposition. Since we have been in government, we always expect the NDP to oppose us. I am quite happy when it does because it means we have done something right.

As for the Liberal Party, when it tried to balance the budget, it dumped all of its expenditures onto the provinces, creating a severe problem. Then it suddenly said that it had balanced the budget. This government is not going in that direction.

Our government is taking one of the strongest steps by cutting expenditures by 10%. That impacts everyone. That is the way it should go, cutting expenditures and getting our house in order so we live within our means. That is the most important thing. Then when we live within our means, we are able to fund core policies, policies that are very dear to Canadians, such as health care and the Canada pension plan. All of the policies require sound investments. That is what we will do once we move on this path.

By the year 2014-15, we will balance our budget. We will be living within our means without cutting core principal programs. Sure there have been some job losses. Everyone in the world feels a little pain with cuts. However, the economy will remain strong and everyone will be able to readjust and get those jobs back. That is the key element.

As recently as two weeks ago, when I was with my colleague in Trinidad, I talked to its finance minister. He was quite surprised that we had cut government expenditures by 10%. He told his colleagues that a G8 country was cutting expenditures so it could balance its budget and that was something they should learn. That is what Canada is doing. With sound economic management, we are sending the message to other countries around the world to bring their houses in order so the world economic situation can come back to normal and they will not feel threatened with both the uncertainty in Europe as well as the U.S.A.

It is critically important to understand what the budget will do in the long term. The readjustment is fine. At least inefficiencies are being removed. Does the opposition not think we should bring our house in order? Should we not balance the budget? Should we not live within our means and ensure we maintain that? That is the aim of this budget. I hope the opposition will wake up and see that this is the right budget for our country.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about a visionary budget.

What does that vision have to say about the 100,000 manufacturing jobs lost since 2008? Over 400,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector, and those were good jobs. Because of those job losses, Canada, which is a petroleum exporter, now has to import refined gasoline. That is what things have come to. What does that vision have to say about giving up on wealth creation? There is nothing in the budget about reviving the manufacturing sector, a wealth-creating sector. What does their economic vision have to say about that?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely amazed at the question the gentleman asked. Since 2008, a tremendous amount of money in stimulus packages was given to the manufacturing industries in Ontario and Quebec. He can see that. There were stimulus packages that kept us out of the recession. As a matter of fact, for his information, we created 700,000 jobs. It was not for only one portion of the country; it was for the whole country. His leader just talked about the oil sands resource sector in Alberta as if it will not benefit Canada. We work for all of Canada, not just one area of Canada.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary and I worked together on foreign affairs issues, and he has a long experience in these matters. In fact, I had the privilege to travel to Tanzania years ago with my hon. friend, and we went to the high school in Arusha from which he had graduated not so long ago. He is still a young man. That is why I want to ask him a question that is very important to my constituents and the people who live in rural communities across Atlantic Canada.

The issue of seasonal work is a huge problem in my constituency. People work in fish plants, forestry and agriculture, and they depend on an employment insurance system to give them some income support at times of the year when there is no work. I am very worried about some of the proposed changes in this budget around defining what, for example, the compliance elements would be for somebody receiving employment insurance and perhaps having an obligation to travel a great distance to accept employment in some other part of the country or some other part of the same region.

I suspect this is a very insidious thing that the Conservative government may be doing, and I am wondering if my colleague, who comes from Alberta, may be able to reassure the seasonal workers in New Brunswick that they will not be attacked by his government.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I can tell him in no uncertain terms that we are not going to be attacking seasonal workers. We know there are four seasons in Canada, and we understand the need for seasonal workers. Therefore, seasonal workers play a very critical, important part of the economy. To ignore seasonal workers would derail our vision of long-term prosperity in this budget completely.

It was a great pleasure travelling with my hon. friend and his father, the late hon. Governor General of Canada, but I want to say that eastern Canadians should be thankful for working in the Alberta oil sands and making our country better. We are looking forward to more people from eastern Canada going to Alberta because we live in one country, Canada, while the leader of the NDP talks only about his region. Therefore, yes, we will look after seasonal workers, but we welcome workers from eastern Canada working in the oil sands, contributing to the wealth not only of Alberta but all of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, it gives me no great pleasure today to talk about Bill C-38, given its content.

Over the past few days, many people have expressed outrage over this bill, which is not only the budget implementation bill, but also an omnibus bill that the papers have described as “mammoth”. This bill contains an assortment of poison pills. Yesterday I slipped up and used a mixed metaphor when I said, “poisoned snakes”. But actually, the government is trying to force a bunch of snakes down our throats. This bill is riddled with poison pills.

I understand the people who say that they are outraged by Bill C-38, and I sympathize with them. However, we cannot say that we are surprised by the way the Conservatives are acting because this is far from the first time that they have introduced a bill full of poison pills. What is more, they have pulled a stunt like this before with another budget implementation bill. You were a member of Parliament at that time, Madam Speaker, and you will surely remember how the government in power, a minority government, introduced a budget implementation bill that, for example, did away with public servants' right to strike, jeopardized pay equity and abolished public financing of political parties.

At that time, the government thought that none of the opposition parties would dare to force an election on the basis of such issues. Yes, the opposition parties took a stand. The Prime Minister at the time had no choice but to prorogue Parliament. Imagine. To avoid being defeated, he undemocratically prorogued Parliament and shut down the House. Once again, this was a major crisis triggered by this government. Thus, we cannot be surprised by the way this government is acting; however, that does not mean that we should not denounce this type of behaviour.

Yesterday, media representatives asked me what the point was, since the Conservatives have a majority and will do whatever they want. Personally, I think that, if the bill were split, as we and the official opposition have already requested, every committee affected by these measures could examine the bills individually. Thus, each committee would not be required to consider a huge bill that is over 400 pages long and affects approximately 70 existing laws, and to push it through as quickly as possible. If we took the time to examine each of the measures, we would have the opportunity to discuss them and to have people testify in committee, which would change things. Canadians and some activist groups can, from time to time, find a way to counter the government's regressive attitude.

As I was saying earlier, there are a number of measures in the implementation bill that have nothing to do with the budget. Some of these measures were a complete surprise, such as the increase in the retirement age from 65 to 67 and changes to the famous Bank Act, on page 340 of Bill C-38, a measure that once again is compelling Quebec to intervene.

Quebec's justice minister, Jean-Marc Fournier, wrote a letter on April 19 to Canada's Minister of Finance, stating that the minister was once again opening the door to a legal battle between Quebec and Ottawa. The budget implementation bill contains a section on banks, which would no longer be subject to Quebec's consumer protection law. Once again, Ottawa knows best, and Quebec's consumer protection law, which is tougher than the federal law, will no longer apply.

I would like to quote part of Minister Fournier's letter in order to show the extent to which the federal government is interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions. This is what Mr. Fournier wrote to the finance minister:

...we wish to inform you of our concerns with respect to your proposal. The federal Parliament cannot decide in a peremptory manner that provincial laws do not apply to a given sector.

That is clear, quite clear, thank you. It slipped under the radar. The Bloc Québécois rose in the House to ask this question when its members finished scouring through this thick bill. The Bloc got its hands on Minister Fournier's letter to the Minister of Finance. It is completely unacceptable that Quebec may be forced to go to court again, as it did recently on bills such as the Senate reform bill and the bill to end the long gun registry. It has come to this.

That is how relations between Ottawa and Quebec, and probably between Ottawa and other provinces, are run. The dispute with Aveos, for example, affects Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec and those provinces have decided to turn to the courts to make the federal government listen to reason. This is no way to manage things. I would like Quebec to become a country so that we can manage our affairs the way we see fit. We would not have this type of problem with this Canadian government that does not listen to reason and always wears blinkers when it comes to the rights and jurisdictions of the provinces, including those of Quebec.

If, like Minister Fournier, who is a federalist Liberal in Quebec City, we are saying that we do not see ourselves reflected in this Canada, then there is a problem. I think that the government has to realize that.

This bill amends the Bank Act. That should be a whole bill unto itself that we could discuss at length ahead of time. Instead this bill is getting lost among a hodgepodge of other measures that have nothing to do with the budget implementation bill.

We are also going to run into problems with regard to food inspection. I was privileged to be a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for a number of years, including during the crisis that was triggered by an incident at an Ontario company where the food inspection process had failed. Unfortunately, 22 people died of listeriosis. We all remember when that happened in 2008. It sent shock waves across Canada and even around the world, because Canada had always had an excellent reputation when it comes to food inspection. We were affected by this type of problem as well.

At the time, the government wanted the companies to handle food inspection themselves. It was not enough for this government to disregard the recommendations in Ms. Weatherill's report; now it has decided to use this budget implementation bill to reduce the number of inspectors. I think that public health is far more important than any savings that might result from cutting the number of inspectors.

To our great surprise, this has been included in a budget implementation bill. It should be up to the Standing Committee on Health and the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to examine these issues if the government wants to make any changes to food inspection. It has no business hiding them in Bill C-38.

The bill also includes ridiculous things concerning the Governor General, for instance. The Bloc Québécois strongly believes that the Governor General should pay income tax, just like everyone else in Canada. The government simply replied that, from now on, the Governor General would pay taxes. Then it doubled his salary. This has been included in Bill C-38. His salary is being increased from $137,500 tax free to $270,602 and, in the end, the Governor General is going to make more money than he did before. This behaviour is insulting.

This bill also talks about the oil sands. Furthermore, it officially buries the Kyoto protocol. Regarding the oil sands, the budget confirms—as though it needed to—the Conservatives' desire to accelerate the development of the oil sands. For instance, division 1 of part 3 enacts a whole new piece of legislation on environmental protection, whose purpose is to expedite the approval of large projects, particularly those involving oil sands exploitation. Why is this in a budget bill? One has to wonder. It is up to Environment Canada and the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to examine these issues.

There are many other measures like that. It is clear that we formally and strongly oppose Bill C-38, as so many people do. This bill needs to be split so these issues can be examined separately.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member. I have a question regarding environmental assessment. The bill before us is completely and absolutely new.

We have the repeal of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It was brought in in the early 1990s. It replaced a federal guidelines order that was brought in in 1984. It replaced the federal custom of doing environmental reviews where federal money was involved in a review. Therefore, going back to the 1970s, the federal government has always done an environmental assessment whenever federal money was involved.

As I read this new law, that provision is removed for good. Has my hon. colleague noted that as a deficiency in the so-called new environmental assessment law?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the leader of the Green Party, for her question.

Indeed, one of the most disgraceful parts of the budget implementation bill is the one that speeds up environmental assessments and allows the federal government to abdicate its responsibilities. This is not only a disgrace but a real scandal.

Every province pays taxes to ensure that the environmental assessment process for development projects is monitored. Now, all of a sudden, not only does the government want to speed up these projects by having less monitoring, but, from now on, it also wants to wash its hands of any responsibility for that monitoring. So the process will be faster and the government will not provide any oversight whatsoever.

This is one of the reasons why we are saying that these parts of the budget implementation bill must be removed and each one sent to the committees involved. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources and the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in particular could examine the bills that pertain to the environment so that people can come and testify about the importance of environmental monitoring of development projects.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague agrees with me that fair wages benefit the whole community and that no one gains or benefits when we drive down the wages of the middle class, so that they can no longer participate in the economy and purchase basic household items, et cetera.

What is my colleague's view with respect to the Conservatives eliminating, by virtue of Bill C-38, the Fair Wages and Hours of Work Act, which sets minimum standards for the construction industry right across the country? Now it would drive down wages because jobs can be offered at any wage at all. Some non-union contractors could advertise, “Wanted: Carpenters, $10 an hour”, and no one would apply. Then they would phone and get temporary foreign workers in at any price. This is opening the door to reducing the standard of wages and working conditions of all construction workers across the country by virtue of slipping this in without any announcement, any debate or any consultation whatsoever. It is driving down fair wages.

Does my colleague not agree that fair wages benefit the whole community and that undermining working people's wages benefits no one but the Conservatives' rich friends in the construction industry?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre raised a good point. I would like to thank him for pointing that out to people because that is the major problem with this bill. It contains a whole bunch of measures that nobody will ever hear about. In fact, we never heard about them before the bill was introduced.

So many measures have been added to this bill—I call them poison pills—that we have to make sure people are aware of what is looming in front of them, as the member for Winnipeg Centre pointed out. This is a real sword of Damocles for many people.

However, what he just said comes as no surprise. This Conservative government has always had an ideological concept of the economy. It is all about cheap labour. Here is one example. The member for Beauce, who is now a minister, did nothing when a bicycle manufacturer in his own riding closed its doors. Those people, libertarians certainly, are guided by the philosophy that if one industry shuts down—even if that means 250 or 300 jobs lost—it is no big deal because another will take its place.

Obviously, that is not how we see things. We do not think that the government should jump in feet first whenever something goes wrong with the economy, but there are ways to intervene in order to save jobs.

Do we have to say that our bicycles will have to come from Taiwan or China? No, we can make bicycles here. We can put measures in place to save Canadian jobs and make sure they pay well.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here this morning to deliver remarks on Bill C-38.

First and foremost, before we go into the detail of the bill, I would like to point out a couple of things. I would like to give deserved credit to the Minister of Finance. He has delivered budget after budget and has really, in the early years of our government, reduced taxes to put more dollars in the back pockets of hard-working Canadians, over $3,000 more for the average family income. In addition, the tax freedom day comes more than 20 days earlier than it did in 2005.

Certainly, in the early years of the government, we have made several initiatives to reduce the tax burden placed on Canadians and, as well, on Canadian corporations to reduce their costs and reinvest those dollars in people, plants and equipment.

In 2008-09, when we were facing severe economic downturn, our Minister of Finance was there to provide stimulus to the Canadian economy to get us through a very difficult time. As we look at where we are today, both in our economy and with our country's finances, we see we are in excellent shape relative to other industrialized developed nations.

Credit should definitely go to the Minister of Finance for putting us in the place we are and also for looking forward, in the near term, to a near balanced budget in 2014-15.

That really lays the context for where we are today and where we will be with budget 2012-13 as it applies to hard-working Canadian families. This budget is a balanced budget in the fact that it remains committed to transfers to the provinces in the form of transfers for health, in addition to social programs. These programs are the fabric of what makes us Canadians and what makes us unique relative to the rest of the world.

In addition to that, we have also made some tough choices to reduce our long-term operating expenses, $5 billion-plus in long-term ongoing reductions in operating costs, which will really set our country on a foundation of success for many years to come.

As we look to Europe and other developed nations that are facing massive deficits, debts and the fear of reduced credit ratings, we see that Canada remains in the elite position of having the top credit rating, which sets our country up for success in the future.

In addition, we have also made strategic investments for the future in research and development, science and innovation that will continue to push forward and lead our country into the rest of the century.

Getting into Bill C-38, I will highlight a couple of points that I think are good changes, good adjustments. The first one is a change to the registered disability savings program. This was a program that was brought in in 2008. It was tremendously popular, with more than 55,000 new accounts being opened and having dollars invested. In addition to that, our government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of grants into the registered disability savings program.

I should just mention that every three years this program is due for renewal and review. In 2011 a review was done and a report was tabled. The changes will be implemented in time. One of the issues that arose with the program is the issue around the disabled person who is actually unable to enter into a contract or is challenged to be competent to enter into a legal contract. This presented an issue.

Many provinces, where the jurisdiction lies for presuming somebody to be competent or not to enter into a contract, brought it into question. Many families were actually having to go the legal route to have a loved one deemed incompetent, which can be expensive and also heart-wrenching for the families.

Some provinces have worked to streamline this process to appoint what they would consider a trusted person, whether it be a spouse, friend, relative, son or daughter. The provinces have taken this initiative to streamline the process for the betterment of the disabled people as well as their family and loved ones.

British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador have all taken this initiative. I think we should tip our cap to them for doing it. My home province of Ontario has not done it to date, and I would encourage the McGuinty government to work hard to get that done so we can speed up the process to get the money into the accounts of these disabled people and set a better course and path for their future.

Another topic I would like to talk about rings true in the riding I represent, Huron—Bruce, which is likely one of the most beautiful ridings in Canada. There is no doubt about that. It has beautiful agriculture, rolling landscapes and Lake Huron. It is two and a half hours from the north to the south of the riding. It is very beautiful. There are streams, rivers and creeks that we all appreciate and use to kayak, canoe, fish or whatever one likes to do. However, one issue that has continued to rear its head for farmers and farm communities is the issue around municipal drains: building, implementing and cleaning out municipal drains.

We can go back a few years and look at all the different groups that would be involved with either cleaning out a municipal drain or building one. Members will remember that we changed the Navigable Waters Protection Act so that Transport Canada would not be involved as it had been in the past. However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would be involved as well as conservation authorities, engineers, contractors, drainage inspectors, quite likely the municipal or country roads officials and on and on. Members can see the litany of people and entities that were involved in either building or cleaning out a drain.

A couple of years ago, our government made adjustments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act so that farmers were no longer required to make a case that their ditch was not a navigable water in which one could take a kayak. That was a positive change that helped farmers. Now it is time to change the Fisheries Act, so we can make adjustments for farmers who are putting in or cleaning out their municipal drains.

This is an important change because when farmers make an investment to buy a piece of land they need to get it drained, if it is not already drained, so they can get their crops in and get the highest possible return on their investment. It is very critical and very important.

Another key point we need to look at in the history of this issue is that about 11 years ago conservation authorities signed agreements with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to streamline this process. In my riding of Huron—Bruce, the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority and the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority signed such agreements. This has been refined and revised through the years to the point now where conservation authorities perform 96% of the functions. It only comes in at the very narrowest of areas that DFO is involved and its biologists are utilized. However, this 4% likely creates 99% of the delays and problems with putting a municipal drain in or even getting it cleaned out.

It should also be noted that in our area of Huron—Bruce, most municipal drains run dry around the end of May or the beginning of June. We do not see much water of any magnitude and certainly no aquatic life, no fish, at any point through this time.

This is a good change that is reducing red tape. I know that the farmers in our area are very happy about it, as well as the engineers. Conservation authorities are happy about it because it is taking out a layer that is very cumbersome to the process. I tip my cap to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for making this change and providing support to our farming community.

One last change I would like to talk about has to do with CMHC and the steps we have taken with covered bonds to protect our government and the insurance we provide for people who buy homes and enter into CMHC financing. This change would enable attaching a bond to a security to prevent what we saw in the United States with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is certainly a timely and well-received change.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague has plowed deep down into Bill C-38 and realized the broad, sweeping implications that it has, implications that were never announced and about which there has been no consultation or even debate.

One that concerns me very much is the repeal of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act for the construction industry. It used to be that this particular act maintained some level playing field between the unionized and the non-unionized sectors so that companies would win their jobs based on their merit, productivity, skill and competitiveness.

Now, with the elimination of—

[A hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, somebody seems to be yelling at me.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has the floor.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering who the member thinks would benefit from driving down construction industry wages, because now, without the protection of this legislation that has been in effect for 75 years, the non-union sector—the merit shop and the CLAC—can pay anybody anything, and a unionized contractor would never be able to win another contract because of the unfair advantage. Then, if nobody answers the call for $10-an-hour carpenters, they get temporary foreign workers. The government is driving down the middle class's ability to consume, and that is the biggest advantage to our economy. Whose benefit is that?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my opinion is that the member's form of logic is nonsense. In my riding of Huron—Bruce, Bruce Power has just completed one of the largest infrastructure programs with the refurbishment of two reactors. The member's comments are complete nonsense. The project needed thousands of skilled workers and well-paid workers.

If we go on the Internet today and look up all the companies in Alberta and Saskatchewan and northern British Columbia, we will find tens of thousands of open positions ready to be filled, so this whole idea that somehow there will be reduced wages does not hold any water. It does not make any sense and it is just another example of what we would be faced with if we ever had to have a New Democrat government in Canada. Then we should look out.

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

Mr. Speaker, something Canadians are just beginning to understand is that this budget implementation act goes far beyond anything that was in the budget announced by the Minister of Finance. One of the things that I find quite surprising for a government that has been struggling with its lack of transparency around the F-35 fiasco and missing, somehow, $10 billion in procurement costs is that in this bill, one of the single largest moves to restrict accountability is a broad reduction in the oversight powers of the Auditor General. This bill would eliminate mandatory Auditor General oversight of financial reporting in about a dozen agencies under the government.

I would like to ask the hon. member this: why would you want less transparency and less accountability, when in fact you used to campaign on just the opposite? What happened?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this government is the most transparent government in the history of any government in this country. I will just use one example.

I am a member of the veterans affairs committee. It is this government that brought in the ombudsman for veterans affairs, so we do not need to take any lessons from the NDP on transparency. I would like to bring a point up to the member who just asked the question, because she used to be associated with the CAW. In my riding the CAW has built an industrial wind turbine in Port Elgin that strictly violates the current Green Energy Act.

I would ask the hon. member this: why do you not call up your boss and ask him to get on board and start protecting the people in the communities? There are over 200 homes in Port Elgin that are going to be directly impacted. They are clearly within the 550-metre setback of the Green Energy Act. Call your boss.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will just remind hon. members to direct their questions and comments through the chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to express the anger and frustration that I and many people in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles feel with the tabling of this budget implementation bill.

Bill C-38, the bill to implement the budget, is a profoundly illegitimate bill. The Prime Minister promised to govern on behalf of all Canadians after the last election. In fact, however, with this budget, we see that the Prime Minister is governing for oil companies and mining companies, not for taxpayers. He is not governing for working people, for families, for seniors, for veterans, for people who are unemployed, for farmers or for people who work in manufacturing industries.

I have also met with Aveos workers in my riding who are worried, because they have been laid off and have no way of supporting their families. They are outraged at the Conservative government’s track record since the last election, which amounts to a lot of back-to-work legislation but no support for working people and their families.

When it comes to providing unreasonable subsidies for big business, the government shows no hesitation, but when Canadian workers lose well-paid jobs, there is total silence from this government. We saw the same thing in the case of the Electro-Motive Diesel employees in London, Ontario.

There are other reasons why this budget concerns me, however. It is obvious that the Prime Minister's agenda was not laid out for Canadians. In the last election, the Conservatives were very careful not to tell voters that they would be taking their axe to the Environmental Assessment Act, that they would be going back on Canadians’ word on the Kyoto protocol, that they would be cutting employment insurance benefits and services to veterans, and especially that they would be pushing Canadians’ retirement age back two years.

How can the government claim to have the consent of the public when it concealed such fundamental aspects of its political agenda from them?

This brings me to another point: the government is adding insult to injury by including a series of provisions in the budget implementation bill that have nothing to do with the budget—provisions relating to the Kyoto protocol, environmental assessment, food safety, the powers of the Auditor General, assisted reproduction, oversight of the intelligence service and protection of fish habitat, to name just a few.

This bill can be described as containing everything but the kitchen sink. It is wholly improper for the government to include these provisions in a catch-all bill in the hope that it can slip them past parliamentarians unnoticed. This approach prevents parliamentarians from exercising the oversight that it is their job to exercise.

A modicum of decency would require that we split the bill to allow the Standing Committee on Finance to study the budget measures and other committees to study the measures contained in Bill C-38. The government refused this reasonable suggestion made by the official opposition. What does it have to hide?

Finally, in addition to short-circuiting Parliament by introducing an omnibus budget bill, the Conservatives have decided to steamroll Bill C-38 through. The government has used its majority to limit debate in the House to seven days.

Imagine. Just seven days to study a 431-page bill with 750 clauses that amend 70 laws. That is unprecedented.

Journalist Manon Cornellier called bill C-38 a mammoth budget. I do not know if she was referring to the size of the bill or the prehistoric nature of the measures it contains, but she is concerned, and with good reason, about how it will affect our democracy. I would like to quote her:

At this rate...the Conservatives will succeed in transforming Parliament into a theatre for political posturing. It will be a shadow of the democratic institution it is meant to be, a place where elected members are supposed to be the voice of the people. What a sorry spectacle.

I commissioned a poll of 100,000 constituents in the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and I can tell you that the main elements of the Conservative budget do not pass muster.

Some 73% of the population of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles opposes raising the retirement age from 65 to 67, and 60% believes that the spike in the costs of the old age security system will be offset by increased government revenues.

The people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles are not fools. Like the Parliamentary Budget Officer and many economists, they know that the public pension system is viable and capable of dealing with the retirement of all the baby boomers.

In contrast to the provisions of this budget, which will reduce the benefits of thousands of unemployed workers, 50% of the residents of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles are calling for improvements to the employment insurance system. Finally, 75% of the people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles condemn the withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol, as the government is proposing in Bill C-38.

This all clearly demonstrates that this budget and the budget implementation bill are completely out of touch with the priorities of the people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and that the Prime Minister can in no way claim to be governing on behalf of the people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

What is most shocking about Bill C-38 is that this budget bill does not include any measures for job creation. Indeed, the only employment strategy included is the Conservatives' attempt to placate businesses by eliminating environmental protections. So what if we are jeopardizing our future by destroying the environment?

Bill C-38 is an unprecedented attack on the environment. It gets rid of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, an organization responsible for advising the government on sustainable development. It also repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which required the federal government to comply with international greenhouse gas reduction targets and to report its progress.

If Bill C-38 is passed, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will be gutted. The public consultation process will be reduced to a rubber-stamping operation to satisfy gas, oil and mining companies. Cabinet will give itself the power to green-light projects even if the agency responsible for environmental assessment recommends that they not go ahead.

This bill gives the government the power to suppress charities, including environmental groups, that are too critical of the government. Bill C-38 is intended to silence the environmental movement.

On May 22, I was proud to be one of 400,000 Quebeckers who marched through the streets of Montreal to protest the backward environmental policies of this Prime Minister and his government. Clause 699, which repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act with no reason or explanation, is buried on page 401 of the bill now before us. That is insulting.

I would also like to take a few minutes to talk about automatic registration for the guaranteed income supplement. We know that 135,000 Canadians and 45,000 Quebeckers are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, but they do not receive it because the government is not doing everything it can to reach them.

To remedy this problem that has been going on for years, I introduced a bill on March 15 to force the government to contact those who are entitled to this supplement. During the budget speech, we learned that the government was considering implementing a proactive enrolment system for old age security benefits and the guaranteed income supplement.

Clause 454 of Bill C-38 states that, from now on:

(3.1) The Minister may, in respect of a person, waive the requirement...for an application for payment of a supplement...if...the Minister is satisfied, based on information available to him or her under this Act, that the person is qualified under this section for the payment of a supplement.

I must say that I am disappointed by the very restrictive wording used. At first glance, it seems very limiting since it implies that Service Canada has to have a file on the people who may be eligible. That does not solve the problem for people whom Service Canada is unaware of but who are known by other departments, such as Revenue Canada or Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

In my opinion, the government's measures do not solve the problem of red tape needlessly imposed on those entitled to benefits. It may mean, for example, that the government will continue to require proof of marital status, when Revenue Canada already has that information.

I would like to summarize my ideas. I believe that the government, out of respect for Canadians and democratic institutions, should at least submit Bill C-38 to public debate and let the opposition do its job.

Bill C-38must be split to allow the appropriate committees to study it. For this reason, and others mentioned in my speech, I strongly oppose Bill C-38.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I know the hon. member has a huge interest and a lot of expertise in the environment, I will ask her a couple of questions.

The bill would change or repeal almost all of the federal environmental legislation to date. It is a massive deregulation. It would inadequately protect fish and wildlife habitat. It would mean less democracy for environmental decisions. There is hit back against non-profit organizations. It also would weaken the laws to keep Canadians and our communities, our land, air, water, ecosystems and species safe.

Is this the way we should be going in balancing economic and environmental priorities in Canada? What would she and the NDP do to greatly improve the bill and help with these serious concerns?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of serving with my colleague on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, so I know he is also familiar with these issues.

When we look at Bill C-38, we know that it would have numerous negative consequences for our fisheries. It would change the rules around fish habitat protection and the deposit of deleterious substances in fish bearing waters.

Having served on the environment committee, it has become clear to me that the government does not have a clear understanding of how biodiversity works. It does not have a clear understanding of the fact that we need to protect species of fish that are not necessarily fish that are exploited by fisheries, because these fish belong to an ecosystem that is interdependent among species. We see that there is not a lot of expertise on the government side on this issue.

We take issue with the fact that the bill would increase ministerial discretion when it comes to our fisheries and would give sweeping powers to the minister to transfer authority to the provinces or other bodies to allow for fisheries management. This is something that is of great concern to my constituents and to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent remarks and for her work in the House generally.

I would like to raise with her the issue, which I do not seem to be able to get an answer from the Conservatives on, of accountability. Many areas in the budget implementation bill have nothing to do with the budget. The environment, of course, is a key piece of that.

However, something that is really troubling Canadians is the changes that would reduce the transparency and accountability of the government, such as the elimination of Auditor General oversight from about a dozen agencies within the federal government. It seems to me that if we want to have clear accountability with an independent financial review, most Canadians look to the Auditor General.

Could the member help us understand why, in her opinion, the federal government is eliminating this clear accountability for Canadians by eliminating the Auditor General's oversight from so many government agencies?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her comments and her question.

I would like to mention some of the organizations affected by these changes. The Auditor General will no longer examine the activities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, or the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. These are rather important organizations that look after Canadians' health, food and transportation.

We are very concerned that this government is attempting to undermine the transparency of Parliament. This also prevents us from doing our job, which is to provide oversight. The government is trying to destroy the tools we use to do that.

Bill C-38 disbands the Public Appointments Commission, which will significantly reduce the transparency of the public appointments process. This is very worrisome and is the reason why we will be voting against Bill C-38.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to address the House today. I will begin by asking members to imagine what we, as legislators, might do if we wanted to ruin the Canadian economy, if we wanted the men and women of this great nation to have less opportunity, not more, and if we wanted families and communities to lose hope in tomorrow.

Since governments derive their power to control from the power to tax, we would start here. To begin, a government out to wreck our economy would enact a carbon tax, thereby driving up the cost of all goods and services paid by consumers. At the same time, personal income taxes would rise, shrinking the take-home pay of Canadian workers, making it uneconomical to work for an extra $1 of income, say, by taking an overtime shift. Also, business tax rates would increase, boosting the cost of investment and making our nation less competitive next to our trading partners. If any citizen believed he or she should be able to keep more income from his or her hard work or risk-taking, the individual would be called greedy.

Next, that government would drive up the spending to levels beyond what taxpayers or even the economy could manage. It would table budget after budget that recorded nothing but red ink as far as the eye could see. It would issue billions of dollars of debt backed by paper IOUs. Those deficits would go up every year and we would be told that all that debt was a necessary investment and a small price to pay for nirvana. That t ruinous government would proclaim this was all being done for the greater good, in the name of fairness and building tomorrow's economy. Should taxpayers think this was the road to serfdom, they would be thought of as uncompassionate.

Lastly, regulations would be enacted to stop the development of our natural resources, even though this abundant gift of nature fuelled Canada's growth. Environmentalism would no longer be about conservation but anti-development and statism. These prophets of doom would urge costly government solutions to our problems. Instead of relying on free markets and the ingenuity of mankind, they would create phony markets that buy and sell carbon credits as part of a cap and trade scheme.

Other proposals to make Canada a poor nation would be a draconian reduction in our energy consumption by a third almost overnight, throwing thousands of people out of work to comply with an international agreement that does not require the world's biggest carbon producers to reduce their emissions. If Canada failed to hit its domestic targets, a government bent on hurting the Canadian worker would pay out billions and billions of tax dollars to nations exempt from making carbon reductions under the very same flawed Kyoto protocol. All this, Canadians would be told, would be done in the name of progress.

Political and environmental groups would receive funding and tax concessions paid by our tax dollars, tax dollars that ought to pay for social programs but do not. That ruinous government, along with environmentalists, would push to shut down producers of abundant cheap energy. Fear-mongering, one asks? Federal regulators were recently petitioned to shut Point Lepreau, which is the only nuclear plant in Atlantic Canada and a provider of affordable energy. The shale gas industry in my province is finding it nearly impossible to establish itself in the face of a reckless environmental campaign. All the while, the New Brunswick government collects tax dollar transfers that come from shale gas earnings in other provinces. Our young workers go west to work in the very same industries that cannot open at home and our communities are despondent that they are hollowing out and the schools emptying.

A government working to damage our economy would hand powers to unelected bureaucrats to control industrial output and enact rules that make it impossible to open new markets and start new businesses. It would make energy from windmills and solar panels appear economical by driving up the cost of power from oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear energy. It would work to de-legitimize the use of abundant natural resources at home and eventually ban the export of those resources to other consumers in other markets. We are already seeing evidence of this with the oil sands.

Finally, a government that wanted to hurt Canada and Canadians would attack the foundation of our economy, notwithstanding that where free markets have been adopted, the west, Japan, more recently eastern Europe, China and throughout Asia, millions have climbed out of poverty, which, it is so easy to forget, was the human condition for most of history. Where statism has triumphed, such as Greece, Spain, Cuba, parts of Africa, people suffer.

It really is not difficult to imagine these ruinous ideas becoming reality since they are, in one form or another, championed almost daily by the official opposition. Yet, we reject these policies. We understand that any government that is big enough to give us everything we need is also a government big enough to take away everything taxpayers have.

What our government is proposing in the 2012 budget is a low tax, low debt plan to keep Canadians working, to make Canada a place where businesses want to invest and to maintain our economic lead over other nations. It is a budget that puts us on track to eliminate the deficit. Voters sent us to Ottawa to manage the public finances the same way households and businesses administer their budgets; , prudently and with respect for the people paying the bills. This budget is a step toward a better government.

Total spending is not being cut this year. It will instead grow slightly by a modest 1.4%. If we listen to the opposition, its members are not proposing a serious alternative. In fact, they are proposing no alternative. We are seeking savings and efficiencies in a federal government that I believe is still too big and too bloated. They want an even bigger government and the inefficiencies and high taxes that come with it. Our focus is on delivering services and programs to Canadians with less bureaucracy. Their policy is more bureaucracy.

We should never apologize for streamlining government. Indeed, this is precisely why Canadian taxpayers sent us here. Of course, it would be easier to spend and spend more but to do so has a cost: higher taxes on ordinary families that make paying the household bills that much more difficult.

According to the Fraser Institute, a typical family makes $74,200 each year and already pays a whopping 41.5% of that, some $31,000, to one level of government or another. It is worth noting that Canadians pay more in tax than they do for shelter, food or transportation. That is why this side of the House believes taxes must be lowered. We recognize that government does not create wealth. It only consumes wealth others have created.

Instead of working to undermine Canadian workers, our plan will promote growth. It will remove burdensome regulation that hurt entrepreneurs and job creators. It will not raise taxes. It will finally wind down federal deficits. We owe it to Canadians to not let the reckless call for higher taxes and more spending coming from the opposition go unanswered or become a reality.

In fact, it is important that we stick to our pledge in the last election that we balance the budget by 2014, not 2015. We need to have a balanced budget so we can continue to bring in some much needed tax relief. Family income splitting is a promise we made to Canadians. We have an obligation to deliver on that promise.

Because of our many years as a minority government, we ended up having to campaign on the same promises two or even three times. Income splitting is a pro-family, pro-work promise I do not want to campaign on a second time.

Our Canada is one that is economically strong, creates opportunity and offers hard-working families a better tomorrow. We will continue to work for Canadians and remain focused on the economy.

Our economic action plan has Canada moving in the right direction. Next, we need to get our fiscal house in order and bring in some much needed tax relief to all Canadian families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would challenge what the member opposite has said. I think all members in this House want to ensure that tax dollars are well spent and that our government is efficient and effective at delivering the programs and services that Canadians want and need.

However, this budget implementation act we are debating contains so much more than financial measures. I would like to ask the member why, in the name of efficiency or any other measure, would the government want to remove the oversight of the Auditor General from a dozen agencies and thereby reducing accountability and transparency. What does the government have against transparency being provided by the Auditor General? That is something the Conservatives used to campaign on but in office they are doing exactly the opposite.

Could the member explain that to us?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am perhaps one of the biggest fans of the Auditor General of Canada. In the past, Sheila Fraser was a great champion for taxpayers and I have no doubt that the new Auditor General from my home province will do just as good a job.

Part of our challenge as a government is to deliver better results while watching how we spend money. There are changes that are being made that will result in dollars being spent differently but that does not mean taxpayers will receive less value or less oversight for that. We continue to have the oversight that we need from the Auditor General and I do not see that changing despite certain budget reductions that are in this document.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his republican-style speech. We just need to think back a few years ago to when the current Prime Minister stood in the House and said that a 30-page budget bill was disgraceful, that there was far too much in it. I am trying to understand how the Conservatives can now stand with a 400-page document full of all kinds of things, one of them being environmental changes to regulations that are clearly there to protect the interests of Canadians. The Conservatives are going to throw out all of those things in the name of expediting everything along the way.

The Conservatives will change OAS because they say that it is not sustainable, yet we know it is fully sustainable. This is just another choice that the government has made so it has less intrusion into the lives of people.

How can that member stand and say that his government is offering an alternative to Canadians, or protecting Canadians, when it is cutting out everything of value when it comes to protecting our country?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was an observer about 10 years ago when a Liberal prime minister told Canadians that if they did not like paying high taxes they could move elsewhere. That was the wrong thing to say to Canadians and it was certainly the wrong message to send to taxpayers at large. I also remember times in the past when the Liberals had not one budget but two in a single year.

We have come forward with a comprehensive budget that includes not only tax and spend measures, but also other economic measures that will keep this economy strong and keep people working.

I see nothing wrong with streamlining environmental review, working with the provinces in a collaborative manner, so we get the answers the first time and do not require multiple levels. I do not think the majority of taxpayers would see anything wrong as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is concerned about wasting taxpayer money. How does he feel about the increased amount of spending, like $8 million to go after charities that are already well-regulated under the existing charity act system?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

That was an excellent question, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the opportunity to answer it.

Any charity that is involved with any political activity should not receive the generous tax breaks that it does. When I was head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, an advocacy group, we also raised money, but we were unable to issue tax receipts to our supporters because we were involved with not partisan but political activity, trying to advocate a position.

If environmental groups want to engage in that kind of activity, they are absolutely free to do so, but they should not do so on the backs of Canadian taxpayers.

If we need these dollars to root out people who misuse the tax code, then I am okay with that because it will ensure we have a better democracy and a better tax system.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in opposition to Bill C-38, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

Let me be clear from the get-go. Not only do I rise in opposition to the Conservative budget, which is a backward step in so many ways for Newfoundland and Labrador and all of Canada, or then again step is not the right word, backward leap seems more appropriate for Newfoundland and Labrador and all of Canada, I also rise in opposition to those “other measures”. The bill is an omnibus bill, a massive bill, 421 pages long. It not only contains the means to implement the 2012 budget, but contains dozens of other measures buried in its pages, hidden in its pages, measures that have nothing to do with the budget, measures that include everything but the kitchen sink, from increasing the age of eligibility for old age pension to 67 from 65, to gutting the federal Fisheries Act, to ripping apart environmental legislation that may leave our country, when the Conservative government is done with it, in a mess.

I take back what I said a second ago about the kitchen sink. The sink just may be in the bill somewhere. Maybe that is why the Conservatives are so set on limiting debate. Maybe that is why the Conservatives are so set on ramming legislation through this esteemed House so quickly, legislation that was not even hinted at in the 2011 federal election, as a means to sneak through their secret agenda and to sidestep democracy.

I can tell members that the Conservatives will have a hard time getting anything past my party, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, try as they may. What is more, the Conservatives will have an even harder time getting anything past Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Canadians.

The Canadian public is starting to get a pretty good idea of what the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister are about. They are about big business and the corporate agenda at the expense of average Canadians, at the expense of the environment and at the expense of real, meaningful jobs.

The irony is the budget is described as a job-creating budget at the same time that it kills more than 19,000 federal public sector jobs.

The face of Canada is changing, and I have heard this in my riding, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Canadians do not like what they see in the Ottawa mirror. It is not who we are.

I have three perspectives on the Conservative budget implementation bill: the Newfoundland and Labrador perspective; the Atlantic perspective; and the national perspective.

I will speak about my own province first. Most people where I come from are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first and Canadians second. They will tell people that to their face if they are asked and even if they are not.

Bill C-38 would have a huge negative impact on my province with regard to federal job cuts. More of the federal jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador that we have are being moved to Halifax. We will lose more jobs and we have few already. The mayor of St. John's, Dennis O'Keefe, has gone so far as to say, “If this continues, we'll end up being a colonial outpost — not of Ottawa, but of Halifax”. He further said, “Maybe it's happened [so] often, since 1949 with Confederation, that we're used to getting a kick in the rear end”. The final quote from the good mayor was, “I don't mind if we got our fair share, but we've never had our fair share of federal jobs in this province, period”.

There is no doubt that there is resentment in my home province toward the Government of Canada. Our fishery has been destroyed under Ottawa's watch. The federal presence in my province is but a faint shadow of the federal presence in other provinces. Not a single federal crown corporation is headquartered in my province.

There is resentment toward Ottawa, but there is particular resentment toward the Conservative Prime Minister who, to quote my people, “is no friend of Newfoundland and Labrador”.

Let me highlight some of the federal jobs that would be lost in my province as a result of the latest Conservative budget.

The Veterans Affairs office in Corner Brook will be gone. The Canada Border Services Agency is losing its director in my province. While the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is trying to build its cruise ship industry, the federal Conservatives are doing their best to stop it dead in the water. Border Services is also losing its only dog, trained to sniff out drugs and guns in Newfoundland and Labrador. Maybe we could get some psychics to step forward and volunteer their time.

Seafood inspection provided by the Food Inspection Agency will move to Prince Edward Island. I can see the sense in that, though. The federal Conservatives have written off the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, so why not move food inspection to P.E.I.?

The St. John's food inspection lab is slated to close with transfers to other provinces. There are cuts to Marine Atlantic, which operates the Gulf of St. Lawrence ferry link, which will likely drive up the fares and the cost of everything. There are also cuts to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, although not in the federal riding of Labrador, which a Conservative member represents. It is all good there for some reason.

Public Internet will be shut down at 96 provincial libraries around Newfoundland and Labrador. Parks Canada is also cutting back at national parks and historic sites in Newfoundland and Labrador. While the province of Newfoundland and Labrador spends millions of dollars on tourism campaigns to try to get Canadians and the world, to come to Newfoundland and Labrador, the Conservatives cut back on the amount of time the parks are open and they increase ferry rates. I do not get that.

Cuts to the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans will amount to nearly $80 million by 2015. DFO is closing the marine rescue sub-centre in St. John's, transferring the jobs to Halifax and Ontario.

I do not know if all Canadians realize this, but Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have a unique dialect, a lot worse than mine and a lot better than mine. A skipper from outport Newfoundland, with seconds to send off a mayday before abandoning ship, may not be understood by a mainlander. That is the simple truth of it. Here is a quote from Merv Wiseman who works at the marine rescue sub-centre, and retires today. He said, “We know as professionals that people will die and we've expressed that view right on up the line, right up to the ministers themselves — to no avail”.

People will die. What could possibly be more important than the lives of our mariners? The answer is the dollar. The answer is a desire to stamp out a culture of defeat, as the Prime Minister has described us. I can tell the Prime Minister this. There is fight yet where I come from, and he will see that in 2015.

On a national level, the Conservatives are pushing through their plan to raise the eligibility age for old age pension and guaranteed income supplement to 67 from 65. That is not on with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They say that Canada is in danger of losing its soul. They say that Canada is in danger of losing her social programs that separate our great country from so many others. They do not like what they see in the Ottawa mirror. The Conservative face is a frightening face.

The budget implementation act will also see the word “habitat” removed from the Federal Fisheries Act. Let me quote from Otto Langer, a renowned fisheries scientists who came out against the changes to the act. More than 600 scientists actually came out against changes to the act. He said, “This proposed move by the Harper government is a travesty for our fishery resources and the health of the entire ecosystem and it ignores the needs of our future generations”.

A full one-third of Bill C-38 is dedicated to the gutting of environmental legislation and protection.

Again, Bill C-38 is an absolutely massive bill. What do the Conservatives do to ensure the debate is a healthy debate and in the best interests of the country they look after? The Conservatives limit debate and that is not good enough.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Just a reminder to all hon. members not to use proper names but to use the names of ridings or titles. This is something we encourage and it is a good habit for members in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to how the budget is going to have a tangible impact on Atlantic Canada in particular.

I think Canadians are aware that this budget is going to cut just over 19,000 civil servant jobs. That will have a significant impact on all Canadians from coast to coast. No doubt that in itself warrants a great deal of debate.

Towards the end of his remarks, the member made reference to the limitations that the government has put on debate on this budget bill.

That aside, the member spoke about environmental legislation.

There are some 70 different pieces of legislation that would be affected through the back door in passing this budget. I am wondering if the member might want to further comment on that? This is in essence an entire legislative agenda that the government is trying to sneak through the back door, which is a slap in the face to democracy. This is what the Prime Minister is doing by not respecting the need for due diligence and fair process in a democratic state.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member hit the nail on the head when he spoke about environmental legislation that is included in this omnibus bill. The Conservatives are trying to sneak this legislation through the back door. With everything in life, there has to be balance. The balance between economic development and the environment has been lost with the Conservative government. It is not being up front with the Canadian people.

If the government were doing things right, it would pull this environmental legislation out and we would debate it separately from this budget implementation bill. However, the Conservatives, more and more, have a tendency not to do things right.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians may be confused. They hear opposition members saying that with Bill C-38 the government is gutting environmental laws, and they hear the Conservative members of Parliament saying that they are strengthening the laws.

The reality is clear when we look at the legislation. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is repealed. An entirely new act of 67 pages replaces it, which lacks the fundamental elements that have been there since 1992 when that act was passed.

I would like to ask my hon. friend if, in looking at this bill in relation to Fisheries Act provisions and the protection of fisheries habitat, he has concerns that are particularly applicable to his community of Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have concerns. As a representative for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, for Newfoundland and Labrador, I have concerns about anything fisheries-related from the Government of Canada, from the Conservative government.

Our groundfish fisheries, fisheries for species such as cod and flounder, were wiped out 20 years ago. There are no rebuilding plans and no rebuilding targets under the government, for the last six years under the Conservative government and under Liberal governments before it.

I have a concern about anything fisheries-related because the trust in the government is not there. It is absolutely non-existent.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the main concerns that many have been raising in this House is that there are so many things in this act that have nothing to do with the budget. This is the first new budget that the government has brought in since the last election, and it has many things it never campaigned on.

The member has pointed out that there are many items in here that have nothing to do with the budget. I would like to ask him what he thinks will happen if members of the finance committee are responsible for examining changes to the Fisheries Act or other environmental changes? What does the member think could be the danger of that happening?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the danger, for example, of members of the finance committee examining changes to the Fisheries Act is that they would not have a clue what to look for. Again, it is part of the agenda and the reason why the Conservatives are doing it this way. They can sneak things through the back door, as the hon. Liberal member just mentioned.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to be given the opportunity to share with the House the widespread support of the constituents of Brampton—Springdale for economic action plan 2012. Leading up to the introduction of this budget, my constituents repeatedly applauded the Conservative government's focus and direction when it comes to our economy. Their support has never wavered. They trust and know that the Conservative government is the only choice when it comes to creating jobs and keeping our economy stable.

Before the budget was introduced, I held budget consultations and round tables and I spoke with thousands of constituents. There was a common theme during these conversations. Constituents wanted our government to look ahead not only for the next few years, but for generations to come.

My constituents understand the importance of looking forward when it comes to sustainability and growth. They understand and acknowledge that our country is changing. That is why they continue to stand side by side with our Conservative government. They want their children to grow up in an environment where opportunities are plenty. They have every reason to be confident in the Conservative government and economic action plan 2012. The constituents of Brampton—Springdale want opportunities. They want a government that will act in their best interest. They want a government that will take realistic, pragmatic and responsible action.

The measures contained in economic action plan 2012 are substantial, but they are reasonable and, more importantly, necessary. While others spend their time fear-mongering, the Conservative government is tackling the real issues head-on.

My constituents were appalled by opposition parties that, instead of supporting realistic measures that met the needs of all Canadians, wanted to take our economy down the wrong path. This is not what my constituents or Canadians in general need at this point. While other countries are facing the risk of long-term economic decline, Canada is in a position of opportunity. We are seizing that opportunity and making decisions that will position our nation for sustainable, long-term growth.

Brampton—Springdale is a diverse community that is home to thousands of hard-working families and Canadians who deserve to have a government that acts in their best interest. I vote for economic action plan 2012 because it is a practical strategy that ensures our economy will create good jobs and sustain a higher quality of life for generations to come.

The economic action plan was developed with all Canadians in mind. It proposes measures that would assist each and every one of my constituents, from seniors, children, students, families to workers in every industry. We are taking major steps forward that will build on the proven foundation that we have worked to lay since 2006.

The global economic landscape, along with the shifting environment in Canada, exemplifies the need to make important decisions. Instead of ignoring foreseeable problems such as the inevitable demographic changes in Canada, we are taking action that will allow Canada to avoid these dangers. We are also working to seize new opportunities for today and for the future.

Throughout the past year I have had the opportunity to speak with thousands of constituents about our economy and where our country is headed. What is remarkable is the fact that although this riding was held by a Liberal for many years, the constituents have praised our government for keeping taxes low and creating jobs in some of the toughest economic climates. They have expressed their appreciation for the Conservative government's focus and determination.

Brampton—Springdale is a community that is part of a growing city. The city of Brampton is home to more than 8,000 businesses and employs approximately 153,000 hard-working Bramptonians. These companies, entrepreneurs, workers and families depend on the government to ensure that their futures are brighter. I am always proud to tell others about Brampton's small business, manufacturing and entrepreneurial base. It is a city that is innovative, creative and successful.

When I announced that the Conservative government would be delivering more than $1.1 billion in significant investments for research and development with another $500 million for venture capital, constituents from across my riding were thrilled. These are actions that mean something to my constituents. We are not delivering mere words or promises, we are delivering action and results. Innovation, creativity and growth are by-products of a strong business sector. With the Conservative government at the helm, Brampton will continue to excel on the national and international stages. Investment in entrepreneurship, innovation and research is a fundamental necessity for our country. It simply is not enough to maintain our advantage in the global economy, we need to constantly strive for better. We need to always aim higher. These investments would allow us to position Canada not only to compete on the world stage but to excel there. Our country has enormous potential in almost every industry. This potential and our talent have been recognized around the world. We need to foster that success, sustain growth and innovation, and create new opportunities.

To help achieve that long-term prosperity and growth, our government is making it easier for students and companies to exceed objectives and benchmarks. As I mentioned, Brampton is home to a rapidly expanding small-business sector. By extending the hiring tax credit for small businesses, we are helping thousands of Brampton companies expand their workforce and capabilities. This initiative has already helped many businesses in my riding to grow within the marketplace and create well-paying jobs for my constituents of Brampton—Springdale.

Many, if not all, of us in this House would agree that youth are our future. That is why we have invested and will continue to invest in programs that help youth get into the workforce. We allocated $50 million to the youth employment strategy to assist more young people in gaining tangible skills and experience that will allow them to compete in the job market. Brampton is home to thousands of students looking to make their way in a very unpredictable world. They are looking to make a name for themselves and to start their careers. They need and deserve to be provided with the opportunity to achieve their aspirations. We are working to provide our younger generation with the proper training and assistance that will make their dreams a reality.

More and more people are choosing to start their families in Brampton. The Conservative government knows the importance of providing relief for our hard-working families. Economic action plan 2012 highlights that focus. From improving the registered disability savings plan to increasing the travellers' exemption to promoting a more active lifestyle through continued support of Participaction, our government is standing behind our families. This relief comes after six years of increased support across the board for families by our government. The residents of Brampton—Springdale are leading happier, healthier and more prosperous lives because of the Conservative government's continued support and assistance. My constituents are proud of their government because they have tangible results through our efforts.

Whether they are young people, students, families, hard-working citizens, seniors or business owners, these constituents know that they can count on the Conservative government to always be there for them. While the Liberals gutted transfers to health care and education when in power, our Conservative government is protecting and growing them to help support the services that Ontario families need. We are standing up for Canadians across this country because we know it comes down to opportunities that they are provided with. We will remain focused on job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity. This will help our country not only to remain stable but to excel in every industry. It all comes down to opportunities.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member's presentation. He talked for the most part about how he supported the direction the government is going in terms of its allocation of resources, of money, in the budget. He mentioned a couple of programs that he supported.

That is the kind of thing we expect in a budget. That is the kind of stuff that we saw when the Minister of Finance brought down the budget, and that is what we fully expected to be debating here in the House. and that is what we expected to be going forward to the finance committee.

Instead—and I ask the member for his thoughts on this—what we have is a bill that makes significant and fundamental legislative changes to a whole myriad of legislation. Would the member not agree that we should be dealing with budget items and that legislative items should be dealt with in another forum?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member, as mentioned earlier by my other colleagues, that this budget was brought forward after conducting massive consultations with Canadians throughout the country.

Canadians gave our government a strong mandate for a reason: they expect results. They expect us to deliver. That is exactly what the government's intention is, and that is exactly what the Prime Minister and finance minister are focused on: creating jobs, creating prosperity and creating long-term growth. That is what Canadians expect us to do and that is what we will continue to do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the member can indicate that the Prime Minister led a government that had “massive consultations”. “Consultations” gives the impression that they might have been listening to what Canadians have to say, and we know very clearly what Canadians had to say in regard to the senior pension issue: a vast majority of Canadians believe the government is wrong to increase the age from 65 to 67. A vast majority of Canadians want to be able to ensure that they have the future ability to retire at the age of 65. That is what Canadians have told the Liberal Party, and I suspect that is the same message that they have told the Conservative government. Therefore, how can the member or the government claim that it consulted Canadians, when we know full well that some of the major platforms that the budget has taken go against what Canadians really want?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is taking steps that Canadians expect us to take by ensuring OAS remains strong and there for future generations by gradually raising the eligibility age of OAS and GIS benefits from 65 to 67 between 2023 and 2029. The changes are limited to those who are 54 or younger as of March 31, 2012, and will not affect current OAS or GIS beneficiaries in any way.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his very insightful speech. Hopefully members of the opposition listened.

Would the member speculate on why the NDP and Liberal members are voting against what Canadians want? The budget provides jobs. It provides what families need. It provides a plan of prosperity and growth for the future. Why would they vote against that? Why would they vote against improving environment policies? Could the member speculate as to why they would vote against what is good for Canada?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason the opposition parties are refusing to support this very important budget for all Canadians is actually beyond my understanding. I would encourage all members of the opposition parties to review the budget carefully, read it through, take the time and consider supporting the budget so that we can get on with what Canadians expect all parliamentarians to do: to work on their behalf and to continue to focus on their priorities, rather than playing political games.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on the very reasoned amendment from the member for Parkdale—High Park to Bill C-38.

I rose a moment ago and asked the previous speaker a question about the fact that a budget was introduced a few weeks ago when the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the government, talked about the government's direction and where it wants to allocate resources. While Conservatives talked about it as a jobs and prosperity budget, we know they are laying off tens of thousands of workers at a time when they are talking about creating jobs and we know that they have made a frontal assault on senior citizens in this country, yet lo and behold, when we see Bill C-38, we find that the damage and the destruction the government is intent on waging in this country are much greater than we would have imagined.

The previous speaker talked about how the government has engaged in massive consultation with Canadians and how Bill C-38 is exactly what Canadians want. I understand that the finance committee travelled across the country and held pre-budget consultations with Canadians, but never once was it suggested to Canadians that the government was going to gut environmental laws. Never once in those consultations or any of the consultations that happened in Nova Scotia on behalf of the Minister of Finance was there ever any discussion about the fact that the government was going to gut the Fisheries Act—completely turn it on its head and take away the power that existed in the Fisheries Act to protect fish habitat. Never once did it say anything to Canadians about its intention to do that.

I will give Conservatives credit. They did give us a bit of a heads-up on the OAS. There was an announcement by the Prime Minister. When he was in Davos drinking Chablis with his friends and talking off the cuff, he said that he was going to transform this country and that he would start by ripping dollars out of the pockets of senior citizens in 2023. I do not care if it is in 2012, 2015 or 2023; it is an attack on seniors in this country. That is what the government has done.

Now we have Bill C-38, which goes after the environment, fisheries, workers and seniors, as well as the accountability of the Auditor General to ensure that taxpayers' dollars being properly spent by a whole host of agencies. The complexity of the changes being proposed in this bill boggle the mind.

I had a conversation with a retired scientist from DFO who had been involved in the environment for over 35 years. When he initially examined the changes that were being proposed, he said the initial changes to subsection 35(1) were not too bad and that they would strengthen a bit of the problem with this and a bit of the problem with that. However, he then said the that other shoe drops, with the government bringing in changes that are going to completely wipe out any of the improvements that were brought in and wipe out the effectiveness of the provisions in the Fisheries Act that deal with the protection of fish habitat.

The most damaging part of this whole bill is the attack being waged on fishing communities across this country and on the ecosystem, frankly, because fish habitat is about the ecosystem. It is about the interrelatedness of the water and the land to ensure that we have a variety of species in this world to contribute to the betterment of our society. Some of it may be commercially viable, but that is not the reason it is protected; habitat is protected because we want to make sure we have a strong and viable ecosystem. Habitat is the water and land necessary for the survival of all species, including fish. Habitat destruction is the most common reason for species decline, and the Fisheries Act has been essential in protecting fish habitats and the fisheries they support.

I have spent the last couple of weeks sitting in on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, where we heard witnesses talk about the problems with invasive species in the Great Lakes. I am from the east coast and I do not know a whole lot about invasive species in the Great Lakes. I know a lot about the cod moratorium and how it devastated the coastal communities in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., and New Brunswick. I also know how lobsters, scallops and other crustaceans have rebounded to fill the gap and I know that the fishery is critical to hundreds of thousands of families in this country—to communities, to families, to children, to our very way of being.

What I have learned over the past couple of days is just how closely connected our whole system is. Members have heard about the zebra mussel and how it clogs up the bottom of many of the Great Lakes and attaches itself to the outfalls of power plants and creates a great deal of problems. The quagga mussel is now also part of that.

There is another invasive species, a fish. I have forgotten its name, but it eats the mussels. The combination of the two creates botulism and results in huge fish kills, as well as killing waterfowl. Who would have thought that connection, that level of chemistry, would take place and affect the Great Lakes? It is a serious problem.

There are also problems with the sea lamprey and others. What was interesting was what we were told about the science, the ways to prevent these invasive species and how to mitigate their negative effects to ensure the return of more commercially viable fisheries. Those things are not known when an invasive species is initially identified; it takes science, time and the dedication of DFO and the Minister of Natural Resources in order to come to that conclusion.

My point is that the changes being proposed by the government, simply as they relate to the Fisheries Act and the definition with respect to the protection of fish habitat, are destructive beyond belief, and we cannot allow that to happen. For the government to be so gutless as to hide behind this omnibus bill rather than to bring about these changes in a bill that would go before a legislative committee in order for us to bring experts in to deal with the issue is absolutely wrong. It is fundamentally wrong.

I am talking to Canadians, as are my colleagues, and Canadians are waking up to what the government is doing. We will stand both here in the House and in our communities and do everything we can to ensure that Canadians understand what the government is intending for the fisheries, for the environment and for our society. We will do everything we can, along with lots of Canadians, to ensure that this does not happen.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised by many of the things that the hon. member said.

Many of the members over there have been complaining that there is not enough time to speak to the bill. The reality is that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster took 11 hours on this bill. That would have given 44 of their speakers time to speak to the bill, but they are complaining that there is not enough time. That simply does not wash.

They then said that they did not know about things in the budget like the OAS but that member had to acknowledge that he did but then said that he did not know about the changes to the regulatory system. He was not paying any attention then, because we have talked about the need for that in the House.

I chair the natural resources committee and that party has members on the committee. We hear again and again about the need to streamline the regulatory system. We have done it in a way that will protect the environment better because everybody involved would put their information into one stream. We would have a better environmental impact study but done in less time.

Why is the member complaining about these things? We need to look at this from a realistic point of view.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are gutting environmental regulations in order to allow for the development of natural resources, in most cases, oil, unfettered.

Tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of the Westray Mine disaster in which 26 miners died simply because the government of the day was not paying attention to its own rules and regulations and was not ensuring that the enforcement happened and that those workers were being protected.

That is what happens when a government does not pay attention to its own rules and waters them down to the point where they have no effect. The Conservative government better start recognizing that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-38, a budget bill that typically would be less than 40 pages at best. This bill has in excess of 400 pages and it impacts some 70 pieces of legislation. Over 120 pages deal with the environment.

That is why we argue that the government is using the back door of the budget, not only to limit debate on the budget but to sneak through legislation that should be set aside to go through the system separately. Would the member agree with the Liberal Party and acknowledge that the bill should be a number of different bills?

If the Prime Minister has any belief in democracy, he should break up the bill before it even comes to a vote.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a motion to the effect of splitting up the bill in order that it receive proper scrutiny has already been made by the House leader of the official opposition, and we certainly support that.

In terms of the specifics of the bill being scrutinized, in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans we heard the other day from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. It works closely with DFO, commercial groups and environmental groups on the whole ecosystem and fish habitat in the Great Lakes. Those officials do not know what the impact of these changes will be. They want to be part of the discussion before the changes go through to ensure they will be able to make them work to protect fish habitat and to protect the ecosystem of the Great Lakes for all Ontarians.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to budget 2012 on behalf of the residents in my riding of Palliser in southern Saskatchewan.

Our government has developed a positive, responsible plan to help keep Canada's economy growing, fuel job creation and secure the long-term prosperity for Canadians. It is a solid plan that will help businesses and individuals within my riding, within Saskatchewan and, indeed, within the boundary called Canada.

In the international financial community, there is admiration for Canada's stable position. These accolades include the World Economic Forum stating that our banks are the soundest the world, and Forbes magazine ranking Canada as the best place in the world to do business, to grow business and to create jobs.

In fact, since July 2009, our economy has created more than 700,000 net new jobs.

I will talk about four parts of budget 2012 that would support businesses, families and communities in my riding: First, creating a more efficient immigration system; second, managing our resources better; third, expanding our trade opportunities; and fourth, creating a sustainable old age security program for future generations.

There are Canadians who are out of work or underemployed. At the same time, there is a labour shortage in Saskatchewan, as well as other parts of the country, for some jobs. This budget contains measures to create new, high quality jobs for Canadians while providing measures to fill vacancies through improving the temporary foreign worker program if, and that is a big if, there are no Canadians to fill these positions.

Since 2006, the government has pursued much needed reforms to focus Canada's immigration system on increasing economic prosperity for Canadians. We need to move to an increasingly fast and flexible immigration system that responds to the needs of the labour market in order to sustain Canada's economic growth.

During the pre-budget consultations, a business owner within my riding mentioned that the processing time for skilled workers needed to be reduced. He also mentioned that there was too much red tape during this process. I heard that from a number of constituents. I am proud to say that the government listened and committed to lessen the processing time for temporary foreign workers who made applications, while reducing the paper burden on all employers.

We propose further improvements to recognize foreign professionals, such as physicians, nurses and engineers, among other much needed roles within the Canadian economy.

Looking at the second pillar, I will talk about how budget 2012 will help to manage our resources.

My home province of Saskatchewan is blessed with many resources that drive the economy and there is demand for these resources worldwide. If we are to compete with other resource rich countries, which would create some of those high quality jobs that I mentioned, we need to put in place an effective, efficient regulatory system to review major projects.

We propose to streamline the review process to encourage responsible resource development. The proposed review process will include fixed timelines and a one project, one review process, while introducing stronger penalties for those who violate our environmental laws.

Turning to number three, I will talk about how our plan will help expand trade. I am supportive of the focus on international trade, as it create jobs for residents in my riding and in Canada. Since 2006, we have finalized nine free trade agreements with other nations and we continue to deepen trade agreements with other nations, including those with fast growing economies. In fact, a Canada-European Union free trade agreement would bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade, which would create approximately 80,000 new jobs.

Agriculture contributes enormously to our country's economy, with nearly $35.5 billion in exports, which makes Canada the world's fifth largest exporter of agriculture and food products.

Our plan includes measures to help our farmers and ranchers succeed, which is good news for my riding where agriculture is the number one industry. They are succeeding partially thanks to efforts in opening markets for our Canadian beef, pork, canola, pulse crops, wheat and more.

We will continue to work on behalf of farmers and ranchers to ensure that people in other countries have access to our high quality Canadian food.

Our efforts and successes have been well recognized by the agricultural sector. Additionally, exporters within my riding would benefit through extending the provision of domestic financing by Export Development Canada.

I would like to take a minute to talk about the old age security program.

Budget 2012 proposes changes to the OAS program to ensure that it will be sustainable for future generations. Our plan outlines that changes will not be introduced until 2023, which means that seniors or those who are nearing retirement will not be affected. Our government is providing many years of lead time to allow individuals to make adjustments to their savings plan as necessary to meet their own goals and aspirations.

I will provide a comment from a constituent who stated, when we were talking about pensions, “The pension reforms are acceptable, seeing that the age change will only take place after 2023 or 2029, allowing the next generation to prepare, and thus manage their economies of scale accordingly”.

Our seniors are realists.

We are also eliminating the application process for OAS and GIS, which has been warmly received by many constituents who contacted my office.

I support changes for the sustainability of the OAS program on behalf of residents in my riding who may need the OAS in future years.

I would ask all hon. colleagues to support Bill C-38, a positive, reasonable plan that encourages job creation and growth within sound fiscal principles and without reducing transfer to persons. It is the right plan for Palliser, for Saskatchewan and for Canada.

Thanks to our elected majority government, I am excited for the opportunities facing Saskatchewan and Canada as our government works to allow businessed to flourish and families and communities to grow and strengthen.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member talking about trade. I have two very simple questions for him.

Make no mistake: the United States is currently our largest trade partner. I know that the government wants to distance itself and all that, but what is the meaning of this? The government has announced $143 million in cuts to border services. This will have an impact on the safety of Canadians and on wait times at the Canadian border, and it will have a direct impact on our small and medium-sized businesses. How are these cuts supposed to improve trade with our largest trading partner?

The government has also announced millions of dollars of cuts to consular services in the United States, South America and Europe. The hon. member spoke of a free trade agreement with the European Union and other free trade agreements. These cuts show that Canada is not at all interested, because the cuts to consular services will hinder our economic relations with other countries. I would like the hon. member to tell us how these cuts are going to allow Canada to improve—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member because time is limited.

The hon. member for Palliser.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the mini address. It was very well put but I am afraid I am not quite sure how to respond to it because changes at the border are in a state of flux. That is the best we can say. Nothing has been formulated to really exclude or include different aspects of trade with the U.S.A. The latest information I have is that it continues to be our largest trading partner, so I guess things are not going too bad between America and Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects of the budget I could talk about, and many other aspects I could talk about with regard to the 70-plus pieces of legislation that the government would be changing through the back door with this budget.

There is one issue that kind of eats at a lot of Canadians, and that is an issue of credibility. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence have talked a great deal about the need to replace the F-18, something the Liberal Party agrees with. There is a need to replace the F-18. Where we disagree is with the manner in which it has been done.

There has been a great deal of deception from the government to Canadians. At some point, it said $9 billion was going to be the cost, and we are finding out that the cost is going to be more than double that.

My question to the member is this. How can Canadians believe the numbers the government is purporting to talk about on issues like the deficit, when it has really made a whole mess, and there is evidence to show it misled Canadians on the pricing of the F-35 contract? Why should Canadians believe the budget document is a legitimate document in the first place?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad I had the opportunity to speak first, because mini questions one and two have pretty well eaten up most of the time.

To answer my hon. colleague as best I can, I would say that the F-35 has been adjudicated by people who fly aircraft. We are talking about fighter pilots and those who train fighter pilots. I am referring to 15 Wing Moose Jaw, the base that trains all the pilots who are trained in Canada.

In discussion with pilots at the base, fighter pilot students and trainers, as well as others from the Winnipeg operation, I am given to understand that there is no plane that equals the F-35 in any which way, regardless of the fact that it is a single-engine plane.

I am not a pilot. I have to accept the word of experts. I do not profess to be an expert, but I know experts. That is their take on it, that we as a country should be looking very carefully at that aircraft because as far as they are concerned it is still the best one.

As far as whether the plane has been tested, it is still in the developmental phases. It has not been tested. Therefore, I am at a loss as to why we would think we could put a price tag on it when it is still in the developmental process. That plane actually being on the production line is a few months or maybe a few years away.

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

Mr. Speaker, the short title of the bill includes long-term prosperity, and so we must discuss in my speech funding for basic research, because that is very important for our future prosperity. There has been a trend toward less and less funding for basic research under the government.

Allow me to take a little bit of time to talk about basic research, what it is and why it is important, because I do not know if it has ever been explained in detail in this House by somebody who has spent many years working on it.

What is basic research? It starts with curiosity. Scientists are human beings. They are passionate people. Why is it that scientists spend so much time and work so hard, like crazy, to try to figure out things and discover things? It is because they have passion. We cannot have scientists who are simply told, “Check one, two and three and see which one works the best”. Scientists work best when they do practical work in the world but they are allowed to step back and ask why things are the way they are and they are given the resources and are encouraged to try to answer that question.

Second, basic research is about finding a complete understanding, making logical sense of the world around us. There is a famous paper entitled “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural World” by physicist Eugene Wigner. In mathematics, in any logical system, any falsehood causes the entire logical edifice to fall apart. If we translate that into the natural world, any little inconsistency or oddity is worth sorting out, because it can lead to dramatic new understanding.

There are some really good examples of that. In the discovery of insulin, people noticed that when the pancreas of a dog was taken out, flies would be attracted to the sugar in the urine of dogs. In the discovery of stem cells, people noticed that there were little clumps of cells of different types on the spleens of irradiated mice. The study of the difference between theoretical models and actual measurements of the neutrino flux from the sun led to a complete changing of our understanding, our model for the physical universe and of the cosmos.

I mention these three examples because they are related to basic research that was done in Canada.

If we look very closely at nature, we find that there is always a lot more going on than we think. Science will surprise us, but after we have worked in research, we get used to that. It is why it is always possible to keep discovering new and important things.

That leads to the last thing about basic research, which is that it gives us hope for fundamental changes that will lead to a better life. It is not just technology or medicine; it is about learning better ways to take care of one another, better ways to communicate and co-operate, cleaner and more enduring ways to be prosperous and also for society to realize the real tangible value of intellectually honest pursuits of the truth. There is that value of basic research that I think is important.

The knowledge that comes out of basic research is like a piece of LEGO, a hard piece of plastic, hard, reliable, but it also has a history of dramatically changing the world. Knowledge is not really in books, journals and PowerPoint slides. It is in the minds of people. Basic research is where we train a lot of our graduate students who have the skills and acquire the knowledge, the experience in the ways of looking at the world and the discipline and rigour of working in scientific research, which they can then carry on and use elsewhere in their careers to benefit all of society.

Basic research produces models. It allows us to explain patterns we observe, and we need models. For example, if we want to sequester carbon dioxide underground, a rather important subject, we have to ask ourselves: Do we understand basic geology enough to be able to model the behaviour of that carbon dioxide underground for thousands of years?

The last thing I would say is that basic research produces unexpected discoveries. The results of basic research are uncertain. By definition they are uncertain, and basic, unexpected discoveries can be game changers. An example of that is basic research that was done in my riding on the ability of dissolved carbon dioxide to dissolve things, which may lead to the elimination of the need for tailings ponds in oil sands projects. Basic research can lead to a lot of unexpected things.

Why is government funding for basic research important? There are three reasons I would like to talk about today. One is that basic research leads to a public good. The market does not put a proper value on research that benefits more than just the people who do the research. There is a public good and that is why the government should get involved.

Second, the market fails when the funder of research has a commercial interest in the outcome. So in that case, sometimes private research creates ethical conflicts, and that is another time when government should step in.

Third, because basic research is intrinsically uncertain, it is intrinsically risky and small companies may not be able to take that risk, and that is another reason why a larger partner like the government should step in.

How do we know that funding for basic research in Canada has declined? We could look at the statistics, showing a decrease in funding for NSERC from $420 million in 2006 to $360 million in this year for basic research. Funding at SSHRC has declined after inflation. If we look at the success of grant applications to CIHR for basic research, it has hit 17% recently and has been going down for about a decade. Many research proposals, rated excellent by their peers, are being rejected and this is not limited to CIHR. We hear statements like, “I am appalled by the lack of the support for fundamental research in this country”. This is coming from top researchers in the country.

There is more money being spent on research, but that is money where an industrial-academic partnership is required and it is not basic research. It is a good thing to fund that, but not at the expense of basic research.

Let me give an example of one cut occurring in basic research that is pretty harmful. It is the cut to NSERC's research, technology and instrumentation grants program. This is funding that allows researchers to buy medium-sized equipment. As an analogy, instead of cutting from ten carpenters to nine carpenters, it is like keeping the ten carpenters but not letting them buy any tools. That is the problem with the RTI program. That is why researchers are furious about this grants program being cut. One researcher says:

Without the possibility to maintain and expand these fairly inexpensive research tools, my research will grind to a halt, in turn losing my ability to support the training of highly qualified personnel....

Another researcher says:

The changes to NSERC under the...government have been incredibly destructive, and the RTI cut will be an unmitigated disaster.... If this plan goes forward, then when these essential tools inevitably reach the end of their life, so will my research.

So what could we do besides spend more money? People have been saying we do spend a good amount of money on basic research, but we do not seem to be reaping the economic benefits. What needs to be done already exists out there, and one example of that is something called the GreenCentre in my riding. That is a centre in which there are dedicated scientists who are familiar with the basic research that is done at universities, the discovery centres out there. They look at the discoveries and they are trained to detect or decide on discoveries that may have a commercial application. They talk to their industrial partners and get some advice on which discoveries could be commercialized, and they work to commercialize those discoveries.

So it is not just people in industry saying they have a problem and they want to get the government to pay for a university researcher to figure it out for them. It is unlocking the value that is already there in the research that is at our universities.

In conclusion, we know that businesses do not spend enough on research and development in Canada, and money spent on research does not appear to be affecting rates of innovation and commercialization of research as much as it should. That is because we need a better strategy. We need to not ignore the value of basic research or to cut basic research, but we need to invest our efforts in pushing out the value of the discoveries we already have made in basic research, our world-leading capacity in basic research, and we need to push that out into the marketplace instead of letting everything be driven by industry asking researchers to change what they are doing and simply solve problems of industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend, the member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands, has a very impressive science background. Therefore, I can understand why he addressed his speech to that point. I will address my question to the same point.

When I saw $67 million in the budget for the National Research Council, I was pleased. However, when I saw it was specifically required under the terms of the budget to be “business-led and industry-relevant”, I asked myself what Albert Einstein would have done with that. The greatest inventions of the modern era have been made by brilliant minds operating unfettered. In other words, it was basic research with an element of serendipity, not trying to get people to make a better widget and confine the human brain to the most base commercial elements.

Would my hon. colleague agree that is where the best inventions have been found?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do agree. There is a good example of that in Canada, which is canola. The research on canola was not done with a one-year research grant. It was planned and it was something that took many years and quite a bit of an investment. Look at what we have now. It is a major part of Canada's agricultural sector. It was developed not with a focus on immediate results, but a long-term vision and careful research to develop a product that could have commercial value.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech on innovation and research by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. The question I have is not directly related to what he said.

The Government of Canada spent about $8 billion or $9 billion on research and innovation over the last number of years. The Jenkins report talked about moving from the tax credit system to maybe more direct investment. Has the member read the report and what does he think of the Jenkins recommendations?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned billions of dollars being spent on research and development. Yes, money is being spent on research and development, but it is really being targeted at industry academic partnerships at the expense of basic research. That was the point I wanted to make in my speech.

I want to answer the member's question about the recommendations of the Jenkins report and replacing tax credits and the scientific research and experimental development tax credit by more direct grants. Reforms needed to take place in the SR&ED program. I disagree with some of the recommendations in the Jenkins panel report, for example, the recommendation to exclude the eligibility of capital expenditures from the tax credit. Some of the direct grant programs are quite good. The reputation of IRAP is very good. The industrial technology advisers have really good knowledge of the region that they are supposed to cover and, as far as government granting goes, are pretty good allocators of capital.

That is a good idea to discuss. We can talk about the details. There are some good things and there are some things that could be improved. It would be a good thing if the government would allow members of Parliament to make these suggestions, take them seriously and—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sorry to interrupt, but time is limited.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Guelph.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, everywhere we travel, we hear a common message, and that is our country now relies too much on the exploitation of our natural resources. We are again becoming hewers of wood and drawers of water. On the other hand, I hear from many other people who suggest that we have to rely more on our innovation and that in the future we will be thinking our way to prosperity.

Particularly for non-resource rich provinces, what does my hon. friend have to say about the future prosperity and its reliance on invention and innovation?

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

Mr. Speaker, humanity has always relied on innovation, ingenuity and hard work, the kind that I see a lot of among my colleagues, to move forward and create economic growth where there were no natural resources. We can see examples of that in the Asian tiger economies, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, all the places where investments were made in people, knowledge and innovation to encourage certain industries to prosper. They succeeded, and we need to do that. Not every part of Canada is rich in every natural resource and we need to remember that as we think about how to move Canada's economy forward and improve the productivity of our people.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure, as the member of Parliament for the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and on behalf of the people of my riding, to speak in support of Bill C-38, the budget implementation act, which speaks to our economic action plan 2012, Canada's blueprint for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

One of the reasons that Canada, relative to our economic trading partners, continues to outperform other western economies is the ability of the government to have a forward thinking vision, to plan for the future prosperity of all Canadians. It is clear that any thoughtful Canadian reading our budget sees the goal that we have set out to deal with some fundamental challenges that will arise if corrective action is not taken today. This is being done, while at the same time following our careful, prudent course that has made our finance minister the envy of the G7 countries.

Thoughtful Canadians in my riding have spoken out loud and clear. They like what they read in Canada's 2012 economic action plan. They understand leadership means making difficult decisions today to secure a confident, secure future for tomorrow.

As a Conservative member of Parliament, who makes it my business to directly speak to my constituents regarding the policies put forward, I am pleased with the positive reaction that our budget has received from all Canadians. I read every comment that I receive. For this government, public consultation means just that. We take the time to listen to our constituents, and I am grateful for the many positive suggestions, comments and observations I receive. All comments are welcome.

As a member of the government, I ensure that our Prime Minister and our Minister fo Finance know what is on the minds of Canadians. Suggestions from constituents from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke have played an important role as our government charts a future course intended to benefit most Canadians.

For many people, our budget does go far enough in cutting the deficit, particularly in cutting unnecessary government spending that seems to creep into every program, however well-intentioned the program may have been when it was first proposed.

The people of the Ottawa Valley are well-known for their fierce independence, as well as their common sense approach to living. Their responses to our budget reflect this back. They are people like Lance Bridges, who wrote the following in response to a series of questions I asked individuals to respond to concerning our economic action plan 2012, which will be implemented with the passing of Bill C-38, the legislation before us today.

In response to my question about lowering the deficit, Lance responded:

“I suppose it is a good thing. Unfortunately all my time is taken up trying to figure out how I'm supposed to keep up with my bills and repairs on my home. I used to be able to save on living off of the land but I had to quit when Bill C-68 (the liberal long-gun registry) came into effect, and now that it's gone, my deepest thanks for that, I have no means to get my licenses back since they won't grandfather them to me. It would be a big help if things were set up like fishing licences. It would be a large financial burden lifted from us if all these fees were exempt to the disabled. It would be even nicer if all these unnecessary licences (guns, fishing, hunting, etc.) were eliminated completely.

It's difficult to gauge how the federal budget really affects my family and as we have to survive on what little the Ontario Disability Support Plan offers us. And now with a freeze on, the help to keep up with prices doubling on almost everything is lost.

Thank you for what you've done in the budget”.

Our budget is intended for families like Lance's. I thank him for responding to our survey.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke will have six minutes remaining in her speech when the House next resumes debate on the question and the usual five minutes for questions and comments.

Statements by members, the hon. member for Ahuntsic.

The House resumed from consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has six minutes left to conclude her speech.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to help workers who may become disabled, we have implemented our wage earner protection plan, requiring federally-regulated private sector employers to ensure, on a go-forward basis, any long-term disability plans they offer to their employees. We are also improving the registered disability savings plan.

Our government is committed to extending support for families, students, seniors, pensioners and persons with disabilities. I am pleased to report that, without exception, Canadians in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, which includes CFB Petawawa, like the support our government has provided to Canada's armed forces, people like Robert Little, who wrote, “As an ex serviceman who served 20 years less a day for my country our service personnel should have the utmost protection when in the field or at home. This government and you have shown that you have great respect for providing all Canadians with a proud and excellent fighting force when needed”.

John Dixon wrote, “Our military is very important and must be maintained. Don't let the purchase of new equipment fall behind as the Liberals did”.

Mack from Pembroke wrote, “One American aircraft carrier has more planes than Canada proposes to purchase. For years our military has had to do with less than other countries in the UN and we lost some lives because of that, especially in Afghanistan, that is unacceptable. We need a decent and well equipped military in today's world”.

In response to my question about taxes, Tom Peckett from Braeside said, “Good. Any time more money is put back into the tax payer hand is much better for our economy”.

Peter from Westmeath wrote, “Thank you for not raising taxes. Like your household and mine, if we haven't got the money, we can't have it, period. Government should take a lesson from the people and not from the lobbyists. Take away the ability of able bodied non-working people to have anything but the basics, no booze, no snack food, no big screen TVs, etc. I already pay for non-working people to have families. Why should I have to pay for 'breakfast programs' in schools as well?“

Unlike the old government, which relied heavily on lobbyists, we passed the Lobbyists Registration Act. This was our response to abuses like the sponsorship scandal.

Jim O'Brien had this to say about our budget, “No tax increases, no cuts to health and education are a welcome relief. All the other cuts in the budget e.g. public service were necessary to get the country back on course after the recession”.

We recognize the need to build and maintain infrastructure in our communities and to provide relief to our municipalities and relieve the burden placed on ratepayers through property taxes by permanently providing the federal gas tax revenue as a stable source of infrastructure funding. The 17 municipalities in my riding welcomed this commitment to our federal government. Unfortunately, in the province of Ontario rural municipalities are denied the provincial gas tax rebate. Providing the right climate for business, particularly small business, to grow and create employment is the role of government.

The need for dependable, affordable high speed Internet throughout rural Ontario is great. Access to better bandwidth and connectivity is essential to the future prosperity of eastern Ontario. As MP for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, together with my Conservative eastern Ontario colleagues, $55 million in federal funding was provided to get the job done and much of this funding was provided during the stimulus phase of our action plan. There were $255 million provided through Industry Canada over three years to develop and extend broadband coverage to as many under-serviced households as possible.

Our government is implementing specific measures to ensure that Canadians living in rural Canada are able to receive the same high-quality services available to most other Canadians. When the job is completed in March of 2014, 95% of the population of eastern Ontario will have access to affordable high speed Internet.

Our Conservative government is focused on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In 2010 Canada's natural resource sectors employed more than 760,000 workers, many of them in Renfrew county. 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 $500 billion in new investment, will be proposed for Canada. The potential for job growth is enormous.

With the passing of Bill C-38, Canadians will benefit from system-wide legislative improvements to the review process for major economic development projects. One project, one review, in a clearly defined time period makes common sense. The people in my riding get that fact, as evidenced from the comments I received, “The only thing that bothers me is the pressure from the environmental extremist groups to delay us from getting our natural resources to the marketplace. We are natural resource rich and that alone could solve most of the current economy problems”.

Our forestry sector still needs our assistance. Too many forestry workers are without work, too many mills and plants are still idle. The challenge for eastern Ontario is that the province controls the wood supply. In eight short years, thanks to the anti-national resource extraction policy of Queen's Park, Ontario is now an importer of wood. The decision by our federal Minister of Natural Resources to call out some of the lobby groups that are writing policy for the provincial government to come clean on where they get their funding brings hope that rational policies that benefit Ontario will return to the forestry sector.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I heard the member right, in her reading of comments from her riding, one individual asked why he should have to pay for breakfast programs for children. I find this line of thinking on the part of the government most egregious. The member opposite has to vet her speech, so she has put that in intentionally. This is exactly what the Conservatives do on a day to day basis. They pick the most vulnerable and then they go after them.

I invite the member opposite to reconsider including a comment like that in Parliament. Does the member not understand that breakfast programs in schools produce better students, better adults, create a climate, a society and a culture that are more welcoming and safer? That kind of comment does not belong in the House. Would the member opposite care to comment on that?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the no-development party, the no-defence party, does not listen to the people. I am relaying the comments and concerns of the people of my riding. We listen to all comments, whether we like them or not. The House of Commons is the place to have the concerns of Canadians across the country heard.

Since 2006, our government has been working on this part to streamline the review process for major economic projects. It is through growing the economy that we improve social programs, the best social program being a job.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to system-wide legislative changes, which caught my ear. As members will know, the current government more than any other government, likely in the history of Parliament, has brought in substantial changes to legislation that go far beyond this budget. We have suggested and will continue to say that the government has used the budget as a back door in order to pass legislation that should have been stand-alone legislation.

In order to achieve her system-wide legislative changes that the member is so proud of, why is the government choosing to use the back door of the budget as opposed to bringing in a legislative agenda that would have allowed for more debate inside this chamber? It would have allowed for professionals and stakeholders from across the country to attend as witnesses in committee, literally hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of debates and discussions that should have happened, given the important legislation to be passed through the back door of this budget. Why this anti-democratic move that is being incorporated into the Conservative budget?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a question like that simply demonstrates how unfit the Liberal Party of Canada is to ever be government again. Liberal members do not recognize that it is all the parts of the economy working together that helps us to achieve a healthy economy, creating jobs, long-term prosperity and growth for all Canadians.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on her comments and her speech. I would like to get a bit more clarification on the responsible resource development portion of the budget.

Does it in any way reduce the stringency, environmentally? We have been accused of that. I just want the member to clarify where we are at with the environment.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, currently companies undertaking major projects must navigate a complex maze of regulatory requirements, processes and approvals. They are long and unpredictable.

Responsible resource development streamlines the review process to create good, skilled, well-paying jobs while maintaining the highest possible standards for protecting the environment.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. member is about the government that allegedly believes in economic development.

Today in Bloomberg, out of New York, there is the title, “Canada Is World's Biggest Oil Loser With Price Spread”.

It talks about rushing oil off to China in low value-added form, instead of to eastern Canada where we need it. Jim Prentice added that it:

....highlights the importance and potentially the value of pipelines in Canada that move our oil on an east-west axis.... That's lost corporate revenue, government income tax, government royalties.

My question to the member is simple. Instead of rushing oil in low value-added form off to the west and China, does the member not agree that the government needs to start putting Canada's energy security and jobs first, and build the pipeline to the east?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada does have secure energy for its provinces across the nation. We are not in threat of not having enough energy.

There are simply not the economies of scale in Canada to make it viable to have the refineries built here. If the business were available here, if it were viable here, if it would create jobs and sustainable growth, the companies would build refineries in Canada.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the omnibus budget bill of more than 450 pages. Not only is the bill's content an affront to the democratic process, but so is the way in which the government intends to ram it through without proper examination. The Conservatives know it is inappropriate to make so many sweeping changes to so many different areas in a budget bill.

They know it is inappropriate to include a series of previously unannounced measures in a budget bill, like the measures that contribute to a less transparent and more secretive environment, including a massive gutting of the powers of the Auditor General.

They know it is inappropriate to give themselves the power to change employment insurance rules without the approval of Parliament. They know it is inappropriate to gut environmental protection and rewrite Canada's fisheries laws in a budget bill. But they do not care.

The Conservative government members have made it very clear over and over again that they do not respect this House and, by extension, they do not respect the very people we were all elected to represent in this House.

I was elected to represent the people of my constituency and my community. They expect more from the current government, which does not even blink while undermining this Parliament by tabling a massive bill that goes far beyond the budget. Clearly, its objective is to ram through its radical Conservative agenda while hiding from oversight and avoiding accountability.

In an attempt to restore some sanity to this House and ensure a proper review of this bill, which is mostly made up of non-financial elements, the New Democrats have asked the government to work with us. That is why yesterday we asked Parliament to split the bill in order to allow for an appropriate review of it, which must include relevant committees hearing from experts about these sweeping changes being proposed.

Instead, what the Conservatives have proposed is to create a monster subcommittee to study all the changes, which is just another way to avoid accountability for measures they are hiding in this Trojan Horse budget bill, a budget bill that does not help our economy or get people back to work. It most certainly does not represent the priorities of the people in Surrey North or people across this country.

Last month, I held a public forum on the budget in my riding to ask my constituents what their concerns and priorities were. They said they did not understand why the government would add two more years before they could qualify for the OAS, when the program has been proven to be sustainable. Both the PBO and the government's own research team has shown that the program is sustainable.

They could not comprehend why the Conservatives would cancel the long gun registry when it helps to save lives. They thought that the government's insistence on destroying the registry records is ridiculous and reckless.

My constituents further told me that they did not understand why the government is paying lip service to the problem of foreign credential assessment and recognition, and not addressing the real shortage of doctors, nurses and medical professionals in our hospitals.

They want a national transit strategy and effective transit to facilitate economic growth in our region. They do not understand why the government would not make that a priority when every other G8 country but Canada has a national transit strategy.

They were very concerned about the protection of salmon habitat and the small and medium-size fishing industry in coastal British Columbia.

They want the government to protect our food security and implement the labelling of GMO foods.

They also do not understand why the Conservatives would dismantle the Wheat Board that was protecting our farmers.

They further told me that they do not want the gutting of environmental protection and removal of accountability that we see in Bill C-38.

However, the Conservatives are not listening to Canadians; they certainly are not listening to the people of my community or the full 80% of the British Columbians who opposed the northern gateway pipeline.

Instead, the Conservatives have done exactly what we have come to expect from the government, exactly what they want with no regard or respect for the people of the country or the democratic process by which they should be governed.

We all know that, when Conservatives do not like rules, they either break them or they undermine Parliament to change them, like changing the rules to undermine an entire environmental review and oversight so they could ram through a reckless pipeline project that puts the coastline of B.C., communities and local economies in peril; or like changing the rules so they could attack charities that target the organizations that are standing up to protect our coasts; or like gutting the office of the Auditor General so we will not know when they break the rules.

Those are just a few of the highlights of what we see in the bill. It is clear that the priorities of the people in my community are not represented by the government and they are most certainly not represented by the contents of the bill.

The Conservatives claim that budget 2012 is about job creation, but the PBO says the budget will cost 43,000 Canadian jobs. In fact, the budget actually plans for unemployment to rise. When the PBO's estimate of 43,000 lost jobs is combined with previous rounds of cuts, this number is closer to 102,000 jobs lost. Still the Conservatives stand in the House day after day, blustering about how the bill is about job creation. It is truly unbelievable.

One-third of the bill is actually dedicated to gutting important environmental protection regulations, so I would humbly suggest to the members across that they cool it on their talking points and admit what the bill is really about: ignoring the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who peacefully protested on Earth Day to show their support for expanding environmental safeguards; showing contempt for Canadians by taking this country backward when it comes to environmental protection; and creating a less transparent and more secretive government so they can lurk in the shadows and get away with their dirty tricks.

Proper oversight is a cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy, of any democracy, and New Democrats will fight for proper oversight and accountability. We will not allow the Conservatives to quietly sneak through these far-reaching changes. Trojan Horse budget bills cannot become the new norm, so if the government is not afraid of being held accountable, it should agree to work with us to split the bill into proper committees.

Separating the bill makes sense. It would allow for a full study with proper expertise at the table, and we would be able to make decisions that would benefit our country. It would allow opposition members to do their job and provide proper oversight. It would also help the backbenchers in the Conservative government to have input into this budget bill.

My sincere hope is that the Conservatives will take a step back and think about the consequences of undermining Parliament and removing oversight and accountability from our democracy.

I hope they will consider the consequences of seriously eroding the trust Canadians have in this House, which is precisely what they are doing with the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have argued in the past, and I will pose it in the form of a question to the member, that if he looks at what the priorities of the government have been over the last number of months, we have to recognize that one of the most significant cuts will be to our civil service.

Well over 19,000 jobs will be lost. That means we will have issues of service delivery, whether it is someone who is unemployed or individuals who protect our environment, a wide spectrum. When we cut 19,000 jobs, it will have an impact on quality of service to Canadians.

Earlier this year the government made the decision to increase the size of the House of Commons. By increasing the size, more politicians for Canadians, that means additional staff for those politicians at a time when the Conservatives are cutting back on services but increasing the number of politicians.

I wonder if the member could provide a comment on what I would class as a misplaced priority.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since the last election I have seen the Conservatives constantly either fudging the numbers or using only numbers that fit their own overall secret agenda. During the crime bill we heard the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety constantly talking about how they do not believe in stats or how they do not believe in research. I have seen the gutting of research that has been available to make decisions that are facing Parliament.

Here is a prime example. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, along with the government's own research, indicates that the OAS is financially viable and that we can provide OAS to our seniors, yet the government is cutting the funds available to vulnerable seniors.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the comments made by my colleague. He talked about the bill that the government says is going to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. Could he comment on how the government wants good-paying jobs to be handed to foreign workers and wants employers to be allowed to pay lower wages? Could he comment on how that relates to jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for Canada? I just do not see how that will work.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the international trade committee, and this morning I was looking through the trade deficit. Over the last six years, under this government the manufacturing sector trade deficit has ballooned from $18 billion to $75 billion. What that means is that our manufacturing industry jobs, good-paying jobs for families across the country, have been decimated. Jobs in the manufacturing sector have gone away. What they are creating are service jobs that pay very little compared to manufacturing.

Again they say one thing, yet they are doing another thing.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear that the NDP is actually getting the message that the budget is about jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. I am really encouraged by that.

My colleague referred to the fact that he thinks backbenchers should have had more opportunity for input. Would he agree that his colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster used up, I believe, 20-some hours of House time? If he had shared that a bit, it would have given us all a chance to speak to the budget much more effectively.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster was speaking on behalf of all Canadians. He was getting messages from across the country to let the government know that this bill is not acceptable to all Canadians. That is what he was talking about.

This budget is not only about the financial side. This is about the environment and fisheries deregulation. This is about health care transfers. This is about weakening our Auditor General's office. This is about reducing our food inspectors. This is about a lot more than just financials.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to discuss budget 2012 on this, our 2,298th day as the servants of our constituents.

In the 41st general election we all acknowledged that the economy was still the main issue for Canadians. Citizens decided to re-elect a government that had proven itself in this area, with a plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

It was also the first time in the history of parliamentary democracies that a government won an election following a deep recession. I voted against holding that unnecessary election. Those on the other side, who voted for the dissolution of the 40th Parliament, remind me of the turkeys who vote for an early Christmas.

The opposition knew about the global economic downturn, and they gambled that Canadians would punish this government for it. Governments are not always rewarded for good economic news, but they are always punished when a recession rears its ugly head.

Except this time. The more the opposition talk down Canada's economy, the more Canadians solidify their support for their government and for their Prime Minister. Canadians increased their support for this government not only in spite of our economic challenges, but because of them.

With more than $63 billion in targeted stimulus measures, the economic action plan has helped to protect Canada through the worst moments of the last global recession.

Canada has posted economic growth in nine of the last 10 quarters. Our great country has seen nearly 700,000 net new jobs created since July 2009, the strongest employment growth of all the G7 countries.

At the local level, nearly 33,000 jobs were created in Ottawa from October 2010 to March 2012, lowering the unemployment rate from 6.9% to 6.2%.

After the budget was tabled, The Wall Street Journal had the following to say in the April 3 edition: “Canada shows how mistakes can be reversed with sound policies”.

Canada's economic action plan 2012 is full of measures that will help Canada stay in the driver's seat of the world's economies.

The budget we are debating today strongly supports world-class innovation and research. This government believes in innovation. Two weeks ago, I was pleased to announce that nearly $1 million would be allocated for an IT professional mentoring program to encourage primary and secondary school students in Ottawa to take an interest in science and innovation.

This type of program is entirely consistent with this government’s philosophy and vision.

The people of Ottawa--Orléans know of my unfailing support for scientific research and development. In this budget the Minister of Finance has taken action on the Jenkins report and is investing $1.1 billion in direct support for R and D and $500 million in venture capital.

With my meticulous support, the government is committed to granting $110 million a year to the National Research Council to double support for small businesses through the NRC's industrial research assistance program. Improvements will be made to services offered to businesses by industrial technology advisers. I see this measure as a great opportunity for the NRC, located at the doorstep of Ottawa--Orléans.

Families are the heart and soul of Ottawa–Orléans. I regularly meet them when shopping on St. Joseph Boulevard, at mass at Divine Infant Church, and during the many community activities to which their servant is invited.

Families have not been overlooked in economic action plan 2012.

Under the budget, the registered disability savings plan will be improved to help guarantee long-term financial security for children with serious disabilities.

There are some 300 community organizations in Ottawa–Orléans. They will have access to $150 million for repairs and improvements to existing community facilities.

This government also wants to promote more active lifestyles, to improve funding for victims and to increase travellers' exemptions. That is not to mention the measures we have introduced since 2006, such as 140 tax breaks, including income tax cuts for taxpayers in the lowest brackets and many others.

These are all measures that will help families, the backbone of Canada.

With regard to families, the government has not forgotten seniors, who represent our country's memory. Health investments are one of the biggest priorities for the seniors I met this morning at the Roy Hobbs centre and at senior centres such as the Portobello Manor and the Royal Garden, which, by the way, was not named after me.

In 2012, federal support for the provinces and territories reached a record high, and it will continue to rise.

In 2012-13, Ontario will receive record support through major federal transfers, most of which are earmarked for health. These transfers will provide this province with $19.2 billion. This investment represents a 77% increase in transfers relative to those made by the previous government. Of that amount, Ontario will receive $3.2 billion from the equalization program, $11.4 billion through the Canada health transfer and $4.6 billion through the Canada social transfer.

With this major investment in health, Ontario no longer has to make painful choices.

Between 1965 and 1995, the federal contribution to health care was 50 cents on the dollar. In 1996 the previous government reduced this amount, in one fell swoop, to 14 cents on the dollar. The provincial government of the day had to close 44 hospitals in Ontario, including the Riverside and the Grace, and had to merge 14 others.

Only one hospital on the list of facilities targeted by those cutbacks just barely avoided the knife, Montfort Hospital, as a result of unprecedented mobilization by the francophone and francophile community of eastern Ontario.

Since this government came to power, health transfers have increased to 30 cents per dollar invested in health.

Of course, health is not the only concern for seniors. Since 2006 we have taken nearly 400,000 seniors off the tax rolls, at a time when the number of citizens in this age group is rising sharply. We have introduced pension income splitting and raised the age limit for converting RRSPs to registered retirement income funds from 69 to 71.

To the many measures taken since 2006, economic action plan 2012 has added the third quarter project, which will receive $6 million. This innovative online initiative is designed to help employers find experienced workers over 50 who want to stay active in the labour market.

Since the unemployment rate in Ottawa is relatively low, finding skilled employees can be a real a challenge for employers.

Budget 2012-13 offers improved flexibility and choice for older workers. Those wishing to work longer will be able to postpone payment of their old age security benefits starting in July 2013. Those who do so will receive a higher adjusted annual pension.

Eliminating the penny is another initiative that reflects the government's pragmatic approach. Last Friday, the Royal Canadian Mint struck its last penny. This initiative may seem trivial in a budget of $276 billion; my response is that this is proof of the serious approach the government has taken to managing public funds.

In his editorial of May 5, 2012, columnist Pierre Jury of Le Droit wrote that “cost-cutting on any scale is not wasted, and it was time to make this decision.”

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

You are out of time.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

I appreciate your courtesy, Madam Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Perhaps the hon. member could add a few comments during the period for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, during his speech the member talked about how families have not been overlooked. I think what happened here is that the families have been targeted.

My question to my colleague from Ottawa—Orléans is this: why is his government closing the Kapuskasing Experimental Farm, which has been existence for 100 years and has provided excellent research for farmers in northern Ontario and Quebec?

Because of the focus on northern climate, this type of unique research cannot be generated at any other research station. Instead of putting people out of work, will the member work with us to save the jobs at the Kapuskasing Experimental Farm?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it quite remarkable that a member such as this is asking me, a member from a city far from Kapuskasing, such a specific question.

The fact is that the government is doing a lot for families. We have been working for families since the beginning of our mandate in 2006. That is why, with each successive election, Canadians have given us a stronger mandate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member says that the government respects the public tax dollars and he uses as his example that we are getting rid of the penny. That is the proof that the Conservatives are spending taxpayer dollars appropriately.

It is hard to digest that fact when a minister, who sits on the front benches of the government, orders a glass of orange juice and pays $16 for that glass of orange juice. It was uncovered. It is not like she admitted that she made a mess of that particular issue or that abuse of tax dollars. It was only because she was caught that she paid the money back, at least I believe she paid it back. What did the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance say in regard to that? They said nothing. They were quite content with a front bench minister who feels very comfortable in billing the taxpayers $16 for a glass of orange juice.

I wonder if the member could give us his thoughts on a minister who would spend $16 on a cup of orange juice. Is that a wise expenditure? If he were the minister—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I heard the amount that was paid for the orange juice. However, it is pretty rich coming from that member from the third party talking about expenses when he knows full well that travel expenses for this front bench are some 20% lower than the travel expenses were when that party was in office. That is probably why the voters sent that party to the corner where he is now.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way keeps talking about respect for the Canadian taxpayer dollars. I wonder if he might have a comment on the fact that when the Liberals were in government they borrowed $55 billion from the EI fund and did not put it back. I wonder if the Liberals could talk about the cuts they made to our provinces of over $25 billion that affected health care and education. Are those good examples of looking after taxpayer dollars?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, the point is that when we compare action plan 2012 with the slash and burn of 1995, there is no comparison. What we are doing is very prudent. What that party did in 1995 was hamstring all the provinces. It back-pedaled into the provinces its problems. Here in Ontario, we had to cut down 44 hospitals. The Liberals cut health care investment from 50¢ on the dollar to 14¢ on the dollar in one fell swoop. They still have not apologized for it but the Canadian taxpayers and the Canadian voters are on to this and that is why they are over there.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in today's debate on the budget implementation bill, although I must say that 10 minutes to deal with the 425-page bill is absurdly inadequate. It is impossible to offer a comprehensive analysis if the government is intent on giving me less than one second per page of the bill to articulate the concerns of my constituents. What happened to the government's commitment to accountability?

I will, however, try to make the most of what little time I do have. This speech may not end up hanging together very well but, in the interest of hitting on all the key points, I will just jump from one to the next while keeping a close eye on the clock.

I will begin with the environment. The Conservatives have the worst track record of any recent Canadian government when it comes to environmental protection and action on climate change. In fact, the government is engaged in an all out dismantling of Canada's environmental regulation and protection system.

Canada reduced its federal environmental spending by 40% between 1993 and 1997, starting a long and continuing period of environmental backsliding. Our country's environmental ranking is now the worst in the world. The 2011 Climate change performance index ranks Canada 57 out of 60 nations.

Why are the Conservatives doing this? They are gutting Canada's long-standing environmental laws so that their friends in the oil and gas industry get what they have been asking for: fewer environmental safeguards so they can push through resource megaprojects, including pipelines, with little regard to environmental damage.

Fully one-third of the budget implementation bill deals with such environmental deregulation. It is an all out attack on the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the communities in which we live. It is outrageous. It is our children and grandchildren who will pay the price.

Although there is much more to be said, I must move on and I will move from kids to the other end of the demographic spectrum and talk about seniors.

The Conservative government is using Bill C-38 to balance its budget on the backs of Canadian seniors. The Conservatives gave $16 billion in tax cuts to profitable corporations without receiving a single job guarantee. Now, facing a revenue shortfall, they expect Canadian seniors to pay the price. It is absurd. The Conservatives have no problem spending $30 billion on their F-35 boondoggle and another $19 billion for their unpopular prisons agenda but they cannot spare $540 a month for Canada's poorest seniors. It is about time they got their priorities straight.

In fact, it was not that long ago that the Prime Minister would have agreed with me. In the thick of the 2004 election campaign, his Conservative Party sent out a REALITY CHECK entitled “Paul Martin's hidden seniors agenda”. At that time the Conservatives claimed that the Liberals were hiding a plan to raise the retirement age to 67 for the old age security. They ridiculed the idea of raising the eligibility for OAS because, “Canadians would have to work two years longer only to receive less from their public pension”.

In 2004, the Conservatives were ready to stand up for seniors but that was then and this is now.

Today, the Conservatives have absolutely no qualms about leaving seniors behind. Instead of working to lift every senior out of poverty, the Conservatives are throwing tens of thousands of seniors into poverty. In fact, without OAS-GIS for two years, almost 100,000 recently retired Canadian seniors would be made poor today. For single senior females, the poverty rate would rise from 17% to 48%.

There is absolutely no sound fiscal or policy justification for any of that. In fact, all evidence shows that the OAS is sustainable. Pension and retirement expert professor Tom Klassen of York University noted, “I haven't heard any academic argue that there's a crisis with OAS". In fact, numerous experts, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer, have confirmed that the OAS is sustainable in its existing form. Even the government's own latest actuarial report indicates that the OAS-GIS will account for a smaller percentage of the GDP in 2060 than it does today.

So why punish future generations? By changing the OAS, the Conservatives are pitting one generation against the next. We have all worked hard and played by the rules. There is no reason to bankrupt the next generation of Canadians with the Conservatives' reckless cuts.

In fact, that is exactly the position taken by CARP, one of Canada's leading advocacy organizations for seniors. CARP members have stated that they:

...do not see how cutting OAS spending would help future generations. Instead, they are calling for measures that will create job opportunities for them as a better way to secure their future. Rather than selfishly guarding their own interests...CARP members and other older Canadians are defending an important part of the social safety net and do not want to see it torn up for their children and grandchildren.

If only the government were only listening.

I will keep moving along.

I was encouraged when I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance say last week, “the best way to fight poverty and deal with inequality is to ensure that Canadians have jobs”.

I was cautiously optimistic that a government bill that is entitled the “jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act” might actually deal with the critical issue of jobs, and it does, but instead of dealing with job creation, it deals with job cuts. That is terrible news for communities like my hometown of Hamilton, which was built upon a thriving manufacturing sector.

Since the Conservatives came to power, Canada has lost 365,000 manufacturing jobs. There are nearly 1.4 million Canadians out of work and the employment rate remains well above the pre-recession level. Youth unemployment remains nearly double the national average at 14%.

What is the government's job strategy? It throws more people out of work.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimates that, in addition to the 19,200 positions being eliminated in budget 2012, there will be a further 6,300 jobs cut as a result of the government's previous strategic reviews that have yet to be implemented and a further 9,000 jobs cut as a result of the government's budget operating freeze. That would total 34,500 federal public service jobs being cut.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer suggests that the total will be even higher, at 43,000 jobs lost, since, “we're actually talking about cuts on top of cuts”.

Anyone who had hoped that the Conservatives would live up to their rhetoric of investing in jobs to alleviate poverty will be sadly disappointed. However, they will not be surprised because the government's track record on poverty is one of exacerbating the problem rather than working to eradicate it. From cutting the National Council of Welfare to eliminating key public programs and failing to invest in housing supports and child care, the Conservative government has failed to ensure that we build a Canada where no one is left behind.

As the Canadian Labour Congress rightly pointed out, budgets are all about choices. With unemployment and underemployment still at very high levels and a shrinking middle-class, the federal government could and should have laid the basis for sustained and broadly shared economic recovery.

Instead, the government introduced a number of measures that will unfairly target the unemployed, severely reduce avenues for unemployed workers to appeal the denial of benefits and reduce the standard of living for workers everywhere.

Instead of fixing a broken EI system that results in the denial of benefits to the majority of unemployed workers, the Conservatives are making it even tougher for the unemployed to receive the benefits of an insurance policy they have paid into all of their working lives.

First, the government plans to cut unemployed workers off their EI benefits if they decline “suitable employment”. The definition of “suitable employment” will be set by none other than the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. That minister, of course, is the same minister of HRSDC who laid off claims workers at Service Canada at a time when unemployment and, therefore, claims were actually going up. That minister is also the same minister of HRSDC who sat on her hands while hundreds of workers at U.S. Steel in her own riding were unable to access EI during a recent lockout. If she is not willing to stand up for her own constituents, she certainly cannot be counted on to stand up for unemployed workers in other regions of the country. Yet, the minister is assuming even more power for herself under the EI appeal system.

Whereas the almost 26,000 EI appeals used to be dealt with by regional tripartite boards of referees made up of labour, employer and government chosen representatives, the minister alone will now appoint one board of full-time members to deal with all appeals. This is a recipe for unprecedented backlogs and logistical nightmares, and that is before I even begin to comment about the outrageous replacement of fair and balanced boards of appeal with the minister's pet patronage appointments.

When we combine that with last month's announcement that changes to the temporary foreign worker program will now allow employers to pay highly skilled migrant workers 15% less than the average local wage, the government's agenda is thrown into stark relief.

The Conservatives are absolutely determined to interfere in the labour market to the detriment of not only migrant workers, but all Canadian workers by pushing down wages and, in effect, subsidizing big business.

Workers and their communities deserve better. It is time for the Conservative government to stop being preoccupied with issues of power and prestige and get to work on the bread and butter issues that really matter to Canadian families, like creating quality jobs.

Until we see that change, I will proudly vote against the budget at each and every stage.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's remarks. She indicated that there was no crisis in the OAS system. On this side of the House, we do not wait for a crisis. We actually try to put something into place to avoid crises, unlike the NDP.

My colleague knows that in 1970 there were roughly seven workers for each senior. In 2010 there were four workers for each senior. By 2030 it is projected to be only two for each senior. Clearly we need to take action on this before we run into a crisis.

My question is much more simple than that. She commented in her opening remarks that she only had 10 minutes to provide her input on the budget. Did she ask her colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster if she could have a bit of his time when he went on for hours and hours on the budget bill? It would have been nice for him to share. If she did, what response did she get from him?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague of two things.

First, the NDP critic on finance, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, did a superb job laying out our concerns about the budget on behalf of all Canadians. He was not doing that to hear himself talk. He seized the opportunity to ensure that the views of Canadians were heard in the House.

Second, that was a speech on the budget. We are now dealing with the budget implementation bill. This is a bill of 425 pages in length. This bill needs to be considered with all due diligence. We do not have the opportunity to do that in the House because the government stubbornly refuses to allow sections of the bill to go to various committees so we can deal with the environmental changes, the OAS changes and the very significant changes that the government will make to the lives of everyday Canadians.

When the member suggests that Conservatives are trying to pre-empt a crisis in the old age security system, with respect, I would suggest that they are creating a crisis. Every actuary in the country says there are no financial reasons to change the old age security system. Therefore, we have to assume it is politically motivated. I do not understand a government that is politically motivated to do harm to seniors, the very seniors who built our country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's point with regard to the length of this bill, being in excess of 400 pages. My understanding is the NDP's position is that it would like this bill broken down and sent to different committees, which is quite admirable. It is a good alternative to what members of the Liberal Party believe, which is that the bill itself encompasses what should be other pieces of legislation. Ideally, the whole bill should be rewritten and reduced from the 420 pages down to a normal size budget implementation bill of less than, let us say, 30 pages.

The other components, like the 120-plus pages of environmental legislation, should be reintroduced as a brand new bill so it can be thoroughly debated. Experts from across Canada would be able to participate through witnesses at the committee stage and so forth. Would she—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I must give the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain time to respond.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, we obviously share a very deep-seated concern about how the government is approaching its budgetary policy, as well as how it is treating Parliament and, by extension, Canadian citizens. This is a place for debate. It is not a place for us to debate each other and listen to our own concerns. It is about sharing the views of Canadians on very significant changes in public policy.

The way the government is ramming through its legislation in one omnibus bill, a procedure, by the way, which the government and the Prime Minister, in particular, used to object to when he was in opposition, is unprecedented in its magnitude and does not just do a disservice to members of Parliament, which it does, but, more important, therefore silences the voices of Canadians who we are here to represent. It is not about us, it is about Canadians, and the government owes Canadians an apology.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, while other countries are struggling to stay afloat, Canada remains the envy of the world.

I stand today to express my support for Canada's economic action plan 2012. I am confident in our plans. Our government and our Minister of Finance have laid a solid foundation on which budget 2012 is built. Since the global economic recession hit, the government has frustrated members opposite by simply leading the world through these troubled times.

When we first introduced Canada's economic action plan, opposition members tried to tell Canadians that our plans would ruin Canada's economy. Instead, Canada's economy led the world. Since we introduced Canada's economic action plan, Canada has enjoyed the strongest economic growth and the strongest job growth among G7 countries.

While the previous Liberal government could not even manage a program to put up flags in Quebec without losing tens of millions of dollars to its partisan cronies, this Conservative government was able to roll out the largest economic stimulus program in Canadian history, the largest infrastructure program since we built the railroad and we demonstrated to Canadians that clean and honest government was possible.

Having been proven wrong by the record, opposition members then tried to tell Canadians that our economic action success was only a coincidence. However, while Canadians heard their partisan claims, they also heard statements from non-partisan experts. They heard prestigious international publications calling our Minister of Finance the best in the world. They heard the International Monetary Fund state that Canada's economic success “owes much to the government’s rightly-sized and well-targeted macroeconomic stimulus”.

Similarly, we heard opposition members try to dismiss Canada's record of phenomenal job growth, trying to claim the jobs being created were part-time or paid poorly. Once again, the facts do not bear this out. According to Statistics Canada, almost 80% of jobs created since 2009 were in high-wage industries. More 90% of those jobs are full-time.

The challenge we now face is daunting, but not insurmountable. The stimulus phase of Canada's economic action plan is now ending and it is time for the private sector to step up. This budget supports their efforts by enhancing support for business innovation and research, improving conditions for business investment and investing in training infrastructure and opportunity.

This budget gets at the very core of the economic challenges we face. Let me explain.

Once again this year I conducted a number of consultations in the lead-up to this budget. I invited the constituents I represent to share their views. I hosted round tables where community leaders shared their perspectives. I communicated what I learned with our Minister of Finance and I found myself very pleased with how closely budget 2012 aligned with the priorities of my community.

The chair of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, as well as the mayors of all four of the communities in Kitchener—Conestoga called for a long-term plan for infrastructure renewal. They understood that the stimulus phase ended and that a return to surplus required sacrifice. They did not expect support to continue at the levels of recent years. What they wanted was a commitment that we would not abandon the good work already begun, that their government would continue to partner with them on infrastructure beyond the expiry of the building Canada plan in 2014. They wanted to know in what direction our government would take infrastructure partnerships.

I know they were as pleased as I to see that commitment in budget 2012.

Consultations on a national infrastructure renewal are under way right now with our partners at the provincial, territorial and municipal levels. Budget 2012 states our direction clearly. We will focus on investments that support long-term economic growth and prosperity, while encouraging greater private sector involvement. This phase of Canada's economic action plan also delivers new funding to renew community-based facilities.

My home of Waterloo region is known for its entrepreneurial culture. From the old order Mennonites who still use horses for agriculture and transportation to the digital media startup companies that seem to spring forth daily, our communities value hard work and risk taking.

Let me share with the House what the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce said about this budget. Ian McLean, president of the chamber, said:

Small and medium enterprises are the engine that drive the economy, and the government appears committed to help this sector lead a recovery from the recession...Overall, the government wants the private sector to step forward, create jobs, and compete on global markets. I'm certain local businesses are ready to meet that challenge.

The chamber was especially grateful for measures in economic action plan 2012 to encourage hiring via EI premium credits, as well as our clear plan to return to budget surplus without making cuts to transfers for health and education.

In our area, with its three world-class post-secondary institutions, we understand that education is vital. We view our universities and college as economic engines. It seems that economic action plan 2012 will help these engines fire on all cylinders.

John Tibbits, president of Conestoga College, praised our government's emphasis on linkages between the private sector businesses that need innovation and the educational institutions that can provide it. He said, “These partnerships have tangible impacts, leading to the creation of high-quality jobs for Canadians, improved competitiveness for industry, and enhanced local, regional and national prosperity”.

We heard similar praise from Dr. Feridun Hamdullahpur, president of the University of Waterloo. He said that this budget was a signal, “that Canada remains a serious world leader in terms of primary research, innovation and new economic development. And it is a great vote of confidence in universities like Waterloo and the excellent pure scholarship and spin-off applications produced with crucial funding from the federal agencies”.

Dr. Hamdullahpur noted the value of spin-offs from federal investments.

The value of these spin-offs is also clear to Communitech, Waterloo Region's technology organization, that represents more than 800 high-tech companies in our area, many of whom grew out of our own local schools.

In the weeks and months leading up to the budget, Communitech made on thing very clear to me, and that was that one of the most important things our government could do to help new companies grow and succeed would be to incent new money into Canada's investment markets. In Canada we have investors who will help a new company start. More than 300 high-tech companies were founded in Waterloo Region alone during 2011.

There are many willing to buy established, profitable companies. However, we suffer unfortunately, though, from a shortage of domestic venture capital to help new companies grow into successful mid-sized companies to reach the net rung of success.

Economic action plan 2012 addresses this. Ian Klugman, president of Communitech, was very encouraged to see our emphasis on entrepreneurship and innovation. He noted that “emphasis on access to risk capital is recognition of one of the key barriers to growth and success to tech companies in Canada”.

Waterloo region stands more able than ever to seize opportunities that may emerge anywhere in the world. Federal investments created competitive advantages for us in quantum computing, theoretical physics, digital media and visualization, and food processing.

I believe, along with our government, that Canadian entrepreneurs can take on the world. In Waterloo region, they already are.

Budget 2012 affirms this belief through policy statements, “Our Government understands that Canadians’ standard of living and future prosperity depend on growing trade and investment”.

Economic action plan 2012 will update the government's global commerce strategy and harmonize perimeter security and regulations with our largest trading partner. More than that, it makes clear this government's intentions to secure access for Canadian products and services in the world's fastest growing markets, markets that were ignored by the previous government, markets such as China, the E.U., India, and the trans-Pacific partnerships to name just a few.

However, we measure the health of society by more than its wealth. We measure it also by its compassion, how well we take care of our least fortunate citizens.

There can be no doubt that Canada's return to surplus will require sacrifice. I am proud to stand with a Minister of Finance who believes enough in Canada's public health system to preserve the transfers which support health care, rather than simply download our problems, a path chosen by the previous government with disastrous results for Canadian hospitals.

This government is doing more than supporting the provinces. In 2007 the government created the Mental Health Commission of Canada, which just today launched its landmark mental health strategy for Canada.

This year, on March 29, the Minister of Finance made a smaller announcement, which most media outlets did not even mention, a $5.2 million investment in mental health research.

In a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars, I understand how a relatively minor sum can be overlooked, but investment in support of the Canadian depression research and intervention network will help connect over 80 of Canada's best researchers on this subject. There will be a particular focus on suicide prevention, and federal support will help leverage other public and private sector investments.

I thank the Minister of Finance for finding new money to address this critical issue during these tough times.

Since Canada's economic action plan was first launched, Canada's economy has led the world. Canada and my home of Waterloo region now have the modern assets we need to seize every global opportunity. Economic action plan 2012 charts a prudent course for Canada's return to surplus.

It is with the best interests of Canadians, especially those in Kitchener—Conestoga whom I am so privileged to represent, that I express my unreserved support for budget 2012. I thank the Minister of Finance for his efforts.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, the extremely tight schedule we have been given to work on Bill C-38, which does not facilitate debate at all, reminds me of my childhood in Chile, where a small group of people legislated without listening to anyone else. Clearly, at the time, Chile was not a democracy. I therefore chose to live in Canada because of the strength of its democracy and the value of its parliamentary system, in which debate is of the utmost importance.

Why then are the Conservatives insisting on imposing such a tight timeline that undermines the nature of the Parliament of Canada?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated throughout my remarks, all members of this House hopefully took the opportunity to go back to their constituencies and ask for input as to what the next budget should contain. We did that on many different occasions across the country. That input was already solicited. However, a more important point is that when we first introduced this budget, the NDP and the member for Burnaby—New Westminster used up all of the time for so-called debate, which could have been put to good use by all members of this House on all sides, NDP, Liberal and Conservative. It was a shame that the time was not allotted to allow more members of Parliament to express their—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am not as convinced about the input stage. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons came to my riding and did not have one public meeting. He had a couple of meetings with the councils. The one issue that was brought up predominantly got very little attention whatsoever after the debate. I will reserve that for now.

The member said in a question earlier that his government took precautions to weather the storm of the recession. Why is it that the Conservatives put this country in a deficit position before the recession came?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, many times over the past few years that I have been here in Parliament I have had to listen to this kind of question. It is always surprising that no one on that side will acknowledge that when this government took office, we paid down over $37 billion of our national debt. That put us in a position that made us the envy of the world entering the economic downturn. When we entered that downturn, we had a plan ready to address the challenges that we were facing. If my colleague will just listen for a minute, he will remember that we have created around 700,000 net new jobs, 80% high paying and 90% full time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend from Kitchener—Conestoga. Oh, I am making a mess of his riding name. I apologize for the pronunciation.

I am wondering about the loss of jobs because of the government's failure to invest in the green and renewable energy sector, particularly one of the rising stars in renewable energy, and the pun is intentional, which is called Arise Solar. It is out of Kitchener and Waterloo and it produces photovoltaic roofing tiles. When the company wanted to expand, the German government came and offered half the cost of a new plant. The company is now producing photovoltaic roofing tiles outside Dresden, Germany instead of in Canada because we are blind to the opportunities of investing in renewables and creating jobs. I would like to ask my hon. friend if he is aware of that loss of opportunity.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure my colleague that even she, with all her power, could not mess up Kitchener—Conestoga. It is very secure, it has great representation and a great bunch of people.

There is no budget in history that has invested this heavily in innovation and research and primarily in the blending of the research with industry that is already doing the work. Industry comes to our post-secondary institutions for help in research and development and then industry works with the university to commercialize that innovation.

I am very proud of the record of the past number of years and of this budget and its implications in doubling the investment to IRAP, $1.18 billion in direct research. Along with venture capital, these are all initiatives that will put us on a path forward that will lead us into further recovery.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak on the budget implementation bill, Bill C-38, on behalf of my constituents in Vancouver Kingsway and on behalf of all Canadians who want to see democracy, accountability and sound fiscal planning for a fair and prosperous Canada.

I stood in the House three weeks ago and presented what the people of Vancouver Kingsway told me are the priorities they would like to see in a federal budget. Those priorities were things like housing. We know that the government of Brian Mulroney removed CMHC's participation in affordable housing in 1992, leaving only CMHC's role in insuring mortgages to this day. We also know that the Liberal Party promised in three successive elections to restore the federal government's role in housing and never actually delivered on that. It leaves Canada as one of the only G8 countries that does not have a national housing policy.

The people of Vancouver Kingsway said that they needed childcare. Working parents, single parents in particular, have said time and time again to politicians that they need an affordable, accessible, quality childcare system that will not only help them raise their children and make sure they have a good start in life, but also return an economic benefit that has been estimated at between $5 and $7 for every $1 of investment. We know that childcare is one way to unleash the full economic potential of millions of Canadian families so that they can participate in the workforce.

The people of Vancouver Kingsway told me that they wanted to see meaningful and immediate action on the environment. They know that there is no dichotomy between the economy and the environment. People who are thoughtful in our country know that the environment is the basis for all economic activity in the country. Only the most short-term, blinded people would think that not taking care of our environment is some way to develop our economy.

The people of Vancouver Kingsway told me that they wanted to see a meaningful jobs strategy in the country, not jobs that are part-time, or service sector, or temporary, but jobs that one can actually raise a family on. They told me they wanted to see a budget that would take care of our seniors.

Bill C-38 is a bill that, I am sorry to say, fails in every one of those aspects. There is no national housing plan in the budget. There is no national childcare plan in the budget. Far from taking care of our environment, as I will talk about in a few minutes, the budget bill contains one of the most destructive programs of anti-environment policy that this country has witnessed.

Not only does the budget not provide any meaningful program for jobs, but it is going to see some 19,000 public servants lose their jobs. This is a job destroyer.

What did the seniors of the country see? They saw the government introduce a provision that will see seniors, starting in 2023, have to wait two years longer to receive their old age security. This puts in jeopardy the retirement of millions of Canadians, including any Canadian under the age of 54 right now.

We see a massive 421 page bill, which not only contains implementation of the 2012 budget, but that has many provisions on traditional, non-budgetary matters. Those are buried in the bill. We see fully one-third of the budget bill is dedicated to environmental deregulation. A major narrative in the bill removes powers of the Auditor General and removes many staff. I think what Canadians are seeing in the budget is a reduction in the accountability and transparency of their federal government.

Another major narrative in the bill surrounds the creation of a more secretive and non-transparent government through the removal and closure of oversight powers and bodies and a concentration of many powers in the hands of cabinet ministers who make decisions at cabinet, behind closed doors.

I would argue that, far from being a budget bill that is aimed at jobs and prosperity, as the government members assert, it is actually a budget bill that could be more properly characterized as one of destruction and an attack on democracy, accountability and our environment.

Let us see what is actually in the bill with regard to the environment. This bill would gut the federal environmental assessment regime to speed up major projects, notably pipelines. It would delegate environmental assessments to other authorities, including provinces. It would make sure that projects outside Canada are not held to account under Canadian laws, presumably targeting mining companies.

The division in the budget makes related amendments to the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and consequential amendments to other acts and repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act entirely. This bill would give cabinet authority to make decisions regarding major pipelines and would allow the National Energy Board authority over permits related to pipelines and power lines over navigable waters, overriding tribunals that would find those projects unacceptable.

It would change the rules around fish habitat protection and the deposit of deleterious substances in fish-bearing waters. The bill would give sweeping powers to the minister to transfer authorities to other bodies to allow fisheries management. Many have questioned the constitutionality of that provision. It would weaken rules for disposal at sea. It would allow the government to issue longer-term permits under the Species at Risk Act and allow the National Energy Board to issue permits for development when such developments may affect the species listed.

It would change the definition of interested parties to weaken public participation in environmental decision making and exclude anyone not “directly affected” by a project. It would repeal the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, meaning government would no longer be required to report on its emissions under the act. I note that a report of one of the parliamentary officers responsible for environmental regulation is now saying that the government will not even meet its weak environmental targets by 2020. This act would give cabinet the ability to ignore the National Energy Board and any environmental tribunal and approve a project that had been turned down.

Those are not rhetorical comments, those are provisions of this bill. How anybody could read those provisions and not find that this budget bill is a frontal attack on environmental regulation and sustainability in this country is beyond me.

Let us turn to old age security. Conservative members stand in the House weekly and say they received a strong mandate from the Canadian people to govern. In some cases I think they are right. There are things the government campaigned on and delivered what it said. However, during the campaign the Conservatives did not mention one word ever about raising the old age security requirements.

They claim that this is required because of the demographic trend. The demographic trend in this country did not sneak up on them. The baby boom generation and the demographic trend in this country have been known by everybody for years and years. One is left with only one conclusion: the Conservatives did not mention their plan to raise old age security and put it before the Canadian people during the last election because they knew it would be unpopular and that the Canadian people would not give them a mandate to take that step.

Not only is there no mandate for raising the eligibility age for old age security but there is no evidence to support it, there is no need for it and there is no fiscal prudence in doing so. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been clear. He studied this issue very carefully and found that the old age security program is fully sustainable the way it is. That only stands to reason. The demographic reality is that retirees will peak with the 1964 cohort and then start declining. Since we fund old age security out of general revenues, it is simply a question of policy. If a government wants to fund old age security, it can do that.

What has the current government done? It has cut somewhere between $25 billion and $50 billion of revenue very year over the last five years by reducing the GST two points and reducing corporate income tax. Now the government says there is not enough money to pay for old age security. The government is financing corporate tax cuts today on the backs of our seniors tomorrow. That is irresponsible and unfair.

In terms of the Auditor General, Canadians want to see their government scrutinized. It is what makes us a democracy. We are not a dictatorship. By removing a dozen bodies from scrutiny by the Auditor General, Canadians know what they see, and what they see is a government that is afraid of having its activities scrutinized by the Auditor General, and that is undemocratic.

This budget is unaccountable. It does not reflect the priorities of Canadians. It is undemocratic, and I am proud to vote against it.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have heard this member and several other members from the official opposition and the third party make comments along the line that they simply do not have enough time to debate the bill. It is such a big bill that they just cannot deal with it for some reason or other. I would like to remind the member and others that it is their job to do some work on legislation like this. They have to spend some time. They have to work on it. If they do their job, then they could handle this much better.

Members opposite talk about not having enough time to debate. Yet one NDP member stood in this House for 11 hours. With ten-minute speeches and five-minute question and comment periods, which is the common speaking time, 44 NDP members could have spoken in the time that one member spoke, so they are really speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

I suggest they change their ways, start to view these things in a more positive fashion and show some support just once. They have never supported a budget bill of this government. Yet around the world, our budgets are looked to as exemplary.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague that what we are talking about here is the proper way to present a budget in the British parliamentary system. That traditionally has been to present the budget, not to present a 421-page omnibus bill that contains measures on environmental regulation, veterans affairs, cutting centres of excellence for women's health and removing fish habitat protection from the Fisheries Act. Those are areas that this member knows full well are not properly contained within the confines of a budget,

His own Prime Minister knows that, because the Prime Minister stood up in this House when he was the leader of the Conservative opposition and railed against the Liberals when they brought in omnibus legislation and decried it as undemocratic and improper. My, how things change when the Conservatives are in opposition and then they are in government. All we are talking about is having proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Every member of the House was sent here to do the same job, which is to properly scrutinize government spending and properly study government legislation. When a government puts in legislation on 25 other areas outside of the budget, which should go to committees for proper study with Canadians and stakeholders coming to those committees to have proper input, but instead is put into the budget that will go to one committee, and then invokes closure on it, that is undemocratic, it is improper and it should be decried by every member of this House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have been in opposition when there were Progressive Conservative governments, here nationally when we have a Conservative government and even when provincial governments were NDP. I have seen governments of all political stripes introduce ominous...

[An hon. member]

Omnibus.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

...omnibus bills, but the difference is the length of this particular bill and the number of pieces of legislation that the bill would impact.

We in the Liberal Party believe it is not a question of having the bill broken down and sent to different committees, even though we would prefer to see that than it just going to one committee. Our first preference would be for the government to recognize that it is an anti-democratic bill and that it should take back the bill and bring forward other pieces—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I must give the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway a minute to respond.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I full agree with my hon. colleague when he says that the bill is ominous. It certainly is.

I would point out as well that one of the greatest myths in Canadian politics is that the Conservatives are good money managers. Under the government when the Conservatives took office, the annual debt was $460 billion. It is $570 billion six years later.

The biggest deficit in Canadian history is that of the Minister of Finance, second only to the deficit of Michael Wilson, a previous Conservative finance minister. Yet the Conservatives talk about how they are careful managers of the public purse. They have put us over $110 billion into debt and they have put us into deficit. To get themselves out of that, they cut core services to Canadians while giving irresponsible corporate tax cuts.

I ask one question. If we are in deficit and we have to say to our seniors that they have to work two years longer, what business does the government have giving corporate tax cuts to banks and oil companies that are making billions of dollars of profits a year, which all evidence shows does not result in the creation of jobs?

Madam Speaker—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I am sorry. The hon. member's time has elapsed.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Davenport, the Economy; the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, National Defence.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure today to be standing here in this great place to talk about the implementation of our sixth budget, Bill C-38, which is about jobs, growth and prosperity in the long term.

It is an interesting time. As I listen to the questions that come about in this House, basically, it is the same questions all the time. However, this is about trying to understand what this budget is about.

I am going to talk a little differently from some of the other speakers because, actually, budget 2012 is a building block that started with the foundation of Canada's economic action plan back in 2007.

The residents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex understand what the balancing of a budget means. They understand what it means to move forward. They understand what it is to build on top of a great foundation.

Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, which is in southwestern Ontario, is an area that has incredibly robust agriculture. It is an area made up of small and medium-sized businesses that have a vision and a goal to become more successful and to build on great plans. It is a constituency that is made up of families that respect accountability and decisive action.

And so, when we go out as the Conservative Party of Canada to talk to not only the people across the country but specifically the people in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, they want to know how we got to where we are, in terms of the strength of this economy and the strength of Canada in relationship to the rest of the world. That always gives me the opportunity to talk about where we were, where we came from and how we are going to get there.

I think I am one of the most fortunate MPs in this House because I represent the people of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. They understand the significance that, when we create a deficit, we actually have to pay it down.

When we got elected in 2006, because we had to take over and fix up some of the stuff that had been done by the previous government, we actually had an economy that was moving along and we paid down over $37 billion off the deficit, off the debt.

Actually, in 2008, things went bad.

In 2007 our party could see things around the world that were not conducive to growth. So we took action. Actually, that is when we introduced the economic action plan.

I do not know if there has ever been a budget process that has started with a vision as to how we are going to come into a problem, how we are going to work our way through it and then, at the end of the day, how we are going to continue to grow and build this country not only to be the great country it is now but to continue to sustain itself, not just for the short time but also for the long time.

We believe that if we give businesses of any size in this country the opportunity to grow and we give them the opportunity to be successful, most of them would take that chance. However, we have to give them some tools.

We believe that Canada was an overtaxed country, not only in terms of people but in terms of businesses.

We believe that governments are only the stewards of taxpayers' money. We do not create the jobs, but we have an obligation to create the environment so that businesses and organizations can create the jobs.

We believe that a low-tax system and structure is one of the key elements that would allow businesses to become successful.

It would allow people to be successful and to leave money in their pockets so they can hire people. That is the whole objective of success in the economy: people have a business; they have a product that people want; if they are successful and actually make a profit, they will hire people, generating jobs, and they will pay more taxes because they have generated a larger revenue.

It is a bit of an anomaly that the people on the other side are struggling to understand. It is the complete opposite of what they believe in terms of taxes. They believe we have to tax to death. We believe in taxing to give the ability to be successful.

One of the great things in my riding is agriculture. I do not have a large urban area. My largest urban area is 14,000 people, and the next one is about 13,000. I have 65 other small hamlets and villages in between. Agriculture fills in all those gaps. Agriculture is so important, not only to Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and the people in my riding, because of the diversity of my riding, but it is important to Canada. It is important to the economic stimulus and the ability we have in Canada to be successful.

For agriculture we have opened free trade agreements. That affects not only agriculture but obviously businesses, small businesses. Whatever they are making or producing or whatever technology they have, they understand the importance of our helping them in the research and innovation part of it, so they can stay on the cutting edge, and our giving them the opportunity to open their markets, not only domestically but internationally, which is key to their growth and success.

We have done that. Canada is a unique country in that in agriculture we have wide-open free markets. The grain and livestock sectors are free markets. In Canada we also have a uniqueness that is respected and appreciated by many around the world, and that is supply management. That has been able to build the strength and the confidence of our producers across this country.

From time to time we have heard that we will lose supply management because of our free trade agreements. We have nine trade agreements signed. We are on the verge of signing another one with the EU. We have had discussions with Japan. These are incredible opportunities, not only for agriculture but also for our small businesses. I can tell members that supply management is solid in this country.

One of the things that is important is our young people. I want to tell the House about Scott Moir and Tessa Virtue, Olympic champions, world champion skaters. What do they do? They set a goal. They work hard every day. They practise. When they reach a goal, they continue with a vision, so that they never hang up their skates. They continue to be persistent.

This budget is a bit like that. We have spent hours planning ahead, as we did with the economic action plan. We have set our goals. We have created a vision for Canada that will continue to move us not only from yesterday to today but into the future.

Once we reach those goals, we do not want to be stagnant. We will continue to move on to the next step, so we will continue to be stronger.

Folks, the implementation bill, Bill C-38 is about jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. This is a bill that needs to be supported, and it needs to be brought to the bridges right now. It is a fair and progressive budget. We should all get behind it.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the member that I am very happy to have this opportunity to ask him a question and that I miss him very much at committee meetings.

That being said, how dare he suggest that the people in his riding who voted Conservative know what balancing the budget is all about, whereas those who voted for another party have no idea what a budget is? He is denigrating the intelligence of Canadians. This is not the place to do that. I am sorry, but every member of Parliament was elected by Canadians.

I would like the member to tell us, right here and now, that not one of his constituents has been to see him to voice opposition to the Conservative budget and the decision to raise the age of eligibility for old age security to 67.

Can the member confirm, right here and now, that all of his constituents agree with this policy?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am still on the committee; the member left, and I miss that.

Quite honestly, I do not ask my constituents to come to me; I go to them. We hold round tables and have meetings. That is what I enjoy most about my good rural riding.

No one gets 100% of the electorate's vote, but we received enough to form a majority government. I received enough to get elected, and I thank my constituents of Lambton--Kent--Middlesex for doing that.

I talk to my constituents and I am not afraid to ask them. I get good feedback about the direction the country is going. I ask them if they agree; not everyone does, but we work on the best advice that we have, and I thank them for giving me that opportunity.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for one thing he said and to also ask him a question.

At one point in his speech, he said that governments do not create jobs, but that governments try to create an environment where businesses create jobs. He should communicate that point to the Prime Minister and the various ministers, who every day in question period get up and say that the government created 600,000 or 700,000 jobs. As the member properly said, governments do not create jobs. Perhaps he could tell the Prime Minister that.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Markham—Unionville has been here for many years.

What was meant was that governments actually do not create many jobs that create economic growth. That is what businesses do, but we give them all the tools they need. What they ask is that we give them the tools by which they can provide economic growth for businesses in Canada. That is our key point. The government has to give them the tools.

We also have the option of taking the tools away. The last Liberal government jacked EI premiums so high that it became difficult for businesses to survive. Then when that party had put the premiums so high, it borrowed money out of the EI fund and forgot to pay it back. That is not what governments should do in terms of building a credibility relationship with businesses.

We have done a great job in giving the tools to our businesses. That is why Canada is in the strong economic shape that it is in today.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to share my views on Bill C-38.

This is a very important bill, but unfortunately, not in a positive sense. On the contrary, several elements of this bill are bad for Canadians and for the environment.

This bill is not a generous bill. It is not generous towards immigrants, towards small and medium-sized businesses, towards older people who want to retire, or towards the environment and our fish stocks.

I would like to focus on three main elements in my speech. First of all, Bill C-38 takes us in a direction and down a path that is undemocratic, which is reflected in the process and the content of the bill.

Second, this bill will have a devastating effect on the environment in the long term. This is very worrisome to me and to all Canadians. This bill will damage not only the environment, but also biodiversity, our fish stocks and the health and safety of Canadians who are counting on a healthy environment and healthy ecosystems for the long term. Passing this bill entails several risks.

Third, this bill should create hope, provide opportunities and be generous, since Canada is recovering from a serious recession. Instead, this bill does not help Canadians. On the contrary, this bill contains elements that are bad for small and medium-sized businesses and for Canadians employed by these businesses.

I will now address the first element in greater detail for my hon. colleagues.

While I am confident that there are some positive elements in this budget implementation bill, as there will be in any bill, unfortunately they are completely outweighed by the negative aspects of the bill. The complexity of a 420-page bill that amends some 70 other pieces of legislation makes it difficult to even assess and paint a picture of the things that concern us.

I know my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have been calling it a Trojan Horse bill, but I have a different name for it: I would call it the “infected blanket bill”. This is an infected blanket budget. I use that term very specifically because in the 1700s there are accounts that suggest that gifts by the British government to first nations in North America were knowingly infected with the smallpox virus, which then spread out in those communities and did damage.

Perhaps not immediately, but over time it was very detrimental to those populations, and this is that kind of bill. While the bill is presented as a gift to Canadians and as something positive, in fact some of the provisions, such as the changes to old age security, will inevitably fall most strongly and negatively on the poorest of Canadians, on disabled Canadians and on single elderly low-income women, with who knows what kinds of repercussions. In some case disabled persons report that they are waiting to turn 65 so that they can be lifted out of poverty by old age security and GIS. Those are the Canadians who will lose $30,000 a year with the government's changes. That is the kind of negative gift that will keep on giving.

This infected blanket budget bill will cost our environmental protection incrementally over the long term. We have developed, over perhaps 30 or 40 years, a framework of environmental protection whereby economic development can proceed in a way that mitigates environmental damage. As populations increase and our economy continues to grow based on the development of resources, those good things need to be accompanied by a strong environmental safety net for the health and safety of Canadians and for the long term of an ecosystem that can provide Canadians the services that assist our well-being.

Down the road, if the air poisons us or we have oceans without biodiversity that cannot feed some of our aboriginal communities or we have failing seafood industries that cannot feed Canadians and our export industries, it is going to be negative for Canadians. Over the long term, by gutting these environmental regulations and taking the protection of fish habitat out of the Fisheries Act, we may well see the demise of the salmon stocks on the west coast comparable to what we saw with the cod on the east coast, although I certainly hope not.

We have had the experience of ignoring conservation and environmental sustainability as a principle that must be embedded in the way we develop our economy and our day-to-day lives, and we have seen the cost of ignoring that. That is why we have environmental assessment regulations. That is why we have the species at risk law. That is why we have a Fisheries Act that protects fish habitat and fish. Those are the very things that are being undermined in this bill, which provides an override to the government for political reasons or reasons of industrial pressure. That will cost our fish, wildlife, sea life and the very fundamental importance of them to Canadians in the future.

That is why this budget is of such concern. It is not just that the future destruction is hidden in a budget implementation bill. It is not just that there is no opportunity to duly and properly give justice to these massive changes to our environmental safety net. It is not just that 300,000 people have staked their lives and futures on their hopes and dreams of coming to Canada, a group of people who have paid money, responded to requests for information and put their lives on hold to come to Canada and who are being told, “Sorry; you are history”. It is not just the content of the bill, but the fact that the government is hiding the very contentious things it is trying to in a way that is anti-democratic and takes us down a road toward dictatorship. That is not too strong an image. We are going in a direction away from accountability, away from transparency and away from long-term responsibility for the resource base that must nourish our lives and well-being into the future.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, in her speech the member mentioned that some lower income Canadians would be out $30,000 per year. I wonder where the member could find that figure for me because, as I read it right now, a maximum annual income for OAS is $6,481 and the maximum for GIS is $8,788. I wonder if the member could tell me where she got that $30,000 from, please.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that correction. In my enthusiasm, I did intend to say “over the two year period”. However, the fact remains that removing $30,000 from the available income for the necessities of life for people who are disabled or who have no other source of income is a huge injustice that will only further increase income inequality in Canada.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her contribution to this debate.

Earlier this afternoon, in her speech about the budget, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke said that there were to be no cuts to health or education. I believe I heard her correctly. I made notes about those comments.

However, we know that the budgets for health programs provided by certain organizations, such as the Assembly of First Nations and the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, have been slashed by 40%. The Métis National Council and the Native Women's Association of Canada have both lost 100% of the funding for their health programs.

Can the member tell us how these measures will affect the health of first nations people in Canada who are already coping with very difficult conditions?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is right. There are some very ideological cuts to a great number of organizations, including organizations that provide important services to aboriginal health, but also including environmental organizations like the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy that is pointing at some of the impacts of climate change on the north and on the Inuit people and their way of life.

There has been a choice of where to cut and where to spend. The kinds of things that this budget provides more funds for are not ones that address the needs of the lowest income Canadians or people who are seeking opportunities, such small businesses and medium-sized businesses. There are cuts to the very programs that were creating the conditions for success for small business, such as the Canadian Tourism Commission and the Regional Economic Development agencies, while adding an EI tax increase. Those small and medium entrepreneurs in small communities and the aboriginal entrepreneurs get nothing from this budget and will only suffer from the cuts. That is why I call it an ungenerous budget for the people the member was talking about and for many others.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague, as a former minister herself, regarding the environment.

With all the regulations throughout this legislation that would be amended, they take up basically one-third of a very large document in what the Conservatives are doing here. Obviously, the rhetoric is that they want to make it easier for business and economic growth. However, all of these regulations have been built up over decades, or even longer in the case of protecting habitats. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that, please.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, there are always ways to make environmental regulations and laws more efficient, effective and simplified for people and for businesses without undermining the protection of the environment but this does exactly the opposite. The government's approach undermines that environmental safety net and will be costing us in the long term. It did not need to be this way. We could have made improvements. This is a deleterious approach to the environment and the fisheries.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in this place in support of the budget implementation act and on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Northeast.

In Calgary Northeast, we come from many backgrounds. We have hard-working and highly skilled workers, students, families, entrepreneurs and seniors from all around the world. We have residents who were born here in Canada, as well as large communities from India, Pakistan, the Philippines, China and many other countries. We have doctors, taxi drivers, engineers, restaurant owners, food industry, furniture builders, IT and many more.

We have hard-working seniors and long-time community volunteers; people like Merlin and Mary Bergeron. When not fishing, Merlin still works as a carpenter and Mary as a bookkeeper. Down the street is their place of worship, the St. Thomas More Catholic parish. A few blocks over is the Don Hartman sports complex where Canadians of all ages and backgrounds love watching and playing Canada's favourite sport, hockey.

Across McKnight Boulevard and west is the sprawling Baitan Nur mosque, North America's largest, built by the blood, sweat and tears of the local Ahmadiyya community. Our current Prime Minister was there to speak at the inauguration in 2008.

Further west lies Calgary northeast's beautiful Croatian Canadian Cultural Centre opened by former Prime Minister Mulroney in July 1984.

Northeast from there, we will find the Dashmesh Culture Centre, the place of worship for thousands in Calgary's Sikh community. It is also the main organizer of Calgary's Vaisakhi parade coming up this weekend.

Of course, just as special days like Vaisakhi and Christmas are celebrated by those of many different faiths, so is Diwali. Speaking of Diwali, if we head over a little southwest we will find my family's home congregation and chief organizer of many Calgary Diwali celebrations, the Hindu Society of Calgary.

Across the street is Byblos Bakery, since 1975, producing some of Canada's finest Greek pitas, bagels, nans and baklava, and also providing jobs to many hard-working individuals.

I will now talk about the airport in my riding. Headquarters of WestJet and Canada's third busiest airport, Calgary International Airport is in the midst of a massive expansion to add an international terminal and a longer runway, complete with a tunnel beneath for future east access.

Why am I telling the House all of this? It is because I am very proud of Calgary Northeast and I am humbled to have been elected to represent residents there for a second term. Besides being the most diverse federal riding in Alberta, I believe Calgary Northeast is also the hardest working riding in all of Canada, and I proudly stand today in the House on behalf of my constituents and declare it.

Now I come to my main point. Because of the incredible hard-working spirit of my constituents, there are certain ties that bind them all together. Regardless of background, no one likes to pay higher taxes and yet my hon. colleagues across the way continue to somehow believe that money is like some sort of magical fairy dust and that Canadian workers and companies have a never-ending magical supply.

Unfortunately, the NDP and Liberals continue pushing for higher taxes, followed by higher spending, followed by higher taxes, followed by higher spending. That is clearly a recipe for disaster.

I will share what the former British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, said. She said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money”.

Last May, my constituents in Calgary Northeast and constituents in a majority of ridings across Canada stood up against Liberal and NDP desires for higher taxes. Canadians want the government to focus on jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity while keeping taxes low. That is exactly what our Conservative government has been focused on and that is why Canadians elected a strong, stable, national Conservative majority government.

Unlike the NDP and the Liberals, our Conservative government believes in low taxes. When we leave more money where it belongs, in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and job-creating businesses, we have done what is right. It is not our money. It is Canadians' money.

That is why our Conservative government has cut taxes over 140 times since 2006, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in nearly 50 years.

Despite all the opposition and false allegations from the other parties, our Conservatives government has removed over one million low-income families, individuals and seniors from the tax rolls altogether.

Furthermore, 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 rate 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 $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family; introducing the children's fitness tax credit and children's art tax credit; bringing the landmark tax free savings account, the most important personal saving vehicle since RRSPs; reducing the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%; and lowering business taxes to 15% as passed in Parliament in 2007.

Our Conservative government's low tax record has provided tax savings for a typical Canadian family totalling over $3,100 per year. Why would the opposition fight this? That equals nearly $260 of tax savings per month. The good news is that our Conservative government's tax savings are for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, even when Liberal and NDP MPs vote against the very measures that make these tax savings possible.

When it comes to lowering taxes, here is the really good news. We are not done yet. Economic action plan 2012 builds on our Conservative government's low tax record, including extending the hiring credit for small businesses for an additional year, providing businesses 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 credit will help up to 536,000 employers with additional hiring, reducing small business' 2012 payroll costs by about $205 million.

Our government is making Improvements to registered disability savings plans to make it easier for disabled Canadians to save for their future. We are increasing the travel exemption on the value of goods Canadians can bring in duty free and tax free from $50 to $400 after a 24-hour trip, and from $400 to $800 after a 48-hour trip beginning June 2012.

Standing against the efforts of the Liberals and the NDP to raise taxes, our Conservative low tax approach has in part led Forbes magazine to rank Canada number one in the world for business to grow and create jobs.

We all know that the Leader of the Opposition does not support the exploration of our resource sector and cannot recognize the economic spin-off. The opposition wants to raise taxes on job-creating businesses. When the businesses grow, jobs are created for Canadians.

While Canada has created almost 700,000 net new jobs since July 2009, global economic turbulence remains and too many Canadians are still looking for work. Economic action plan 2012 takes responsible action to support the economy now and over the long term, while keeping taxes low and returning to balanced budgets. We also want to ensure that our social programs remain available today and for our future generations.

Even if the opposition wants to raise taxes on Canadians and on Canadian job creators, the fact is simple: When businesses grow, jobs are created and Canadians benefit. Likewise, if businesses are choked and starved with higher taxes, jobs go down and unemployment goes up.

Therefore, my hon. opposition colleagues across the way can choose either to stand up for higher taxes and fewer jobs or they can stand up for their constituents by agreeing that their constituents deserve lower taxes, jobs, growth and prosperity. That is why I am standing up in support of our Conservative government's budget implementation act, the plan for--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member may be able to add some comments during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I liked it when the member referred to Margaret Thatcher and what the socialists had done.

The member just has to look at the world right now to see which way people are going. The people to the right, not the socialists but the capitalists, were in charge when we went through the economic crisis.

It is nice to just say “Well, let's not pay taxes”, but who will pay for our hospitals, our education, our roads and streets? Let us bring down the taxes, let put it in the pockets of the people and let us have bad roads, let us close down hospitals and some schools. In some places in the country we see the fight about the education of our children.

That is the agenda of the Conservative Party, and it is surely not the agenda of the NDP. We have to look at what is happening in the world right now to see how people are upset because the government is giving tax breaks to big banks which are making $20 billion surpluses and paying themselves bonuses of $11 billion. Those are the friends of the Conservative Party.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from across the way for his passionate comments. However, I believe he missed the point I made during my speech, and that was the Conservative government believed in creating all the things he talked about, while keeping taxes low. It is possible. That is what the record shows. Since 2006, we have created 700,000 net new jobs, while reducing the taxes.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, the hon. member just said that the government had created all those jobs. The previous Conservative speaker got it right; he got it wrong.

The government did not create the jobs. The government tried to create an environment in which businesses would create those jobs. Perhaps the member could communicate that change in tone to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.

I would also like to point out that the member said something wrong. He said repeatedly that the government did not raise any taxes. Let me remind him, it raised employment insurance premiums on January 1 of this year to the tune of $600 million per year. If there is any tax hike that kills jobs, it is EI premiums because they are direct tax on jobs. The sensible policy would have been to keep those premiums frozen for awhile until the economy was stronger.

As the member is such a lover of low taxes, why the government imposed a $600 million a year tax on jobs?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thought that the member, being a former finance minister, would understand that when I talked about the government's job-creating programs or job creation, of course the government created the environment. That was what I meant, and the member knows this well.

Let us talk about EI. I am very surprised that the member from the Liberal Party raises the EI issue. His party raised the EI premium to a level and actually stole $57 billion from that account, used it and never paid it back.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member used the word “stole”. The Liberal Party never stole. That is a lie that member has said and he should not use that word in the House.