Bill C-45 (Historical)

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

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

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures and related measures proposed in the March 29, 2012 budget. Most notably, it
(a) amends the rules relating to Registered Disability Savings Plans (RDSPs) by
(i) replacing the 10-year repayment rule applying to withdrawals with a proportional repayment rule,
(ii) allowing investment income earned in a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) to be transferred on a tax-free basis to the RESP beneficiary’s RDSP,
(iii) extending the period that RDSPs of beneficiaries who cease to qualify for the Disability Tax Credit may remain open in certain circumstances,
(iv) amending the rules relating to maximum and minimum withdrawals, and
(v) amending certain RDSP administrative rules;
(b) includes an employer’s contributions to a group sickness or accident insurance plan in an employee’s income in certain circumstances;
(c) amends the rules applicable to retirement compensation arrangements;
(d) amends the rules applicable to Employees Profit Sharing Plans;
(e) expands the eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment to include a broader range of bioenergy equipment;
(f) phases out the Corporate Mineral Exploration and Development Tax Credit;
(g) phases out the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit for activities related to the oil and gas and mining sectors;
(h) provides that qualified property for the purposes of the Atlantic Investment Tax Credit will include certain electricity generation equipment and clean energy generation equipment used primarily in an eligible activity;
(i) amends the Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) investment tax credit by
(i) reducing the general SR&ED investment tax credit rate from 20% to 15%,
(ii) reducing the prescribed proxy amount, which taxpayers use to claim SR&ED overhead expenditures, from 65% to 55% of the salaries and wages of employees who are engaged in SR&ED activities,
(iii) removing the profit element from arm’s length third-party contracts for the purpose of the calculation of SR&ED tax credits, and
(iv) removing capital from the base of eligible expenditures for the purpose of the calculation of SR&ED tax incentives;
(j) introduces rules to prevent the avoidance of corporate income tax through the use of partnerships to convert income gains into capital gains;
(k) clarifies that transfer pricing secondary adjustments are treated as dividends for the purposes of withholding tax imposed under Part XIII of the Income Tax Act;
(l) amends the thin capitalization rules by
(i) reducing the debt-to-equity ratio from 2:1 to 1.5:1,
(ii) extending the scope of the thin capitalization rules to debts of partnerships of which a Canadian-resident corporation is a member,
(iii) treating disallowed interest expense under the thin capitalization rules as dividends for the purposes of withholding tax imposed under Part XIII of the Income Tax Act, and
(iv) preventing double taxation in certain circumstances when a Canadian resident corporation borrows money from its controlled foreign affiliate;
(m) imposes, in certain circumstances, withholding tax under Part XIII of the Income Tax Act when a foreign-based multinational corporation transfers a foreign affiliate to its Canadian subsidiary, while preserving the ability of the Canadian subsidiary to undertake expansion of its Canadian business; and
(n) phases out the Overseas Employment Tax Credit.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures. Most notably, it introduces tax rules to accommodate Pooled Registered Pension Plans and provides that income received from a retirement compensation arrangement is eligible for pension income splitting in certain circumstances.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act and the Jobs and Economic Growth Act to implement rules applicable to the financial services sector in respect of the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST). They include rules that allow certain financial institutions to obtain pre-approval from the Minister of National Revenue of methods used to determine their liability in respect of the provincial component of the HST, that require certain financial institutions to have fiscal years that are calendar years, that require group registration of financial institutions in certain cases and that provide for changes to a rebate of the provincial component of the HST to certain financial institutions that render services to clients that are outside the HST provinces. This Part also confirms the authority under which certain GST/HST regulations relating to financial institutions are made.
Part 3 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to provide the legislative authority to share with provinces and territories taxes in respect of specified investment flow-through (SIFT) entities — trusts or partnerships — under section 122.1 and Part IX.1 of the Income Tax Act, consistent with the federal government’s proposal on the introduction of those taxes. It also provides the legislative authority to share with provinces and territories the tax on excess EPSP amounts imposed under Part XI.4 of the Income Tax Act, consistent with the measures proposed in the March 29, 2012 budget. It also allows the Minister of Finance to request from the Minister of National Revenue information that is necessary for the administration of the sharing of taxes with the provinces and territories.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Jobs and Economic Growth Act as a result of amendments introduced in the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act to allow certain public sector investment pools to directly invest in a federally regulated financial institution.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 to permit the incorporation by reference into regulations of all Canadian modifications to an international convention or industry standard that are also incorporated by reference into the regulations, by means of a mechanism similar to that used by many other maritime nations. It also provides for third parties acting on the Minister of Transport’s behalf to set fees for certain services that they provide in accordance with an agreement with that Minister.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to, among other things, provide for a limited, automatic stay in respect of certain eligible financial contracts when a bridge institution is established. It also amends the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to facilitate central clearing of standardized over-the-counter derivatives.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Fisheries Act to amend the prohibition against obstructing the passage of fish and to provide that certain amounts are to be paid into the Environmental Damages Fund. It also amends the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act to amend the definition of Aboriginal fishery and another prohibition relating to the passage of fish. Finally, it provides transitional provisions relating to authorizations issued under the Fisheries Act before certain amendments to that Act come into force.
Division 5 of Part 4 enacts the Bridge To Strengthen Trade Act, which excludes the application of certain Acts to the construction of a bridge that spans the Detroit River and other works and to their initial operator. That Act also establishes ancillary measures. It also amends the International Bridges and Tunnels Act.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends Schedule I to the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act to reflect changes made to the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund as a result of the 2010 Quota and Governance Reforms. The amendments pertain to the rules and regulations of the Fund’s Executive Board and complete the updating of that Act to reflect those reforms.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Canada Pension Plan to implement the results of the 2010-12 triennial review, most notably, to clarify that contributions for certain benefits must be made during the contributory period, to clarify how certain deductions are to be determined for the purpose of calculating average monthly pensionable earnings, to determine the minimum qualifying period for certain late applicants for a disability pension and to enhance the authority of the Review Tribunal and the Pension Appeals Board. It also amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to enhance the authority of the Social Security Tribunal.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Indian Act to modify the voting and approval procedures in relation to proposed land designations.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Judges Act to implement the Government of Canada’s response to the report of the fourth Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission regarding salary and benefits for federally appointed judges. It also amends that Act to shorten the period in which the Government of Canada must respond to a report of the Commission.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to
(a) simplify the calculation of holiday pay;
(b) set out the timelines for making certain complaints under Part III of that Act and the circumstances in which an inspector may suspend or reject such complaints;
(c) set limits on the period that may be covered by payment orders; and
(d) provide for a review mechanism for payment orders and notices of unfounded complaint.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act to transfer the powers and duties of the Merchant Seamen Compensation Board to the Minister of Labour and to repeal provisions that are related to the Board. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Customs Act to strengthen and streamline procedures related to arrivals in Canada, to clarify the obligations of owners or operators of international transport installations to maintain port of entry facilities and to allow the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to require prescribed information about any person who is or is expected to be on board a conveyance.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act to transfer the powers and functions of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission to the Minister of Health and to repeal provisions of that Act that are related to the Commission. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act to reflect changes made to Chapter 17 of the Agreement on Internal Trade. It provides primarily for the enforceability of orders to pay tariff costs and monetary penalties made under Chapter 17. It also repeals subsection 28(3) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to provide a temporary measure to refund a portion of employer premiums for small businesses. An employer whose premiums were $10,000 or less in 2011 will be refunded the increase in 2012 premiums over those paid in 2011, to a maximum of $1,000.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide for an electronic travel authorization and to provide that the User Fees Act does not apply to a fee for the provision of services in relation to an application for an electronic travel authorization.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to remove the age limit for persons from outside the federal public administration being appointed or continuing as President or as a director of the Corporation.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Navigable Waters Protection Act to limit that Act’s application to works in certain navigable waters that are set out in its schedule. It also amends that Act so that it can be deemed to apply to certain works in other navigable waters, with the approval of the Minister of Transport. In particular, it amends that Act to provide for an assessment process for certain works and to provide that works that are assessed as likely to substantially interfere with navigation require the Minister’s approval. It also amends that Act to provide for administrative monetary penalties and additional offences. Finally, it makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Canada Grain Act to
(a) combine terminal elevators and transfer elevators into a single class of elevators called terminal elevators;
(b) replace the requirement that the operator of a licensed terminal elevator receiving grain cause that grain to be officially weighed and officially inspected by a requirement that the operator either weigh and inspect that grain or cause that grain to be weighed and inspected by a third party;
(c) provide for recourse if an operator does not weigh or inspect the grain, or cause it to be weighed or inspected;
(d) repeal the grain appeal tribunals;
(e) repeal the requirement for weigh-overs; and
(f) provide the Canadian Grain Commission with the power to make regulations or orders with respect to weighing and inspecting grain and the security that is to be obtained and maintained by licensees.
It also amends An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to Repeal the Grain Futures Act as well as other Acts, and includes transitional provisions.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act and other Acts to modify the manner in which certain international obligations are implemented.
Division 21 of Part 4 makes technical amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and amends one of its transitional provisions to make that Act applicable to designated projects, as defined in that Act, for which an environmental assessment would have been required under the former Act.
Division 22 of Part 4 provides for the temporary suspension of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act and the dissolution of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. Consequently, it enacts an interim Employment Insurance premium rate-setting regime under the Employment Insurance Act and makes amendments to the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act and Schedule III to the Financial Administration Act.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act is amended to change the limitations that apply in respect of the contribution rates at which contributors are required to pay as a result of amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act.
The Public Service Superannuation Act is amended to provide that contributors pay no more than 50% of the current service cost of the pension plan. In addition, the pensionable age is raised from 60 to 65 in relation to persons who become contributors on or after January 1, 2013.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act is amended to change the limitations that apply in respect of the contribution rates at which contributors are required to pay as a result of amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Canada Revenue Agency Act to make section 112 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act applicable to the Canada Revenue Agency. That section makes entering into a collective agreement subject to the Governor in Council’s approval. The Division also amends the Canada Revenue Agency Act to require that the Agency have its negotiating mandate approved by the President of the Treasury Board and to require that it consult the President of the Treasury Board before determining certain other terms and conditions of employment for its employees.

Jobs and Growth, 2012

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to finish off the last debate on the foundations put forward by Jean Chrétien, the member for Cape Breton—Canso sat there while that government took $53 billion from workers and businesses from the EI surplus.

Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012, is about the budget implementation act, part 2, which would implement some extremely important measures from the March budget. There are many provisions to improve our economy, which continues to be the primary focus of this government.

The results are beginning to speak for themselves in terms of the economy. There are over 820,000 net new jobs since the worst of the great recession in July 2009. Of those jobs, 90% are full-time, which speaks to strong private sector job growth.

The World Economic Forum said that our banks were the soundest in the world. Forbes magazine ranked Canada as the best country in the world in which to do business. The OECD and IMF predict that our economic growth will be among the strongest in the industrialized world over the next two years. Our net debt to GDP ratio remains the lowest in the G7 by a country mile or two. All three major credit ratings, be it Moody's, Fitch, or Standard & Poor's, have all reaffirmed Canada's top credit rating.

The global economy obviously remains fragile. To look at the European Union, the newspapers yesterday were filled with stories about Spain and its continued problems. Also, the U.S. growth, if we exclude the quantitative easing measures by the current administration—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012.

This act would implement key initiatives that would bolster Canada's economy and help improve communities across Canada with measures that create jobs, support families and communities and respect taxpayer dollars.

Many of my colleagues have, over the course of this debate, highlighted the numerous important measures that are proposed in the bill. These include extending the hiring credit for small business, removing red tape, reducing fees for our grain farmers and improving the administration of the Canada pension plan.

However, I would like to use my time today to focus on the aspects of the bill that are key to the continued economic growth of my riding of Prince George—Peace River, namely our government's commitment to the streamlining of the regulatory process in order to promote the responsible development of our natural resource sector.

As we all know, a key part of our nation's future lies within our natural resources. In my riding, these resources play a significant role in the local economy. Few regions are as blessed with natural resources as British Columbia, and this sector has been a key driving force for our local economy for decades.

Few jobs in the region are not directly affected by the development of these resources. Nationally the natural resources sector, directly and indirectly, accounts for nearly 20% of our economy. That is one-fifth of all economic activity in Canada. It is massive.

That generates 800,000 high-quality jobs in Canada. Add to that the additional 800,000 indirect jobs in other sectors, and we have close to 1.6 million jobs that depend on natural resource development, nearly 10% of all jobs in Canada. It is huge indeed.

There are more than 600 major Canadian resource projects planned over the next 10 years or currently under way. These projects represent approximately $650 billion in investments, a significant increase from the $500 billion in investments that had been identified only a year ago.

It is no secret that in today's modern society, all of us use natural resources on a daily basis, and it is clear by these numbers that the global demand for these resources is growing even stronger. However, we will have to compete with those other resource-rich countries for those vital job-creating investment dollars.

Acting on this opportunity means putting in place a world-class regulatory system. We need a system that ensures timely, efficient and effective reviews, a system that promotes business confidence in investment while strengthening our world-class environmental standards.

In economic action plan 2012, we introduced our government's responsible resource development plan, and in Bill C-45 we are continuing in our efforts to streamline the regulatory process while also maintaining rigorous environmental standards.

This commitment to streamlining the regulatory process and responsibly developing our natural resources would have a positive impact on all Canadians. In doing so, we would not be only creating and sustaining high value jobs and economic growth, but also generating billions of dollars in tax revenues to help pay for important social services.

Let me be clear. Despite continued fearmongering on the part of the opposition, projects would not proceed unless they could be done safely and responsibly. Eliminating duplication or updating legislation does not mean we are weakening the environmental standards. On the contrary, by streamlining our regulatory process we can focus environmental assessments on major projects.

For example, our proposed changes to the navigation protection act are a continuation of our government's commitment to streamlining the regulatory process. These changes would clearly define the major waterways upon which regulatory approval is required, and rely on the common law to protect navigation in non-listed waterways.

Canada's waters would continue to be protected by Transport Canada's marine safety laws, the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, as well as various provincial statutes.

In fact, Canada has nine acts of Parliament governing marine safety. These strict rules and regulations govern the development and shipment of products like oil and gas to safeguard public health and the environment. For example, Canada requires ships to provide 24 hours' notice before entering its waters.

The federal government also inspects every foreign tanker on its first visit to a Canadian port and, for vessels making multiple visits, at least once a year thereafter.

All large crude oil tankers must now be double-hulled. Smaller vessels must be double-hulled by the end of 2014.

Thanks to tough legislation and technological innovations, there have been no spills from double-hull tankers in Canadian waters, period. Nor have there ever been spills from tankers escorted by tugs with a local pilot aboard.

In addition, oil-handling facilities are required to have oil pollution prevention plans and oil pollution emergency plans in place. The government reviews the plans and equipment and evaluates the oil-handling facility's capabilities through exercises. With regard to pipeline safety, pipelines are currently the safest and most efficient method of transporting large volumes of oil and petroleum products over long distances, and our government has similarly tough legislation and rules in place to prevent spills.

The National Energy Board subjects pipeline development proposals to an extensive review that ensures pipelines are safe and protect the environment and the public. Permits are only granted once environmental issues and first nations concerns have been considered. Pipelines and equipment must also meet Canadian Standards Association specifications, which are considered among the most stringent in the world. Safety, integrity and emergency response programs specific to each company's infrastructure are regularly reviewed and audited by the National Energy Board. The ongoing monitoring of pipelines, inspections and site visits, as well as the ability to issue mandatory compliance orders, are also some of the tools in place to ensure pipeline safety. We are taking every possible measure to reduce the risks associated with resource development and transportation. In fact, we are going further than any government before, under our responsible resource development plan.

Why am I bringing up all these important safety measures? While Bill C-45 would continue our government's commitment to streamline the regulatory process, we would continue to have a rigorous environmental review process that would ensure our resources are developed responsibly.

As I said previously, my riding of Prince George—Peace River is a resource-rich region in Canada, with many of my constituents reliant on the development of our natural resources.

I strongly believe that we must continue to remove duplication from our regulatory system, while also ensuring that our changes would not negatively affect our strict environmental protection standards. I believe that is what we would do with the measures we have introduced in Bill C-45. We can remain good stewards of the environment and our natural resources at the same time. That is why I am proud to support Bill C-45.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is generally a pretty jovial guy, so it is surprising to see him so grumpy today and so negative about this bill. There are a lot of good measures in Bill C-45. The registered disability savings plans are being improved. The EI credit for small business employers is being continued. It is a credit of up to $1,000 against a small business employer's increase in 2012 premiums. This is available to over 536,000 employees.

Does my colleague agree with these improvements in Bill C-45? Finally, I would like to ask if he could also say how he feels about the comments of his former leader, Mr. Broadbent, when he said:

Taxes are the hinge that links citizens to one another and to the common good...We should also consider...implementing taxes on very large inheritances of wealth which pass morally-unjustifiable class privilege.... Significant revenues could be raised by the introduction of a financial transaction tax... Green taxes—such as a carbon tax and higher taxes on natural resources—need to be considered as a means of financing

I would like my colleague to respond to those three questions.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that the questions, comments and what we think about the bill are on the agenda today. We can also talk about what is missing from a bill. We must never limit debate in the House of Commons to the content of a bill ; we must be able to talk about what is missing.

Once again, the government is trying to shut us up so that it does not look bad. What did it do? For example, through its bill it is requiring people to work until the age of 67. This direct attack on workers is unbelievable. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour say that they are doing this to help people. That all this is being done in order to help people.

They want me to talk about Bill C-45. So I will talk about temporary foreign workers. Does it make sense for us to bring in temporary foreign workers who will be paid 15% less than Canadians? What does this mean? It means that employers will be able to keep temporary workers in their businesses. There is a reason why Canadians who go to work in Cap-Pelé are sent home after working 20 hours. Temporary workers can stay for 40 hours.

There is a reason that, in Caraquet, some workers are not called back to work in a fish plant. Temporary foreign workers have taken their place because the employer can pay them 15% less and make them work in a different way given the regulations in effect in New Brunswick. There are laws that are not obeyed in New Brunswick. If the poor foreign worker who wants to earn money disagrees with what his employer says, the employer calls Immigration Canada and says that the worker he got is not working out.

How can employers bring temporary foreign workers to their workplaces when the unemployment rate in Acadie—Bathurst is 20%? That is crazy.

Here is what the Conservatives are doing with this bill: they are opening the door to what I call “foreign worker slavery” and to the loss of jobs for local workers. Then they turn around and tell us that they want our people to work.

Here is what they really want: they want our people to go work out west, and they want foreign workers to do seasonal jobs, pay taxes and pay employment insurance premiums before being sent back to their country without receiving any benefits at all.

The government could do the same thing the Liberals did: take $57 billion contributed by workers and spend it however it wants. That is what the Conservatives are doing, but it is not the right thing to do. People need to wake up and realize that.

I am proud that I went to the demonstration in Campbellton this week. However, I was not proud to see the fear in people's eyes, nor was I proud of the way the government has treated workers.

I meant it when I asked what workers did to the Conservative Prime Minister to make him hate them so much. Because that is the truth: he hates workers. He is constantly making their lives more difficult.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have been listening for the last few minutes. I think the member is debating Bill C-38 and not Bill C-45 at this particular moment. I would ask you to ask him to be relevant to Bill C-45.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to speak about Bill C-45. This is not the first time that the Conservative government has introduced this omnibus bill. The Conservatives introduced it in the spring and they are introducing it now. It is the second part of the budget. How many laws does this 400-page bill contain?

First, the bill prevents parliamentarians from representing their constituents. In my opinion, in a democratic country and a supposedly democratic Parliament, when election day comes and Canadians choose representatives in Ottawa, it is so that those representatives can do something. First, parliamentarians have the right to talk about a bill. Second, they have the right to examine it. Third, they have the right to vote on it.

I would say that this Conservative government is a reform government because that is really what it is. The Conservative Party used to be a progressive party but such is no longer the case. This majority government is introducing bills that are setting back democracy.

I do not understand how Conservative members can feel comfortable with this situation. Even the public is starting to stand up and say that it does not make sense that their elected representatives are no longer allowed to do anything because of the Conservative—or the reform—government. Democracy is suffering.

I do not have much time so I would like to give some examples right away. Ten minutes is not a lot of time. In fact, two minutes have already passed and I have only eight minutes left.

Let us look at employment insurance. This is an issue that is close to my heart, and I will explain why. In my riding, there are a lot of seasonal jobs. Seasonal workers do not exist. There are only seasonal jobs.

In July, there were five demonstrations in my area: one in the riding of Miramichi, three in the riding of Acadie—Bathurst and one in Madawaska—Restigouche, the riding of the Minister of State for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. This is the same minister who said that people should have to have a grade 12 education to be eligible for employment insurance benefits. He is also the one who told his constituents that there are still people out there today, in 2012, who would prefer to collect employment insurance benefits so that they can go hunting instead of going to work. What an insult to workers!

On the weekend, I participated in a demonstration that deeply touched me, and I will tell you why. More than 2,000 people participated in this demonstration. When Acadians and anglophones from New Brunswick marched on the J. C. Van Horne Bridge in Fredericton, they saw aboriginal peoples from Gaspé and francophones from Quebec marching towards them. It was called the meeting of the peoples. We told the Conservative government that it was not heading in the right direction with employment insurance reforms.

In this budget, the Conservatives could at least have changed some of the regulations. What they are doing is cruel. We talk about cruelty to animals. What they are doing to workers who have lost their seasonal jobs in the fisheries, forestry sector or tourism, is cruel.

Every week, those very people have to present themselves to employers and ask if there are any jobs. Women over 60 are calling me to say that they have to go into stores to ask about being hired, otherwise the government will cut their employment insurance benefits. They are being humiliated even though they have worked their entire lives in a fish processing plant, for example.

In my riding, no matter if the person lives in Caraquet, Shippagan, Lamèque, Miscou, Tracadie-Sheila, Inkerman, Saint-Simon, Maisonnette, Anse-Bleue, Grande-Anse, Saint-Isidore or Paquetville, there is simply no work.

The government boasts that it has created 820,000 jobs, but it does not talk about the jobs it has eliminated. For example, it eliminated jobs at the Canada Post call centre in Fredericton and replaced them with jobs that pay $12 an hour and no benefits. The government does not talk about that.

They humiliate people and scare them by making cuts to the employment insurance program. I get calls from employers who tell me that they have no jobs to offer. They have a small store with two employees. They get 50 to 300 people every week who come in asking for a job. They say that the government is hurting their businesses. These are not customers coming to buy from them; they are people looking for a job.

We see the way the government is acting. It is forcing people down home to go elsewhere to look for jobs. I understand what the Conservatives are saying. They are saying that if people are on EI, they are supposed to be looking for jobs.

However, they live in an area where unemployment is up to 20%, because the fish plant has closed down and tourism and forestry have closed down for the winter, because that is what we have at home. They are telling those workers to look for jobs three times a week, and if not, they will cut their employment insurance.

Store owners are calling our office saying that they do not have jobs, and when these people go to their establishments, they are hurting their enterprises. It is not that they do not like them, but they are not buying in their establishments. As a matter of fact, they are putting signs in their windows now, stating that they are not employing anybody. As matter of fact, some of them are saying that they are going to start charging $15 for each person who wants to have the owner fill in the form human resources wants. Some of them are saying that they are going to start charging $20 for the forms human resources wants them to sign.

Just imagine that. They have already lost their jobs. They are only getting 55% of their wages, and they have to travel around the Acadian peninsula looking for jobs that do not exist. Imagine the amount of money they are spending just on gas, and that is money they do not have. How can the government say that it has put that in place to help people find jobs where they did not know that a job existed?

I invite the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to come down to the peninsula to Acadie—Bathurst, Miramichi or Madawaska—Restigouche any day to see if there are jobs. The jobs are not at home. In her bill she is saying that they have to look an hour away from home. Does she understand where they are living?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the jobs growth act which would implement key provisions for our 2012 economic action plan.

The legislation would serve to implement additional measures of the 2012 budget in order to continue to grow Canada's economy, fuel job creation and secure Air Canada's long-term prosperity.

First, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance as well as the departmental officials for their great work at the technical briefing of the bill. What we heard from officials at the technical briefing were clear and precise details outlining the department's rationale for each of the fiscal issues that make up Bill C-45. It was six hours well spent.

While I consider my riding of Red Deer, I reflect on its people and its prominence in the province of Alberta. Not only are its people innovative and hard working, but our riding is centrally positioned along Alberta's transportation corridor and acts as a vibrant industry service hub, and agriculture is one of those critical industries. It has been and continues to be vital to our community of Red Deer and I am proud to be part of a government that recognizes that Canada's agriculture industry is a key economic driver, not only for rural communities but for our nation as a whole.

Today I am pleased to recognize the exciting future that is in store for Canada's grain sector with the introduction of Bill C-45.

Earlier this year, western Canadian wheat and barley farmers were released from the shackles of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. After 75 long years of being legally prohibited from selling their own grain, they are at last able to reap the benefits of their hard work.

In conjunction with new freedom for western wheat and barley growers, today's bill, the jobs and growth act, proposes much needed legislative amendments to the Canada Grain Act in order to streamline and update the operations of our century-old grain commission.

I would also like to speak about the Red Deer Chamber of Commerce which presented to its national policy convention a resolution that encouraged marketing freedom for western Canadian wheat and barley growers, and it was passed by that organization.

Farmers' interests are best served when unnecessary costs and regulations are eliminated and when farmers can deliver grain into a competitive and efficient grain handling system. It has been 40 years since the Canadian Grain Commission was last updated to meet the needs of farmers, so it is definitely time for us to remove red tape and unnecessary regulations for grain growers.

Bill C-45 removes the requirement for inward inspection and weighing by the Canadian Grain Commission. This proposed change will eliminate over $20 million annually in unnecessary costs from the grain handling system; costs that have been downloaded onto farmers.

The original purpose of inward inspection and inward weighing was to ensure that grades and weights were recorded at each stage as grain moved through the system. The service was established when primary elevators, terminal elevators and transfer elevators were owned by different companies. Grain companies needed a system of checks and balances to follow the grain as it weaved its way through the system. The Canadian Grain Commission was required to act as a third party to ensure that this happened.

However, there have been many changes in the industry, which now call in question the need for the Canadian Grain Commission to inspect and weigh every shipment of grain that is unloaded at terminal or transfer elevators. These services are no longer required in a business environment where a prairie grain elevator is often shipping its own grain within its own terminal system. These inspections are redundant and unnecessary.

The shippers will be able to request third party inspections, but as for who provides these inwards services, that would be best determined by those involved in the transaction. The shipper and the elevator operator will also have the right to appeal to the Canadian Grain Commission for binding determination of grade and dockage if there is a disagreement.

There has been some criticism from across the way on these changes and I sometimes wonder whose interests opposition members are looking after. However, our government has consulted extensively with farmers on how to modernize the grain handling system and we are pleased to have the support of industry for these changes.

Richard Phillips, executive director of the Grain Growers of Canada, in a press release dated October 23, said:

Under the current system, we see duplication of services with grain company staff and grain commission inspectors both inspecting the same tens of thousands of railcars every year...This change will certainly reduce unnecessary overlap. The Grain Growers have always pushed hard to reduce red tape and regulatory burdens for our grain sector and so we fully support this change.

The industry agrees that this is the way forward to modernize the Canadian grain handling system and to provide an efficient competitive environment for farmers to operate in.

The other important change that is designed to benefit farmers is the introduction of insurance-based producer-payment protection. A key role of the Canadian Grain Commission has been to protect primary producers from the risk of industry participants going belly up. The commissioner requires that all elevators post a bond in an amount equal to the value of the grain that they are handling. The current payment protection program adds significant costs to western Canadian producers, but it is not cost effective and the costs of the program are ultimately borne by farmers.

Unfortunately, we have seen that despite the licensing regime, the bonding system does not necessarily protect producers from the financial failure of grain elevators. If an elevator is bonded, the security held by the Canadian Grain Commission is insufficient in some instances and producers are left with a loss if a company goes under. Unfortunately, all that this requirement has done is tie up a significant amount of operating capital in the industry without protecting farmers.

Bill C-45 would change this by allowing an insurance-based program that would reduce costs to the grain sector and reduce risks to producers. Grain elevators and dealers would continue to be licensed and providing security would continue to be a requirement of becoming licensed. However, an insurance-based program would reduce risks to farmers as an insurance program would guarantee that farmers would not left without payment.

As I have already said, these amendments reflect extensive consultation with industry and are supported. The Western Canadian Wheat Growers stated in its press release of October 22 of this year that it applauded changes to the legislation that would provide greater flexibility in how payments to farmers were secured. It has recognized that replacing the traditional bonding system with an insurance system could provide farmers with better coverage at a lower overall cost. Kevin Bender, president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, who happens to also be a constituent of mine, said, “the amendments represent a good first step toward modernizing the Canadian Grain Commission”.

The Canadian Grain Commission is essential to our country's system of grain handling, but it has been very difficult for the commission to keep up with changes in the industry both in Canada and abroad. The result has been a restrictive approach in regulating Canada's grain industry.

It is the Conservative Party, a party that has many farmers sitting in the House, of which I am one, that fights for this industry. It is this Conservative government that has followed through on studies and consultations with the grain industry to come up with the important amendments that we see today.

We received feedback from the grain sector during the 2006 Compass review, the recent Rail Freight Service Review, the Canadian Grain Commission's 2011 user fees consultation and the commission's engagement with stakeholders earlier this year. We have listened and we are acting.

There are a few things that I want to summarize so people recognize the significance of the points that are being made.

First is the removal of the inward inspection. The farmers deliver the grain. If they wish to confirm the quality, they bag it, tag it and send it to the Canadian Grain Commission. Then they know what they are going to be paid for because the weights have already been determined. That is the end of their transaction. That is the beauty of what we have had without the Canadian Wheat Board.

The grain companies are the ones that own it. They then move it through their system and by not forcing farmers to continue the inward inspection, there are no more extra costs added to the movement of the grain within the grain companies. Based on that, it means that they will not be downloading extra charges. It has been mentioned that there are tens of thousands of rail cars are being continually inspected and the cost of that ends up going to the farmer.

The second point that I have heard others talk about is the Grain Appeal Tribunal. With the removal of inward inspections, the need to arbitrate, therefore, becomes unnecessary. This has nothing to do with the producers. Remember they no longer own the grain. Their transactions were completed at the grain elevator. The discussion is between the Canadian Grain Commission, company X and company Y, not the farmers.

It is this Conservative government that is helping farmers by putting the Canadian Grain Commission on a track to keep pace with the industry in the 21st century. The status quo is not acceptable for grain producers in Canada. Therefore, I urge all members in the House to support these important legislative amendments.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to continue my speech. Ironically entitled the “Jobs and Growth Act”, Bill C-45 completely lacks measures to create jobs and stimulate growth in the long term for Canadians. In fact, the budget plans for unemployment to rise. The tax credits provided in the bill to small businesses are small and only for a very short time period. Additionally, Bill C-45 cuts support for business research and development. This does not seem to make any sense at a time when Canadian businesses need to increase innovation and productivity to be able to succeed in our knowledge based local economy and the ever changing global economy. Moreover, the changes in the bill will hurt the manufacturing sector, which provides many good jobs to my constituents in Scarborough--Rouge River, as firms will be more likely to move their R and D activities to other countries with better incentives.

What we need is a long-term Canada-wide strategy to create good jobs for the 1.4 million Canadians who are still unemployed, not a budget bill that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated will cost 43,000 Canadians their jobs, with a projected total of 102,000 jobs lost when combined with the previous rounds of cuts. It is simply outrageous.

The changes in Bill C-45 to public service pensions creates a two-tiered workforce where younger people will have to work longer for the same retirement benefits. Along with little action on crippling student debt and youth unemployment, younger Canadians cannot rest assured that the government is looking out for their best benefits.

Moreover, statistics show that women are overrepresented in Canada's public service, so the government's proposed changes to public service pensions will disproportionately and negatively affect women across the country. Additionally, changes to the method of calculation for payment for holiday work in Bill C-45 will negatively affect those who change jobs often, and those who work part-time or on a commission basis. Once again, these are predominantly youth, newcomers and women, who usually do not have many other options than to take on these more precarious forms of employment.

Canadians want us to take action to protect our environment and grow a sustainable economy for the future, yet the Conservatives are shamefully focused on gutting environmental protection regulations.

Bill C-45 continues down the road of this spring's Trojan horse budget by further weakening our ability to protect our environment. The budget implementation bill guts the Navigable Waters Protection Act and further erodes the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. If one were to do a search for the word “navigable” on the online version of the budget, the word “navigable” does not even appear once. The word does not appear in the budget, yet it is all over the implementation bill of the same budget. The changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act will leave thousands of waterways without protection and result in fewer environmental reviews by Transport Canada.

While the removal of “waters protection” from the name of the act and the change in the name to the “Navigation Protection Act” may appear very simple, it is quite revealing of the government's intentions. This name change demonstrates to Canadians just how out of touch the Conservatives are when it comes to the environment, as well as their lack of concern about Canadians' call for its protection and the need to build a sustainable economy.

In addition, the bill makes little effort to support clean energy generation equipment. There are two minor expansions of tax credits for certain types of equipment. However, these are hardly noteworthy, totalling just $3 million in the next fiscal year.

Bill C-45 is one more nail in the coffin when it comes to environmental protection by the government. Under the Conservatives, Canada's environmental ranking has dropped to among the worst in the world. The 2011 climate change performance index ranks Canada 57th out of 60 nations surveyed, well behind G8 countries like the U.K., France and Germany, which all scored in the top 10.

I am outraged by the bill and Canadians are outraged by the actions of the government. I have received countless emails from constituents demanding that we oppose this bill. While families and communities are struggling, the bill certainly shows the government's priorities with the tens of millions of dollars spent on propaganda and advertising while at the same time Conservatives are telling Canadians there is just not enough money for employment insurance and old age security. With all of these flaws and more, it is no wonder that we, along with Canadians across the country, oppose this bill.

The NDP will always be proud to stand up for transparency and accountability. We actually listened to our constituents and consulted Canadians across the country. We will proudly stand up for environmental protection. We will also continue to be the leader in the House in standing up for retirement security and health care. We stand up for Canadians, and Canadians deserve something much better than what the government is offering.

New Democrats are committed to fighting for the real priorities of Canadian families: jobs, health care, pensions and protecting our environment. We have a plan to support these priorities by improving health care services; rewarding the job creators; encouraging our youth; fighting climate change; and supporting seniors, not attacking their benefits.

I urge the government to take these concerns into consideration as well as the concerns of Canadians from coast to coast to coast and accept amendments to this bill or split it and have its components studied by all committees.

There are over 400 pages in this budget implementation bill. Let us actually have some time to study the bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second 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.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise today to oppose Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012, and other measures.

We oppose budget 2012 and its implementation bill unless it is amended to focus on the priorities of Canadians: creating good quality jobs; protecting our environment; strengthening our health care system; protecting retirement security for all; and ensuring open and transparent government.

On March 29, the Minister of Finance presented Bill C-38, budget 2012, that recklessly cut services Canadians rely on, including old age security, health care transfers to the provinces and environmental assessment.

Despite the government's claims of job creation, it is also suggested that these cuts would lead to 19,200 job losses in the public sector.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that the budget would cost 43,000 Canadians their jobs. Combined with the previous rounds of cuts, the PBO projects a total job loss of 102,000 jobs.

Not only did the budget gut services to Canadians, its omnibus nature was an attack on transparency and democracy. The Trojan Horse budget bill outraged Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I personally received large numbers of emails from constituents of Scarborough—Rouge River who were angry about the undemocratic processes and the concealed method the government used to spend their tax dollars. By introducing yet another massive omnibus bill, the Conservative government continues to keep Canadians in the dark by ramming it through Parliament without allowing a transparent, open process of consultation.

By avoiding a thorough study of their second 400-plus page budget implementation bill and its implications, the Conservatives certainly have not learned their lesson. The official opposition, the New Democrats, will not let them quietly pass their new omnibus legislation. Canadians deserve better.

The massive omnibus bill makes amendments to a wide range of acts. Over 70 different pieces of legislation are being changed. It further erodes government transparency and accountability by dismantling a series of commissions and giving more power to the ministers, another recurring theme from the government.

Ironically titled the “jobs and growth act”, Bill C-45 completely lacks measures to create jobs and stimulate growth in the long term for Canadians. Actually, we are seeing more and more cuts to jobs. As I mentioned earlier, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that over 102,000 jobs will be lost because of this budget—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: “That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, clauses 210 to 218 related to the Judges Act be removed from Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled an Act to amend the Judges Act; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted, as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.”

This measure, which deals with the changes to the government's implementation of the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission's recommendations, among other things, deserves full consideration. The government proposed that parts of the bill be referred to committee but not be amended or voted upon separately. The motion solves this problem by creating a separate bill so that this important issue can be thoroughly examined and debated.

I am convinced that, in respect for the independence of our judiciary, I will not have any problem getting the unanimous consent of the House.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the constituents of Northumberland—Quinte West to participate in the debate about the second budget bill, Bill C-45, our jobs and growth act, 2012, and how it would benefit all Canadians.

Our government's goal through the bill is to strengthen the financial security of Canadian workers and families to aid in job creation and long-term prosperity from coast to coast to coast.

Our jobs and growth act, 2012 would provide new support for families through improvements to the registered disability savings plan. This measure was designed to help ensure the long-term financial security of children with severe disabilities. To provide greater access to registered disability savings for small withdrawals, the 10-year-rule measure replaces the requirement to repay any Canada disability savings grants or Canada disability savings bonds paid into the plan in the 10 years preceding a withdrawal, with a requirement to pay these back at a fixed ratio to the amount withdrawn.

This will provide greater flexibility for parents who save in registered education savings plans for children with disabilities. This measure allows an investment income earned in an RESP to be transferred on a rollover basis to an RDSP, if the plans share a common beneficiary. This measure ensures that children with severe disabilities will be given the financial security that necessitates their daily lives into adulthood.

Our jobs and growth act, 2012 would ensure fairness to hard-working employees through taxable benefits from group sickness or accident insurance plans.

When an employer contributes an amount to a group sickness or accident insurance plan in respect of an employee, a taxable benefit is not currently realized by that employee. To encourage fair and neutral tax treatment for beneficiaries under group sickness or accident insurance plans, our government is proposing that the amount of the employer's contributions be a taxable benefit for the employee. Our jobs and growth act, 2012 proposes that the amount of an employer's contributions to a sickness or accident insurance plan is a taxable benefit and must be included in a person's income for the year in which the contributions are made.

Our jobs and growth act, 2012 would help small businesses grow and flourish through the small business hiring tax credit.

Our government is amending the Employment Insurance Act in order to extend the hiring credit for small businesses. Entrepreneurs and small businesses truly are the engine of our economy. The hiring credit for small businesses provides a credit of up to $1,000 against any potential increases in a firm's EI premiums from one year to the next. In the past this credit provided needed relief to small businesses by helping defray the costs of hiring new workers and allowing them to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities as the economy continues to recover amid continuing global economic uncertainty. The extension of this measure continues our government's strong record of support for small businesses, which includes help for entrepreneurs, a reduction in red tape and lower taxes for those businesses that stimulate our economy.

Our jobs and growth act, 2012 would provide support for seniors through retirement compensation arrangements, or RCAs. This measure would amend the Income Tax Act to allow a taxpayer under certain conditions to split his or her income from a retirement compensation arrangement with his or her spouse or common law partner.

Our government, through the jobs and growth act, 2012, also proposes to introduce new anti-avoidance rules to prevent the use of schemes that seek to take advantage of the features of the RCA rules to obtain unintended tax benefits. These rules will be similar to the existing rules for registered retirement savings plans, RRSPs, registered retirement income funds, RRIFs, and tax-free savings accounts, commonly known as TFSAs. The amendments to the retirement compensation arrangements would increase accountability and benefit seniors when they need it most.

Our jobs and growth act, 2012 would expand opportunities for aboriginal peoples to participate more fully in the economy. Maintaining the current designation provisions of the Indian Act would perpetuate the slow and cumbersome process that impedes economic development benefiting first nations on reserves. It would also undermine first nations governance while incurring unnecessary costs to Canada and first nations.

Reducing the timeframe for processing designation would align with the objectives of the 2009 federal framework for aboriginal economic development to enhance the value of aboriginal assets and remove impediments to developing the land and natural resource base on reserves. The amendments would also build on our government's commitment to ensure that aboriginal people benefit from economic development by streamlining land-related approval processes.

The government recognizes the contribution that aboriginal peoples can make to the labour force as the youngest and fastest-growing segment of the nation's population. Equipping first nations people with the skills and opportunities they need to fully participate in the economy is a priority both for this government and for first nation peoples. We have a plan to invest in first nation education on reserve, including early literacy programming and other supports and services to first nation schools and students.

Further, to the school programs, we propose school renovations on reserve, which would provide first nation youth with better learning environments. Our government is also committing to the introduction of a first nations education act and to working with willing partners to establish the structures and standards needed to support strong and accountable educational systems on reserve.

When it comes to job creation for first nations, our government will improve the incentives of the on-reserve income assistance program, while encouraging those who can work to access training that would improve their prospects for employment. Furthermore, our government would renew the urban aboriginal strategy to improve economic opportunities for aboriginal peoples living in urban centres.

I am content with the progress that has been made and the work that will continue to be done to balance the budget. In the past two years, we have already cut the deficit in half by ending our targeted and temporary stimulus as planned and by controlling growth and spending. Economic action plan 2012 would build on these efforts by implementing modern restraint in government spending and by ensuring that internal operations of the government are leaner and more efficient. In fact, our government is returning to balanced budgets, while continuing sustainable increases in transfers for health, education and social programs.

Going forward, I am proud to support the second budget bill, Bill C-45, for the benefits it would provide to the constituents of Northumberland—Quinte West and to Canadians across our great country.

I am prepared to answer any questions that may be posed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak against yet another omnibus budget bill brought forth by the Conservative government, as with its spring's Trojan horse budget bill. New Democrats oppose Bill C-45 both on content and process grounds.

Bill C-45 is over 400 pages long and contains a huge number of disparate measures. Despite what the minister says, not all of these measures were in the 2012 budget.

Bill C-45 would amend over 60 laws and even contains a totally new law. With this bill, the government is pursuing the same agenda it put forward in its Trojan Horse budget bill: it is giving the minister more power and weakening environmental protection legislation.

Once again, the Conservatives are trying to rush their legislative measures through Parliament without giving Canadians and their MPs a chance to examine those measures closely.

Writing about the Trojan Horse budget bill, conservative commentator Andrew Coyne said that there was something quite alarming about Parliament being obliged to rubber-stamp the government's whole legislative agenda at one go.

Alarming is right. This bill is reprehensible, and the NDP will not support it.

The Conservatives continue to claim that their budget is about job creation. However, like Bill C-38, Bill C-45 is lacking in significant measures to create jobs and stimulate growth in the long term.

Contrary to what my colleagues across the way have just said, tax credits to small business are short term, small in size and will only be available to employers for the 2012 taxation year, meaning they will almost be over by the time Bill C-45 is passed.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has stated, “In total, federal spending cuts could lead to the elimination of over 70,000 full-time equivalent positions”. These are both public and private sector losses. Therefore, where is the Canada-wide strategy to create good jobs, while 1.4 million Canadians are still unemployed? It is clear that the austerity plan of the Conservatives is not working. Instead it is a drag on our economy.

In fact, on the very day that this bill was released, the minister suggested a downgrade would be announced in the fall economic update, but despite the growing evidence that their plan is not working, the Conservatives are stubbornly refusing to change the course.

At a time when most Canadian businesses need to increase innovation and productivity to succeed in an increasingly competitive global economy, support to small business research and development, a driving force in innovation and productivity, has been cut.

In its prebudget consultation brief, BIOTECanada wrote:

Leading industrialized countries including Australia and France have recognized the spin-off benefits of investing in R&D tax credits and have recently made significant improvements to their respective programs. In order to ensure Canada retains a competitive edge in attracting foreign direct investment and growing domestic research and development capacity, the SR&ED program should be examined with an eye to ensuring that it remains a global leader.

Where is the minister's plan to make the SR&ED program a global leader? We are not seeing it.

At a time when countries around the world are recognizing that environmental sustainability and economic growth must go together, the Conservatives continue to barrel down the path of environmental deregulation without consultation.

In response to this spring's budget bill, Jessica Clogg of West Coast Environmental Law wrote:

By gutting Canada’s long-standing environmental laws, the budget bill gives big oil and gas companies what they've been asking for--fewer environmental safeguards so they can push through resource megaprojects with little regard to environmental damage...It is Canadians and our children who will pay the cost.

The Conservatives have clearly not learned their lesson on the environment and, instead, are further weakening our ability to protect the environment and ensure sustainable development for future generations. Bill C-45 completely guts the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Thousands of waterways will be left without protection, which will mean fewer environmental reviews by Transport Canada. In fact, Bill C-45 removes the words “water protection” from the name of the bill. It is now about “navigation protection”.

Eriel Deranger of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation has said:

This is unacceptable. They have made a unilateral decision to remove the protection of waterways without adequate consultation with First Nations and communities that rely on river systems for navigation and cultural practices protected under treaty.

Where is the plan to build a sustainable economy that will keep Canada competitive in the 21st century? This bill shows just how out of touch Conservatives are with the needs and goals of Canadians. Unfortunately for Canadians, the Conservatives want to convince us that massive omnibus budget bills and an increasing lack of consultation and decreasing government transparency are apparently the new normal.

I just returned from monitoring the elections in Ukraine. Ukrainians have faced numerous challenges and roadblocks when it comes to democracy and yet they keep fighting hard to exercise their democratic rights. In our country, we have a proud democratic tradition and yet we have a government that continues to undermine Parliament and the rights of Canadians with undemocratic bills. I find it particularly striking that I am standing in the House today debating an omnibus budget bill that continues on the disturbing Conservative trend of increasing the concentration of power and reducing government accountability.

Bill C-45 would eliminate a number of commissions, giving the ministers more power to make decisions without consultation or accountability.

Last spring, the NDP organized public consultations on the implementation of the Trojan Horse budget bill. During one of those consultations, Matthew Carroll of Leadnow said that Canadians want effective participatory democracy.

New Democrats will always be proud to stand up for transparency and accountability. They will always stand up for environmental protection. Canadians deserve a government that listens to the concerns of its people.

Last spring, the Conservatives used their Trojan Horse budget implementation bill to attack old age security, employment insurance and provincial health transfers. The Conservatives are transporting us back to the stone age in terms of environmental regulation.

This bill shows that the Conservatives did not listen to Canadians who were outraged by Bill C-38.

While Canadians want us to take action to protect our environment and grow a sustainable economy for the future, the Conservatives are focused on gutting environmental protection. While Canadians want increased transparency from their government, Conservatives are continuing to keep Canadians in the dark and make changes to laws without consultation.

New Democrats will oppose budget 2012 and its implementation bills unless amended to focus on the priorities of Canadians: creating good quality jobs, protecting our environment, strengthening our health care system, protecting retirement security for all and ensuring open and transparent government. Canadians deserve better.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to describe in a little more detail what our policies have done for small business.

We have continued to make a more attractive environment for people to begin small businesses. Many communities like ours rely on the creation of new businesses. It is not a perfect world where all the companies within one's riding or community stay in business. Some companies shut down or move to other jurisdictions because of economic and competitive pressures. That is a reality. It is always fluid within our communities.

Therefore, Bill C-45 is important in what it does. It maintains the path we are taking to create the platform for businesses to prosper. They are the job creators. Small and medium-sized businesses employ 80% of the people in this country. We continue to lay out for Canadians exactly what we said we would, which are policies that align themselves to simplify being in business and to prospering and creating jobs.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question because, again, this is my background in terms of having a company that employed on average 20 to 30 people at any given point in time.

On the extent of the small business tax credit, it is known that half a million employers in Canada have taken advantage of it. We are moving forward with the small business tax credit and extending it to businesses. This is a job creator.

The other item I mentioned in my speech that I would like to underscore is the fact that we are dealing with the red tape with which small business people generally have a hard time dealing. They do not have the resources to have someone on staff or to take on the additional costs of dealing with all the things that government demands of them on the administrative side of their businesses. When we look at Bill C-45 and the action we have taken, we see we are moving forward to make it a lot easier for small businesses to deal with government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. He spoke about small and medium-sized businesses and about jobs in his riding. He said that Bill C-45 could really help people and that his government had helped the small and medium-sized businesses in his riding.

While looking over Bill C-45, I noticed that one of the proposed measures is a temporary hiring tax credit for small businesses. It is the most significant job creation measure in this bill. However, this tax credit is temporary and the maximum amount is $1,000. In addition, it is only applicable in the 2012 tax year. In other words, this measure will no longer be available even before Bill C-45 is passed.

I would like my colleague to comment on this. What does he find of particular interest to small and medium-sized businesses in this bill?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled today to stand in support of Bill C-45.

The many Canadians I speak to are refreshed and excited to finally have a stable majority government that does exactly what it told voters it would do when it ran for election.

We are focusing on Canadians' priorities at a time when strong, steady economic leadership is needed. Canadians elected our government to work at building a stronger and more prosperous Canada, and that is what we have done.

We promised to streamline bureaucratic processing and build a leaner and more effective public service. We promised to eliminate government duplication, red tape and unnecessary paperwork. We promised to respect taxpayers' dollars and eliminate the deficit without raising taxes or cutting transfers. We promised to ensure the long-term sustainability of social programs, and we promised to aggressively implement pro-growth economic initiatives to create jobs.

In every area I just outlined, our government is delivering and there is no doubt that our economic action plan is working. Over 820,000 net new jobs have been created, most of them full-time, most of them in the private sector. Our debt-to-GDP ratio remains the lowest in the G7 by far, and just yesterday it was reaffirmed that we remain on track for balanced budgets. Moreover, the OECD and the IMF predict that Canada's economic growth will be among the strongest in the G7 over the next two years. The World Economic Forum has said that our banks are the soundest in the world. Forbes magazine has ranked Canada as the best place to do business in the world, and the IMF recently singled out Canada as an economic model for the world to follow.

Canadians know that our plan is working, and budget 2012 continues to build on the great progress we have made. Perhaps most exciting is how our plan, the direction of this government, is delivering results in my riding of Brant.

Like many communities in southwestern Ontario, the economy of Brant is evolving from large-scale historic heavy industrial manufacturing to value-added, small- and medium-size companies. Brant has a rich history of heavy industrial manufacturing dating back to the turn of the century when Brantford was the third largest economy in Canada, only behind Toronto and Montreal. We revolutionized the farm in our community by building the first tractors that were sold around the world, but recently, due to the global economic climate and necessity, Brantford has been in a large transition. I like to think of Brantford because of the great influence that post-secondary education has had on our community. Here I like to think that we are in our sophomore year.

Manufacturing continues to evolve. As our mayor so rightfully states, our goal is to build a 21st century city and county, and we are excited about our future. I will highlight the large influence of post-secondary growth in our community later in my speech.

Canada is attracting the world's attention as countries look to safe havens for trade and investment, and our government's smart economic policies are giving Brant businesses a competitive advantage to capitalize on these new opportunities. Our plan to keep taxes low, cut red tape, promote investment and aggressively expand trade is just what manufacturers and exporters need in our riding.

Cutting red tape and the small business hiring tax credit in our budget 2012 are things that I am intimately familiar with, having been a business person in the building industry who owned his own company for over 23 years. I have held many economic round tables in our community, and the two comments that keep coming back over and over again are the need to help small business hire new employees and for us to cut red tape to make the administrative side of business easier.

Our government is also supporting and investing in post-secondary expansion, which is attracting students, businesses, jobs and investment to our city and our now thriving downtown core. Our government has invested $13 million for the Laurier Research and Academic Centre and recently announced $16.7 million for the Laurier/YMCA Athletic Complex.

Here are some interesting statistics. In a 2011 analysis commissioned by the City of Brantford, the number of Brantford businesses reporting a positive impact from post-secondary institutions tripled to 47%, and that was up from 15% in 2005. Over the past dozen years, institutions have invested $130 million in Brantford's downtown core, a downtown core by the way that desperately needed an injection of people and investment.

I am thrilled to stand in support of Canada's economic action plan because it responds to the needs and priorities of my community and it is delivering results for the people of Brant. Members do not have to take my word for it. Here is what Scott Lyons of Extend Communications said about his company's plan to bring 70 new jobs into our downtown:

We are really excited about re-investing in the downtown. It's a vibrant and growing community down here. Brantford has a great workforce and we are excited to be expanding our workforce down here.

Here is another recent quote, from John Dimitrieff, CEO of Patriot Forge:

Although Patriot operates on both sides of the border, very soon Patriot will be undertaking a 35,000-foot expansion that will create jobs right here in Brantford. That we are choosing to invest and expand in Canada is due in large part to the current government’s plan that keeps taxes low and creates a competitive business environment.

The Massilly Group is delivering 100 new jobs to Brantford, because according to its CEO:

Brantford is an ideal location for us because of its close proximity to our core markets in Canada and the United States, its manufacturing-friendly business environment, and our ability to retain and add to our highly skilled workforce.

Wipro is actively recruiting resumés to fill more than 500 jobs it projects to create in our downtown core by 2013.

John Paul deBoer of Brant Screen Craft recently purchased a plant and moved 50 jobs to Brantford. He said:

...we had looked into locating our finishing and distribution facility in Michigan. The corporate tax cuts and programs provided by the Conservative government were the deciding factor to expand in Canada.

Brantford Mayor Chris Friel recently spoke about how small and medium-sized businesses are becoming a powerful engine of job growth in Brantford, as companies like Automodular, First Gulf, GreenMantra Recycling, and the Sunrise Warehousing Company grow and expand. He said:

It's not something that gets a lot of media attention but a lot of small to medium-sized businesses have opened in Brantford in the past year creating a lot of jobs. But I am not sure people realize or appreciate how important this is to the city.

Another statistic, office vacancy in Brantford, has been cut in half over the last two to three years. Also over the past two years, Brantford has risen 35 spots to number 64 on the CFIB “communities in boom” ranking of Canada's most entrepreneurial cities.

Cathy Oden of Chamber of Commerce Brantford-Brant describes how a growing entrepreneurial spirit is reviving our community:

They're opening up small restaurants, hair salons, spas and expanding retail locations. Typically, they are fulfilling a dream or desire that they have nurtured for some time.

She was speaking about that entrepreneurial spirit that we are feeling and experiencing.

Canada's economic action plan is supporting jobs and growth in my riding of Brant. The good news does not stop there. I would encourage all members of this House to support Bill C-45 on its speedy passage through the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. This is indeed every interesting.

I found it very amusing when the hon. NDP member for Halifax asked the government ministers questions about the removal of the word “environment” from the website regarding the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This is a recurring theme. I hope I explained that under the Constitution, the federal government has a responsibility to protect rights of navigation. This is implicit in the Constitution. It includes the protection of navigable waters.

Over time, given the rise in environmental concerns, the Navigable Waters Protection Act became an environmental law. That is why the website used the word “environment” and why the changes currently proposed in Bill C-45 are really dangerous for most of Canada's bodies of water.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a challenge to approach a bill of over 400 pages covering 40 different laws and have 10 minutes to try to make my way through it. I appreciate this chance to speak to the bill at second reading. I will of course be watching closely for work at committee and hope that some of the concerns I have about the bill now can be repaired at committee so that I will not have to put forward hundreds of amendments at report stage, which at this point appears likely.

The increasing use of omnibus bills is an affront to democracy. It is not appropriate and while other governments have perhaps trespassed close to the line before and created howls from the members of the opposition of the day, certainly the current Privy Council holds the Olympic world record for monster omnibus bills. No other government has come close.

Here I would like to commend all sides of the House for the fact we were able to split out and deal separately with MP pension reform. Many Canadians were happy to see that work. Perhaps we can do more by co-operating in the future to separate out pieces of bills that do not belong.

What things in this bill do not seem to belong at all in a proper budget bill? I will go quickly through some examples and then delve more deeply into two in particular. I do not think that removing the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission properly belongs in an omnibus bill. Why are we getting rid of it? It helps provide critical information to business on hazardous materials.

I lament the current government's further deep cuts to research and development credits, specifically the scientific research and experimental development tax credit. If we look at our economy, it is quite true that we have weathered the economic storm better than most nations around the world. We have a better regulated banking system quite frankly, and the current government can take no credit for that. Nonetheless, we did weather the storm better.

Nonetheless, if we look at the indicators of where we are falling behind, one area is productivity and productivity, which relates to R and D. Cutting R and D does not make sense. I am concerned about significant cuts in this omnibus bill to research and experimental development tax credits.

The Windsor-Detroit bridge is highlighted in the bill and many people have waited a long time to see improvements there. We know we have some private sector opposition to it from the other side of the border. It is an extremely bad precedent that the act specifies there will be no environmental assessment and that the following acts will be exempt from the procedures for the Windsor-Detroit bridge: There will be no Fisheries Act review, no involvement of the Species at Risk Act and there will be nothing from the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This precedent, by the way, is opposed by the member of Parliament from Windsor, who himself is a great proponent of getting this project done.

The assumption implicit in discarding legislative review under those acts is that somehow those acts are irrelevant to any project the Conservatives really care about. I am afraid that is the truth about how the government operates, but that does not make it any less lamentable to find this in the legislation.

One piece that I want to take more time to delve into may surprise the House. The bill is supposed to be about jobs and growth. We hear about that all the time. In this connection, I would mention a key economic sector in Canada that we do not hear very much about: tourism. Tourism represents more of Canada's GDP than agriculture, forestry and fisheries combined. It employs nearly 600,000 Canadians, generating nearly $80 billion in economic activity. However, we are losing ground in tourism.

In the year 2002, Canada was rated seventh in the world as a tourist destination among all nations. Guess what? In 2011, we dropped to eighteenth place. We dropped from seventh to eighteenth in just in 9 years. What happened? For one, there are the policies of the current government. One of the first things the Prime Minister did once forming government was to remove the GST credit that foreign visitors used to get. That credit was basically a goodwill gesture. It cost this country almost nothing, because so few people applied for it. However, the Conservatives got rid of it.

Then of course there was the move by the United States to require visitors to Canada and visitors to the U.S. who travel across our borders to have passports. We cannot blame any government for what the United States decides to do, but I think we should have pushed more forcefully against it. That measure has hurt tourism a lot, just as the general climate after 9/11 hurt tourism from the United States. However, we hurt the tourism sector even more in Bill C-38 by changing the rules around seasonal workers to make it harder for seasonal workers to leave employment in an industry such as tourism and be considered reliably available to the employer when the tourist season begins again.

However, now we have this, found on page 270 in division 16 under “immigration and refugee protection”, a whole new regime for tourists. It is little mentioned in debate on the omnibus bill but is for travellers to Canada. Any foreign national coming to Canada would now have to clear an application process in which they would have to answer questions before they planned their vacation. It would create what they call “an electronic travel authorization”, although that is not the language of the act but the language of the technical briefing. In short, there would be an electronic travel authorization.

I have a couple of concerns about this. One is that it would hurt tourism. There is no question about that. When we put in place visa requirements for countries like Mexico and the old Soviet bloc nations, it had an effect on tourism, as anything would that creates a barrier in a competitive tourist market where tourists can decide whether they want to take the train across Canada or a tour down the Rhine by boat. They have choices. If one government says, “We'll see if we'll let you in, fill out this form”, tourists will choose to go somewhere else. This would be a terrible mistake. It would be part of our over-security conscious agenda, that even if people want to visit Canada as tourists, we have the right to put them on a no-fly list to prevent their coming here. I am very concerned about that.

I will turn to the most egregious elements of Bill C-45, the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I hear my friends on the other side of the House refer to the many complaints about the act because only seasonally navigable water falls under the act. Surely, if that were the nature of the problem, they could deal with it by using a fly swatter. They did not need to bring in the wrecking ball. If that is the problem, get out the fly swatter. What the Conservatives would do under Bill C-45 would be to take on, I think, in the order of 99.5% of all the bodies of water within Canada, excluding our oceans, and remove them from the Navigable Waters Protection Act. They say that the act was never intended to be about navigable waters, that it was only supposed to be about navigation.

Just to go back to some constitutional law for purposes of setting the context, we cannot say with any sense or meaning that this bill was only intended to do thus and such when a bill was passed in 1882 or since 1867, since navigation is a head of power for the federal government. They cannot say that in 1867 the legislators never intended it to apply to the environmental assessment of a massive hydro dam. Of course, they did not. Neither did they intend, as Professor Peter Hogg has pointed out, that undertakings connecting the provinces would include an interprovincial telephone system. It had not been invented yet. Moreover, as Professor Hogg pointed out in one of his constitutional law texts, “[I]t is well established that the general language used to describe the classes of subjects (or heads of power) is not frozen in the sense in which it would have been understood in 1867”. Then he goes on to say, “On the contrary, the words of the Act are to be given a "progressive interpretation", so that they are continuously adapted to new conditions and new ideas”. Or, as a member of the high court, Lord Sankey, ruled in 1930, “The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits”.

Therefore, it is entirely absurd to hear the government members continually tell us that the Fisheries Act was only supposed to be about fisheries for all time, not fish; and that the Navigable Waters Protection Act was never about waters, but only about navigation. That is bad in law, it is bad in theory and it is bad public policy. It is also false. These laws have been fundamental to environmental law in Canada.

However, I ask the question: If it is about navigation, why would the Conservatives take a wrecking ball to navigation? In the bill, they have protected lakes in precious cottage country, close to where people live, where they claim there are all the complaints, and eliminated the law for the vast tens of thousands or millions of hectares of Canada where the lakes are not cottage country. They would eliminate the protection on all but 62 rivers and 97 lakes. Who would step up to protect our rights of navigation?

Under constitutional law, no province is allowed to step up and fill the void when the federal government runs from its responsibilities under the Constitution. It is unprecedented in the history of Canada that the federal government would willingly and deliberately remove itself from a field in which it is empowered under our Constitution. It would leave no protection for navigation, no protection for recreational use, no protection for rafting or kayaking and, in the process, would eliminate environmental law for most of Canada's waters.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to stand in this House to speak in favour of Bill C-45, which truly would bring jobs and opportunity to Canada.

Today, I stand in this House, proud to be a representative of the Peace country. I represent the riding of Peace River, which includes the better part of northwestern Alberta. In this area, we know the value of jobs, opportunity and growth. Over the last number of years, that is exactly what we have seen.

I have often said that I am proud to represent the Peace country. It is a beautiful place, but its beauty is only a small reason for me to be so proud. The larger reason for me to be so proud to represent that constituency, the constituency that is home, that is where I was born and grew up, is that the people who live in the Peace country are dedicated to growing a local economy and building a stronger future, not only for our community but for the country in general.

A couple of weeks ago, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business announced that Grande Prairie, which is the largest urban centre in the riding I represent and the largest city in the Peace country, was recognized as the most entrepreneurial city. That was not just for this year. That was for the third year running.

The people in the Peace country understand the value of jobs and growth. This bill speaks to so many of the issues people from my riding have indicated are priorities for them. That is why I am so proud to stand in this House to support this bill.

I am proud to represent and work for the people of my riding. I am also proud to represent and work for Canadians in general, from coast to coast.

Over the last couple of years, I have had the privilege of serving in two specific and different roles. The first was as a commissioner on the Red Tape Reduction Commission, which travelled this country and heard from small business leaders across Canada. They talked about the necessity of Canada leading in reducing red tape, because one of the biggest hindrances Canadian businesses face is government-created red tape.

The second role I am going to speak to, generally, is my role as the chair of the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Committee. I have served in this capacity since the last election, and I can tell members that it is truly a privilege. This budget has some important and good news for that role, as well.

I will speak, first, to my role as a commissioner on the Red Tape Reduction Commission.

I, along with six of my colleagues, seven MPs in total, as well as seven representatives from the private sector, made up this national commission.

For over a year and a half, we travelled the country of Canada, from one coast to the other, hearing from small business leaders who were concerned about so many things.

We know, and we knew going into this whole exercise, that Canadian small businesses, and businesses in general, have a huge burden when it comes to red tape. As a matter of fact, it is estimated that the cost of compliance with red tape created by government costs businesses across the country $30 billion on an annual basis. That is a huge amount of money. However, there is also the frustration and the missed opportunities businesses have when complying with unnecessary red tape when they could otherwise be growing their companies.

We heard a whole host of different concerns when it comes to the amount of paperwork government requires at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels, and, in some cases, the redundancy of that.

As we have seen, last year's budget began the process of dealing with some of the red tape irritants. Specifically, in the act we see before us today is an issue brought up on a regular basis when we travelled the country, namely, changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

We heard from small business owners across this country about the frustration as it relates to the construction industry and as it relates to industries that actually have to service and build bridges and waterway structures from coast to coast. From fishermen to people in the tourism industry to people in the forestry sector to people in the mining sector, we heard about the frustration as it relates to navigable waters.

I do not have to be a commissioner at the national level to know that this is an irritant. As a matter of fact, I have an example in my hand today. It was interesting that I heard a colleague from the NDP mention that she had never heard of anybody experiencing such frustration. I can say that on a regular basis I hear of business leaders and municipalities that have had major frustrations dealing with this outdated act.

Last year I received a letter from one of the largest forest products companies in my riding. It had an unfortunate circumstance when one of its temporary bridges was washed out. The forestry sector cannot rely solely on provincial and municipal roadways. It has to have an integrated roadway network constructed and owned by forestry companies, independent of government-owned infrastructure.

I will briefly read from the letter. It was as a result of the washout of a temporary bridge that had been in place. The forest company stated:

[It] has received all necessary approvals for the demolition and construction of a new bridge including approvals from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Alberta Environment and Water. Both agencies expedited their approvals

They ensured that all precautions were taken as they related to the environment and protection. It went on to explain the other things they oversaw.

What was clear was that what would be undertaken by the Navigable Waters Protection Act would simply be redundant. There had already been assurance that transportation on that river, which is not used for transportation, would not be impeded. What was interesting to me was that this company was proposing a bridge that would have less environmental impact, because it spanned the water from one coastline to the other without any disturbance of the banks. This bridge was going to be much taller, so it would limit less any traffic underneath it if, in fact, somebody wanted to canoe on what was a pretty small waterway. All of the things we would consider to be common sense had already been addressed by the company, yet there was an unnecessary delay.

Somebody in the House might ask who cares if there was a delay. Let me explain. I care. They described the bridge and its use. They stated:

The bridge is used to transport timber out of the forest. If the replacement is not in place for the remainder of the winter log-haul, the mill will not have enough timber for the coming year, resulting in catastrophic economic impacts on the company and the community.

I found out that there would be mass layoffs at one of the largest mills in the province of Alberta if this bridge was not replaced.

I can say that the changes to the navigation protection act are welcomed by industry, which creates jobs, opportunity and growth in my community, and also by municipalities that have had similar circumstances and frustrations, especially as they relate to responding quickly after infrastructure is damaged as a result of weather.

The second point I want to speak to is something important that has not been discussed in the House very often in this debate and unfortunately not at all by the opposition benches. It is the whole issue of the changes to the land designation for first nations lands.

In 1988, an amendment to the Indian Act was made to create the ability for first nations to have more control over their own land to create economic opportunity and prosperity for their communities. A couple of things are going to be changed as a result of the budget act in place today. The first is that we are going to create an environment in which the threshold for voting would be similar to that of a federal, provincial or municipal election. A simple majority would allow first nations to move forward with changes to the land designation. The second is that we are going to create less onerous and reduced red tape for first nations as it relates to getting government approval.

These are just two points. I would be happy to go further in answering questions on either of these or any other points.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me correct the member. He has absolutely no understanding in terms of what he is talking about if he believes Liberal omnibus bills were anywhere near to what the Conservative bill is.

If he is trying to say that the NDP would not bring in omnibus bills, what he needs to do is take a look at provincial jurisdictions where there have been NDP governments. The national government of Canada was no worse during the 1990s than the provincial NDP were in other jurisdictions. The member needs to get a better understanding. The NDP is not as innocent as he might like to think.

Regarding the youth issue, yes, youth unemployment is a serious issue, but does Bill C-45 deal with it? It would have been nice to have had more of a general discussion about the budget, but there is a challenge for the government to produce more for young people in Canada.

However, when the government cut back the Katimavik program, which was a wonderful Trudeau program, it demonstrated that the Conservatives did not really understand—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on that point, I can assure the member, whether by the Liberal federal-national administrations or other political parties at the provincial level, that there have been attempts in the past to improve the quality of our lakes. In good part, they have been very successful in doing that, but there is always room for improvement. What is clear, specifically with respect to this budget, is the government has deemed it necessary to get rid of the ELA, which will have a profound impact on the quality of freshwater going forward. It is most unfortunate that the member does not recognize that cut.

Generally speaking, it is great to speak on Bill C-45, which is unique legislation, a bill which ultimately is a cheap shot at democracy. Sometimes we take things for granted. Bill C-45, taken into consideration with its twin budget bill, which was brought in just prior to the summer break, is an insult to the House in terms of its attempt to make so many changes to legislation through the back door of a budget bill. Unfortunately, this is something that is not unique. The Conservative government has tried to bring in amendments through the back door of budget legislation for the last couple of years. However, with respect to an assault on parliamentary processes, this is by far the worst in the history of the House of Commons.

I found it interesting when the member for Wascana provided members this statement from 1994 made by our current Prime Minister when the Chrétien government had brought in a bill that was only 21 pages, compared to hundreds of pages, and dealt with only three or four items rather than dozens of items.

In 1994, with respect to the then prime minister, the current Prime Minister stated:

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.

The current Prime Minister saw that as an assault on democracy and, in essence, challenged the then prime minister to break down that 21 page bill. Where is the Prime Minister today and how far has his opinions changed? Bringing in so many pieces of legislation through the back door of a budget is just wrong.

I would argue that even though many might say that this is somewhat of a boring issue, going into the next election Canadians will be reminded of how the government tried to bring forward a complete legislative agenda through the back door of a budget debate. We should be talking about is the bigger picture of budgets.

We saw surpluses in past government budgets, such as those of Paul Martin or Jean Chrétien. The current government inherited a surplus and turned it into a deficit situation.

With respect to equalization payments, there was a commitment made by the Liberal administrations to enhance and give what was necessary to ensure equality through equalization and transfer payments, including health transfers. In the previous decade, more money was provided to health transfers and equalization payments in the years of the Liberal administration than ever before. The health care accord, achieved by the Liberal administration, ultimately seized the number of dollars that we see going toward health care today.

The government of today tries to take credit for those health care transfers, but it was a Liberal administration that came up with the formula. It was a Liberal administration that got rid of the old tax credit formula that ultimately guaranteed the ongoing financial security of health care transfers well into the future. Those are the types of ideas that Liberal administrations have brought forward.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, have been lacking in ideas and initiatives. In spending billions of dollars, they have been able to identify some things that they can do. In spending that type of money, there will be some good things. However, it is the bigger picture at which we need to look.

Let us look at that bigger picture of the budget. I know the government wants us to focus on the budget. What is the government really doing? It is decreasing services. For people who are on employment insurance and who try to talk to a live person, good luck. For people who are trying to deal with immigration issues and want to talk to a live person, good luck. It is just not going to happen. It is difficult.

The government has cut back on thousands and thousands of civil servant jobs. Those jobs provide real live services to Canadians. On the other hand, the government finds it quite okay to increase the number of members of Parliament. It is saying that we need fewer civil servants and more politicians.

On that point, the Conservatives have the support of the New Democrats. The New Democrats also want to see more politicians inside the House of Commons. If they tuned in to what Canadians really want, it is quality service from the civil service. It is difficult to achieve that when the government is cutting thousands of jobs. What Canadians do not want to see is what the Conservatives and the NDP want, more politicians. That is what I mean about bad priorities.

There is a need for us to recognize that jobs are important. Shortly after the last federal election, the leader of the Liberal Party said that the three most important issues facing us were jobs, jobs and jobs. Jobs are important. It is through jobs and employment that we can generate wealth and assist more people out of economic disparity.

Canadians expect the government to do things in regard to jobs. Manitoba has been fairly hard hit. Good quality jobs are what Canadians want. The aerospace industry is very important to my home province and to other provinces. When Air Canada got rid of its overall maintenance, first by bringing it over to Aveos and then Aveos disposing of it, where was the Government of Canada? Where was the Prime Minister?

In the Air Canada Public Participation Act, those jobs were guaranteed to Manitoba. Manitoba had a legislative guarantee to keep those good, quality jobs. The government did nothing.

The bottom line is that jobs are important and the government has dropped the ball in creating good, quality jobs.

Crime prevention is important to the residents of Winnipeg North and to all Canadians. The government can talk a lot about getting tough on crime. Some would ultimately suggest it has been dumb on crime. What we really need is to get smart on crime and prevent crimes. We need programs that will prevent crimes from happening. We are not seeing that sort of development.

We want to look at health care and the important role the government needs to play in providing strong, national leadership on health care. That has been lacking. We need a new health care accord that will guarantee it well into the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is very concerned about the way that Bill C-45 was introduced. On a number of occasions, several of our members have asked that various specific sections of the bill be separated from the bill, since, in our opinion, those sections should be examined in detail on their own.

Yet, since the beginning of this debate, the government has been saying that all of these measures were announced in the 2012 budget. The Minister of Finance has also said it, but the NDP does not believe that such is the case.

Here is an excerpt from the 2012 budget.

Over the next few years, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB) will continue to set the [EI premium] rate, but the Government will limit rate increases to no more than 5 cents each year until the EI Operating Account is balanced.

This measure appears in the 2012 budget, but we learned in the budget implementation bill that the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board is going to be abolished.

I would like the hon. member who just spoke to explain to us how the government can justify saying that the measures in this bill are in the budget when that is clearly not true of a number of items in the bill.

Second, I would like him to explain why the government is not being transparent and is refusing to allow a number of items that have nothing to do with the 2012 budget to be examined separately.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my support for Bill C-45, Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 and I am pleased to see our government continue to focus so squarely on the economic challenges facing our citizens, our communities and our country. Bill C-45 would implement key measures from the economic action plan 2012, to help grow Canada's economy, fuel job creation and secure Canada's long-term prosperity.

Throughout the year, I had the pleasure of hosting budget consultations in Barrie with a variety of stakeholders. The one common theme throughout has always been a focus on job creation and economic growth as being something fundamentally important to people from all different sectors in my community.

Each stakeholder has provided insightful contributions from the different aspects of our city, but they all shared the same concerns, as do most Canadians: ensuring good jobs are available, keeping taxes low and continuing the sensible investments being made to achieve our common goals of long-term growth and prosperity.

Through the steady leadership of our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance, we have seen Canada's economy expand in 11 of the last 12 quarters, since mid-2009. We have seen Canada create more than 820,000 net new jobs over the same period, and Canada has had by far the best rate of job creation in the entire G7 since 2006. We have seen Canada maintain its triple A credit rating through the period of economic downturn and uncertainty, and we continue to see Canada with the lowest net debt to GDP ratio and the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7.

Both the independent International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecast that Canada will be at the head of the pack for economic growth in the G7 in the years ahead. I am particularly proud to share with the House what the head of the International Monetary Fund thinks of our government's handling of the economy since the global economic crisis hit in 2008. These comments came out just this week.

The IMF's Christine Lagarde declares that Canada's economy should be a model for the countries trying to fix their own financial systems. Just last week she said that Canada has been a leader in creating policies intended to rein in the buildup of household debt. She went on to say that Canada is identified around the globe by our values of coordination and consensus building, which have given our country what she called “influence beyond its years”.

Ms. Lagarde also applauded the decision of our finance minister to boost down payments on new mortgages for home buyers, as an example of household debt restraint that others should follow. She said:

All of these new reforms comprise the tools so far that will help us shape the future financial system. We must shape the system so it cannot again hold us ransom to the consequences of its failings.

A well-capitalized financial sector and a sound regulatory and supervisory system meant that financial institutions in Canada were better able to weather the 2008 global financial crisis than those in other countries. Indeed, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world for five straight years. Our government is committed to maintaining this Canadian advantage.

Canada has made significant progress in implementing the G20 financial sector reform agenda and will continue to play a leadership role in promoting sound financial sector regulation internationally. Our government appreciates the IMF recognizing these important achievements.

However, in all this good news, the global economy remains fragile. Canada is not immune to the renewed weakness in the global economy, especially in Europe. In particular, Canada has been affected by the lower commodity prices that are dampening government revenue growth. We need to focus even more on jobs and promoting economic growth and realizing savings within government operations to ensure Canada's economic advantage remains strong into the long term.

At the same time, it is just as important that we continue making key investments in innovation and education to help make sure Canada continues to create good jobs and that Canadians are ready to fill them. We are supporting Canadian universities and researchers with a strengthened emphasis on projects that have a commercial potential.

Economic action plan 2012 took significant steps to encourage entrepreneurship, innovation and world-class research, with over $1.1 billion in significant investments for research and development, $500 million for venture capital, support for increased public and private research collaboration and much more.

Just last month, I was proud to see this have an effect in my own riding of Barrie, Ontario. I was proud to be on hand officially to open the IBM data and research centre in the south end of Barrie. This new data centre is part of a much larger project.

The federal government's $20 million investment was a catalyst for IBM's $213 million initiative to create a southern Ontario smart computing and innovation platform. Our government's investment targeted the creation of 145 full-time positions, high-skilled, high-paying, in three different cities in southern Ontario, including 45 positions at the Barrie site. These are not job transfers; they are new hires.

Our government's investment is also creating a research and development centre within the IBM site that is going to do research on clean energy, environmental systems and neural mapping. It is state-of-the-art research and it is exciting to see what a private and public partnership can do to create jobs in southern Ontario.

I would like to tell the House of another example of this focus on innovation by our government, which I have seen work first-hand in my riding. This summer, in August, I was on hand to see a company transfer its manufacturing from China back to Barrie. This company had outsourced its production of 18 jobs to China and decided to bring them back. This summer it opened up its manufacturing in Barrie again and with a $900,000 repayable loan from FedDev Ontario it was able to repatriate those jobs. This is an important sector. Southmedic is in the medical device sector, and right now this sector is valued at $6.4 billion in Canada. That is just the tip of the iceberg of what Canada is capable of, to see this sector grow.

These are two great examples of the types of partnerships that government is forging. These are the kinds of partnerships that will create a better future for all Canadians and, most important, new jobs.

Another great partnership that the economic action plan pledged to carry on was that of the continued cleanup of Lake Simcoe. In 2008, members may remember that this government made an unprecedented $30 million investment into the cleanup of Lake Simcoe. It was an extremely welcome initiative because Lake Simcoe and Kempenfelt Bay are certainly jewels that we treasure in Simcoe County. Phosphorous levels were at an all-time high, and we needed action to help reverse that trend because high phosphorous levels mean excessive weed growth. In Lake Simcoe it meant reduced marine habitat. We could not have this happen to what really was a jewel in our community.

The health of our lake is paramount to the future of the city of Barrie and all of Simcoe County and the surrounding areas. Tourism is vital to our local economy, and Lake Simcoe is certainly at the heart of the tourism market. I am happy to report that, since that investment of $30 million, phosphorous levels have gone down every year. We are making tremendous strides on the cleanup of Lake Simcoe, to make sure that future generations in Barrie and Simcoe County will have the same pristine lake that we have been able to enjoy over so many decades.

Economic action plan 2012 continues the commitment to cleanup Lake Simcoe. The five-year cleanup fund had expired, but the budget expressed a commitment to renew this fund and to continue the cleanup of Lake Simcoe. That is tremendously appreciated in our community, and I am so glad that our Minister of Finance had the wisdom to recognize that this was a fund and a partnership that was working. The federal dollars, leveraged with funds from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and all the municipalities in Simcoe County, have made a profound impact on our local environment.

I am also pleased to see that Bill C-45 would extend the hiring credit for small businesses for another year. The credit of up to $1,000 against EI premiums is a great help to encourage more small businesses. Small businesses are the engine for job creation in Canada and are indispensable in their role as job creators. I see that every day in Barrie. Small businesses are at the heart of our community and it is great to see a budget that would help small businesses.

I realize I am limited in time. I want to commend my colleague, the Minister of Finance, on the jobs and growth act, 2012. The bill builds on terrific work laid out in the economic action plan and it meets the economic challenges facing our country head-on. On behalf of my constituents and the various stakeholders in Barrie, I want to sincerely thank the minister and his team for their hard work on what will be an excellent investment and understanding of the Canadian economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously pleased to stand today and speak to Bill C-45, the second budget implementation bill, the jobs and growth act of 2012. I have heard the opposition say on many occasions that Bill C-45 is a large bill. Yes, it is, and necessarily so. One might ask why. It is because it is the comprehensive bill required for these economic times. It is comprised of hundreds of pages of technical amendments, as well as concrete policy that reflects, considers and demands our immediate attention.

Through extensive consultations with stakeholders, sector leaders, academics and everyday Canadians, we see a better way to keep our country economically robust, going forward. Bill C-45 is representative of broad-based opinion across this country. As such, our Conservative government was given a strong mandate in the last election to stay focused on what matters: creating jobs and growing the economy.

A strong economy is not just something that affects a few. It ultimately means more money in Canadians' pockets for their groceries, rent and child care expenses. It means a difference to many families that have been able to tuck away a few bucks in a savings account at the end of the month instead of living paycheque to paycheque or, sadly, in many cases, no paycheque at all. It could also mean a young couple can turn a dream of owning a house into a reality. It means that a small business owner can hire an extra couple of employees or more this year, or a farmer can continue to do what his father and grandfather have done on their land for generations.

What this bill does not do is what the socialist opposition on the other side believes the panacea for all circumstances is: raise taxes. Of the many tax increases the opposition has proposed, and we have heard it many times in the House and it bears repeating, the $21 billion carbon tax would decimate industry, transportation, commerce and negatively affect every citizen in the country. We vehemently disagree with that approach. Raising taxes is not the answer. Raising taxes would be like killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Raising taxes raises costs, decreases productivity, decreases competitiveness and, of course, kills jobs. Raising taxes crushes entrepreneurship and affects both small and large businesses. No one is exempt. It would result in no jobs and no money for groceries, housing, child care or any of the social necessities.

Bill C-45, in contrast, has initiatives that would build a strong economy, support Canadian families and communities, and create jobs. Importantly, it would respect taxpayers' dollars because we know how hard everyone works for every dollar earned. Let me take a moment to go over some of the initiatives that would create jobs and maintain and grow our strong economy.

First, let us talk business. Speaking from personal experience, I can assure everyone that as a small business owner for over 38 years who has employed hundreds of people, both I and our Conservative government understand and recognize that small business plays a tremendous and pivotal role in the economy and in the creation of jobs. Last year, 534,000 employers benefited from the hiring credit for small business. In Bill C-45 that credit of up to $1,000 will be extended for another year, which will encourage more hiring of employees and lower total business payroll taxes by $205 million. We will extend the capital cost allowance, creating an environment for more investment and more jobs.

The opposition criticizes this by saying we are giving money to large and small businesses. That is categorically wrong. Businesses must invest in capital assets, building or equipment, in order to receive that taxable credit. Let me use the example of a company in my riding, one of many. Proctor & Gamble is a large company and has invested significantly in new production lines by expanding facilities and purchasing equipment.

This investment and job creation results, of course, in more profitability for the company, but subsequently more taxes are then received by the various levels of government: federal, provincial and even municipal from the property tax point of view. More personal tax is also received from either added employees and/or the continuation of the good jobs they are paying taxes on now.

In addition, there are all kinds of side benefits from having a strong business community. This company, as an example, and its employees, are generous contributors to local fundraising, whether it is to the United Way or health care initiatives. The spinoff to our communities is absolutely tremendous. That is the genesis of job creation.

Jobs will also be created with many measures that we have introduced to promote interprovincial trade, to improve the legislative framework governing Canada's financial institutions and to facilitate cross-border travelling where the least delay is critical. At the border, time is money. Time spent on delay costs the Canadian economy and it costs us jobs.

We also need to remove bureaucratic obstacles and reduce fees for Canadian grain farmers, and we are doing that with the Canada Grain Act.

We are supporting Canada's commercial aviation sector, where we are leaders in the world. As an example, CAE simulators, a company out of Montreal, just had a new investment at CFB Trenton and other areas. It is taking advantage of our capital acquisition cost of new aircraft. Their training facilities are a huge boon for many areas and certainly for jobs in Canada.

Very important is our government's commitment to helping Canadian families and seniors. Bill C-45 contains measures to improve the registered disability savings plan and implement the tax framework for pooled registered retirement plans.

Initiatives in Bill C-45 also promote clean energy and promote the neutrality of the tax system by expanding tax relief for investment in clean energy generation equipment. This helps to keep Canadian dollars at home, which creates jobs and stimulates local economies.

We respect the Canadian taxpayer. We are moving to ensure that the pension plans of MPs, senators and federal public sector employees are not only sustainable, but financially responsible, fair and consistent with pension plans in the private sector.

We are proud that Canada has achieved the strongest economic performance of the G7, as verified by literally all international bodies, from the World Bank to the International Monetary Fund, and the list goes on.

Over 820,000 net new jobs have been created since 2009. These are numbers that the entire House can and should be proud of, but we know it is not enough as long as there are still too many Canadians looking for work.

On top of that, we have challenges. The global economy remains in a delicate condition, particularly in Europe and in the U.S., where they are encouraging and actually accumulating debts in excess of $1 trillion a year. That is definitely troublesome. Because of issues beyond our control, we must continue to focus on getting Canadians working and providing an economic climate where entrepreneurs and businesses are able to flourish and continue creating jobs.

The bill addresses, recognizes and builds upon our commitment to return to a balanced budget. We must pay down our debt. Debt is our mortgage on the future of our children. Canadians should be able to look ahead and see a bright future for themselves and their children. Our government is committed to working hard to make that a reality.

I would encourage members on all sides of the House. We have our challenges when we have different opinions, viewpoints or perspectives on an issue, but we can all commit to a passion for improving the lives of our citizens and our country. I certainly welcome comments from my colleagues on the other side of the House and I hope we can try to find a way to continue to work together to better society for Canadian citizens.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to rise and speak to Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. I want to start by talking about process, roles and responsibilities.

When I was elected as a member of Parliament to represent my constituents in these hallowed halls of our parliamentary democracy, I came here with the understanding that I had a key role to play in budgetary oversight, holding the government accountable for the decisions it makes in spending the hard-earned money of Canadians, and paying a great deal of attention and due diligence when it comes to fiduciary matters. However, last spring, I was prevented from doing that by the Trojan horse omnibus bill, a bill so thick and dense it is bigger than many telephone directories across this beautiful country.

During this process, the feedback from Canadians was that this was not parliamentary democracy and not acceptable. I heard from hundreds of my constituents and other Canadians who were a little shocked by a government burying so much and making such drastic changes in an omnibus bill, though when it was a government in waiting, it was always talking about transparency and accountability.

One would have thought that after having buried the deletion of immigration files, the gutting of environmental protections and many other areas that were in the previous bill, including changing the age for old age security, the Conservatives would have learned a lesson and decided to do things differently. However, it was a case of oh, no, when we came back this fall to face Bill C-45, the second budget implementation act, still the size of a phone book.

Once again, as an elected parliamentarian representing the beautiful riding of Newton—North Delta, a riding that is struggling with many issues that need to be addressed right now, I am faced with a piece of legislation that purports to be a budget implementation bill, but actually includes many new items.

I was in the House when the Minister of Finance told my colleagues to go and do their homework, that we had the budget and there was nothing new in it. However, it only took until the next morning for the media to pick up on all the new stuff that was in the budget. What became evident was that the minister himself had not done his homework and was not aware of what was in his own budget or was trying to fool Canadians by burying things in the budget and pretending they were not there.

One of those is the changes to our environmental protections such as the Navigable Waters Protection Act. People keep saying that it is not about water. However, as I keep asking: What do boats and ships travel on if not water? What are we thinking about navigating? It is not roads but waterways. Therefore, I do not see why there is that separation. Once again, here we are as parliamentarians being denied the right to exercise our fundamental responsibility and scrutinize and debate a budget.

I have heard colleague after colleague stand in the House to urge the government and the members across the aisle to just give us unanimous consent so that we can take portions of this budget to the appropriate committees—and there are not 45 of them—where these can be given due diligence and we can examine and amend these portions of the bill and engage Canadians in some of the discussions.

Once again, unanimous consent has not been given. My colleague from Halifax tried again today, and I was quite moved by her plea for the other side to be reasonable. However, the Conservatives were not reasonable.

One of the key points I keep hearing of this budget is that it is about job creation. However, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer says that this budget implementation bill would actually cost over 43,000 Canadian jobs. Here we have an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer saying that, yet I hear colleague after colleague across the aisle keep talking about how this is going to be such a great boon to job growth. We know that is not so.

I am getting a little tired of all the breaks in this budget for small businesses. In my own background my family has been engaged in running small businesses and in my community the engine of our economy is our small family-owned businesses.

What great measure do we have built into this budget? What I am saying is that it does not go far enough. We need to support our small- and medium-size businesses by giving them the breaks, not the wealthy corporations that take the jobs and money out of the country. However, once again the government fails small- and medium-size businesses in this budget. All it has done in this budget is to provide them with a maximum of $1,000 in credits on new EI employer payments. That is it. To add insult to injury, that is only available to employers in the 2012 tax year.

By the time Bill C-45 passes through all stages, this tax credit will actually have expired. I say this even though the government has moved a time allocation motion so that the bill will pass through all of the stages at lightning speed, because the government has majority that it is determined to abuse.

The small- and medium-size businesses I talk to my riding need a lot more attention than this. They are very worried about where the government is taking us.

I am not going to spend too much time talking about environmental issues, because my colleague does such an excellent job on that at committee. She has raised those concerns ad nauseam.

Like other MPs, I get amazing emails from my riding. My colleague from Halifax read some of those into the record today. This morning I was responding to emails from my riding opposing the Enbridge pipeline and the gutting of environmental protections, and also about the lack of support for our young people to go out and get jobs.

I am getting so frustrated and tired of the constantly put idea that we are growing jobs, when I know it is the temporary foreign worker category that has increased by 200%. I want to see a real job-growth strategy by the government, instead of words, words and more useless words.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask more or less the same question I asked the member earlier. Either she did not understand the question, or she did not want to answer. It was about navigable waters.

In her speech, the member said that today's bill was exactly what the government tabled seven months ago: the 2012 budget, a book that several members have shown us. That was the first thing she said. However, changes to navigable waters in Bill C-45 were not mentioned in the March 2012 budget.

Can she explain why Bill C-45 includes references to the Navigable Waters Protection Act even though the March 2012 budget did not mention it? Can she explain why references to the environment were removed from the Government of Canada's website after we pointed out that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is in fact an environmental law?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I said 11 standing committees, not 45. I referenced Bill C-45.

Let me repeat. Eighty-three per cent of all businesses in York Region, home to over one million people, have less than 20 employees. PRPPs will be a very valuable tool for employers to help them, first of all, to retain good staff and, second, to provide pension options to those who currently may not participate in a pension plan. Third, it will allow many entrepreneurs to better save for their retirements, such as those who operate a family business and who regularly put in 70-plus hours or more a week to support their families and to provide opportunities for others to do the same.

It simply is not fair that entrepreneurs, those who take on the risk, many by mortgaging their own assets and taking out personal loans to create jobs and opportunity across our country, do not have access to a company pension plan nor have the ability to offer one to their employees. Bill C-45 would correct this inequity.

I am also pleased about the lower corporate tax rate. We know that lowering corporate tax rates creates jobs. How do we know this? The proof is in the pudding. Let us just look for a moment at Canada's economic record.

Since 2006 our corporate tax rate has been steadily declining from 22% to 15%. As everyone is no doubt well aware, in 2008-09 Canada and the world were faced with the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. That being said, unlike other countries Canada has emerged from that downturn in a relative position of strength. For example, nearly 820,000 new jobs have been created since July 2009, the strongest job creation record in the G7. Forbes magazine ranks Canada as the best place for businesses to grow and create jobs, and all the major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor's, have affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating. Canada's debt to GDP ratio is by far the best in all the G7.

These results did not happen by chance. They are the result of a government focused on jobs and economic growth, one that does not get sidetracked and that clearly articulates its goals and sets out a methodical plan to achieve them.

I remind Canadians that in 2006 when this government came to office, it set out a long-range plan to foster strong and sustainable economic growth. It set out to show the world that we were a modern, dynamic and tolerant country. There were five goals: first, to establish the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G7; second, to chart a course to eliminate Canada's debt; third, to reduce unnecessary regulation and red tape in Canada's marketplace; fourth, to create the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world; and fifth, to build the modern infrastructure we need. That was six years ago and today we remain focused on achieving these goals.

We are keeping Canada's corporate tax rates low, lowering taxes on families, supporting a market economy with a non-interventionist government, and implementing a pro-trade agenda. These policies are contributing to Canada's relative economic success.

The opposite side of the House, however, advocates for higher taxes, such as the NDP's $21 billion carbon tax proposal. In this high-tax scenario I argue that today's global economy businesses would simply choose other places to invest. Corporations would have a thinner bottom line and would not be able to hire or keep as many employees. This would lead to increased unemployment and lower government revenues. Government would have to take on more debt to finance its activities. What happens when a government has to pay more to service its debt? Investor confidence fails and with it, business investment and economic growth. Thankfully this is not the case and I want to assure residents in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora that this government will never subscribe to high-tax schemes.

I would like to highlight another implementation measure in Bill C-45 that is important to Newmarket—Aurora. The amendments to part IV of the Employment Insurance Act allow the extension of the hiring credit for small business to 2012.

Small businesses are the engine of job creation in Canada, as they are in Newmarket—Aurora. In recognition of the challenges faced by small businesses across the country, budget 2011 announced a temporary hiring credit for small business of up to $1,000 per employer. This credit provided needed relief to small businesses by helping defray the costs of hiring new workers and allowing them to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities. Extending the temporary hiring credit for small business for one year would result in a credit of up to $1,000 against an employers' increase in 2012 EI premiums, over those paid in 2011. This temporary credit would be available to approximately 53,000 employers whose total EI premiums were at or below $10,000 in 2011, reducing small business 2012 payroll costs.

In conclusion, I believe Canadians expect their government to work in their best interests. They want their government to stay focused on jobs and the economy. The best way to do this is to move forward with the legislation so we can ensure that the many important measures it contains, essential to ensuring the continuation of our recovery, are done. That is what Canadians want and that is what this government intends to do.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, I know. I'd still like to read it into the record, because I know that the government members will insist that it only be done in camera, which is very unfortunate.

I will be moving that the committee immediately commence a study on the matter of sections of Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012, and other measures, which directly fall within the mandate of this committee, namely part 4, division 13, clauses 269 to 298, Hazardous Materials Information Review Act.

I know that the government members will only allow this to be debated in camera, which is unfortunate, but it is something that we should be discussing and studying at this committee.

I'd like to—

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-45, the second implementation bill relating to the jobs and growth act 2012.

I would like to first preface my remarks by reminding my colleagues on the opposition benches that Bill C-45 provides the mechanisms to implement the provisions outlined in budget 2012. That legislation was tabled a full seven months ago, on March 29, 2012.

Budget 2012 has received more debate than any other budget bill in this House. I also remind my colleagues that Bill C-45 will be sent to 45 different standing committees for further scrutiny and debate, so I think there are adequate opportunities for discussion and debate.

I would like to comment on a few of the enabling legislative items in Bill C-45 that are especially appreciated by the residents in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora.

Both Newmarket and Aurora are situated at the top of the GTA, in York region. It is one of the fastest growing areas in Ontario, and residents there have clearly articulated to me that they want their government to remain focused on jobs and economic growth.

That is why, for example, they are very pleased with the implementation measures in Bill C-45 that enable pooled registered pension plans to become a reality.

Bill C-45 amends the Income Tax Act to accommodate pooled registered pension plans, or PRPPs. It sets out the tax treatment for contributions to and distributions from PRPPs. It also deals with a number of related issues, such as the registration of pooled pension plans and transfers on the death of a PRPP member.

I cannot say enough about how important PRPPs are to entrepreneurs and working Canadians in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora.

In York region, home to over one million people, 83% of all businesses have fewer than 20 employees. This will be a very valuable tool for employers. It will help them, first, to retain good staff, and second, to provide pension options to those who currently may not--

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I, along with my NDP colleagues, oppose this monster budget bill. I oppose it on both content and process. First I will talk about the process.

The Conservatives talk about the unprecedented level of debate and hours of debate on this bill and the previous budget bill. Even the member for Crowfoot, who spoke before me, talked about unprecedented debate in the House. Let us review that to see if they are right.

Bill C-20, which was what the budget bill was called in 1991, was six pages long and between first and third reading in the House of Commons, there were 192 days of debate. In 1995, it was Bill C-76 and it was 48 pages long. There were 78 days of debate in the chamber. Bill C-32 in 2000 was 29 pages long, it went down a bit in size, and there were 60 days of debate. Bill C-33 in 2004 was 76 pages long and it received 79 days of debate in this chamber.

What happened this year? This spring the omnibus budget bill touched or outright repealed over 70 laws. A third of that budget bill was about gutting environmental legislation. Most pieces of the budget had not been debated in the House before and most of those pieces were not campaigned on.

I do not remember the Conservatives campaigning in the 2011 election saying that they were going to increase OAS eligibility from the age of 65 to 67. I do not remember them campaigning on the fact that they were going to diminish health care transfers. In fact, during that election, I was the health critic for the NDP and I remember the opposite. The Conservatives campaigned on maintaining and increasing health care transfers.

We also cannot find any of these pieces in Conservative Party policy. If we turn to its policy, we will not find the Conservatives saying that they believe they should raise the age that people can collect their OAS.

The member for Crowfoot said that we had this budget. that this stuff had existed for so long and we should have read it. I would love for any member on that side of the House to tell me anything, even one word, about what the changes were to the Assisted Human Reproduction Act in the last omnibus budget bill, never mind what that had to do with the budget. I think most Conservatives would be hard pressed to even repeat the phrase “assisted human reproduction”.

We had Bill C-38 in the spring that was 425 pages long and there were 54 days of debate. Here we are again this fall with the second omnibus budget, the son of omnibus. I do not know how long this debate will go, but the government has already moved time allocation. I cannot imagine it will be very long. I cannot imagine it will be the heady days of 1991 when there were 192 days of debate, I highly doubt that, and we have a bill that is over 440 pages long.

The length of debate is important. Maybe the Conservatives do not think it is important because they do not like to listen when the NDP brings forward reasonable ideas. They just want to sit with their eyes closed and their hands over their ears. However, the length of debate is important for democracy because it allows entry points for civil society to engage with the legislative process. Think about it. How does civil society actually engage with this process? People cannot come here to vote or give speeches in the House, but there are entry points for them. They write letters to their MPs. They write letters to the editor. They testify at committee. They come up with good ideas and send them to us via social media. They phone us and have meetings with us in our communities. They have brown bag luncheon seminars in their workplaces to talk about how this will impact them. Sometimes they even take to the streets. The length of debate allows that process, that moment for civil society to engage with the legislative process.

The NDP brought forward amendments to the bill at committee based on what the community and civil society had told us. The opposition brought forward over 800 amendments in the House based on what civil society said, but we had 54 days of debate where that entry point for civil society was eliminated because not one amendment was made. What is the result because the government did not listen? In this omnibus monster budget, there are amendments to amendments that were made in the last budget bill.

Can members imagine amendments to amendments in the same year, as if we needed more evidence that the Conservatives are bad managers?

The process is undemocratic. Bill C-45 is a massive omnibus budget bill that makes amendments to a wide range of acts. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to ram the legislation through Parliament without allowing Canadians and their MPs to thoroughly examine it. They need to remember that we are their members of Parliament. It is our job to look at the bill properly, make amendments and suggest ideas. New Democrats are proud to stand in the House and actually do their job.

I fear that I am quickly running out of time, and I wanted to share some words from Canadians. I know the Conservatives will not listen to the NDP, because they do not like reasonable, good, sound ideas, but maybe they will listen to Canadians.

I have some letters I received from constituents.

The first is from Rebekah Hutten, who wrote:

My name is Rebekah Hutten, and I am a university student deeply concerned about [the budget].

I am writing to let you know how disturbed I am by this furtive endeavour to use an omnibus budget bill to completely wipe out years of progress Canada has made on environmental protection.... For the sake of the environment, I implore you to demand the non-budget matters—all environmental changes—be removed from C-38 [the last budget bill] and put forward as stand-alone legislation.

We took that advice and tried to do that, but the Conservatives refused to listen. We are trying to do that with this budget bill as well. We will see if they come around to their senses.

I received another letter from Bill Davidson, who wrote:

I am one of your constituents in Halifax, and I wanted to write to you to express my displeasure, or rather horror, about bill C-38, the conservatives' omnibus “budget” bill. This is not a budget, it is one of the most anti-democratic pieces of legislation ever tabled in a Canadian parliament, complete with wholesale destruction of anything resembling environmental policy. It is anti-environment, anti-science, anti-common sense, and insulting to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.... Please [member of Parliament for Halifax], don't let these guys get away with this without putting up a fight.

Leagh and Diane Colins wrote:

Our fathers and grandfathers fought for Democracy—many giving the ultimate sacrifice of their lives against tyranny and government control. Censorship against free speech and the right to protest against that which we deem to be detrimental to our society is what they fought against. This current government disrespects their memory.

Our children and grandchildren will not have much of a world to grow up in when we allow the short-sighted goals of profit to overwhelm Canada's proud legacy of its environment and wildlife.

We most emphatically urge you to speak out against this bill and these measures to still the voice of opposition to environmental destruction.

In closing, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 316 to 350 and Schedule 2 related to changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and clauses 425 to 432 related to the changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 be removed from Bill C-45, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled “an act to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012”; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for referral to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

We are proposing this motion to ensure that the bill is split for proper study at the correct committee, and specifically to ensure that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is reviewed at the environment committee, where it belongs, and which government websites would have supported until about seven days ago.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to get up on a point of order on this, but the member was in his own little fantasy world and I did not want to interrupt him.

I have a bill called Bill C-45. The first reading was October 18. The member across said that we had been discussing it for three months. Then he went on to say that the bill has been around for 20 years.

Is this his fantasy world? Are we talking about the same calendar year and the same bill?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-45.

As a number of members who spoke before me have mentioned, it is absolutely ridiculous for the government to include all kinds of measures that have nothing to do with the budget. There are all kinds of clauses in the bill that have nothing to do with the budget. Content aside, anyone can see that the Conservatives are going about things the wrong way and that they do not take this seriously.

It is unrealistic for a single committee to study a bill in so little time, and this shows the Conservatives' bad faith. The government itself is unable to assess the true impact of its budget on job losses or even job creation, or the effects it will have on Canadians. Yet the Conservatives did nothing to allow the Standing Committee on Finance to properly study the bill.

The Standing Committee on Finance is working on other matters, such as pre-budget consultations. It has been allocated little time to study this more than 400-page bill, which contains measures that have nothing to do with finance or the budget.

Canadians are not fools and know that the government has tried on several occasions to quietly pass measures that will be disastrous for Canada. I do not have much time, but I will attempt nevertheless to highlight some of the main elements of this budget.

In my opinion, one of the few positive measures in the budget is the elimination of the penny. That is good news for Canada. As a result of inflation, today this coin has practically no value and costs more to make than what it is worth. The Government of Canada will save $11 million a year with this measure, and businesses and consumers will save a lot of time when making cash transactions. This measure is not in the bill, but I wanted to mention it because I had not had the opportunity to do so previously.

Returning to a balanced budget is also a good point and necessary for Canada's economic well-being. There again, it all depends on what you cut and how you do it. Although I agree with the government that we should cut the fat, we must make a distinction between what is and what is not useful.

The government constantly tells us that services will not be affected, but no one has provided any studies or reports confirming that items cut are actually optional. The government has decided to cut 10% from one service and 5% from another without having any idea of the impact.

The Liberal Party wants facts, expert reports and studies. However, as we have seen for a number of years now, the majority Conservative government is improvising and still refusing to accept reality, preferring to blindly trust its ideology. The Prime Minister himself recently confirmed that any organization that is in conflict with the Conservative ideology will no longer receive public funding.

Bill C-45 continues the reckless Conservative abuse of power. The omnibus budget bill is another example of the Conservatives steamrolling of democracy, as we have said again and again, forcing unpopular, non-budgetary measures through Parliament and trying to do it with as much speed and little debate and scrutiny as possible.

Bill C-45 is a 414 page document with 516 clauses, amending over 60 different pieces of legislation. The measures that do not belong in this finance bill, as my other colleagues have spoken about, include the rewriting of laws protecting Canada's waterways, the redefinition of aboriginal fisheries without consulting first nations and the elimination of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission.

By rushing these massive omnibus bills through Parliament, the Conservatives deny Parliament and Canadians the opportunity to carefully consider the proposed laws to identify flaws and propose solutions.

Bill C-45 actually includes a number of measures to fix mistakes in the last bill, Bill C-38, its predecessor, including omissions in the amended Fisheries Act regarding the passage of fish, and the poor drafting of transitional provisions in the new environmental assessment law.

There is ambiguity around the ministerial approval process for certain investments by public investment pools as well.

Today, a majority of Canadians are worried about growing income inequality, between both individuals and regions. The Liberal Party has put forward motions and discussed it in Parliament. Again, we do not see anything in the budget that addresses this income inequality that Canadians are worried about.

An area where the budget bill could actually create jobs, and in turn does not, is an area where it actually slashes investment tax credits that encourage economic growth and job creation, like the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, the Atlantic investment tax credit and the corporate mineral exploration and development tax credit.

The Conservatives are using Bill C-45 to avoid lawsuits, like exempting the Detroit-Windsor bridge from environmental laws and regulations such as the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. If the Conservatives want to avoid lawsuits, they should just follow the laws that are in place instead of weakening the ones that are meant to protect our environment.

One example I would like to cite where there has been a little back and forth is on the cuts to research and development. The Liberals oppose the government's plan to cut the SR&ED program. The SR&ED program is a federal tax incentive program that encourages Canadian businesses of all sizes and in all sectors to conduct research and development in Canada. It is the largest single source of federal government support for industrial R and D. The R and D program gives claimants tax credits for their expenditures on eligible R and D work done in Canada. The government has opted to decrease these credits, promising to reinvest the savings into direct grants. The grants mean that the government would pick which companies would benefit from government support, rather than providing an across the board tax credit available to any business undertaking R and D. A company may not know anyone in the government and have a great idea.

Instead of making the R and D program much better, the government decided to make four changes: reducing the general SR&ED tax credit from 20% to 15%; reducing the prescribed proxy amount, which taxpayers use to claim the R and D amount from overhead expenditures, from 65% to 55% of salaries and wages of employees who are engaged in R and D activities; removing the profit element from arm's length third-party contracts for the purpose of the calculation of R and D credits, by allowing only 80% of the value to be counted toward eligible expenditures; and removing capital from the base of eligible expenditures for the purpose of the calculation of R and D.

I could go on. I have about three pages of notes on this subject.

My point on R and D is that, as a former member of the finance committee—I chaired it and I was vice-chair—I heard numerous groups, whether accounting groups, business groups or tax groups. They all said to make the program easier. The government has done what it has done for other programs, slightly tweaked it, made it more complicated, reduced percentages and increased certain percentages. It decided to just cut things and has taken a whole lot of money out of there, and politicized it by saying it would now give out grants.

I understand my time is coming to an end. I will be taking questions. I will not be supporting the bill in the form it is in.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I take great pleasure in speaking in favour of the speedy passage of Bill C-45, jobs and growth act, 2012.

I am also pleased to congratulate the Minister of Finance for the outstanding job he is doing on behalf of all Canadians.

Canada is recognized internationally for the sound economic and fiscal policies of our Conservative government. Leadership on the economy is something that average Canadians who work hard, obey the law and pay their taxes understand.

While there are many benefits to passing Bill C-45 for the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, in the short time I have, I intend to focus on those aspects of this second budget implementation bill that are of interest to my constituents.

I intend to focus my comments on the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I've listened to a number of comments, starting with those of the Leader of the Opposition, which are ill-informed at best and misleading at worst, about this part of the budget bill and I believe it is important to set the record straight. Historically, the impetus behind the Navigable Waters Protection Act of 1882 was the result of representations made by Ottawa Valley lumbermen looking to protect the principal means they had at the time to bring their product to market.

In the 19th century, when the Navigable Waters Protection Act was legislated, rivers played an important role in the commerce of our great nation. The lumber trade of the upper Ottawa Valley relied upon rivers to bring the logs to market. Twelve years before the Navigable Waters Protection Act became law and three years after Confederation, Parliament passed An Act Respecting Certain Works on the Ottawa River. This act gave the federal government exclusive legislative authority in the construction of any works to ensure the Ottawa River is navigable. This was done to protect commerce and done years before the Navigable Waters Protection Act. That legislation is still on the books today.

What Canadians find misleading is when opposition members read things into the legislation that do not exist. Environmental protection for such things as pollution and fish habitat is covered by other legislation, not the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It was never intended for that purpose when it was written 140 years ago. The opposition may wish to stay trapped in the past, but our government believes it is time to leave the 19th century for the 21st century.

The public right of navigation is a common-law principle that dates back to Roman times. To my paddling friends, nothing in Bill C-45 detracts from the right to navigation in Canada. We respect the navigable qualities of any body of water that is indeed navigable, recognizing that any contemplated works need not compromise or undermine the recreational status of any body of water that is now or was previously the domain of paddlers.

This brings us to the Petawawa River. The decision by the federal government to include the Ottawa and Petawawa rivers in the list of 62 rivers retaining navigable waters constitutional jurisdiction protection was based in part on the real concern, on my part as well as that of my constituents, that the provincial environmental assessment process is being manipulated by the Ontario government to match a hidden agenda called the Green Energy Act. We needed to take an extra step to protect the Petawawa River.

In the province of Ontario the so-called Green Energy Act has been used to stifle democratic debate at the local level, running roughshod over the objections of local residents who are now being forced, through their power bills, to pay for unwanted and unnecessary power projects. Projects are being promoted under the guise of so-called green energy, when in fact the only green is in the pockets of the Liberal Party insiders who lobbied for 20 years to have industrial wind turbine contracts at outrageous financial subsidies. The collapse of the Liberal Party of Ontario and the resignation in disgrace of its leader led to the migration of these same individuals to Ottawa into positions of influence with their federal cousins.

The town of Petawawa unanimously passed the following motion at its September 4, 2012 council meeting:

That the Town of Petawawa advises the Premier of the Province of Ontario and his Ministers of Energy and Infrastructure, the Environment and Natural Resources that it does not and will not give any support or sanction to any project that is seeking or will be seeking ministry approval under the 2009 Green Energy act and in particular its “feed-in-tariff” provision.

To quote councillor Treena Lemay, who moved that motion: “The act promoted 'fast tracking' of environmental approvals for all electricity infrastructure projects, removed the long-established local planning process and left rural residents without effective noise complaint protocols and municipalities with no voice in their own community development”.

I thank councillor Treena Lemay for her leadership on this issue at municipal council.

In the case of the Petawawa River, plans to construct dam-like structures would destroy the fish habitat as well as recreational activities, including whitewater kayaking that now takes place on the river. I support the residents of Petawawa and their town council in objecting to the damming of the Petawawa River and will continue to object at the federal level until this proposal is withdrawn.

I share the concerns expressed by the Ontario Rivers Alliance about the fate of our other Ontario rivers, like the Vermilion. To quote the alliance:

We all want Green Energy, but let’s ensure it is truly Green, and not the “Green-washed” version that is being proposed for many of our Ontario rivers.

While I appreciate the concerns of Ontario residents and groups like the Ontario Rivers Alliance about the need for a federal presence in certain instances to provide a system of checks and balances to ill-conceived legislation like the Ontario Green Energy Act, these checks and balances remain in place with the passage of Bill C-45.

When the Navigable Waters Protection Act came before Parliament previously in 2009, I was honoured to welcome Jack MacLaren, a seventh generation Renfrew County orchard farmer, to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance. Mr. MacLaren contacted me after he ran into trouble with the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In his case what should have been a simple matter became a complicated issue because of a piece of legislation dating back to the 1980s.

I had also been contacted by municipalities that complained to me about the time and expense to clean out a municipal drainage ditch because of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

In short, it is clear that changes are absolutely necessary to this act.

The other issue I intend to respond to is the criticism by the opposition that Bill C-45 is too detailed and complicated for them to understand. The opposition call Bill C-45 omnibus legislation, hoping that Canadians will buy into its delay tactics because it would rather complain than do its job.

Bill C-45 is the second budget bill. Here, I draw members' attention to a debate in the House that took place on June 13 of this year on the first budget bill between the opposition member for Markham—Unionville and the hard-working Conservative member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. In that exchange the opposition member complained about a program he claimed was cancelled by our budget. Our government member responded with shock at what he had heard. He proceeded to set the record straight, reading directly from the budget that the program in question, the Canadian innovation and commercialization program, had not only been funded for another three years but had also been built up and made permanent. This led the member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore to ask the opposition member if he had even read the budget. The opposition member obviously had not read the budget, which brings me to my last point.

The opposition has had a copy of our budget for months, with plenty of time to analyze the budget document. If they were doing their job, they would be ready to debate and scrutinize all aspects of the budget now. Opposition for the sake of opposition is not acceptable to Canadians. The Library of Parliament can help out with a legislative guide for all things not understood, like the history of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This is why it is so important at this time to modernize a 140-year-old piece of legislation and proceed with the passage of Bill C-45.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up where I left off yesterday.

Like Bill C-38, Bill C-45 is another massive omnibus bill that makes changes to many laws. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to ram their legislative measures through Parliament without allowing Canadians or their representatives, the MPs, to carefully examine them. The 400 pages of this bill contain many areas of concern. I would like to focus on a few specific points since, if I wanted to get into any detail, I would barely have time to address the table of contents of this mammoth bill in the 10 minutes that I have to speak.

The first point that I would like to speak about is health, particularly the decision to eliminate the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, which falls under division 13 of part 4 of the bill. The commission was an organization that helped to regulate hazardous materials protected by business confidentiality by ensuring that employers and workers had the information they needed to safely handle hazardous materials in the workplace.

I would like to know what prompted this change at this time. Was the organization, in its existing form, not doing its job properly? I doubt it. Why is it necessary to give the mandate that is currently being carried out by the commission to a group of people who will be appointed by the minister? These are the questions that we should be examining. The government did not provide much in the way of justification for this change. It keeps hiding significant changes in giant, complex bills to prevent MPs from discussing and thoroughly examining the impact of these changes.

Unfortunately for the government, it has clearly not yet learned its lesson. The official opposition will not let the government impose new omnibus bills without resistance. Canadians deserve better. We will do our job and we will expose the bad decisions that this Conservative government is making.

The other point that I would like to address is the impact of the cuts to research and development. My riding, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, is lucky enough to have in it a number of specialized aerospace companies through the Saint-Hubert airport. The North American head office of Bombardier Transportation is also in my riding, in Saint-Bruno.

The changes to research and development proposed by the Conservative government will affect all these businesses and their workers. Various measures in the bill eliminate $500 million for entrepreneurs at a time when Canada already lags behind in investment in research and development. In my riding many people depend on the aerospace industry, and this situation is creating instability at a bad time.

Canada's aerospace industry is ranked fifth in the world. It employs over 150,000 Canadians directly and indirectly. It generates $22 billion in revenue annually and invests approximately $2 billion in research and development. That is significant.

These cuts are being made at a most unfortunate time because the sector is growing internationally and competition is increasingly fierce. In this context, I cannot understand and I deplore the decision made by the government to slash funding for an important tool that can spur innovation and productivity and maintain existing jobs. Technology and innovation have given Canada a comparative advantage in these leading-edge industries. Strategic investments in research and development as a whole are vital in order for Canada's industrial sector to compete with emerging countries and for Canada to retain its competitive edge internationally and its well-paid jobs.

I am not making this up. In its pre-budget consultation brief, the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada said that these measures to boost research and development are important for the future. The association said the following in the brief it submitted to the Standing Committee on Finance:

These measures will foster competitiveness and productivity, ensuring our industry is positioned to take advantage of the outstanding growth in demand for aircraft and thus create long-term, high-quality jobs for Canadians.

The NDP has called for a better balance between tax credits and direct support to businesses, which is what countries such as Israel, Sweden and Finland do, and they are ranked the most innovative countries according to OECD. But the budget only decreases the government's support for research and innovation.

And the Conservatives are proclaiming loud and clear that the 2012 budget creates jobs. We know that that is not true. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer believes that the budget will lead to the loss of 43,000 Canadian jobs. This budget would increase the unemployment rate. I have to say that they are not walking the talk.

This bill is proof that the government says one thing but does another. It claims to want to support job creation, but there are no concrete measures to strengthen existing jobs, let alone create new ones. The Conservatives got elected in 2006 by promising Canadians that they would be transparent and accountable. But the government is hiding major reforms from Canadians by putting them into omnibus bills like this one and the earlier Bill C-38, and it does not want to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer the figures related to cuts to federal departments and agencies.

The NDP will always stand up proudly for transparency and accountability.

The House resumed from October 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second 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.

Business of the House

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 179 to 184 of schedule I, related to the construction of a bridge spanning the Detroit River between Windsor and Detroit, be removed from C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled “an act respecting a bridge spanning the Detroit River between Windsor and Detroit and other works”; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

We are proposing this because the new bridge between Windsor and Detroit has been a long process in evolution and included new legislation that was passed under the International Bridges and Tunnels Act. That process has been defined and developed, and we want to make sure that it is consistent.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

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

Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that today is Groundhog Day, and I am not talking about the day in February where we check to see whether the groundhog has seen his shadow to determine when spring will arrive. Rather, I am talking about the 1993 movie, where the main character keeps reliving the same day over and over again. I have the vague impression that I have already lived this moment where I rise in the House to speak out against a bill that is over 400 pages long and contains many elements that were not part of the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance in March.

This is likely because this is not the first time this has happened. I promise to do my best not to repeat myself even if the speech I gave last June is still valid and relevant today.

Like Bill C-38, Bill C-45 is another massive omnibus bill that makes changes to many laws. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to ram their legislative measures through Parliament without allowing Canadians or their representatives, the MPs, to carefully examine them. The 400 pages of this bill once again contain many areas of concern.

I would have liked to focus on a few points, particularly health, but unfortunately, I have only one minute left.

What I can say is that this is truly an undemocratic practice designed to prevent the representatives of the people of Canada from examining the bill and doing their jobs properly. We are opposed to this way of doing business in Parliament. We want Canadians to know exactly what the current government is doing. We must speak out against all the bad things in this bill.

I would like Canadians to be aware of the fact that this is the same story all over again. This is the second time this has happened. It is the same 400-page bill to do nothing, apparently.

I hope that Canadians will learn their lesson about this government.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-45.

I want to focus a little on the environmental impacts of various provisions, but I want to start with what concerns me to a great deal.

The bill is supposed to be all about creating jobs and generating prosperity. In fact, anybody who has been able to obtain some information from the government, which it is loath to releasing, any of the experts, the PBO for example, on the impact of the provisions of the budget bill that was brought down last spring has estimated we would be looking at nearly 100,000 jobs lost as a direct result of the implementation of this particular bill.

Not only that, the government would be making widespread wholesale changes to environmental protections that exist in various legislation, such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Review Act, the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Act. A number of pieces of legislation that provide oversight for projects, for development, for activity throughout the country, will be removed and that causes considerable concern.

Listening to members opposite talk about the bridge over the Detroit River or other projects, I hearken back to the Sydney tar ponds. I heard today in the news that the last contract has been awarded for the cleanup of the tar ponds in Sydney.

The tar ponds is a notable environmental spot that resulted from steel making over more than 100 years in Sydney, in Cape Breton. Government after government felt that it was sufficient to make steel to create jobs to do whatever we wanted to do with the environment, to get rid of waste, to spoil the earth, the air and the water. Rivers were completely ruined and covered up as a result of what the steel making process did.

Nearly $500 million of taxpayer money was taken, not the people who actually made off like bandits as a result of the opportunity to make steel in Cape Breton over those 100-and-some-odd years. It was the taxpayers who ended up paying as a result of the fact that government after government, both federally and provincially, failed to provide the oversight.

It feels to me like we are going back to the future. We are rolling back the clock in our country. The government has decided that it wants to export oil and bitumen and it will see those pipelines built, over as many water courses as needs to happen, as quickly as possible, without any oversight. That causes me and members on this side some considerable concern.

Not only does the government bring in this second omnibus bill, which we are going to be forced, with one set of votes, to vote on, rumour has it that it is going to break off some of the provisions in the bill and send them to committee, but we still are going be faced with one bill that we will be voting for or against at the end of the day.

As a result of public pressure, the government is going to allow for greater discussion. However, it is clear that the Conservatives have no intention of making any changes to the bill. That is why members on this side continue to move motions to try to get the government to split off some important aspects of the bill.

One issue that is particularly burdensome and troublesome with the bill is the change, in fact the removal of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Canada has over 32,000 lakes and rivers, and under this proposed budget bill only 97 lakes and 62 rivers are identified as significant. Why is that important? I heard a member opposite a moment ago say that the changes made to this act were important for farmers so they could plow over ditches in their field. It has nothing to do with ditches. That was the first budget bill last spring when that was allowed to happen; it allowed developers and others to get bulldozers and plow over the ditches.

This has to do with lakes and rivers. It is going to leave thousands of waterways without protection. Conservatives are even walking away from the majority of Canada's 37 designated Canadian heritage rivers. That means that a couple of heritage rivers in Nova Scotia, one of them being the Margaree, which is part of Margaree-Lake Ainslie River system, where Atlantic salmon and trout flourish in incredibly pristine water, could potentially be allowed to have roads, bridges or other projects that interfere with this river and this watershed without the requirement for permits.

It is the same thing for the Shelburne River, which begins in the Tobeatic wilderness park. It is part of the Mersey River system. It is an important river system for the Mi'kmaw. It has been used for millennia, and now it is no longer under protection. The government does not seem to understand how important these rivers, lakes and the environment are to Canadians. Our job on this side is to make those points and to bring that information to the attention of Canadians. As I indicated earlier, we are going to do that by continuing to move motions to try to split off various portions of the bill, so not only do they get proper debate, but they get an opportunity to have a vote.

My time is nearly over. I want to move a motion. I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, clauses 173 to 178 related to changes to the fisheries act be removed from Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled “an act to amend the fisheries act and the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act; that bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

I am proposing this motion as indicated so we will have the opportunity, not only to discuss the changes being proposed, debate them and hear witnesses, but to have an opportunity to vote on these specific amendments. I, therefore, request said unanimous consent.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it always confounds me, and I think Canadians as a whole, that whenever the Conservative government talks about prosperity, it is always at the expense of the environment. It has gutted environmental legislation under Bill C-38 and it will do it again in Bill C-45. It is getting rid of legislation that protects our lakes and rivers, reducing it to a mere less than 100 lakes and less than 100 rivers that will remain protected. It is getting rid of its investment in the Environmental Lakes Area. This is a pristine area, used for study. There is nowhere like it in the world, except Canada. It costs a mere $2 million a year to maintain the area.

Why does the government feel it necessary to emasculate environmental legislation in the hope of thinking that it is somehow going to generate prosperity?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the changes being made to the Canada Grain Act. He may not be aware but hundreds of jobs in inward inspection are going to be lost. The people doing those jobs ensure that western wheat going out for either domestic consumption or export coming to port or at different linkages throughout is both the quality and quantity that farmers want it to be. As inward inspection goes as a result of Bill C-45, the concern is not only will hundreds of jobs be lost, but farmers will be short-changed. That is really a concept that stands in polar opposition to what the member said.

I would be keen to hear him comment on the real facts of the changes to the Grain Act.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Since 2006, our government has supported the security and prosperity of all Canadians, promoted Canadian businesses and made investments in job creation. When the global economic crisis hit, the previous actions by our government helped Canada avoid a deep and long-lasting recession.

Our government's response to the crisis was both timely and targeted, and was one of the strongest responses to the global recession among the G7 countries. However the recovery process is not complete, and there are many challenges and uncertainties still confronting our economy today.

Bill C-45 takes important and strategic steps to address these challenges and ensure the sustainability of public finances and social programs for both current and future generations. In Bill C-45, our government is focusing on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity through investments in business, infrastructure, trade, families and communities.

All Canadians are sure to benefit from the provisions in Bill C-45, as I will outline in my remaining time.

Our government believes it is important to assist small Canadian businesses so they can focus on what matters: growth and job creation. We are doing this by extending the hiring credit for small business. This is a temporary credit of up to $1,000 that helps alleviate the costs of additional hiring for approximately 536,000 employees. This will reduce the 2012 payroll costs of small business by approximately $205 million, an astonishing saving that I know small businesses in my riding of Oxford will appreciate.

This initiative is in addition to our commitment to small business owners to reduce red tape by implementing the one-for-one rule; reducing the administrative tax burden on small businesses by enhancing the Canada Revenue Agency's my business account portal; and doubling the threshold for eligibility to use the GST-HST streamlined accounting methods; and enhancing the predictability of the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program. It is good news all around for small business owners.

Our government understands the important role that Canadian farmers play in our country. They not only provide nutritious and delicious food for Canadians and people around the world, but they also provide numerous job opportunities for the Canadian economy. The importance of farmers and their contributions to society can be seen in my riding of Oxford. Every season, we are lucky to enjoy the various fruits, vegetables, meat and dairy products that our Oxford farmers produce.

Oxford and Canadian farmers will be happy to hear that in budget 2012 we are assisting hard-working farmers by investing $50 million to help Canadian farmers remain on the cutting edge of agricultural innovations. We are also providing tax relief to reduce the costs of new investments in processing machinery and equipment, and $24 million to fund national biosecurity and best practices initiatives to combat hog diseases.

In Bill C-45 our government is also making amendments to the Canada Grain Act to streamline and update the operation of the Canadian Grain Commission by reducing costs and better aligning the commission with the needs of the grain sector. This includes a $44 million investment as the commission continues to transition to a more sustainable funding model. This will create a more competitive environment for our farmers and improve their bottom line. No matter what type of farming Canadians are employed in, they will surely benefit from the support of our government.

The Canadian manufacturing industry and its workers is one of the key engines of Canada's economy, as it represents a vital source of jobs and economic growth for many communities, including my riding of Oxford.

Since 2006, our government has proudly supported the manufacturing sector by lowering business taxes to 15%, eliminating the job-killing corporate surtax and introducing the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance tax relief to help manufacturers become more competitive when upgrading their machinery and equipment.

The manufacturing sector has seen strong results due to our government support, and this can be seen in my riding of Oxford.

In March of this year, Toyota announced that it would be increasing Rav4 production at its Woodstock plant from 150,000 annual capacity to 200,000. This increase will result in 400 new jobs. That is great news for the people of Oxford and the Canadian economy as a whole.

I might say there will be a fine announcement at the CAMI GM plant in Oxford tomorrow about a milestone that the plant has reached.

On this side of the House we want to continue with these types of results with the implementation of budget 2012. That is why we are investing $500 million to support venture capital activities, extending the domestic powers of Export Development Canada to provide financing to support Canadian manufacturers and other exporters and $110 million to double support to manufacturers and other entrepreneurs through the industrial research assistance program.

I look forward to hearing many more success stories that are sure to come as we continue to support our manufacturers with budget 2012.

In addition to our government's investments in key industries, we are also facilitating increased trade by strengthening the Trade Act. Bill C-45 would facilitate the construction of the urgently needed bridge along Canada's most important trade artery, the Windsor-Detroit corridor.

Our government will continue to work closely with the state of Michigan, the United States government and the province of Ontario on the Detroit River international crossing project. This project is consistent with the Government of Canada's economic agenda, given its importance for Canada's long-term economic prosperity, growing international trade and investment and the creation of jobs.

The new border crossing will facilitate the movement of people and goods between Canada and the U.S. by ensuring that there is sufficient border crossing capacity to handle projected growth in cross-border trade and traffic in the Windsor-Detroit trade corridor. It will also provide a much needed crossing alternative to the busiest Canada-U.S. commercial border crossing and create thousands of jobs and opportunities on both sides of the border, while at the same time ensuring border security and safety. Canadians can be sure that our government will always support beneficial trade opportunities for the Canadian economy.

Our government is also ensuring the safety of all Canadians by updating the Customs Act. As part of the beyond the border action plan on perimeter security and economic competitiveness, the Government of Canada is working to better screen travellers so security threats can be stopped ahead of time. The changes to the Customs Act will support the interactive advance passenger information initiative outlined in the action plan. This initiative will allow the Canada Border Security Agency to take steps to prevent high-risk or improperly documented travellers from boarding a plane destined for Canada, which will also reduce costs associated with removing inadmissible individuals from Canada.

We are also implementing the integrated cargo security initiative, which will harmonize the security requirements for cargo between Canada and the United States. The pre-screening of cargo will help save time for both businesses and the government by significantly reducing the need for re-inspection of cargo between the two countries and will ensure that high-risk cargo does not reach Canada. Our government is protecting Canadians both at home and abroad.

Families are the cornerstone of Canadian society. Our government believes in supporting families and that is why we have made huge investments since 2006 to help families save money and live healthier and happier lives. We have done this through the introduction of various initiatives, including the children's fitness tax credit, the children's arts tax credit, the family caregiver tax credit, the first time homebuyers tax credit, the registered disability savings plan, the working income tax benefit and the child tax credit.

Due to our government's strong record of tax relief, a Canadian family is now saving over $3,100, a truly amazing saving. Families can use their savings toward investments, vacations, education or recreation. The possibilities are just endless.

In Bill C-45 we are helping families by improving the registered disability savings plan, helping Canadians save for retirement by implementing a tax framework for pooled registered pension plans and improving the administration of the Canada pension plan.

We are also respecting taxes paid by our hard-working Canadian families by taking landmark action to ensure that the pension plans for members of Parliament, senators and federal public sector employees are financially responsible and broadly consistent with the pension products offered by other jurisdictions as well as fair relative to those offered in the private sector.

We are closing tax loopholes that have been open for far too long and eliminating duplication to ensure that Canadian taxpayer dollars are put to good use.

I am proud of the investments and initiatives that our government is putting in place in Bill C-45. We are getting things done for Canadians as we focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. I encourage all members to join us as we support Canadians by voting in favour of Bill C-45.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are wondering where all those jobs are. My constituents are asking why it is that the government has decided it is going to beat up on them. It is a shame that the government again shows such lack of faith in Canadians. It is a shame that the government feels it is a waste of time to engage Canadians in the discussion as to what is good for them and what they feel they need. It is a shame the government is so afraid of dissenting opinion, dissenting voices that say they might have a different way of doing things or maybe even a better way.

Is it not the function of this place to offer that dissenting opinion, to offer an objective opinion that differs, maybe, from the government's? My opinion, which I think I share with the rest of my colleagues in this House, is it is not a situation of “it is my ball so you play by my rules”. In this House, the government, the official opposition and the other opposition parties are elected to represent Canadians, to represent their voices, not to rubber-stamp what the government members feel is the ideal way to do things.

As far as Bill C-45 is concerned, this budget implementation bill, the Conservatives seem to want to make Canadians believe that everything they are talking about in this bill was in the budget, while it was not. The budget is a series of numbers and calculations. However, what the government is missing is that it is not only what one achieves but how one achieves it. This is what I will focus on today.

I remember, upon first entering this House, one of the first questions asked after the throne speech was how the Conservatives were going to achieve these goals that they had set for themselves; how they were going to balance the budget by 2014; how they were going to make these cuts; who was going to be affected by these cuts. The response we got was silence.

We kept asking those questions and kept getting silence, until we came across Bill C-38, the Trojan horse bill that, under the guise of a budget bill, included over 200 changes that gutted the Environmental Protection Act. How is that a budget? It went on to horrify Canadians with the sweeping changes that the Conservatives made in Bill C-38, with nary a word of consultation, at least not with the other side. Maybe there was consultation with friends, consultation about how this bill would help friends of the Conservatives, but again, not with the people of my riding.

We saw changes to the EI Act, which hurt more than they helped. We saw changes to health care. We saw changes, as I said, to the Environmental Protection Act. I would venture a guess that not a whole lot of people sat there and said it would be a good idea to just destroy the Environmental Protection Act.

So now we have Bill C-38's evil little brother, Bill C-45, which continues the work that the government proudly stands up and says is a good thing.

As I said earlier, there are some good things in this bill, and members have heard many of my colleagues stand to request unanimous consent on motions to separate out some of these good things in the bill, which have all been refused. Why?

If they are good things, why not set those aside and move them forward? Instead, we get the party line, that “If you fight me, you fight my gang”, as they say in Montreal.

We are here to do a job for Canadians and it is important that we listen to Canadians. On this side of the House we are also the voice of Canadians. Yet we have another time allocation motion limiting the discussion of the bill and all the very intricate aspects of this monster bill to just a few days.

We have been told that the Conservatives have graciously agreed to allow some of these things to go off to committee, but we all know what happens in committee. Not a lot gets through as far as amendments are concerned. To us, it seems to be more of a publicity stunt when the Conservatives say they will let things go to committee, because Canadians want to know that their interests are being held to a high standard. That is not happening with the bill.

How we do things is extremely important to Canadians. There is a lack of transparency, a lack of letting Canadians know what is going on before it happens. What is the point of saying what is going on after the fact? Why are we voting on a bill that has serious problems rather than addressing those problems through consultation before it becomes a bill and by tweaking it in committee in an open and transparent way?

It does seem that the government is afraid of dissenting opinions, dissenting opinions that help balance out what we are giving to Canadians. Is it not our obligation to make sure that when a bill gets to the point of ascension, it is done knowing that it has been vetted in a proper way and the best way for Canadians?

We NDP members have been accused of using tactics to slow down the process. We have been told that we do not vote for good things for Canadians. I would like to clear that up. We do vote for good things for Canadians when we are given the opportunity, but when we are thrown an omnibus bill that has serious issues, wrapping up those little jewels, for lack of a better way of putting it, is problematic.

It is a shame that the government decides that it wants to play politics with Canadians' lives rather than putting forward legislation that helps Canadians, and putting forward legislation in a positive way, in a way that is fitting for this House, and not using tactics like time allocation and overpowering our committees, but letting the voice of all Canadians and this whole House, which represents the voice of all Canadians, have an opportunity to be heard and to put forth an idea that might make this bill a little more palatable.

We have heard many times about the Prime Minister, who spoke out against omnibus bills, but when asked he has no answer for us as to why he has used these multiple times.

I ask this House, the government, to think about the how this is being done--

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

In most parts, I think Mr. Dykstra articulated quite eloquently and much better than I would what I wanted to say.

As we all know, the budget was introduced on March 29, Mr. Chair. I don't know of another budget in the history of Canada that has had this much debate—as much as the first budget implementation act had, and the amount of debate we are getting now. In fact, Mr. Chair, I might add that the member from Burnaby—New Westminster, a member of the opposition, spoke for 13 straight hours on the budget, and the leader of the opposition just last week spoke for 45 minutes.

I might add that during debate in the House on this second phase of the budget implementation, the “BIA 2”, there wasn't any question on the immigration section that pertains to the electronic travel authorization. This is clearly an issue to be dealt with by the finance committee.

I totally concur with that approach. It's premature to come here at this time, and it certainly does not pay any respect to the witness who is here before us, nor is it relevant to the discussion on Bill C-43 that we're having. These are two different bills, Bills C-43 and C-45.

So I cannot in good conscience support the honourable member's motion. I will conclude with that.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, let me preface this by saying that I have been a practising public accountant for just shy of a decade, as has Ms. Bateman. When you come to debate something that is budget oriented, you need to look at it in its totality. You can't separate out the departments; it's built up into a total budget. That's how budgets are formulated. That's how budgets are debated: in a specific budget committee. Generally, that is the finance committee, whether you're in a corporation or a non-profit organization, because you're dealing purely with monetary issues. It is at the committee levels, such as these standing committees, that we debate policies and so on.

I don't see how breaking this up makes any sense, really, and besides, we're debating Bill C-43 here, not Bill C-45. Therefore, I will speak against this motion.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Brouwer, I appreciate your presence here today and I hope to have an opportunity to ask you questions.

Earlier today I moved a motion about having the sections of Bill C-45, the second budget bill, that deal with matters that come under the mandate of the committee studied by the committee, and I'm going to ask that we now deal with that motion, Mr. Chairman. I hope we can deal with it quickly.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House today and to speak on Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012.

This important bill continues the path laid out by our government in the spring to support job creation, economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians in the short and long term.

It would be easy for us to become complacent with the relative stability and success of the Canadian economy in comparison to many of our global partners. We could continue to brag about Canada being a world leader in job growth, financial stability and a strong presence in the world. However, in doing so, we would be doing ourselves no favours.

The global economy remains fragile, especially in Europe and the United States, our largest trading partners. Canada is not immune to such global economic challenges coming from outside of our border, and careful steps must be taken to ensure our economic recovery does not stall or begin to falter.

The steps being taken in Bill C-45 will ensure that Canada remains on the right track. In my home riding of Brampton—Springdale, and in the city of Brampton as a whole, over 80% of businesses are designated as small or medium, with fewer than 50 employees.

Under this bill, the highly successful hiring credit for small businesses would be extended for one year. The hiring credit of up to $1,000 against the increase in EI premiums paid by employers helps small businesses hire the workers they need to expand and grow their operations. More importantly, it helps small businesses create jobs for those living in their community.

I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of entrepreneurs operating small businesses in my riding who have benefited first-hand from the hiring credit for small businesses. They are among the 536,000 employers nationwide who are eligible for this credit. Each of the entrepreneurs I have met has spoken highly of the credit, which has eased some of the additional costs of bringing new staff onboard.

The positive effect of the new jobs, created in part by the credit, goes beyond just helping employers expand and grow their businesses. Each job created represents an individual receiving a new employment opportunity, one more person who is given a chance to return to the workforce. When unemployment is low and Canadians have access to well-paying jobs to support their families, the entire country benefits.

This bill also trims much of the unnecessary red tape faced by small business employers, allowing them to focus on managing and growing their businesses. It simplifies the calculation for statutory holiday pay, eliminating the multitude of different formulas used to achieve the same end.

This budget reduces the tax compliance burden for small businesses and makes a number of significant administrative improvements at the Canada Revenue Agency.

This bill will also implement our government's plan to facilitate and improve interprovincial and cross-border trade. The implementation of the agreement on internal trade will build a stronger economic union between the provinces and eliminate barriers to internal trade and labour mobility by incorporating enforceable penalties against governments for failures to comply.

The 2006 census reported that manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, and retail trade were the three largest industries in Brampton. Many of the firms in those industries are heavily involved in the cross-border transport of material and goods, with much of that trade coming across the U.S. border in Windsor.

The Windsor-Detroit corridor is Canada's most important trade artery and the busiest Canada-U.S. commercial border crossing, handling almost 30% of the Canada-U.S. surface trade. An efficient and secure trade corridor is essential to the economies of the U.S. and Canada.

The Detroit River international crossing would facilitate the movement of people and goods between Canada and the U.S., by ensuring that there is sufficient border-crossing capacity to handle the projected goals in cross-border trade and traffic in the Windsor-Detroit trade corridor.

It would also provide a much-needed crossing alternative at the busiest Canada-U.S. commercial border crossing and create thousands of jobs and opportunities on both sides of the border. This bill would allow for the project to be fast-tracked. It would clarify a number of governance issues and ensure continued efficiency, security, safety and mobility at the Detroit-Windsor border crossing, while ensuring that appropriate environmental mitigation measures are met and in full compliance with federal law.

To continue to help families, we are improving the registered disability savings plan. Parents who have saved money in an RESP for a child with a disability would be able to transfer investment income earned in an RESP to a registered disability savings plan on a tax-deferred rollover basis, if the plan shares a common beneficiary and if the beneficiary can reasonably be expected to be prevented from pursuing post-secondary education due to his or her disability.

The bill would also implement plans to help Canadians save for retirement by laying out the tax framework behind the pooled registered pension plan implemented this spring. These plans would provide accessible large-scale and low-cost pension options to employers, employees and the self-employed. Our government is also improving the administration of the Canada pension plan, clarifying guidelines on contribution for certain benefits, determining minimum qualifying periods for delayed applicants for a disability pension and clarifying recognition of divorces granted outside of Canada for the purposes of credit splitting.

Bill C-45 would also close a number of tax loopholes, phasing out subsidies and tax credits for oil, gas and mineral exploration. However, it would expand tax relief for investment in clean energy generation equipment, encouraging investment in more efficient means of energy.

When we stood in this place in the spring, our government had helped the Canadian economy create more than 700,000 net new jobs since July 2009. With the job numbers reported by Stats Canada at the beginning of this month, that number now stands at more than 820,000 net new jobs since July 2009, most of which are full-time positions in the private sector.

Budget 2012 would keep us on the right track to return to balanced budgets in the medium term, keep taxes for individuals and small business low, and create jobs and economic prosperity in the long term.

Bill C-45 is the next step in the process of Canada's economic recovery and plan for future growth. I encourage all members in the House to support the bill.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's great to be back with you. We had a great trip to Nova Scotia.

I'm filling in for Kirsty, and I have a motion. Of course, everybody in this committee must be well aware of the motion.

The motion states:That the Committee undertake a study on the subject matter of Part 4 Division 21 of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and report its findings to the House no later than on Monday, November 5, 2012.

That's the motion.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to represent and serve the good people of Etobicoke North, where I was born and raised, and to fight the shameful cuts to the environment to be found in Bill C-45.

The government's record on the environment is atrocious, as recognized by its bottom of the barrel environmental performances. The 2008 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 industrialized nations on environmental performance. In 2010 Simon Fraser University and the David Suzuki Foundation ranked Canada 24th of 25 OECD nations on environmental performance.

The government learned nothing from last spring's hue and cry against the omnibus budget implementation bill, Bill C-38: concerned Canadians, demonstrations across the country, the 500 organizations that joined the Blackout Speak Out campaign to stand up for democracy and the environment, 3,200 pages of correspondence and extensive international criticism.

The voices of Canadians concerned about democracy, the environment and the health of our children and grandchildren has once again fallen on deaf ears.

This past week the government tabled the anti-democratic and draconian Bill C-45, its second omnibus budget implementation bill. The bill would alter the Indian Act and reduce protections contained in the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act, foundational Canadian laws to steward a sustainable environment, clean water and health oceans. It would also weaken the Canada Labour Code in ways that were not even hinted at in the budget. In total, the bill takes aim at some 60 pieces of legislation.

Bill C-45 hides big changes to environmental laws, subverts democracy and weakens protection of water and ecosystems. West Coast Environmental Law describes the lowlights of Bill C-45 as follows.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act of 1882, considered Canada's first environmental law, has been changed to the Navigation Protection Act and dramatically limits the number of waterways protected. Of the roughly 32,000 lakes in Canada, just 97 lakes and 62 rivers will now be protected.

This means the construction of bridges, dams and other projects would be permitted on most waterways without prior approval under the act. It is important to note that the original budget says nothing about restricting federal controls over lakes and rivers. Astoundingly, however, pipelines are directly exempted from this law. Under the act, pipeline impacts on Canada's waterways will no longer be considered in environmental assessments.

According to Ecojustice's executive director Devon Page:

Simply put, lakes, rivers and streams often stand in the path of large industrial development, particularly pipelines. This bill, combined with last spring’s changes, hands oil, gas and other natural resource extraction industries a free pass to degrade Canada’s rich natural legacy....

It is important to remember that when the government came to power it inherited a legacy of balanced budgets but soon plunged the country into deficit before the recession ever hit. It is absolutely negligent and shameful that the government would now gut environmental safeguards in order to fast-track development and balance its books.

Other lowlights of Bill C-45 include giving industry the option to request that its existing commitments to protect fish habitat be amended or cancelled, or that it be let off the hook for promised compensation for lost or damaged habitat. It would also eliminate the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, an independent body charged with making science-based decisions to protect Canadians from toxic chemicals and hazardous materials in the workplace.

Bill C-45 needlessly tinkers with the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 to correct obvious drafting mistakes made during the ramming through of Bill C-38. Changing the same bill twice in one year underlines the value of debating specific bills through appropriate committees.

Jessica Clogg, the executive director and senior counsel for West Coast Environmental Law, stated:

So much for the federal government’s promise that the bill would focus on budget implementation and contain no surprises.

The Bill C-45 ‘budget bill’ is a wolf in sheep’s clothing that will have major implications for the environment and human health.

John Bennett, executive director, Sierra Club Canada, said:

Today’s killing of the Navigable Waters Act, along with further gutting of what’s left of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and Fisheries Act, will inhibit the ability of Canadians to protect their natural environment for their children, grandchildren and future generations.

He went on to state:

This assault on the environment is deeply offensive and undemocratic. I don’t remember the Prime Minster campaigning in the last election on a platform of laying waste to the Canadian landscape.

Many of Canada's leading environmental organizations, including the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, Environmental Defence, Équiterre, Greenpeace, Nature Canada, Pembina Institute, Sierra Club Canada, West Coast Environmental Law and WWF Canada, issued a joint statement decrying the fact that, once again, the federal government is proposing to make significant changes to environmental legislation without proper democratic debate.

The government has repeatedly abused Parliament by ramming through outrageous omnibus bills. For example, two years ago the government introduced the 880-page omnibus bill, a grab bag of bills that the government wanted to pass quickly. In fact, it was half of the entire workload of Parliament from the previous year. As a result, the government was severely condemned for turning the legislative process into a farce.

Most recently the government introduced Bill C-38, the 400-plus page omnibus budget implementation bill. Through the bill, the government sprung sweeping changes on our country, affecting everything from employment insurance, environmental protection, immigration and old age security, to even the oversight that charities receive. None of these changes were in the Conservative platform. They were rushed into law by “an arrogant majority government that's in a hurry to impose its agenda on the country”.

According to one newspaper, omnibus bills are “political sleight-of-hand and message control, and it appears to be an accelerating trend. These shabby tactics keep Parliament in the dark, swamp MPs with so much legislation that they can’t absorb it all, and hobble scrutiny. This is not good, accountable, transparent government.”

The government's actions reek of hypocrisy. In 1994, the right hon. member for Calgary Southwest and today's Prime Minister criticized omnibus legislation, suggesting that the subject matter of such bills is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles, and that dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent the views of their constituents on each part of the bill. The right hon. member is now using the very tactics he once denounced. It is a shame that he changed his tune when he was elected to the highest office in the land.

Canadians should be deeply concerned by yet another of the government's end runs around the democratic process and the potential for even more destruction of critical habitat and greater pollution. 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, our communities, economy and livelihoods. Canadians are entitled to expect much more than they are witnessing today in the protection of our environment and democratic values, which our beautiful country was built on.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Etobicoke North is the next to speak, so I hope she will bear with me for a moment.

I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any order or usual practice of the House, clauses 269 to 298, related to changes to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act be removed from Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-47; that, Bill C-47 be entitled “an act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act”; and that, Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that, the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Health; that, Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that, Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that, the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

I am proposing this motion so that the Standing Committee on Health can properly study Bill C-45 as it relates to hazardous materials and make amendments. Mr. Speaker, we want to do our job in our committee and I ask that you seek unanimous consent.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the issue my hon. colleague raises is very important as we have to fund our health and our educational programs.

I would refer the House to page 53 of Bill C-45. Members can see that there is $105 million over two years to support forestry innovation, $995 million over three years to support the Canadian innovation commercialization program, and it goes on and on.

I do not hear people mentioning these dollars, which we put together in the budget. It seems to have gotten by a lot of folks. I would also refer members to page 136 on expanded opportunities for aboriginal folks and to page 135 on improving insurance programs and information on jobs.

It's an easy read. If members have trouble, I taught reading in an elementary school for awhile and I could help them out.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Palliser for his great intervention on Bill C-45, which follows through on the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act.

Having been an educator, one of the things we need to do is continually focus on providing resources for post-secondary education in terms of skilled workers. In this new world, it seems most countries are in financial despair and yet Canada is strong and healthy. What we are doing in our budget for post-secondary education to help us maintain that through our skilled workers is of significance.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about how Bill C-45 will benefit residents of Palliser, Saskatchewan and indeed all of Canada.

At the outset, I am proud to say that Canada is more financially secure than other economies in the world, thanks to the decisive and swift action taken by our government in 2008. Thankfully, Canada has one of the strongest fiscal positions in the world as shown by Fitch, Moody's, and Standard and Poor's ratings renewing Canada's AAA rating.

Since taking office in 2006, we have introduced many popular initiatives, including the tax-free savings account, pension income splitting, a tax credit for textbooks, the deduction for tradesmen's tools, and much more.

Additionally, over the past six years, Canadians have benefited from broad-based tax cuts, 140 tax cuts to be exact. These tax cuts have given families, individuals and businesses the flexibility to make the right choices for their own needs. In fact the average Canadian family now has an additional $3,100 in its pocket, thanks to these tax savings.

Our government will continue on this path of keeping taxes low, reducing red tape and other measures, so that businesses are free to grow. Here I would add that our economy has created nearly 820,000 net new jobs since the end of the recession, with 90% of them full-time.

However, our government realizes that some belt-tightening is required to protect against shocks in the global economy. To this end, under the leadership of our talented Minister of Finance, in March, our government introduced a comprehensive and forward-thinking action plan to create jobs, growth and prosperity over the long term.

Here I would point out that our jobs and growth bill does not raise taxes or cut transfers to seniors or other levels of government for health, education or social services. Our jobs and growth plan will respect the taxpayer dollars of individuals, families, trades people, businesses and seniors. Our jobs and growth plan will benefit today's population without transferring the burden to tomorrow's leaders.

Raising taxes or transferring the burden might be an easy solution that governments may have taken in the past, but we are thinking outside of the box and taking action to benefit all Canadians, not just those of a particular region.

To create our comprehensive and long-range plan, we held consultations with Canadians to seek solutions that would improve efficiency and reduce waste. On my part, I had an excellent discussion with business leaders in my riding this spring, and passed their ideas on to the Minister of Finance.

A cornerstone of our government is respect for taxpayer dollars. To that end, our government is taking landmark action to ensure that the pension plans of members of Parliament, senators and federal public sector workers are sustainable and financially responsible. My office has received significant correspondence calling for reforms to these pensions. I support these measures to bring these pensions in line with those in the private sector.

Next I would like to speak about creating jobs and filling job openings. I will begin by quoting Saskatchewan's finance minister, Ken Krawetz, who stated in regard to our economic action plan:

I'm quite encouraged by the initiatives that seem to be coming forward in the economy and training and employment.

In my view, his words carry a lot of weight since he knows the issues facing Saskatchewan better than anyone else.

Canada not only has a labour shortage but also has people looking for jobs. The shortage in skilled labour is very problematic in my home province, which has low unemployment rates of less than 5%. Indeed, I am pleased to see that Saskatchewan is experiencing strong growth.

To help remedy this disparity, we will increase funding for training, with a special focus on youth and older workers. Our jobs and growth bill has $50 million to help youth gain skills and experience in the workforce through the youth employment strategy. Thanks to this funding, I am pleased that approximately 3,000 young Canadians will be able to fill labour shortages while they get on-the-job experience in high demand fields, such as skilled trade or tourism.

Our jobs and growth act also has $6 million to expand the successful ThirdQuarter project to connect employers with experienced workers over 50 years of age who want to continue using their skills in the workforce. Additionally, we are investing significant funding to improve labour market information, which will ultimately help connect out of work Canadians with available jobs.

Without impacting the Saskatchewan residents and Canadians who are looking for jobs, we are taking action to fill gaps within our workforce. We are investing $150 million to repair and upgrade local infrastructure via the community infrastructure improvement fund. There are rinks, community halls, museums and other organizations that may benefit from this funding in my riding.

As we are all aware, the aging workforce will compound the labour shortage. Meanwhile, the average life expectancy of Canadians is rising. Given that the OAS system is completely funded by the government and not by the working population, I think everyone can agree that this demographic change creates serious challenges.

Our government was elected with a mandate to respond to the taxpayers. To that end, we will work to protect the financial security of tomorrow by gradually raising the age of eligibility for OAS.

Will this change affect seniors? I emphatically say no. Will this change affect those nearing retirement? Again, I emphatically say no. Since changes are necessary for the benefit of future generations, it is fitting that the changes will only affect recipients among future generations.

One of my constituents phrased it very well in writing. He said: “The changes are acceptable, as they will allow the next generation to prepare and thus manage their economies of scale accordingly”. I am proud to say that he further stated that this was good government at its best.

To help people prepare for the future, we will help Canadians saving for retirement through pooled registered pension plans and registered disability savings plans, in addition to the previously announced tax-free savings accounts.

Moving on, Canada's reservists support and rebuild communities in disaster situations here at home, as well as serving as reconnaissance troops in peacekeeping operations. In my home province, members of the Saskatchewan Dragoons have been and continue to be actively involved in United Nations peacekeeping operations in Cyprus, Bosnia, Afghanistan and more. I am also proud to say that the dragoons also helped combat the forest fires in British Columbia in 2003. Economic action plan 2012 will support Canadian reservists in the workforce, by helping to remove the barriers to hiring reservists and off-setting costs when they are called on for full-time duty.

This past Saturday evening while I was at a mess dinner with the local chapter of the Saskatchewan Dragoons, I was proud to be part of a government that supports our reservists.

In economic action plan 2012, our government has presented a plan focused on jobs and growth to chart a course for the long-term financial prosperity of all Canadians. This plan will support individuals, families, communities, tradespeople, seniors and veterans in Palliser and indeed across Canada.

I fully support the jobs and growth act, 2012 and ask all hon. members to join together toward building a stronger Canada and a stronger economy.

I humbly offer my appreciation for the chance to speak about how the implementation of this long-ranging and forward-thinking plan will benefit residents of Palliser, the land of the living skies, as well as all Canadians.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand and speak today to Bill C-45, the second omnibus budget implementation act. As with Bill C-38 this past spring, New Democrats oppose Bill C-45 on both content and process. This bill continues on the path set by Bill C-38, which puts more power in the hands of cabinet ministers and guts environmental protections.

As the official opposition critic for science and technology, I will focus my comments on the aspects of the bill concerning my area of focus, especially those concerning the scientific research and experimental development tax credit. However, I will start with a few general comments.

As we have heard in the House today, Bill C-45 is another massive omnibus bill. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to ram legislation through Parliament without allowing Canadians and their MPs to thoroughly examine it. What is disturbing is the PBO has said that the budget will actually cost 43,000 Canadians their jobs, but we hear otherwise from the Conservatives. In fact, this budget actually plans for unemployment to rise from the cuts that are being made to government, especially the scientific and research community. New Democrats oppose budget 2012 and its implementation, unless it is amended to focus on the priorities of Canadians, which is creating good quality and strengthening our health care system.

Turning to science and technology, I have been meeting with scientists, engineers, technologists and members of industry since appointed as the science and technology critic. I have done a lot of face-to-face meetings, I have spoken with people electronically and I have had the opportunity to visit a number of public and private facilities. The scientific community, and I mean this very broadly, not just natural scientists but also social scientists, engineers and technologists, is very concerned, and so am I, about the government's approach to science and technology. I will provide a few details especially as they concern this budget.

We have seen in report after report that one of our main strengths in terms of productivity in our country concerns the world-leading research done at our universities and government institutions, like the National Research Council. Many people may not know this, but almost 3% of the peer-reviewed papers published in Canada are produced by researchers at the National Research Council. This is a good fraction of what is produced worldwide. Peer-reviewed research is produced at universities but also at the NRC.

One of our strengths is our research output, but one of our main weaknesses is that Canadian companies are not investing in R and D at the same rate as companies located elsewhere in the world. This point was hammered home in the Jenkins report that we hear quoted in the House very often. Lack of investment in research and development has led to plummeting productivity levels as compared to the U.S. Our productivity is around 70% of U.S. productivity.

The Conservatives are right to view this is as a problem, but the solution to this problem of declining productivity is mind boggling. The Conservatives are trying to fix productivity rates that are really caused by low levels of private investment by Canadian firms and are planning to attack the part of the innovation supply chain that is performing well. The scientific community working in universities and government research organizations is really punching above its weight internationally. The government is shifting funding from these well-operating parts of our economy over to business, and that is a mistake.

The Conservatives are cutting hundreds of scientists from government rolls, they are closing world-class facilities, one of which I visited just the other day, they are radically changing the funding structures for scientists, both within government and without, and they are muzzling the government scientists who remain.

I have talked to researchers both in industry and outside of industry and in universities. I sat down with a panel of physicists the other day. The physicists said that what was developing in Canada was poisoning the culture, that scientists were afraid of speaking out because they were worried about having their funding cut or, worse, getting fired. This is a really dangerous thing to do. The Conservatives are attacking a scientific culture that has taken almost 100 years to build. For example, the National Research Council came in place in 1916. We were almost going to celebrate a centenary, but now we find this is under attack.

The National Research Council was considered the jewel of the Canadian research crown for many years. It is headed by Nobel Prize winners. It has brought us all kinds of inventions that started as just ideas and made it all the way to the factory floor and onto the shelves of consumers

The Minister of State for Science and Technology has said that he wants to take this venerable and well-respected research institution and turn it into a 1-800 concierge service for industry. Therefore, instead of winning Nobel Prizes, Nobel scientists will now hold the door open for industry and carry its bags. If I were a research scientist looking at where I would take my top level research, going to the National Research Council in its past glory would be great, I would get the funding and atmosphere that I need to work, but becoming a concierge or a bellhop is not really what I would be looking for.

Let us talk about the 124 NRC researchers who received their pink slips this year, 90 of them last week. If we think about the progress of a researcher, they get a BA after four years, a Masters in Science for two years, a PhD, a post-doctorate, to have to go and set up labs. We are talking about 15 to 20 years someone has invested in becoming a researcher. It is a portable skill, but it has to be located at an institution. What concerns me is people at the NRC who have come out of university and set up these labs, when they are given a pink slip, it is not like they go next door and start up another career. It is a major loss of investment. This really needs to be thought through before we go too much further down this line.

This fear of the change in culture has been expressed to me in many letters. The Minister of State for Science and Technology is familiar with this because I am copied on most of the letters he receives. They express fear and really want the government to slow down in terms of how it is hacking away at these various institutions.

I want to change now to a more specific matter, and that is the scientific research and experimental development tax credit. The government proposes to reduce the tax credit rate from 20% to 15% and this will particularly affect large businesses. It will eliminate the eligibility of capital expenses. Although it would save up to $500 million a year by making these changes, it has not made it over to any new program, or not all of it anyway. It is really just straight savings for the government and attacks businesses right where they live in the innovation field. This will hit the manufacturing sector hard and it is likely to drive firms to move their R and D activities to other countries that have better incentives.

Conservatives have done nothing to fix the complexity of the SR&ED tax credit, which I agree needs some adjustment but it is more in the administration of this tax credit rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of reducing the credit for industry, it should be looking at administrative changes instead. The government has done nothing to reduce the complexity and overhead costs of applying for and administering the SR&ED tax credit.

The member for Burlington said earlier today that he was getting positive feedback from industry, but I have had a number of different comments and he should be aware because they came at the industry committee. For example, Declan Hamill, vice-president, Legal Affairs, Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., said when asked about the SR&ED tax credit:

From our perspective there are changes to the SHRED tax credits that have some potential negative impacts on our member companies.

Probably most serious, were the comments from RIM. Morgan Elliott, director of Government Relations for Research in Motion, which makes the Blackberry, said when I asked him directly what this change in the SR&ED tax credit would mean. “It cuts our support by one-third”. Here is the jewel in the private industry crown of technology in Canada that has been struggling lately, seems to be getting back on its feet, and what does the government do? It cuts one-third of its support with these changes.

It is hardly a ringing endorsement for these changes. I submit there are problems with the bill and the government should, at the very least, split out the SR&ED tax credit changes and refer them to the industry committee for further study.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, who has allowed me to come back to a very important part of the discussion we have had in the House about Bill C-45, a discussion that will unfortunately be too short, since once again, the government has imposed a time allocation motion.

When the government says that parliamentary rules and procedures are not important, it is rejecting the very essence of our work. These rules provide a framework for our debates and ensure a transparent, clear and fair process for everyone. The government says that these rules are just a technicality and that getting a majority by winning an election with barely 30% of the vote means that Canadians gave it a mandate to do whatever it wants. That is an aberration and an abuse of the trust of the people we represent here.

We are here to speak on behalf of all Canadians. However, if every time the government introduces a budget bill it tries to stifle the opposition, which represents a considerable number of people, there is a problem because our democracy is eroding. Changes need to be made, and fast.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that I was speaking so quickly or that what I was saying was so complicated. Next time I will make sure that I speak more slowly.

As for the consultations, do they truly take into account the opinions expressed by Canadians? It is one thing to talk to people, but if we do not take what they are saying into account, then there is no point.

The consultations on Bill C-45 that I mentioned would follow up on this government's oh-so-magnanimous decision to allow 10 committees to study this bill. That is perhaps when we will hear from witnesses, but if there is no opportunity to present amendments, then it is a complete waste of time. I hope that I clarified my position for the hon. member.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I'm sure we'll have you here on Bill C-45, on navigable waters, as an example, but that's a conversation for another day. I'm sure that as an organization you will have lots to say.

Mr. Buy, you said “less than 60 weeks”. Were you talking 10 weeks, 20 weeks? What is the normal length for your programs?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to point out how ironic it is that, on the one hand, the Minister of Finance is telling us in this House that we should have done our jobs over the summer and read the budget and memorized every aspect of it, while on the other hand, when we ask our Conservative colleagues to tell us a little more about certain measures that can be found on specific pages of the budget, they are completely incapable of doing so.

Let us move on to something else and get back to a more crucial matter: my speech.

I am extremely proud to rise here today in the House to oppose Bill C-45, the Conservatives' latest omnibus bill. Despite harsh criticisms from hundreds if not thousands of Canadians when the Conservatives introduced Bill C-38, here they are again introducing another gigantic bill that addresses pretty much anything and everything but the 2012 budget.

Bill C-45, the second mammoth budget bill, amends over 60 different laws and is over 400 pages long, and the government drafted it without consulting anyone at all. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to ram their legislation through Parliament without giving Canadians and their elected representatives an opportunity to examine it in detail, which is what should happen in any good democracy.

Over the past few days, I have heard far too many Conservative members state that the parliamentary process and procedural matters are trivial details and that Canadians do not care about things like that. They have said that omnibus bills and other tactics to undermine democracy have been used for decades, that it is no big deal, that it has always been this way and that our democracy is in great shape.

As an example of this, I would like to share parts of a speech given on October 24 by the member for Saint Boniface. She made some rather disturbing statements to that effect. I will read them in English because the original version is so eloquent and delightful that it is worth reading in the original language.

From the opposition members, we will hear a lot of talk about process and procedure, or what some would call “inside baseball”, that appeals to a small number of Canadians, mostly located in Ottawa. They talk about process to dictate the exact length of the debate, procedure for the formatted legislation, process for a timeline for a committee study, and on and on.

A little later in the same speech, she added:

In other words, it is really meaningless to the everyday lives of the vast majority of Canadians...

I must admit that I was quite surprised and disappointed to hear a government member say such things. I spoke to many constituents in my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, whose reaction to such statements was exactly the same as mine. Having a majority does not absolve the government of its obligation to be transparent, open and accountable, nor does it give the government the right to abuse the public trust by introducing omnibus bills like this one, which MPs cannot examine properly and carefully. The government is breaking parliamentary rules every day and abusing those rules in order to hide its true agenda from the people. Then it has the nerve to say that Canadians do not really care. That is shameful.

Just like Bill C-38, Bill C-45 eviscerates current environmental protection measures and concentrates even more power in the hands of Conservative ministers. Quite honestly, I find that prospect less than thrilling.

First of all, Bill C-45 guts the Navigable Waters Protection Act by eliminating the concept of water protection from the name of the act and from the legislation, and focusing solely on the issue of protecting navigation. With the exception of three oceans, 97 lakes and 62 rivers in all of Canada, the act will no longer apply automatically to projects that have a direct impact on waterways. Of the 37 rivers in the Canadian heritage rivers system, only 10 will be protected by the law that has been newly gutted by the government. As a result of the Conservatives' bullheaded ideology, thousands of waterways will no longer be protected automatically and even fewer environmental impact assessments will be carried out by Transport Canada. The provinces will have to fill the void, without any compensation, of course.

These major changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act are particularly worrisome for people who live in ridings such as mine, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which has several hundred wetlands, streams and rivers, as well as extensive access to the St. Lawrence River.

Waterways are at the heart of many economic activities vital to the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, especially tourism. Their protection is of the utmost importance to my constituents. Therefore, the amendments proposed by the Conservatives to the Navigable Waters Protection Act are some of the most troubling for the people in my riding.

In addition to these changes, Bill C-45 also amends the Canadian environmental assessment act 2012, in part to deal with problems noted in the last budget implementation bill, but primarily to further weaken environmental impact assessments.

These are two major issues that affect the environment, but I could go on about others for hours and hours. There are all the amendments to the public service pension plan and to the Canada Grain Act, which are being proposed without any consultation. Once again, these changes will have a great impact on my riding and the many farmers who live there. There are also amendments to the Canada Labour Code, which will affect women and young people in particular, because they often must work part time for lack of other opportunities.

As they have so often done in the past, the Conservatives are doing everything they can to bypass Parliament so that they do not have to be accountable to Canadians.

Every time the government introduces a new bill, it violates the underlying principles of our democracy by restricting parliamentary debate and in-depth study of its bills. Bill C-45 is just the latest in a long line of autocratic Conservative tactics. Unfortunately, this is becoming an extremely regrettable tradition in Canada's Parliament.

As a new member, this is not how I wanted to work. The NDP has tried very hard to work with the other parties. However, every time we try to work with the Conservatives, they shut the door and do as they please, even if it means introducing other bills later and wasting MPs' and Canadians' time. For example, they introduce new legislation to fix problems with a previous bill that the opposition pointed out before the bill was passed. That is a huge waste of time. They are completely uncompromising and do not want to work with the opposition.

As we have heard over and over, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that members do not have enough information to reasonably exercise their power of oversight. In fact, the PBO had to threaten to put the matter before the courts to gain access to even a little information about the Conservatives' budget cuts. The Conservatives say that the PBO is overstepping his mandate, and they do not want to provide the information.

How are we supposed to analyze the budget if we do not know what the government is spending and where it is making cuts? This new way of keeping everyone in the dark is highly dangerous and worrisome. I hope that the PBO will not have to go to court to get the information that all members of the House need. The Conservative members need it too. I am sure that they are just as much in the dark as the opposition members. They do not have the information they need to do their work, yet they are making decisions to block the democratic work of Parliament and, as such, they are not living up to the trust that their constituents have placed in them.

The government has agreed to have 10 parliamentary committees study this second omnibus bill. At first glance, that gesture may seem like a sign of goodwill on the government's part, but, make no mistake, that is not the case. Those committees will not be able to amend Bill C-45. We are not yet sure of the answer, but it is obvious. Members of Parliament will be asked to sit in committee and witnesses across the country to travel and discuss the bill, its impact on the public, its potentially disastrous consequences or legislative gaps that we have not yet identified, but this work will be in vain. People will be asked to come and waste their time, and the Conservatives will still do exactly what they want without taking into account what anyone has to say.

Clearly, with their bill that is several hundred pages long, the Conservatives want to prevent the opposition members from doing their job by trying to cover up major ideological changes to more than 60 bills.

The Conservatives are proud to spend tens of millions of dollars on advertising propaganda, but then they tell Canadians that there is not much money for services that are essential to them.

We in the NDP have always proudly defended the concepts of transparency and accountability, and we are going to continue to do so every day. We have always defended environmental protection, old age security and health care, and we are going to continue to do so.

We are proud to fight each and every day for Canadian families. That is why my colleagues and I will oppose Bill C-45.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing with such a small document and my colleague is such an expert on financial issues, let me ask him this short question.

On page 241 of the budget speech last March, Mr. Flaherty talked about the Employment Insurance Financing Board continuing to set the rate. However in the budget implementation plan, Bill C-45, section 435 says that will no longer happen and the rate will be set by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance.

Could the member explain to us why something in the budget last March has been changed in this specific case?

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the tax credits in his speech, which sounded quite interesting. I guess there is the rub with this omnibus bill. Instead of being able to sit down and talk in-depth about some interesting tax credits like that with our colleagues, we are forced to accept less than pleasant changes in Bill C-45 that overshadow these rather interesting options. How does the member feel about that?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to stand to speak on Bill C-45, the second implementation bill of our jobs and growth act. This is an activity we are embarking upon as a government to make sure that Canadians have a job and that our economy is growing.

As part of the system that we have in this country, we present a budget in the spring, which is a policy document, and then we have two implementation acts every year. We had one in the spring and now we are having one in the fall. This bill is to implement the budget that was passed by this House in the spring.

It is important to understand that the bill would implement what has already been debated and discussed. It is nice to talk about things, but it is important for this government to make it happen on the ground and that we implement what we say we are going to do.

The process is not a new one, as it has been in the House for many decades. When there is a budget, an implementation bill comes afterwards, which is what we are doing here today.

There are three or four things that I would like to highlight from the bill.

First, extending the hiring credit for small- and medium-sized employers would enable them to hire new employees and create jobs for people in my riding and ridings across this country.

This is a $1,000 hiring credit, and last year it affected over 530,000 employers. We have seen the benefits from this tax credit in helping small businesses attract new people to develop their products and services. It has provided jobs to those in great need of employment, particularly youth. This is an opportunity for youth to find employment here in Canada.

Nobody is kidding anybody around here; it is a difficult environment for small business. As government, we need to help small business move forward, and this tax credit is one way to do that.

Also, Bill C-45 contains the tax framework for pooled registered savings plans. This is a tool that I have debated numerous times in the House, both at second and third reading in the spring. We talked about the need for an additional tool for small business to attract and retain employees, and for employees in this country to have an opportunity to have a pooled registered savings plan for their retirement. The bill would implement the tax changes that are required to make that happen.

It is important for us to have this debate, but we must move on and pass the bill. The legislation has passed for the pooled registered retirement savings plan, but we now need to take action and implement the changes that are needed to make it happen.

Another piece in Bill C-45 is the expanded accelerated capital cost allowance, ACCA. This would allow businesses to invest in clean green energy generation products, which would include machinery that had not been eligible for an accelerated capital cost allowance. However, the machinery would have to be in the clean energy generation business and meet the environmental criteria.

The bill would allow businesses to invest early on and to write-off the cost of the new investment in a speedier, more accelerated way. It would encourage companies to make those investments and make a difference.

The benefits of the expanded accelerated capital cost allowance are twofold. It would help small business get the equipment they need and it would also support the clean energy agenda that we have as a party. It would ensure that the Canadian government is doing what it can to support industry in providing cleaner energy for the people of this country.

One area that I am very proud and excited about is the registered disability savings plan, RDSP. There are a number of changes to that.

I remember when I was on the finance committee and heard about this idea of a registered disability savings plan, a program that would allow parents and grandparents, particularly parents, to invest in the future of a child with a disability. It is a plan that would provide financial security for young Canadians with disabilities. When their parents are no longer able to support them, a plan will be available for them to call on.

What is very important is that this bill would allow the registered education saving plans to be rolled over into a registered disability savings plans. I am very fortunate to have two healthy children. That does not happen in every family. As a past employee of Easter Seals Ontario, and my wife being a current employee, we know of the difficulties, the struggles and efforts of parents with disabled children.

Of course, not every child is born disabled, and sometimes things happen, whether it is an accident or health issue, which unfortunately causes a child to become disabled. Families may have invested in an RESP with the hope that some day a child would be able to use that capital to obtain a post-secondary education. That does not always happen. Instead of losing those investments that parents have made, they would be able to roll that investment into an RDSP for a child's future needs.

There are also a few other smaller changes. I have been the chair of the Conservative marine caucus for a number of years, which is making some changes to improve the certification of ships that are over 24 metres. Those practices are being improved to make sure we have clean safe ships floating on our Great Lakes and off both coasts. We want to make sure they are safe, that they have the right environmental responsibility and that they harmonize with other international inspection certification programs, which I am very happy with.

One thing that has been a bit of a controversy is the change to the SR and ED program, which is the scientific research and experimental development program. It is a tax credit that companies have been able to attract. It was at the 20% mark, but it is down to 15% in this bill. The enhanced SR and ED program is still at 35%.

However, this was not done in a vacuum. There was a study done by Mr. Jenkins. The Jenkins report talked about the difference between the tax credit and direct support. As all of us know in the House, there have been no complaints. In fact, there has been lots of uptake on IRAP, the industrial research assistance program. IRAP is a direct funding mechanism. The Jenkins report said that we need balance; we are not sure whether we are getting the bang for the buck on the $9 billion we are spending on research. We know that IRAP is producing. We know that it is a very attractive program to individuals. With regard to SR and ED, it depends on the company.

There was a very good presentation at the industry committee last week. A gentleman was there from a company in Burlington, which has used SR and ED extensively over the years. His point was that SR and ED was a bonus because companies are not sure whether they qualify for it every year or not. We are trying to rebalance the issue with the IRAP program. People get the money in advance, and it is a direct support of research and development. SR and ED will still exist and is an opportunity for people to use the tax system to support the development of their research.

Hopefully this new balance will provide more results, because that is really what we want as a government. We want results. We want R and D to turn into product that is commercialized and that we can sell, not just to Canadians, but around the world. We are a trading country, and we need to make sure we have the ability to do that.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that omnibus bills will now be the norm in the House of Commons. It gives me no pleasure to rise today at second reading of Bill C-45, the second omnibus budget bill.

In addition to implementing the 2012 budget, the Trojan Horse bill included a number of other changes that had not been announced beforehand. This is yet another budget implementation bill that goes well beyond implementing the budget.

We said it when the Trojan Horse bill was forced through the House in May, and we are saying it now: this is not an acceptable way of doing things in a so-called democratic country like Canada. The monster Bill C-45 is over 440 pages long and contains a huge number of disparate measures. It would amend over 60 laws, giving the minister more power and weakening environmental protection legislation.

It also sets out a vast number of complicated measures, including a reworking of the Canada Grain Act and changes to subsidies for scientific research and experimental development, elements that are essential to the nation's development. In addition, it sets out major changes to the public service pension plan and the Canada Labour Code.

Here are the facts. The Conservatives have introduced a bill encompassing dozens of disparate measures, and they want to have it passed as quickly as possible so that we do not have time to talk about it. That is because they do not want Canadians to know what really goes on here in the House of Commons. MPs do not have enough time to study the bill closely and analyze its repercussions. Who will pay the price for that? Canadians—the very people whose interests the government is supposed to protect. As elected representatives, Conservative MPs are also supposed to work for Canadians.

On the one hand, MPs are being prevented from doing the work they were elected to do, and on the other, Canadians are being kept in the dark. Fortunately, Canadians can count on the NDP, which strongly opposes the undemocratic nature of Bill C-45.

We have defended and will always proudly defend the concepts of transparency and accountability. We will always stand up for environmental protection. We will always stand up for old age security and health care. If we do not, who will? Certainly not the government, which is showing us once again that democracy is not its priority.

Canadians are not blind. They know that the government is not doing so and that it is preventing the official opposition from doing its job by imposing a gag order once again. Actually, how many gag orders have we had so far? I think it is a record number. I am not sure what the exact figure is, but I know there have been more than 20. In short, that is preventing us from doing our job.

As a result of the strong offensive launched by our party, the government is finally going to allow various committees to study this bill. What a privilege. However, we do not know whether we will be able to propose amendments during those consultations. Needless to say, that will greatly hinder the process.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, has once again said that members of Parliament are not receiving the information they need to be able to reasonably exercise their power of oversight. Well, yes, power of oversight, but also responsibility of oversight.

The PBO recently even had to threaten to take the Conservative government to court if it did not forward the information about the budget cuts that were announced. The government has to stop trying to obstruct the work of Parliament and must allow a real study of this bill.

Canadians will agree that the amendments and their impact on Canadian families need to be studied in particular. It is appalling to see that, once again, Canadian families are being completely ignored. The government is continuing to ignore the real needs of Canadians.

According to the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, 4 million Canadians, including 750,000 children, have core housing needs at this time. However, once again, the 2012 budget implementation bill does not contain any measures related to housing or any measures to fight poverty or homelessness. Yet major institutions like the Wellesley Institute and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities have sounded the alarm several times. These national organizations asked the federal government to invest in housing in the most recent budget. Clearly, nothing has been done.

Housing is an important issue not only for families, but also for seniors, a very high-risk group. The current government reduced old age security benefits, which means that some seniors will have even more difficulty paying their rent. Approximately one-third of social housing is occupied by seniors, and one-third of that group is at risk of losing their housing because long-term operating agreements between the federal government and housing co-operatives are not being renewed.

A survey conducted by the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association found that the number of seniors waiting for housing has been increasing steadily since 2004. That number is increasing, yet this government does nothing. Seniors represented one-quarter of all households waiting for housing in 2011.

Since we are talking about poverty, let us also talk about the changes to employment insurance. These measures will also have an impact on a claimants' ability to find housing, particularly since the federal operating agreements are about to expire. As a result of the loss of employment insurance benefits, more households may have core housing needs. Core housing needs are no joke. I am talking about substandard, overpriced homes that are difficult to heat and that are too small for families. These are not trivial matters.

Since the federal government did not introduce any housing measures in its budget, it could at least help all Canadians by supporting my national housing strategy. It will not do so under the pretext that housing falls under provincial jurisdiction.

And yet, the purpose of Bill C-400 is to provide secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, while respecting provincial jurisdictions. The government's inaction is a mystery.

Once again, the government is not demonstrating leadership. The omnibus bill contains another attack on agriculture, which provides even more evidence that the government is not demonstrating leadership.

Bill C-38 already hit my riding hard—really hard—by interfering with the CFIA's ability to conduct proper inspections to ensure the food security of all Canadians.

Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is one of the biggest agricultural regions in Quebec. The CFIA's services are thus very important to this region, which largely depends on agriculture-related economic activity.

Unfortunately, we still do not know what impact the cuts will have on the CFIA's regional centre, which is located in my riding. Many people are concerned about their jobs, and for good reason.

However, that is not my riding's only concern. Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is made up of 25 municipalities and more or less all of the farmers there grow grains. Thus, many of these farmers will be affected by the elimination of the grain appeal tribunals, which are independent committees set up by the region that provide a great deal of support to farmers. Who will farmers deal with if they do not have anyone to represent their region?

If Bill C-45 is passed, any recourse will automatically have to go through the chief grain inspector. Will the chief grain inspector be able to consider the unique characteristics of my riding as well as the local committees can? I seriously doubt it and so do my constituents.

In fact, all Canadians doubt the Conservatives' approach. The 443-page omnibus bill proves that they have reason to doubt.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, a second 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 206 to 209, related to the changes to the Indian Act, be removed from Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled “an act to amend the Indian Act”; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the Law Clerk and the Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

We are proposing this motion in order to conduct a thorough review of the potential impact of this legislation on first nations across the country.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my great colleague from Medicine Hat, Alberta, for his thoughtful comments regarding the implementation of Bill C-45, which is really based on our budget. I have to say that in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, it was accepted almost unanimously, with the prospects it has for Canadians.

In Medicine Hat there is a lot of agriculture. Can the member talk a bit about what his constituents have said about this budget but also the implementation of Bill C-45?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked just now about pooled registered pension plans, which are included in Bill C-45. I would like to ask him a few questions about that.

According to a number of experts, a PRPP is clearly not a pension plan, but rather a savings plan. There are already a number of savings plans that many Canadians do not benefit from or take advantage of. Why does the hon. member think that a PRPP will be more efficient than another savings plan like an RRSP or a TFSA?

If he is really serious about the financial security of Canadians, why does he not introduce a bill that seeks, for instance, to protect the pensions of workers in the event of a bankruptcy or to improve the Canada pension plan, or other measures that could improve the financial security of Canadians?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to stand in the House today and speak about Bill C-45, the budget implementation bill.

Canada has been through some tough times since the great recession began in 2008, and we have fared incredibly well when compared to other industrialized nations around the world. We have the strongest growing economy, and it is due in no small way to the efforts of our Conservative government. Our economic action plan has and continues to ensure that the Canadian economy will remain robust and prepared to fend off most risks.

I want to thank the Minister of Finance, our Prime Minister and all of my caucus colleagues for their hard work. I ask the members on the other side of the House to consider this bill very carefully, and I ask for their support.

It is important to keep our fragile economy running smoothly, and this bill supports jobs and growth to do just that. This is good legislation for all Canadians. It is also good for my home province of Alberta and my riding of Medicine Hat. It contains support for farmers. There are many in my region who I am proud to represent here. I would also like to add that many of them are prospering at historic levels now that they have the freedom to market their grain to whomever they choose. I am happy to report that fact to the House.

This bill is good for farmers. It is good for small business owners. It is good for families and seniors. It is good for the middle class. I do not understand how the opposition members have committed to voting against it. I do realize it is an attempt on their part to simply obstruct everything that we do. This is the NDP's game plan, and it has not even tried to hide that strategy.

Our government has been committed to the economy in other ways, such as by helping to keep the corporate tax low, which in turn has created over 820,000 new jobs since July 2009, shortly after the global economic downturn began. That is an incredible statistic when we stop to think about it.

Nevertheless, the global economic environment remains fragile, and recent economic developments will continue to impact the Canadian economy and government revenues. We have made it clear that we will not impose a harmful, crippling carbon tax on Canadians, like the NDP has on page 4 of its election platform. We do not believe that is productive. We believe it would hurt Canada.

Our Conservative government remains committed to the Canadian economy, and this budget implementation bill will ensure we can continue to grow in an environment where most industrialized nations are struggling.

Through this act, we are facilitating cross-border travel. Pilot projects will begin at ports of entry in Montreal and Prince Rupert which will examine ways to make travelling less burdensome, such as trying to cut out multiple inspections of freight and baggage. Goods should be “once screened, twice accepted”.

Budget 2012 also increases travellers' exemptions. Canadians who visit the U.S. for a 24-hour period will be able to bring in $200 worth of goods. Those returning after 48 hours will be able to bring back $800 worth of goods.

We are removing the red tape and reducing fees for Canadian grain farmers. That is good news for farmers in the Medicine Hat and surrounding area. Our government has allocated $44 million over the next two years to transition the Canadian Grain Commission to a sustainable funding model.

Our government was elected by farmers on a platform to modernize the grain sector in Canada and to keep our economy strong. We have brought in marketing freedom, and the next step is to renew the Grain Commission. These changes will eliminate about $20 million in unnecessary costs from the grain handling system, costs which ultimately are passed down to the farmers.

I urge the opposition to stop playing games with the economy and support the swift passage of this legislation. We are modernizing organizations like the Canadian Grain Commission. It was the same idea with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. The board was created in a different time. To say that we find ourselves in the same agricultural situation today as we did decades ago would be a stretch, to say the least.

We are trying to create a modern economy to keep us competitive and economically sound at home and abroad.

Through the Red Tape Reduction Commission, we are working to reduce the tax compliance burden for businesses, with such things as simplified administration options for business partnerships, an improved business section on the CRA website, improvements to the rules for paying eligible dividends and graduated penalties for late filings. That is going to help businesses in my Medicine Hat riding; there is no doubt in my mind. If we bring in new regulations, we need to remove one or more items of red tape.

We are not sure what the opposition wants. What we do know is that, besides its $21 billion carbon tax grab on every single Canadian, it wants to raise other taxes as well. It wants to raise the GST, corporate taxes and, most likely, the personal income tax rate as well.

We are going to change the Public Service Superannuation Act, which would fix the public service pension plan so that the plan is more in line with the private sector. That is a necessary cost saving, and it is fair. We are not asking our hard-working public servants to do anything we are not. The bill to fix our MP pensions to reflect the same rules as already passed through the House. I am proud of that, because it had all party support. It just goes to show that we all can work together to get things done, as Canadians expect us to do.

Another part of Bill C-45 is that amendments would be brought to the Income Tax Act to allow for pooled registered pension plans, PRPPs. I would like to talk a little about these, because they are a way for the people of my Medicine Hat riding and all Canadians to save money for retirement. The whole idea behind the PRPP was to provide a way for those who do not necessarily have access to other plans but want to put aside a little nest egg for their retirement anyway. This option would allow people to save money for retirement at a lower cost by pooling their plans through administrators. It would also allow the self-employed to save money.

This is important for people in my riding. I have discussed the new PRPP with small businesses in my riding. They are very excited about the plan and the opportunity it would present to their companies and more importantly, their ability to attract and retain highly skilled employees.

Bill C-45 would reinforce our financial sector by supporting a sound and balanced regulatory regime. We do not presume that Canada is immune to world economic fault lines, but we do know that we fared far better than most in the last four years. I know the opposition disagrees, but let us look at the comments made last week by Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund. She said:

Canada is a country with one of the strongest financial sectors in the world.... Canada can teach the rest of the world about how to build a stronger, safer financial system.

If I look at Canada and the anomaly that it constitutes compared to other countries — because it's growing pretty well, because its banking system is solid and growing, because its inflation is under control, because its fiscal deficit is also pretty much under control and its level of indebtedness is reasonable — you know, it's not bad as a scorecard.

That is quite a statement of what we are doing here. This is not partisan drivel. It was not a Conservative Party of Canada strategist or even our fantastic finance minister who said this. It was Christine Lagarde.

Unlike the NDP, we don't base our economic policy on what crackpot economists working for big union bosses tell us. We take an honest, calm and moderate approach, one that strikes a balance. Bill C-45 would continue to make our country more financially prosperous. That is a good thing.

Bill C-45 would enhance security in regard to people travelling to Canada by plane. As part of the perimeter security and economic competitiveness plan, Canada would be working better to screen travellers so that security threats could be stopped ahead of time. That makes Canada safer. I find it very disturbing that the NDP would not support that and so did the people in my riding.

Let us talk about employment. We know that our government's economic action plan has played not a small part in the creation of 820,000 new jobs. We also have a bevy of tax credits to support job strategy. We would also include in that extending the hiring credit for small businesses in 2012. The NDP will be voting against this. What does the opposition have against small businesses? It strikes me as crazy, especially since we just celebrated small business week. Cities in my riding, like Brooks, Taber and Medicine Hat are growing.

I want to touch on one more part of the economic action plan that would be beneficial to constituents in my riding and in Canada. That is our government's accelerated capital cost allowance for energy generation, to further encourage businesses to invest in clean energy generation and energy efficiency. My province is the largest producer of energy in Canada, and this would help those in the clean energy sector be more successful.

Countless world economic bodies have praised our strong financial position, and we have nothing to be ashamed of. Our record speaks for itself. I am proud to be voting in favour of the bill. I am proud to be part of the Conservative team and family that has only Canada's best interests at heart.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and riding neighbour for his speech. I would like to ask him a question about pooled registered pension plans.

This is a measure that is found in Bill C-45. I admit that I am very concerned about this because, right now, retirement security is a big problem. It is time to take serious measures to improve retirees' financial security. The Conservatives' solution is to introduce a pooled registered pension plan.

Does the hon. member agree with Professor Milevsky from York University that a investment plan must not be confused with a pension plan and that one thing is certain: a PRPP, like an RRSP or a TFSA, is not a pension? What does the hon. member think?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to ask a question to the member. The constitutional questions have not had enough attention in this debate at second reading on Bill C-45. When I look back at Bill C-38, I think we also missed some of the key ones. However, in the Fisheries Act changes in Bill C-38, as egregious as they were, they did not, with a sweep of the pen, say that 98% of the waterways in this country are no longer going to be covered under the navigation head of power found in the Constitution.

Has my friend considered that this act is actually unconstitutional in retreating from 98% of the responsibilities to ensure that Canadians have the right to navigate? This was enshrined as a federal head of power. How can the Conservatives unilaterally walk away from it, knowing that under the exclusivity principles of the constitutional law it would be illegal for another level of government to step in to fill the void?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this morning to rise once again in the House to debate a 2012 budget implementation bill. This is the second round of debate on the 2012 budget. I would like to start by taking my colleagues back 20 years in time, to 1993 and 1994, when three events took place that I believe are relevant to the debate today in the House.

The first event was the election of a Liberal majority government headed by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, which set Canada, the state, the federal government, on the road to sound economic and fiscal management. The Liberal government bequeathed to the Conservative government a budget surplus that was extraordinary and unprecedented in Canada's history and that could have been used to maintain economic prosperity. In the end, that did not happen.

The second event occurred in the House of Commons before I was elected. However, I was on the Hill at the time. I remember the arrival of about 50 Reform members, including today's Prime Minister, who was the member for Calgary at the time. As I recall, he arrived in the House with 49 Reform Party colleagues.

The third event I will mention has to do with the Liberal government of the day, under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. That government introduced Bill C-17, its budget implementation bill. I would like to remind the House of the length of that budget implementation bill. Mr. Speaker, you and my other colleagues in this House might be surprised to hear that, in total, Bill C-17 was 21 pages long and amended a total of 11 pieces of Canadian legislation.

Let us compare that to the current situation. Last fall, we debated a budget implementation bill that was about 500 pages long and amended about 70 pieces of Canadian legislation. Today we are debating Bill C-45, which is 443 pages long and amends 60 Canadian acts. In less than 12 months, we have debated two bills that together total about 900 pages and amend about 130 Canadian acts. We have come a long way since 1993.

What is interesting is that even the short, 21-page budget implementation bill that I just mentioned, that modest bill, triggered a strong reaction from the member from Calgary who is now the Prime Minister of Canada. He said, and I quote:

The particular bill before us, Bill C-17, is of an omnibus nature. 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.

If people were outraged at the time, in 1994, regarding a budget implementation bill that was 21 pages long and amended 11 Canadian acts, well then they should be 45 times more outraged today.

What we have seen recently in the House is about 45 times worse than what went on in 1994 with Bill C-17. This should put things into perspective a little bit.

It is interesting that we heard the member opposite speak about family. That is an important point. It is important that every now and then we bring things back to the perspective of the communities and families we represent here in the House.

Sometimes things get a little too complicated here. They get too broad and complicated, layer upon layer, to the point where parliamentarians have a hard time seeing things clearly. Imagine how hard it is for our constituents, who are not engaged in this House every day, who are going about their business, earning their living, bringing up their kids, to wrap their minds around what is going on in this House, especially around a budget?

Let us look at what a family does when they create a budget. Let us say, hypothetically, that a family sits down, the parents and the kids, to discuss the family budget. What would they discuss? They would discuss the revenues they expect for the coming year, what they expect to spend and how they perhaps expect to lower their debt levels. That is what they need to talk about, if they are to have a good budget. If they start to talk about junior's hockey schedule or how much time the son or daughter should be allowed to watch TV per week, and so on and so forth, they would go astray from the subject at hand. They are not going to be as effective in managing the household economy essentially, the household budget.

I would suggest that the fact that we keep bringing in complex pieces of legislation, such as these two budget implementation acts, may be distracting the government's focus and not allowing it to be as effective as it might be.

I have seen two bills, which are unrelated to this bill, come before the House, and they had glaring holes in them. One was Bill C-383, and I do not understand how it got by the lawyers in the trade department, quite frankly. We saw another bill last week, the nuclear terrorism act, which my colleague said omitted a very important and central piece.

We should simplify things a bit and not spread ourselves too thinly, so that we can do our work properly as parliamentarians and the government can achieve some focus and get some results.

On that theme, the budget implementation act obviously does include measures which should be in a budget implementation act. That goes without saying. Even if we disagree with what the government is doing with the SR and ED, the scientific research and development tax credit, it belongs in a budget; it is a budgetary matter.

I would add that I think it may be dangerous that the government is getting away from a kind of broad-based program to stimulate innovation in this country in every small- and medium-sized business across the land, to an approach whereby the government would be giving subsidies instead of tax credits for research. It would be giving subsidies to a few bigger players in an attempt to pick winners and losers in the 21st century economy. We have issues with that, but I would agree that it belongs in a budget bill.

However, there are some things that do not belong in a budget bill. One is rewriting laws that protect Canada's waterways. I do not know what that is doing in a budget bill. Another is redefining the definition of aboriginal fisheries. What is that doing in a budget bill? Eliminating the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission is about human health and public safety. That is not about revenues and expenditures and debt levels and so on.

I have an issue, like many of my colleagues in the House, with the budget going astray and including all kinds of extraneous elements.

However, to get a subject that is of great interest to me, I would concur with my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands that when the Fisheries Act was passed and the Navigable Waters Protection Act was passed, the word “environment” did not exist. If we are to be literal, as the government likes to be, let us go back to the quote that I just read from the then Reform Party member and now Prime Minister, who said that 21 pages amending 11 acts is too long.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue with my hon. friend the matter that I tried to pursue with the previous speech from the member from her caucus, which was to explain the constitutionality of basically the abandonment of navigation under the federal head of power in the Constitution. I hope it will not be unfair to my friend but I think she was present when we were discussing this.

Constitutional law, as I recited from Professor Peter Hogg who is the leading expert, requires that we look at the Constitution not based on what people designed things for in the 1860s but as they evolve. As Lord Sankey wrote in a decision of the high court in 1930, the BNA Act is like a tree planted in Canada that grows and evolves. That means that the meaning of “navigation” and “navigable waters” have changed since 1867. For generations, they have always included that we protect free-flowing rivers in Canada.

When the federal government, through Bill C-45, retreats from this, it would be illegal for any other level of government to step in to protect rights of navigation on waterways throughout Canada. How do we square this circle of unconstitutionality?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad to have a chance to ask the hon. member for Lethbridge a question related to the constitutionality of what the government is doing. It is particularly fascinating to hear the Conservative benches railing on socialism while they embrace communism. I find it fascinating.

Meanwhile, I have a constitutional law textbook here that points out that the idea of what the Navigable Waters Protection Act was intended to do in 1882 is entirely irrelevant and fanciful. Professor Peter Hogg writes that it is well established “that the general language used to describe the classes of subjects is not frozen in the sense in which it would have been understood in 1867”.

However, the Conservatives' approach to Bill C-45, as with Bill C-38, is to slash back the evolution of our Constitution and to insist that if it were not in the minds of people in 1882, the idea that the Navigable Waters Protection Act should protect the environment more generally is somehow erroneous.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments in which he also mentioned environmental legislation. I would like to ask him a question about that with regard to Bill C-45. This is a continued theme in the current bill, as it was in Bill C-38, where there were significant cuts to the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

In Bill C-45, there are changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In fact, the term “water” is dropped from the title of the act. In my riding, for instance, waterways, rivers, creeks and lakes, are held in high regard and people expect them to be managed properly. This requires protective measures, like the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In fact, my riding is nestled between the world-famous Fraser River, known for its history and salmon, and Burrard Inlet in Port Moody. There are many other important waterways I could talk about, like the Coquitlam River, the Burnett River and Comeau Creek.

Does the member honestly think that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is not assisting in the protection of our great country and, in fact, is—

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion, and I know my colleagues will give that to me: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 308 to 314 related to changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be removed from Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled “An act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed and that the order for the second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted, as amended, and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

We propose the motion to give the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration an opportunity to ensure due diligence to examine and propose amendments.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-45. I would like to open my remarks by joining those who spoke before me in saying that I do not agree with the way we are proceeding with Bill C-45, which is a mammoth omnibus bill. Call it what you will, but the fact remains that this bill is more than 400 pages long and has various parts dealing with different areas. Not only are we restricted to having only one debate, but we also have only one opportunity to vote on a massive bill containing a wide range of measures. For a party that boasted that it would be transparent and would stand up for democracy, this makes no sense. Frankly, we are wondering what has become of those lofty ideals today.

As a parliamentarian, I have to vote only once. This bill has some elements that I agree with and that I would be happy to vote in favour of. Unfortunately, it also has a number of incomplete and potentially harmful features that need major amendments or that should not be there in the first place. I am in a position where I have to vote for or against a wide range of measures and amendments. I think this way of doing things is neither transparent nor democratic.

A number of hon. members have asked us why we are complaining, because everything that is in Bill C-45 was already announced in the budget. I would like to set the record straight and say that that is not true. Not all the measures in Bill C-45 were in the budget. Let us stop lying to Canadians. That is shameful. For instance, one amendment in Bill C-45 has to do with the right of grain farmers to an appeal process. I did not find that in the main budget tabled last spring. The same goes for the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

There are things in Bill C-45 that were not clearly announced in the budget and that warrant careful consideration. Anytime we are faced with such an immense bill, there is always confusion and unexpected things.

The Liberals proposed removing the parts related to pensions from Bill C-45. If that proposal had been accepted, we would have voted in favour of the measure concerning members' pensions and the one concerning public service pensions and Canadian Forces members' pensions. With just one vote, and without any debate, we would have affected the pensions of over 450,000 Canadians.

Modifying people's pension plans without bothering to dedicate any time for consideration, debate or examination is such an insult. This shows a complete lack of respect and a negligent attitude toward democracy. The cavalier, disrespectful attitude this government is taking regarding such important issues for Canadians will undermine their confidence in our parliamentary system.

I would now like to take a closer look at one particular measure announced in Bill C-45: changing the eligibility age for public servants' retirement pensions. Anyone hired as of January 1, 2013, will receive his or her retirement pension at age 65 instead of 60. Five years is a long time; it is more than just a few weeks or a few months. This change is not really justified. The budget indicates that this measure is responsible and is important to ensuring the sustainability of the pension plan. However, those few words are by no means sufficient justification for making such a major change to the pension plan.

On what grounds is the viability of the program being determined? Perhaps there are reasonable grounds to believe the retirement age needs to be raised, but I doubt it. I will leave this open to discussion and debate. The government cannot simply declare that the viability is at risk and the age must therefore be raised; that is not enough. I want to see some figures and some studies proving that the viability is at risk at this time. I can easily draw a comparison with the changes announced to old age security.

All kinds of non-partisan expert studies show that old age security in its present form, with 65 as the age of eligibility, is sustainable in the long term. Of course we do not need complex calculations to know that costs will rise as the population ages. Old age security, a public pension program, will cost more because the proportion of seniors will be greater. Does this mean that the program is not sustainable in the long term? Not at all. Just because it will cost more does not mean that we will absolutely not be able to cover the costs. Experts' in-depth long-term analyses take into account a number of factors and unanimously confirm that old age security with 65 as the age of eligibility is a program that we can afford to keep.

On a number of occasions, the opposition has asked—as the critic for seniors, I have asked dozens of times—for the figures, studies and reports on which the government bases its claim that the viability of old age security is in jeopardy. To date, I have not seen any valid proof, or anything to justify these changes. The recent Auditor General's report clearly states that some figures and studies could have been made public to provide some indication of and information about the real reasons for changing the eligibility age for our old age security program. No figure has been published even though, in 2007, the government promised to do so and, in 2011, the Auditor General recommended that the government once again publish a report on long-term fiscal sustainability.

Furthermore, we also learned from the Auditor General's most recent report, which was released last week, that the Minister of Finance does not necessarily have all the information on the long-term impact of his decisions. He makes the decisions and then is subsequently informed by the department of the long-term impact of the decisions. Quite frankly, there is cause to be suspicious of the reasons for the changes proposed by Bill C-45 and by the Conservatives' most recent budget.

That concludes my remarks on pensions affected by Bill C-45 and the budget. I would also like to talk about another aspect related to Canadians' savings and their financial security: pooled registered pension plans.

Many experts agree that pooled registered pension plans will not enhance Canadians' financial security; rather, they will undermine it. Yes, we can do something to protect retirees' financial security. We can take meaningful steps and we can do it now if possible. The government should not introduce another savings vehicle similar to RRSPs and TFSAs. Not everyone contributes to RRSPs and TFSAs, which are savings vehicles. A whole lot of people cannot put money aside for retirement.

What are the unique advantages of a pooled registered pension plan? It will give employers the opportunity to provide a so-called pension plan—merely “so-called” because a PRPP is not a pension plan; it is a savings plan—without having to commit to anything. Employers can set up a plan that employees may contribute to if they want, which is fine, but employers do not actually have to do anything. If employers are not interested in participating, they simply do not have to. That is not a solution.

Many experts say that we have to rethink our defined benefit pension plan and that we have to protect it. That is the only thing that will put Canadians in a position to save for their retirement and allow them to count on a set amount of money when they retire. Changes are in order if we want to improve these pension plans and keep them viable. But we have to be serious about making those changes.

I could go on at length about this, but I see that my time is almost up. Nobody can cover everything in a 400-page bill in 10 minutes.

In closing, I want to say that, if the Minister of Finance thinks that austerity is prudent, he should be careful, because people must not be led to believe that the cuts he has proposed are in any way necessary. This is nothing but political rhetoric and lies, if I may say so.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about job creation, which is at stake in Bill C-45. I would like to come back to that, because my colleague did not go into detail on the matter.

In the Auditor General's most recent report, we saw that the Minister of Finance's decisions were not backed by the figures in a report on long-term fiscal sustainability. In other words, the Minister of Finance is making decisions without truly knowing what impact these decisions will have on public finances over the long term, which is concerning.

I would like to know whether my colleague knows what long-term effects the elimination of tax credits for research and development will have, for example. In my riding, there is a company that just cut 300 jobs. This company was very active in research and development, which is why this question came to mind.

Does my colleague know the long-term effects of a decrease in tax credits for research and development? If so, what is he using to back his long-term predictions?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and a delight to speak to Bill C-45, the final implementation of the budget act, the jobs and growth act. It is titled, “jobs, growth and long-term prosperity”. The reason we chose that title is that the focus of this bill is for just that: for long-term prosperity, for jobs and for growth.

We have heard the numbers countless times. On our side of the House, we are reminded that since this government has been in office and since that horrendous crash in 2008-09 when so many jobs were wiped out, not only here in Canada but across the world, there has been an increase of 820,000 net new jobs. That is an outstanding number.

We also hear the statistics that we rank among the highest in the G8 nations, that we are in the best fiscal position and that we are among the highest in growth in G8 nations.

That does not say there is tremendous growth. We know that in the world today there has been an enormous slowdown. Yet repeatedly, for the last number of years, Canada has managed to hold a position and to build some strength in that position, as well.

We also know that when governments get it right, when governments help create healthy climates, jobs are created. That is the main focus of this government and the reason we have focused so much on those areas. We do that by, first, listening.

I have the privilege to serve on the finance committee. We are involved in budget consultations at this point. We meet every night, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. We meet from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. We ask people and groups from right across this country to come in to speak to us and to tell us what they feel this government has to do to be successful, to grow those jobs, to get those people back to work, to help young Canadians who are coming out schools, be they high schools, colleges or universities, to get jobs. We listen to these groups and these people.

We listen to industry. Again, I was fortunate, in the first four years I served in this House, to serve on the industry committee. In the industry committee, again, we invite industry; we invite labour; we invite all these groups to tell us just what we can do as a government to make things work.

It is people who create jobs. It is businesses that create jobs. Governments create healthy atmospheres.

We listen to business groups, we listen to labour and we listen to the experts. We learned great lessons from the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington last Friday. He gave us a little essay in the house on Keynesian policies and how many governments today—most governments in the western world since before World War II—embarked upon that kind of plane where governments were told they need to spend to stimulate the economy. I think most of us would probably agree with that, but we have had a bit of runaway Keynesianism.

There was another school of thought at that time, the Austrian school, the Mises, that taught it is the responsibility of governments to maintain and make sure their books are in order. We did, and we do what the experts suggest we do. The first thing they tell us, repeatedly, is to get government spending under control, eliminate the deficit.

It is a fact that this government is concentrating on lowering government spending. We do not agree on both sides of the House. Often times, we hear it is the role of government to spend more, to spend our way out of a recession or that, rather than cut spending, maybe we ought to raise taxes.

We hear repeatedly, not just from businesses—obviously businesses do not want to be taxed and corporations do not want to be taxed—but we hear from the experts, the economists, that it works in reverse and ultimately when businesses and corporations are taxed, they take that cost and add it to the cost of products. Then we become uncompetitive in the world. Therefore, our goal on this side of the House is to make sure tax level does not become a burden and to make sure we do not impede growth.

One of the other things we heard repeatedly was to reduce red tape. Red tape is something that stagnates growth. It causes frustration in the marketplace. We have to eliminate those things that impede growth. I have spoken about a number of those areas, one of them being red tape. However, there are other things that governments do, oftentimes with the right intention, but we find out down the road that they cause more problems than they solve. Businesses asked that we not overburden them with taxes and regulations and that we open up the marketplace.

Canada is a trading nation. We are a nation that does a pretty good job at producing certain things. We are strong in extraction. We have a very rich resource sector. We are strong in service sectors, telecommunications and banking, and we do a good job in financing. We are able to export those to other countries. However, oftentimes there are trade barriers that pop up and make those things difficult for our companies. Therefore, our Minister of Trade has been extremely busy on a trade mission.

Let me read something he said:

In less than six years, [we have]...concluded trade agreements with nine countries: Colombia, Honduras, Jordan, Panama, Peru, and the European Free Trade Association member states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Canada has also begun deepening trade and investment ties with the largest markets in the world, including the European Union, India and Japan.

The European Union has 500 million people.

Most recently, we announced in October that Canada has formally joined the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP trade negotiations. This is a trade agreement under negotiation by 11 countries, which now include Canada and Mexico. The other members include Australia, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

Canadians can see that we are opening up these opportunities. This gives our companies, our people, an opportunity.

The Speaker is telling me I am running out of time, so I am going to talk about what is really near and dear to me, and that is the bridge to strengthening trade act. We have inserted a provision in the omnibus bill that allows for a bridge across to the United States in my neck of the woods, Chatham-Kent—Essex. Why this is so important is that we are a trading nation. The town of Leamington, which is part of my riding, has an enormous greenhouse industry. Two hundred trucks leave Leamington greenhouses bound for the U.S. every day. More than 70% of the greenhouse industry goes to the United States. There are 223 greenhouse operations in Ontario, and Leamington is home to the largest concentration of greenhouses. There are over 1,500 acres under cover. They tell me that one acre is equal to ten times the production on normal land. It is imperative that those goods get across to the United States. We need that crossing. Therefore, we have put a provision in the budget that would allow for its speedy construction.

I was also very privileged to be able to announce the gateway, the section of HIghway 401 to the bridge. Last year in August the government announced we would spend $1 billion. A very important part of the budget is the trade issue. It is very important in my riding.

I encourage the opposition to look at those great benefits, not only for the country but for areas like Chatham-Kent—Essex, where it is so important that we continue this trade.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is proposed in Bill C-45 will create a two-tier system for pension plans, which is obviously going to affect young people significantly. There are also all sorts of measures that will undermine the protection of the environment.

The hon. member has already mentioned that this will greatly affect her generation. As our leader often says, we are passing on a debt burden to future generations, whether in the form of environmental debt, economic debt, and so on.

Could the hon. member tell us about the problems that this could create for young people, who already do not trust politicians? How will they be affected overall?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, the official opposition, to oppose yet another omnibus bill put forward by the government. It is a travesty when it comes to respecting not only the priorities of Canadians, but the kind of value that Canadians give to democracy, democratic debate and the roles of members of Parliament in the House. It is though the government had not learned from what we saw in the spring, the kind of opposition we saw from coast to coast to coast from Canadians on Bill C-38, the first omnibus bill in recent months that the government put forward.

We saw historic opposition on the kind of deregulation put forward in the environment, the damaging portions to do with pensions, specifically with respect to the OAS, the damage made by changes to employment insurance and the list goes on. Overall it was a budget bill that raised the ire of Canadians who did not send their members of Parliament, certainly the government members of Parliament in the House, to shove through legislation that would essentially decrease our standard of living. Yet, here we are again seeing the same kind of tricks being played by a government that truly is prepared to show contempt for democratic debate and the role we have been sent here to do.

I am proud to be part of the NDP, a party that not only has the word “democratic” in its name, but a party that believes debate and representing Canadians, which is what we have been sent here to do, rather than telling people stories of what they are supposedly doing in the House. The real story is one that is rather devastating.

Bill C-45 is another massive omnibus bill that makes amendments to a wide range of acts. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to ram legislation through Parliament, without allowing Canadians and members of Parliament to thoroughly examine it. The Conservatives claim that budget 2012 is about job creation, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that this budget will cost 43,000 Canadian jobs. That is not job creation; that is a massive bleeding of good, solid Canadian jobs that the government is enforcing through this budget bill.

The budget plans for unemployment to rise. As we know, the National Capital Region has been hit disproportionately hard given the massive cuts to the public sector. However, the region in the part of the country that I come from, Manitoba and the Prairies, has been the single most effected region, outside of the National Capital Region, when it comes to cuts to the public service, whether it is the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, which has been hit hard, or it is a number of other departments that have been affected. The domino effect is the lose of good, solid jobs for our communities.

While Canadians want us to take action to protect our environment and grow a sustainable economy for the future, the Conservatives are focused on gutting environmental protection regulation. We saw that in Bill C-38. We very clearly see it again in Bill C-45 through the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and a massive disconnect on the part of the government.

Canadians view environmental sustainability as being key to the way we move forward. We used to be recognized as leaders and a country that sought to find a balance between economic development and environmental sustainability. Now we are seen as a global shame because of the kind of policies the Prime Minister and his government have put forward. Not only have they gone as far as failing to move forward on environmental stewardship inaction, but they have also gutted legislation that is absolutely key to ensuring that the kind of development that takes place across our country is done within parameters that support environmental sustainability.

Churchill, in northern Manitoba, is part of a province that depends a great deal on the wealth that comes from waterways, whether it is rivers or lakes. Seeing the changes in the Navigable Waters Protection Act is damaging to the kind of development that Manitobans want, one that respect waterways, first nations and communities that are on or close to the water. Unfortunately, once again, the federal government will not stand up for the province of Manitoba and the many Canadians that want economic development to be done with a sustainable lens.

The Conservatives have clearly not learned their lesson and the official opposition will not let them quietly pass their new omnibus legislation. We believe Canadians deserve better. We in the NDP will always be proud to stand up for transparency and accountability. We will always stand up for environmental protection, retirement security and health care, which were key points that were attacked in Bill C-38 and continue to be attacked in the latest reincarnation of the Conservative government's sham representation of the interests of Canadians.

Let us look at Bill C-45 more closely. A key damaging point is the area of public pensions. New Democrats are concerned by the creation of a two-tiered workforce in which younger people have to work longer for the same retirement benefits. Those younger people are from my generation, a generation of people who go into workplaces. Hopefully a number of them will be able to work in the public service supporting the kinds of services and sectors we need in our country. Unfortunately, the bar has been raised for them in many ways and they will not have access to the same quality of life as their parents. That is what it is really about. A two-tiered system means that the people of my generation will be set up to live a life with greater job insecurity and a higher cost of living knowing that their retirement benefits will have been gutted, and that is not fair.

When Conservative members go back to their ridings, how do they make this kind of two-tiered workforce palatable to the young people who live in their constituencies, the next generation of Canadians who want to contribute to society, our communities and our economy? The reality is they will be unable to make the same kinds of long-term plans that they or certainly their parents have made because the odds have been stacked against them. It is particularly shameful that the odds have been stacked against them in large part due to the government's desire to make the playing field more difficult for us.

The changes in the public service pension system come in a context where the Conservative government is failing to take action on youth unemployment and crippling student debt, while also making young people work longer before qualifying for OAS benefits. We have a good idea what the actions the government is taking today will mean in terms of a reduced ability by Canadian young people to contribute to the economy, whether it is in the tax base, or purchasing homes and taking part in the homebuyers' market or consumption in the economy, which is something in which the government seems to be interested. We are going to see a marked reduction in the ability of future generations of Canadians to contribute to the economy.

A final point that I would like to make is with respect to my particular region and the devastating impact Bill C-45 will have when it comes to the Canadian Grain Commission. I am proud to represent the community of Churchill where hard-working people have worked for the CGC for decades and have ensured that Canadian wheat is the best in the world. Unfortunately, Bill C-45 weakens the Canada Grain Act, which means we will lose inward inspections, farmers will be faced with a reduced profit margin because of the fact that we will not have rigorous inspection of the wheat we export, as well as domestic consumption, and that is not okay.

Canada is proud of the kind of wheat products we have sold around the world. This means losing solid jobs from communities like Churchill, Thunder Bay and Vancouver, and it is certainly in line with the government's failure to realize it is here to show leadership. Thankfully, we in the NDP will continue to do that and fight against Bill C-45.

The House resumed from October 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second 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.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech, even though I am still trying to understand some things about the bill.

The finance minister said that everything in Bill C-45 can be found in the budget.

When we received the information on this bill—and there has been a lot of publicity on this issue—we asked where in the budget the references to navigable waters could be found. We were told to refer to page 282 of the budget, which indicates that $37 million in savings have been planned at Transport Canada.

From this, we were supposed to understand what our colleague was explaining to us about all the advantages and effects of this bill. But, on the contrary, what we are seeing are the negative effects it will have on environmental protection.

Can the hon. member tell me where in the budget we can find an explanation for everything he has said about our waterways?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-45, the second budget implementation act. This is yet another massive omnibus budget bill, which is 414 pages in length with 516 separate clauses amending more than 60 different laws. It is simply too big for Parliament to consider properly in just a short period of time. The Conservatives are counting on us rushing this through at record speed and they are trying to avoid real scrutiny in this Parliament.

The Conservatives are continuing their reckless abuse of power by using these huge omnibus bills and underhanded procedural manoeuvres to force unpopular policies through. They are doing this despite public outcry from coast to coast to coast. They are using this so-called budget bill to gut the Navigable Waters Protection Act, redefine aboriginal fisheries and amend the Indian Act without consulting first nation communities, despite the government's constitutional responsibility and duty to consult. They are using this so-called budget act to shield the government from lawsuits by creating loopholes in Canada's environmental laws and retroactively changing the Customs Act. They are eliminating the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and implementing an overhaul of the Canadian Grain Commission.

These are just a few examples of elements of the bill that are significant and have nothing to do with the fiscal policy of the government, which is actually what a budget and a budget implementation act ought to be focused on. The Conservatives are rushing through these changes so that Canadians will not realize what has happened until it is too late. They have established a pattern of overwhelming our democratic system with overloaded budget bills that have nothing or little to do with the actual budgets themselves.

Buried in these massive bills are a number of mistakes. In fact, the Conservatives are already using Bill C-45 to correct mistakes they made in Bill C-38 last spring. The mistakes range from poorly written transition provisions in the new environmental assessment law to reinserting protections in the Fisheries Act that were mistakenly or inadvertently erased, to clarifying rules for approving foreign investments in our banks. These were mistakes in Bill C-38 in the spring. They slipped through the cracks because they were in a huge omnibus bill that denied Parliament the opportunity to thoroughly study and more importantly, not just to study but ultimately to vote on these changes individually.

Now the Conservatives want to fix some of these mistakes with measures in yet another omnibus budget bill that they want to rush into law. In this budget implementation bill the Conservatives are breaking promises made in budget 2012. The Conservatives want to use Bill C-45 to take public policy decisions that are contrary to what was in the budget in 2012. It is a farce when the Conservatives say that everything in Bill C-45 can be found in the budget. The reality is that some of what is in the legislation is completely opposite to what was promised in the budget of 2012.

Page 146 of the budget states that “[O]ver the next few years, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board...will continue to set the rate” for EI premiums. However, Bill C-45 explicitly gets rid of the board's authority to set EI rates.

Here is another example. Page 268 of the budget keeps the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, but Bill C-45 actually eliminates the commission altogether. We all remember how earlier this year the Conservatives broke their promise not to cut old age security.

It is also important to realize what is not in Bill C-45. Despite the size and breadth of this omnibus budget bill and the promises it breaks, Bill C-45 is remarkable as well for what it does not address. There is nothing in the bill to address some of the most serious challenges facing Canada. Canadians have identified growing income inequality as one of the biggest challenges facing the country, but there is nothing in Bill C-45 to address growing income gaps. There is nothing in Bill C-45 to address growing gaps between the provinces.

Canada's resource-driven recovery has increased, in fact, inequality among the regions in many ways. While it is positive that we have all of these natural resources, they are largely concentrated in a couple of provinces and the gap between those provinces in a resource-driven recovery and the other provinces is growing. I will give an example.

A province like Alberta is increasing education spending dramatically and I commend it for doing that. Investing in education is a good thing. At the same time, Nova Scotia's provincial government is cutting funding for public education by 30%. Therefore, it is not just a question of income inequality, it is a question of equality of opportunity. This is where we need a robust federal government that is working with the provinces, meeting with the provinces and ensuring that we do not see today's income inequality become tomorrow's inequality of opportunity.

This growing divide between the provinces is a major issue in Canada. In the last 12 months, over 40% of Canada's new full-time jobs were in just three provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. These are the provinces with the greatest wealth of natural resources. It is where we can find 40% of the new jobs, but only 15% of the population. Provinces without resources are losing workers and being forced to slash funding for social programs. These are the programs that ensure equality of opportunity for the next generation.

There was a time when the Prime Minister said he would meet regularly with the premiers to discuss these types of issues. There was a time that ministers of intergovernmental affairs were senior members of the cabinet. People like the right hon. Joe Clark served as an intergovernmental affairs minister in the Mulroney government. Lucienne Robillard was a former minister in the provincial government in Quebec. The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, a very senior expert on intergovernmental and constitutional affairs, was a minister of intergovernmental affairs.

Under the Conservatives, the minister of intergovernmental affairs is, effectively, a minister without portfolio. The minister of intergovernmental affairs does not have any standing in the Conservative government. That is not purely a reflection of the current minister, it is a reflection of an attitude toward the provinces that pervades the government.

The Prime Minister's refusal to meet with the premiers, his my way or the highway approach, has created a vacuum of federal leadership on these issues. Now we have a budget bill with no serious plan to work with the provinces on programs that would deal with issues such as income inequality and the growing inequality of opportunity, programs like a national early learning strategy or a national lifelong skills development strategy or federal leadership in working with the provinces to restore the honour of skilled trades, which is something that is incredibly important in Canada at a time when we have people without jobs and jobs without people.

Despite the uncertainty of the economy and the enormity of the challenges we face as a nation, there is precious little in Bill C-45 to help create jobs for today and jobs for the future. In fact, the spring budget bill actually made income inequality worse with cuts to OAS and EI. Bill C-45 would actually cut the very programs that encourage job creation and help our economy grow. It would cut SR&ED tax credits.

We have heard from industry, the science community, the biotech community and the manufacturers that the SR&ED program is important. The government would actually cut it. It would kill the corporate mineral exploration and development tax credits, which is dangerously short-sighted at a time when it is difficult for the mining and junior mining industries to raise money.

It also would kill the Atlantic investment tax credit for oil, gas and mining at a time when the Atlantic Canadian economy is still facing significant challenges. It would do nothing to address Canada's dangerously high levels of household debt. The fact is that for every $1 of annual income, Canadian families have $1.63 of household debt.

There is nothing to address these major and important issues that are actually related to the fiscal priorities of Canadians in the budget bill. Instead, the Conservatives are addressing a lot of other issues that have nothing to do with the fiscal reality of the country or the fiscal priorities of the government.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 264 to 268, related to changes to the Customs Act, be removed from Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled “An Act to amend the Customs Act”; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

We are proposing the motion in order to make sure that the government's proposal to implement electronic travel authorization gets the full consideration it should have. The government has proposed that parts of the bill go to committee but not be amended or voted upon separately. Therefore, this motion aims to correct that gap to allow for full debate and full consideration by providing a separate bill on this important matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have discovered a measure in Bill C-45 that I cannot figure out with respect to how it would help jobs, growth and the economy, so perhaps the hon. member can help me.

It would create a whole new barrier to tourism in Canada. It would require an electronic verification of anyone coming from a country that does not require a visa from the Government of Canada before he or she can come for a visit. It does not include people who are claiming refugee status, nor those wanting permanent residency. Any traveller wanting to visit Canada, such as a British doctor who has always dreamed of crossing Canada by rail, would first have to clear an online questioning system and find out from the Minister of Immigration if he or she is admissible.

How does this help tourism, which includes jobs?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the good and wise people of Ottawa—Orléans, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012.

Since our election 2,469 days ago, this government has made job creation, growth and economic prosperity its top priorities. This is increasingly true in this 41st Parliament. Despite a weak and uncertain global economy and a sluggish recovery, 820,000 new jobs have been created in Canada since July 2009.

While the government has produced excellent results in terms of job creation and the economy, there is still much work to be done.

Bill C-45 will help us to continue the success and enable Canada to remain a global economic leader. While the government focuses on a plan to promote job creation through competitive taxes, the opposition is dreaming up schemes for higher taxation, as I mentioned in this House nine days ago. For instance, there is a carbon tax on everything, and taking $21 billion out of the pockets of hard-working Canadian taxpayers.

Speaking of lower taxes from this side, this government has offered tax relief in 140 instances since 2006, and has reduced rates for people in the lowest tax brackets in particular.

That is how you help an entire country come out of a recession. The jobs and growth act, 2012, would stimulate the Canadian economy and create even more jobs. How? By extending the hiring credit for small business for another year. Small businesses are economic drivers for Canada and also for Ottawa–Orléans. Last year, this credit helped some 534,000 Canadians.

In Orléans, businesses, such as the very meticulous Sure Print can receive a hiring credit of up to $1,000. Other measures will foster a healthy climate for job creation. They include promoting interprovincial trade, improving the legislative framework for Canada's financial institutions, facilitating cross-border travel, removing red tape and reducing fees for Canada's grain farmers and supporting the country's commercial aviation sector.

In recent months, shortly before the government released its economic action plan 2012, scaremongers tried to stir up public fears about the government’s proposed changes to Canada's pension plans.

Earlier this year, on January 9, I wrote to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board, stating the following:

In my view, it would be fair to change the benefits offered to our public servants yet to be hired. On the other hand, it would be wrong to change the conditions of employment retroactively. It certainly would be wrong to reduce the benefits of people who are already retired.

In his reply, which is available at my constituency office, the Prime Minister made it very clear, when he wrote in his own hand:

[First name of member for Ottawa-Orléans], I agree with you. No changes can be made retroactively.

That reply shows the wisdom and statesmanship of this Prime Minister. He has kept his word. In fact, the only person who will be subject to retroactive reductions to his pension is the Prime Minister himself. This is yet another demonstration of his selflessness in the service of Canadians.

The government has taken landmark action to ensure that the pension plans for members of this House and of the other place and federal public servants are sustainable and financially responsible. These plans will be consistent with the pension products offered by other jurisdictions and will be fair relative to plans offered in the private sector.

Bill C-45 would amend the Public Service Superannuation Act so that contributors would pay no more than 50% of the current service costs of the pension plan, by 2017. In addition, as of 2015, people entering the public service and future parliamentarians would be eligible for their pension at age 65 rather than the current age of 55.

Through changes to the pension plans for federal public servants and parliamentarians, the Government of Canada estimates it will save $2.6 billion over five years. That is a significant amount.

Let us remember, like the old age security program, there will be no retroactive changes to the Public Service Superannuation Act. None.

I personally intervened and the government has listened.

The members of this House are leading by example. It is our duty to do so.

On another subject, the government is focused on the needs of families.

Bill C-45 would improve the registered disability savings plan and help some of the most vulnerable people in society. As of January 1, 2014, the income from a registered education savings plan for a child with a disability could be rolled over to a registered disability savings plan if the child has a severe and prolonged mental impairment and would likely be unable to pursue post-secondary studies. This initiative would offer more flexibility and options to families with a disabled child.

As I am sure members know, children’s health is a subject close to my heart. On September 19, I introduced Motion M-319, which the House unanimously approved. The motion encouraged the government to continue promoting healthy food choices among children as a way to address the serious issue of childhood obesity.

The economic action plan 2012 proposes measures that support M-319.

It promotes a more active lifestyle for young people by continuing to support ParticipACTION. This valuable organization works with provincial partners to provide community-based health and fitness programs.

This is just one of the many initiatives the government has introduced since 2006, such as the children's fitness tax credit and the children's arts tax credit, which I had promoted.

Seniors play an important role in the lives of families and the Orléans community. A visit to places such as the Regroupement des aînés francophones d’Orléans, the Roy G. Hobbs Seniors Centre or Royal Garden will show how much seniors have to offer.

Since 2006, the government has provided solid support to seniors through $2.5 billion in tax relief. In addition, 380,000 seniors no longer pay federal income tax. The government has also introduced pension income splitting. I worked closely with my colleagues on this issue.

The economic action plan 2012 also supports seniors through the third quarter project, an initiative program that lets employers benefit from the experience of workers aged 50 and over who want to apply their skills in the labour market. With Ottawa's relatively no unemployment rate, employers can have a tough time finding employees with the right skills. Third quarter, which has received $6 million in funding, can help companies here and across Canada find the people they need.

I see the signal that my time is running out. However, there is so much that this budget document is presenting. There are no surprises there. These are the issues that we fought the last election on. These are the issues that we voted on, hours upon hours, last June. We are getting the job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition pointed out that “[the Conservatives] are saddling future generations with the biggest environmental, economic and social debt in our history“.

Bill C-45 is a glaring example. As my colleague mentioned, this budget slashes services to Canadians. We are creating a society where the gap between rich and poor keeps growing, a society where many will be left behind.

I would like my colleague to elaborate further on that issue. I would appreciate hearing his comments on my humble thoughts.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to win without risk is to triumph without glory. I am beginning with this saying as it will be the theme for my speech about the budget implementation bill.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly said that this bill would be a step backwards in terms of employment: 43,000 jobs would be lost. Imagine. We are applying the brakes again to our economy, making it more fragile and endangering it. This is very important, because the 43,000 jobs that are being lost are primarily in the area of direct services to Canadians.

As members of this House—and it is certainly the case of my colleagues in the government—we see every day in our offices an absence of and a reduction in access to services to the public. It has come to the point where someone who does not have Internet access and who ultimately does not have much tax-related expertise, for instance, is literally being abandoned and held hostage by the incredible restrictions imposed on our public servants. These restrictions mean that someone who wants to understand what will happen when he tries to file his income tax return will probably never have an answer, unless he calls on a professional whose services he must pay for or, in a best-case scenario, a close relative. In both cases, that person will give an opinion, but mistakes may be made because it is always difficult to keep up to date when it comes to taxes. Therefore, it is always best to check the source, but the source has dried up: the tap has been turned off by the government.

We are talking about high-quality jobs. We are talking about jobs serving the public. I find it absolutely shocking to see the government taking these sorts of workforce reductions so lightly.

I would like to point out that in Beauport—Limoilou, we have had a disaster. A large pulp and paper mill that had 1,600 employees in 2003 has allowed a foreign investor, through Canada's lax legislation and regulations, to liquidate most of its expertise and production capacity for its own benefit. There are currently fewer than 300 employees in the mill. Retirees are losing some of the funds they contributed over 30 or 35 years. How can this abandonment be explained? What does this mean? It is just one of many signs that our economy is living on borrowed time, that things are going wrong, and that problems are piling up.

My esteemed colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges spoke just now of the $500 billion accumulated by our businesses. This cannot be blamed on our entrepreneurs; it is a sign that they are proceeding with caution because they are worried about the future.

There have been so many gratuitous attacks that we might even call it a disease. This $500 billion is a very clear sign of this government's poor decision-making. The government is just aimlessly stumbling along. Moreover, the government is shutting its eyes and is wilfully blind to anything other than its own ideas, which it implements without verification or validation.

Another aspect of Bill C-45 is quite shocking. I only have a little part of it, by the way, because it was impossible to staple all the pages together. When you take a look at the summaries, you see that a number of sections of the bill have absolutely nothing to do with a budget or with the budget put forward by the Minister of Finance.

We might wonder what division 9 of part 4 is doing in this bill, since it amends the Judges Act. We might also talk about division 13 of part 4, which amends the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act to transfer it to the Department of Health. Division 16 of part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This is unbelievable. A lot has also been said about the provisions of division 18 of part 4, which amends the Navigable Waters Protection Act, given that it has environmental repercussions, which the government denies, of course. Government members are not content to fling gratuitous insults at us; now they want to alter reality and are refusing to face facts.

I will use an image to illustrate the extent of the government’s bad faith and desire to drag Canadian society down into mediocrity. Bill C-45 looks a little bit like this situation. I will play the role of a rather outrageous husband who, in a single fiscal year, demands that his wife agree to a new marriage contract, a will, a contract for cable, telephone and Internet, and terms requiring that she take out the garbage and empty the cat litter. Then I tell her not to complain. All she has to do is say whether she agrees to the contract, yes or no. If she says no, she is really acting in bad faith. It is truly appalling, because she is against emptying the cat litter. She wants to leave the cat in its feces. How horrible.

That is exactly what this government is imposing on all of the legitimate representatives in the House: a fool’s bargain, something made up out of whole cloth to try to get the upper hand. It is really a hugely mediocre thing to do. It is a terribly easy victory that this government is going after. I do not know what part of the public it will be able to look to for admiration for this scheme. I find it truly appalling.

Some speakers on the other side have praised the merits of the budget. What is very interesting is that on our side, we could easily support several aspects of it or agree to look at them seriously in co-operation with the government. But when it comes to the question of seriousness, do not get me started. Seeing the Conservatives laugh every time they are asked serious questions about our constituents’ futures, we realize that the only thing they take seriously is their own behinds. Impenetrable darkness is the refuge of the weak.

My first election campaign was in 2006, in the greater Quebec City region, specifically on the south shore of Quebec City. From that first campaign, I remember five visits by the Prime Minister. He presented himself in a very favourable light, playing the good, responsible father. There was absolutely nothing threatening about him, and he made promises. He sang the same tune on all of these occasions, and one of the things he called for was transparency and accountability. He did not blush as he shamelessly sang his own praises on that score. I really do not understand why, because if we look at the track record of this government, which has been in power for almost seven years, we see that it is truly mediocre.

What is interesting is that if the government continues to carry on this way, showing contempt for most of the public, it will be leaving future generations with a state of affairs that will be very hard to fix. It is absolutely not too late to extend a hand to the opposition and agree to what it has courteously offered: to split this bill and engage in a truly democratic process that is transparent, open, and most importantly courageous.

I call on all government members to do this and I ask that at long last, they show some courage.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and privilege for me to rise in the House and speak about jobs and growth as they relate to our budget 2012. Bill C-45 is a continuation of our road map for economic success.

Canada leads the way as a stable financial leader, one of the strongest among the G7. Canada is a better place to do business. In fact, it is outperforming the United States and most countries around the world. Our lower taxes make it possible for businesses to create jobs, especially in these difficult times.

Speaking of creating jobs, the budget measures being debated this week do just that. Our government intends to renew the hiring credit through the act for yet another year. As I heard from business owners in my riding, the hiring credit is very important for job creation. However, the opposition does not support our budget and would therefore vote against this important hiring credit, which has helped local businesses in my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and a total of 534,000 employers across Canada last year.

Budget 2012 and the hiring credit rewards those who create jobs. That is particularly important in a rural riding such as mine. If we want people to move their families into rural areas and to remain in rural areas, we must ensure that there are existing jobs and, of course, many new jobs.

Often, people forget that farms are important businesses in the rural areas. In my rural riding, we have a high volume of agricultural businesses. I have heard from the farming community that the hiring credit is particularly good news for farm operations that are looking to expand.

Everyone knows how essential stable businesses are to the prosperity of both urban and rural communities. Not only are they a source of income for Canadian workers, they also deliver indispensable products and services which, in turn, fuel economic growth. What is more, they ensure workers can feed their families.

With budget 2012, the Conservative government continues to support families and small businesses. The extension of the hiring credit is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, our budget contains several more measures to help taxpayers save money. I sincerely hope opposition members will acknowledge the benefits our budget has in store for ordinary Canadians.

One important measure in Bill C-45 that will help Canadians save for retirement is the implementation of a tax framework for pooled registered pension plans.

Conservatives are committed to helping Canadians save for their retirement, especially Canadians who do not have access to pension plans. Our framework provides a viable retirement savings option for those Canadians who currently do not have access to a workplace pension plan.

Pension plans are an important investment for Canadians to have, and they deserve quality options like the pooled registered pension plan when it comes to saving for the future. This is one of the many reasons the opposition should be supporting Bill C-45.

We also want to support Canadians with severe disabilities and their families by improving the registered disability savings plan. The RDSP is widely regarded as a major policy innovation and positive development in helping to ensure the long-term financial security of children with severe disabilities. It is an initiative delivered by our Conservative government.

The improvements in our budget are the result of extensive consultation with Canadians. Consultations were held with representatives of disability groups, financial institutions, and provincial and territorial governments, including public guardians and trustees. Based on their feedback, a number of positive changes are being proposed that would improve the current system for families with members with disabilities.

Many of us know the great physical, emotional and financial toll that living with a disability can have on families, as they struggle to make their homes and their environment safer and more accessible and to build a better future for themselves. Financial assistance is crucial to them. Our support reflects the government's understanding of the needs of Canadians living with disabilities.

Tax reductions reward Canadians for realizing their full potential and give individuals and families the flexibility to make the choices that are right for them. I must point out that this has been a strong trend within our Conservative government.

In total, our government has introduced more than 140 tax relief measures since 2006. As a result, the average family of four in Canada is saving more than $3,100 per year in taxes. Seniors and pensioners are receiving about $2.5 billion in targeted tax relief for 2012-13 fiscal year. Due to the measures taken since 2006, more than one million low-income Canadians, including about 380,000 seniors, have been removed from the tax rolls as of 2012. The federal tax burden for all Canadians is now the lowest it has been in 50 years.

It is through the implementation of further measures included in our jobs and growth act that we would keep taxes low for families and individuals. I would simply must point out here that in the House we are the only party that advocates for low taxes for Canadians.

As the parliamentary secretary for agriculture, I regularly sit down with farmers from across Canada.

Since 2006, the Conservative government has been working hard on behalf of farmers. Thanks to the hard work and diligent efforts of the Minister of Agriculture, the Canadian agricultural sector is now much stronger, which has greatly benefited farmers.

As parliamentary secretary and as a member of Parliament representing a riding that has many farmers, I have seen with my own two eyes the results of Conservative agricultural programs over the past six years. In our 2012 budget, we will certainly continue to support farmers.

Our government was elected by farmers on a platform to modernize the grain sector in Canada and to keep our economy strong. We have brought in marketing freedom. The next step is to renew the Grain Commission. This has not been done in 40 years. Now, it is definitely time to remove the red tape and unnecessary expenses for our farmers. The changes in the act would eliminate about $20 million in unnecessary costs from the grain handling system, costs that are ultimately passed down to farmers.

Our Conservative government is doing everything it can to reduce costs for all Canadians. For instance, although it was supposed to be debated this week, along with all the other great measures in our jobs and growth act, the changes that we proposed to our MP pension plan have already passed with the support of all parties.

I will take this opportunity to highlight the importance of the approved changes for the Canadian taxpayer, as these are part of our 2012 budget.

It is worth noting that Canadians know the importance of living within their means and that they expect the government MPs and public servants to do the same. That is why the government is committed to managing public finances in a sustainable and responsible way and why we are willing to set an example.

In this five-year period, the portion of premiums paid by the members will go from 14% to 50%, on a 50:50 cost-sharing basis. This means that, come 2017, the premiums paid by members into their pension plans will rise to over $38,000, from $11,000.

This will result in significant savings for taxpayers. What is more, as we all know, the age at which plan members can begin to collect a full pension will also be raised, from age 55 to age 65, beginning in 2016.

This is good news for taxpayers, as we have all agreed.

In addition, public service employees will go from paying 37% of their pensions to 50% by 2017. The age of retirement for new federal workers will also increase, from 60 to 65 years of age. These important changes will not only ensure that the public sector and MPs are paying their fair share, but will also result in billions of dollars in savings. By 2017, the changes to MP pensions and the 420,000 strong public sector pension regime will bring total cumulative savings of $2.6 billion in taxpayer dollars.

I urge the opposition to view the other budget measures that we have drafted with as much energy and support as they did for the changes to the pension plans.

We need to keep our country on the right track of full economic recovery, and that is what our budget would do.

In summary, the budget is great news for my constituents. It is great news for all Canadians. It is a clear road map for economic success. Making decisions during challenging economic times involves making tough choices. I can assure members that our decisions are carefully considered and carefully made, with the priorities and the well-being of Canadians at the forefront.

I urge the opposition to stop playing games with Canadians and the economy and to support the swift passage of this legislation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second 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.

Oral Questions

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: that notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, clauses 351 to 410 related to changes to the Canada Grain Act be removed from Bill C-45, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled an act to amend the Canada Grain Act; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted, as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

I am proposing this particular motion so that we can not only study an act to change the Grain Act but we will vote on it as a separate entity, unlike what the government did with the Canadian Wheat Board Act, where it denied farmers the ability to vote on whether they wished to keep it or not. We would indeed be then voting on behalf of farmers on the Grain Act and the Grain Act alone, so they would know what we were doing, who opposed them and who actually stood for them.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to talk about in this budget but I will have to say it all in 10 minutes rather than 20 minutes. My colleague for Ottawa—Vanier suggests this might be bad news for me but good news for him. I always appreciate his thoughtful commentary on such matters.

I want to start by picking up on the point that my hon. colleague was making a moment ago in his response to a question. I have to say that I disagree with him somewhat. He complained that the budget bill is very large, as he was waving a copy of the budget, which is also very large. It is reasonable to expect that a meaty budget would produce a meaty and detailed piece of legislation.

Although I suspect a few of my constituents sit down and read most legislation cover to cover, I think that sometimes there is a tendency to expect that Canadians will not actually read the budget implementation act and that they will take it on faith that a very large bill is somehow inappropriate.

I want to point out that the nature of the many small detailed adjustments that are being made to government spending require a certain amount of space. To make this point, I will turn to Bill C-45 on page 228, which deals with pay for judges under the Judges Act. It deals with the salaries for every federally appointed and paid judge in the country, starting with the Chief Justice of Canada. It includes a series of amendments to the Judges Act because these salaries are legislated. Members would understand why we would not want to have judges salaries be discretionary, which is in order to preserve the independence of the judiciary. I will just read a bit of this to give a sense of why there is so much volume in this act.

210. Sections 9 to 22 of the Judges Act are replaced by the following:

9. The yearly salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are as follows:

(a) the Chief Justice of Canada, $370,300; and

(b) the eight puisne judges, $342,800 each.

Puisne judges here are what we call associate justices. By the way, what has changed from the current Judges Act is that the actual numbers are changed because of salary increases from the current level.

It goes on:

10. The yearly salaries of the judges of the Federal Courts are as follows:

(a) the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal, $315,900;

(b) the other judges of the Federal Court of Appeal, $288,100 each;

(c) the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, $315,900; and

(d) the other judges of the Federal Court, $288,100 each.

11. The yearly salaries of the judges of the Tax Court of Canada are as follows:

(a) the Chief Justice, $315,900;

(b) the Associate Chief Justice, $315,900; and

(c) the other judges, $288,100 each.

It then goes on for every single provincial court, starting with Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and finally getting to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, which is the very last one several pages on.

They all have different salary levels currently and we want to have them go up proportionately. There is no other way of doing this than by laying the text out in this manner and it takes a certain amount of space, which is typical of the kind of content we find in this budget implementation act. It is detailed, thoughtful, methodical and, by necessity, takes up space.

This is not, as some members of the opposition have suggested, the budget version of Marcel Proust's In Search of Lost Time. This is actually a very reasonable, methodical, practical way of dealing with the very complex business of managing a country's national government's expenditures.

The main theme of the bill is bringing practical restraint after years of expanding government budgets. Of course, these were the expansions in the government's budget that took place in the wake of the financial meltdown of 2008.

At that time, the argument was made very forcefully by the opposition that the government must spend more money on stimulus. Indeed, in early 2009, the government was told that it must spend more money on stimulus and go into deficit, since there was no way of spending more money when revenues were at the levels they were at then.

We were told we must do that as a condition of them not defeating us and replacing us as the government without an intervening election. That was the deal. While the budgets passed by our government in its minority period were not supported by the opposition, the opposition's criticism at the time was based on us not spending enough. We should be clear about that.

Now we are downsizing, or one might say re-sizing, from that expenditure. I am not a Keynesian. I do not think that is the appropriate way of dealing with a financial downturn. However, if one does believe in Keynesianism, as the opposition does and indeed many colleagues on this side do as well, then this is what Keynesians do when an economy is not contracting but expanding. They cut spending, do not increase taxes and try to build up the financial work chest that may be needed for some future financial crisis. It is at times of financial crisis when the economy is contracting that a government engages in stimulus spending. This is part of that cycle.

As I said, I am not a Keynesian, but I do believe in the part about trying to keep government spending reasonable and under control. I also believe in the general approach the government has adopted, which is making small adjustments here and there across that vast scale of government expenditures, rather than simply making radical, dramatic cuts.

That approach has been tried. Indeed, it was tried by the Chrétien government and by Paul Martin when he was finance minister back in the mid 1990s. I remember the budget of 1995 very well. I was a staffer on Parliament Hill at the time. Canada had a very substantial deficit at the time. We were heading into a situation where we could potentially face a lenders' strike. The government's response was to cut spending, which I applaud.

The way it cut spending was not approved of by the former Reform Party and PCs, and that was to cut transfers to provinces radically. It left all federal spending on direct expenditures intact, which was politically sensitive, but it cut radically on the transfers to the provinces. This had the effect of nailing the provinces on their primary expenditures: health care and education. These are the two areas that Canadians consistently indicate are the most important areas of spending to them. That had a very serious negative impact on the provinces.

Our government has tried to avoid harming transfers to the provinces. A very stable foundation of funding, both for equalization and for direct health care transfers has now been secured several years into the future. The adjustments that are being made are to direct federal expenditures. These are, naturally, very many because there are so many different areas in which our government engages in spending. There is everything from soup to nuts, from national defence to protecting the environment. It covers a lot of ground.

Much of that spending is non-discretionary. It is put in place by statute, which means the statutes must be adjusted. The example I just gave of the Judges Act is a typical example of the kinds of adjustments that are made to a statutory expenditure requirement. We have to go through and deal with it in detail. It takes up space and inevitably creates a substantial bill.

Frankly, that is why we needed to have more than one budget implementation bill. We had one in the spring and as promised one in the autumn to deal with that very substantial amount of work and to give the time in the intervening period for the kind of work that requires detailed thought on the part of ministers to achieve the goal of having reasonable expenditure adjustments that do not cause harm to the interests of Canadians.

I have just one last example. It involves my own constituency. As all good MPs do, I want to wrap things up by talking about my own constituency.

One area of cuts that we faced was an adjustment to the canals budget of Parks Canada, which is administered through the ministry of the environment. It had an overall adjustment to its budget downwards of $29 million, of which $2 million would affect the Rideau Canal system. It is Ontario's only world heritage site and an area of considerable cultural and recreational importance.

The initial approach adopted by Parks Canada was to try to achieve at least part of that cut by reducing the season. When that met with concerns, the minister intervened personally. A number of MPs drew this concern to his attention. That included MPs from more than one party because the canal flows through both Conservative and Liberal-held ridings, and I think even an NDP-held riding.

The result was that reasonable changes were made to ensure the season could remain its full length. The part of the budget that was most important to local Canadians was respected. The result is a change that saves money and at the same time allows for a reasonable and intelligent expenditure of those funds.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague was listening to my debate. If he heard what I was saying, budget 2012, which we saw ads on TV for and we paid a lot for, was submitted in March 2012. There is a line for Transport Canada that says there will be $37 million, and from that we are supposed to understand that the Navigable Waters Protection Act will be amended and will have an effect on all the lakes and rivers in Canada. What are we supposed to learn from that?

Now we see the government improvising on that front, by changing websites and taking “environment” out of it. The idea was to protect the environment. It is clear the government has not done its homework, and that is only one example. There are tons of examples of things that were not in the budget or that were made reference to with no explanation. It was only last week that we got Bill C-45. I know how to read a lot of legislation, but this is overdoing it.

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Brossard—La Prairie for his excellent speech and his excellent analysis.

In a true democracy, legislators take the time to study the bills they introduce, to discuss them and, most importantly, to listen to expert testimony. Once again, the time we have to study Bill C-45 has been cut short by the Conservatives. I would like to know what my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie thinks of the message the government is sending Canadians by invoking closure for the thirtieth time, at least, to prevent us from having a real debate.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak about what is called Bill C-45 and about the fact that the government opposite has decided once again impose closure. How many times does this make? I think it is 33. In the early days, we were up in arms. It was unbelievable that closure would be imposed in the House of Commons. Democratic procedures are not the government's forte.

In terms of the budget, in March 2012, the economic action plan was released. We know it was; we saw it on television. There was a lot of publicity about it, and the Conservatives even spent more than they had set aside for it. I would like to congratulate them on putting money into something that was passed in March 2012 and exceeding their own budget, when this money could have been used to help those in need.

Families in my riding of Brossard—La Prairie now have to go to food banks to ask for food, even though they are employed.

With regard to the process, the budget was tabled in March 2012, and then we had to study that brick of a document. The Standing Committee on Finance had to study the repercussions of the first budget implementation act. It was also an omnibus bill that affected many pieces of legislation. The Conservatives were nice and they let a finance subcommittee study a little bit of the bill.

All this just to say that this process is quite impenetrable and there is a flagrant lack of transparency. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is even threatening to take the government to court because it is not giving him all the information about the financial implications of its own initiatives.

Last week, Bill C-45 came along. This bill has some 400 pages. It contains amendments to some 40 pieces of legislation. The government has learned something at least. It knows these bills do not go down well with Canadians or with the opposition. It has agreed to split them to some extent in committee, but only for the purposes of study. Then the bill will be sent back to the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member. We are going to have to study it, because the government has not even agreed that amendments may be made in committee.

The government has learned that omnibus bills are unacceptable. It agreed to separate it into 10 parts. This shows that the bill covers incredibly wide-ranging elements. Furthermore, not all these elements are necessarily related to the budget. We also know that the members on the other side complained about omnibus bills when they were in opposition. Now they have become experts in omnibus bills.

Also, I would like to put how the economy is doing into context. I know that my colleagues across the way know we are in a fragile economy. The IMF, OECD, and last week even the Conference Board of Canada said that a restorative budget would not help in terms of difficult times. Right now we are having difficult times and the government is not listening to what economists are saying.

Since the Conservatives took power, the gap between the rich and the poor has increased. Right now it is increasing more rapidly in Canada than the U.S. That is a problem. The Conservative government is not taking that issue seriously.

As well, household debt is at a record high since the government has taken power. That is a problem. What has the government done? Nothing. One of the reasons we have arrived here is because of the government's inaction. One of the problems we have is that the government is not listening to what Canadians are saying or looking at how they are living now. That is another huge problem.

My colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville also mentioned that the unemployment rate among young people is double the normal rate. This is a problem. What is the government doing? Nothing, once again.

To address all the problems, we want the government to invest in the future, to support green energy and the green economy.

The Conservatives have invested about $3 million in tax credits for the green economy. It is a start but it is not really very much considering the size of the budget.

With regard to the corporate tax cuts, the Governor of the Bank of Canada noted that one of the problems was that there is $500 billion in dead money sitting around.

Even the Minister of Finance has realized that money is not being reinvested in the economy. What was his solution? It was to tell the companies to reinvest that money. However, just telling them that does not work. We need to take action. We have seen that the actions taken by the government do not work.

I do not want to use unparliamentary language but, when the Minister of Finance rose to speak on Bill C-45, he was very disrespectful when he said that we did not do our job last summer and that we were supposed to have read his budget. We read his budget a long time ago. When it came out in March, we took notes. He said that everything that was in Bill C-45 was in the budget.

We had a briefing session with senior officials last Monday from 7 p.m. until 1 a.m. just to review Bill C-45 in its entirety. I asked those senior officials and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance where in the budget the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act in Bill C-45 were mentioned. According to the government and even according to the Department of Transport, the purpose of that act is to protect the environment.

She referred me to page 282. Here is an excerpt from this page where the transportation portfolio is mentioned. I asked for the exact reference because, of course, there is no reference to the environment or to navigable waters protection. She mentioned one line: “Transport Canada, 2012-13, $37 million.” According to the Minister of Finance, we should have understood that this was a direct reference to the protection of navigable waters, of all of Canada's lakes and rivers. He seemed to be saying that environmental protection is covered in one tiny little line that mentions $37 million. By the way, $37 million is the amount cut from the budget for transport. Go figure.

The Minister of Finance said we had not done our homework. It is very difficult to do our homework when the minister himself hides what is happening. The other side is improvising. This is why we are faced with a bill which now includes things that were not originally in the budget, things that we need to ask questions about. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General both agree: the government lacks transparency. It is the least transparent government in the history of our country. This is no surprise, since the government was overturned for the way it was treating Parliament.

It is disappointing to see the government's attacks on democracy in an effort to ignore it completely. It is keeping parliamentarians in the dark. We ask questions, but they remain unanswered. Even the other side does not know the answers.

The Conservatives are improvising. We asked senior officials questions to figure out what the cost would be. They replied they had not done any reviews and would just wait and see. The other side must realize how disturbing this is. At a time when our economy remains fragile, we need a clear vision, and such a vision is obviously missing from the other side. The government did not learn anything from public reaction to its last omnibus bill.

In my riding of Brossard—La Prairie, I had the chance to hear from people representing many organizations including Le Partage, the Mouvement Action-chômage, the Congress of Union Retirees of Canada and Humane Society International. They told Canadians what was in the last budget implementation bill and how it would impact them. We hope that this time, the government will pay attention to what the opposition has to say.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie. He will speak for 10 minutes after I finish the eight minutes I have remaining from yesterday.

I started yesterday's speech by pointing out that this bill is completely undemocratic. We are debating more than 400 pages under a time allocation motion, so we will not have a chance to discuss the bill thoroughly. It is all well and good to say that we will have the chance to study the bill in committee, except we will not be able to make amendments. When I came to the House, I thought that we were supposed to debate ideas to find compromises that reflect the values, ideas and wishes of the Canadian public. But that is not the case and I am very disappointed.

The bill is called the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. This title is a bit misleading, since the bill does not propose any concrete measures to create the 1.4 million jobs needed in this country. As we know, the budget actually led to the loss of 43,000 jobs. It is not creating jobs; it is causing them to be lost.

The government tells us that the $500 million in cuts to research and development can help stimulate innovation, except that we have not yet been told how it will bridge that gap. We do not know the new criteria for research and development, and those would be very useful to know. It would stimulate our economy and motivate people to innovate.

This week I attended a conference that addressed the importance of innovation, particularly in the technology and computer industry. If the government does not invest and does not compensate for the $500 million shortfall in research and development, I do not understand how it will ensure economic growth.

The bill includes a $1,000 tax credit that will help create jobs in small- and medium-sized businesses. This is a measure that we support. We have always supported these types of measures. However, I would have liked to see a longer-term commitment, since $1,000 is great now, but if an employer is considering hiring workers in one or two years, he would probably like to know that this tax credit will still be available.

What is really crucial when it comes to economic growth is ensuring that we invest in our environment. We must create a green economy and invest in it. With all of the restrictions and the changes made to our environmental protection laws, I have a hard time imaging how my generation will see any economic growth in 20 years. The protection of natural resources and natural resources themselves are an incredible source of wealth for this country.

Instead of creating jobs, Bill C-45 completely destroys the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Thousands of waterways will no longer be protected. The changes are huge. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which will examine this, will not even be able to propose amendments. It is truly shameful.

Furthermore, the bill removes the notion of “water protection” and replaces it with “navigation protection”. There is a huge difference between the two definitions. Once again, this will not be examined. The bill also reduces the number of environmental assessments indicated in the Environmental Protection Act.

However, the bill does have one good measure for the environment, but the amount allocated is very small. The bill includes a tax credit for certain kinds of green energy equipment and products. It is a good measure and I congratulate the government on this, but $3 million to $5 million is peanuts; it is not enough. This does not demonstrate any real desire on the government's part to invest in the green economy, which would help create jobs. Everyone knows this; studies have proven it. I think this is really a missed opportunity.

The bill also eliminates the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and puts more powers in the hands of ministers. We saw the same thing with Bill C-38, which unfortunately also passed and was just as undemocratic as this one. That bill also eliminated several commissions and gave more powers to ministers.

What is the point of conducting studies and hearing from informed and educated people who are experts in their field, if the government does not want to listen to them? They betray their ignorance by saying that, because they are ministers, they know everything and there is no need for experts or their advice. Our country is vast and the population is growing. We have to take into consideration what the majority of people want, and this advice could help us do that.

The plight of our young workers is of particular concern to me because, before I was elected, I was a labour relations officer with a union that represents young workers. Last year, in a discussion group, I spoke to young workers who said that they were very worried about the fact that a two-tiered pension system is being proposed.

Young workers are going to enter the workforce, and their pension benefits will be less than those of people who entered the workforce before them. That creates two categories of employees: those who were there first and young workers. Young workers begin their careers saddled with huge debt they have accumulated to finance their post-secondary studies. They have a hard time finding work, because the youth unemployment rate is very high. Furthermore, once they enter the workforce, the public service pension plan will change. They will be told that they are entering too late unfortunately. This will create two classes of workers, which is not good for our young people.

And this is all happening without any real debate. I support some of the measures in the bill, but because everything is lumped together, I cannot support this completely undemocratic bill.

Every time that the government asks why I ask a question when I will be voting against a measure, I will answer that I am proud to oppose it because the NDP will always oppose undemocratic measures. We will always be proud to support transparency and accountability. We will always defend environmental protection, retirement security and health care.

The House resumed from October 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second 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.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the obsession of my colleague for Mississauga—Streetsville with economic growth and prosperity and how Bill C-45 contains the bridge to strengthen trade act among its important provisions for moving the economy forward.

This is not only a huge construction job for our region, promising thousands of construction jobs, but it will expand our trade capacity. It is the number one infrastructure priority of the government to have a new bridge between Windsor and Detroit.

Could the member comment on how that is a critical aspect? Also, how could the NDP be opposed to that?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member talk about the great honour of being a member of Parliament. He does put some importance on the role we have and how important it is for us to be able to do our jobs. However, Bill C-45 does not allow us to do that because the Conservatives are not willing to accept any amendments. We heard that from the member for Saint Boniface earlier and I have heard similar comments from other members as well.

Would the member be willing to work with the opposition and accept amendments that we propose or does he share his government's disdain for transparency and democratic principles?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for sharing his time with me today.

I am thankful for the opportunity to rise in the House today and speak to Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012. Since being elected to this place I have spoken to every budget bill presented. The budget very much sets the tone for Canada's economic performance, for strong job creation and continued growth.

My riding of Mississauga—Streetsville is an excellent example of a community where both residents and businesses can flourish. We have a very strong mix of residential and commercial development. We encourage people to live and work in our local area. We have a very strong Streetsville business improvement area, adding to the character and heritage of an historic village setting. It is a community that comes together and supports one another. It is very much a shining example to all of Canada.

However, none of this happens if we do not have a strong economy, if we do not have growth and if we are not helping to create jobs. Therefore, I am pleased to speak in the House today of my support for Bill C-45, which lays out a strong plan for Canada's and my community's future.

Our government is on the right track for the Canadian economy and Canadian families, with over 820,000 net new jobs created since July 2009. However, we also know that the global economy remains fragile, especially in Europe and the United States, our largest and most important trading partners. That is why our government is working hard to support the economy with positive pro-growth measures in economic action plan 2012, such as the job-creating hiring tax credit for small business.

I am delighted to see that Bill C-45 extends this credit of up to $1,000 against the small employer increase in its 2012 EI premiums over those paid in 2011. The credit will help approximately 536,000 employers, many of them in Mississauga—Streetsville, whose total EI premiums were at or below $10,000 in 2011. Small and medium-size enterprises are the real job creators in our economy. It is our job to ensure that they can create and sustain jobs for the future.

I am very often amazed when I talk to business people in Mississauga—Streetsville about how many are engaged in international trade. Our government's ambitious pro-trade policies are helping these businesses maintain or improve market access in burgeoning economies around the world. We must continue to open doors so that our businesses can sell their goods.

Unlike the opposition, we are embracing new trade agreements that will benefit thousands of businesses all across Canada. Bill C-45 continues the important work of breaking down interprovincial trade barriers that often make it difficult for businesses to do business right here at home.

Bill C-45 also proposes expanding tax relief for investment in clean energy generation equipment. We are taking a responsible approach to continued economic growth, while balancing that with improved environmental protections. As Canada's energy needs continue to grow, we must play our role in encouraging new green energy technology because it is a win-win proposition.

Unlike the NDP, we would not impose a job-killing carbon tax that would tax everything we consume, everything we need and everything we do. Instead, we will continue to lower the tax burden for all Canadians.

The bill would also make important changes to registered disability savings plans. How we treat the most vulnerable in our society is paramount to Canada showing how caring and compassionate we are. To give families greater flexibility, we propose that parents who save in registered education savings plans for children with disabilities allowed to roll over investment income earned in the RESP to the RDSP if the plans share the same beneficiary. The bill would also make other administrative changes to ensure even fairer benefits to those who qualify.

The scientific research and experimental development, or SR&ED program, has been a wildly successful project of our government. The budget bill would make further improvements to the program to ensure its fairness and that benefits would continue to accrue.

We continue to very much look forward to ensuring that Canadians have important vehicles to save for retirement. I am pleased that Bill C-45 would amend the Income Tax Act to accommodate the new pooled registered pension plans we announced earlier this year.

The bill would also make important and timely update changes to the Canada pension plan, which were unanimously agreed to by all federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers.

As we are fortunate to have a strong financial services sector, we need to ensure it remains so. The bill would help to preserve the stability and strength of Canada's financial sector. Amendments to the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act are proposed to ensure that derivatives clearing activities are treated in a similar fashion as the clearing of cash securities under the PCSA.

The bill would also improve the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to reinforce Canada's financial stability framework. The proposed amendments will enhance the CDIC's ability to take on and preserve critical functions of a failed CDIC member through a bridge institution and provide for a limited automatic stay on the ability of certain counterparts of a failed member to determine certain eligible financial contracts. A stronger CDIC is a very important part of a strong financial system in Canada.

The budget sets an important tone on pensions in the broader sector to ensure that employees and employers equally contribute to their pension plans, just as MPs will now do through the bill passed unanimously last week in the House.

It is a great honour to serve as a member of Parliament. Each and every day we have the responsibility to act in the best interests of our neighbours. When I campaigned door to door, and when I continue to talk to residents in my community when at home, I pledged at that time, and continue to pledge, that our number one priority is jobs and economic growth. I promised to stay focused on this and to support measures that would attain this goal.

Therefore, today I am pleased to indicate to the House and the people back home that I support Bill C-45 and its obsession with jobs and growth. Unlike the other parties in the House, we have a strong economic action plan for a better and brighter future for all Canadians.

These bills are very important in ensuring that Canada continues to move in the right direction. We see the uncertainty in the world. We see the challenges other countries are having. We must keep our foot to the pedal and keep moving to ensure that Canada remains strong at a time when there continue to be difficulties around the world.

I am delighted to say that I will be supporting Bill C-45 and onward and upward to continuing to build Canada's great economy.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to be here today. I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville and I am honoured to do that. I know he will make a great presentation.

Today we are here to talk about Bill C-45, Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. It has been 12 years since I was elected to the House of Commons. I was thinking back to when I first came here as a new member of Parliament and how exciting it was to be in this place and to realize that we had a lot of work to do, because the Liberals were in power at that time and we could see that the country was going backward, that things were not working well for the country and it was a bad situation.

The present Prime Minister came to lead our party and in every election we were able to increase our position in the House until 2006 when we came to power—

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second 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.

Job and Growth Act, 2012

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-45. However, I admit that I am saddened by what the first omnibus bill did in the spring and by what this omnibus bill would do to the ability of the federal government to do what it is there for, which is to provide services for Canadians. They undermine the government's ability to do that.

I want to review what my colleague from Charlottetown outlined when he said that much of this bill, previous bills and previous policies by the current government will have and have had an impact on P.E.I. and the seasonal industries and, indeed, all of Canada, but specifically on Prince Edward Island. We are the only province without a passport office. We are the only province without a Citizenship and Immigration office, which the government closed. We are the only province that will not have a local office to serve veterans in person, as the government will close it. We are the only province that will have no CRA counter service because that minister who is from Prince Edward Island will close it. We also are a province that is being severely punished with changes to employment insurance, punishing our seasonal workers, our seasonal industries and our economy.

I see that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is here listening intensely. His actions recently in cutting AgriStability from 85% of the reference margin to 70% and cutting AgriInvest from 1.5% to 1% destroys the safety net for the farm community. His government has provided no assistance whatsoever for the hog industry, which is in serious trouble. We have lost researchers at the research station in both the potato industry and the grain industry, important to our number one industry, the agricultural industry. As well, we have had serious cost recovery fees at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency which affect our number one industry, which is potatoes.

I will read the notice to the potato industry on September 19 from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. It reads:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) will be phasing in user fees for potato cyst nematode...sample collection and analysis activities related to export certification of seed potatoes.

It is another instance of taking away services and downloading costs on to the primary producers in that particular case. It kind of makes one wonder where the regional minister from P.E.I. is because the services to Prince Edward Island have been decimated since 2006 when the present Prime Minister came into office.

However, let us look in general terms at Bill C-45 because we should mention some of the general areas where there is huge concern. It is a huge bill affecting some 60 pieces of legislation. This is a way for the government to take away the democratic right of Canadians to analyze each piece of legislation, to have a vote and to have their say on it. This bill rewrites the laws protecting Canada's waterway. It slashes tax credits for research and development and an investment tax credit that I once used myself on the farm. They are very good ways to invest and bring technology up. The government would cancel those measures. It would kill the investment tax credits in mining and in Atlantic Canada that have helped keep our economy strong.

Bill C-45 redefines aboriginal fisheries without even consulting the first nations community. The bill would eliminate the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission. It corrects numerous mistakes in Bill C-38, including some relating to environmental assessment and fisheries. It also would suspend the EI financing board. It also would undermine the ability of the Canadian Grain Commission to do its job in this country.

We are seeing serious cuts to front line government services and a direct attack on those who require some kind of assistance. My colleague talked considerably about the changes that were made to employment insurance, such as the clawback while on claim and taking 50¢ on the dollar out of people's pockets who need it most. It is a change that did not need to be made and a change on which there was no consultation with employees or employers. It is a change that hurts our economy and our seasonal industries. It hurts them in four ways: first, the employees by leaving them less money; second, the employer who will have more difficulty finding employees; third, the economy; and fourth, it will cause problems because if a farmer, for instance, needs workers for a day and people say that they cannot work for half wages because the Government of Canada will claw back half their wages, then they will demand cash, and we do not want to get into that kind of an economy.

In fact, the minister of innovation and advanced learning for P.E.I. stated the following:

Our seasonal industries -- fishing, agriculture and tourism -- are the backbone of our economy.... We need the federal government to consider the strong seasonal nature of our province and work with us to ensure changes to the EI program do not negatively affect Islanders and our economy. Seasonal employees and employers are skilled workers who ensure our province's livelihood and they rely on employment insurance to bridge the gap between seasonal employment. Negatively impacting our seasonal workers and their employers will negatively impact our province as a whole.

That statement is absolutely true. With the actions of the government on employment insurance, this act should instead be called the drive people into poverty act. It likes simple names for acts and that is what it is doing in this case. The clawback is hurting people and now, after losing the five week pilot project, I do not know how people will to survive the consequences of that action. It is a serious problem and the government did not need to do it.

This bill follows on the spring omnibus bill, which went after old age security. It upped the age from 65 to 67. Now we know, with the information coming out, that the system was secure, as we said at the time. There is no real saving to the government as a result of that decision. Three one-hundredths of a per cent of the GDP of the country by 2030 is just a rounding error for the way the cabinet spends money. There were, as I said, changes to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act in the spring which hurt services to Canada. There were changes to the environment and the National Energy Board, slashes at Parks Canada, and the cutting of the community access program. Those actions were done in the spring and now we have this, which will slash government services even more.

The last and most important point for Canadians is a quote from a report that was in the press on September 28. It states:

A new report from a federal spending watchdog concludes the Conservative government’s changes to health funding will ultimately download billions of dollars in medical costs annually to the provinces, something premiers and opposition parties say will erode public health care and provincial finances.

That is a hallmark of Canada's health care system and the government is cutting services to the public, downloading costs to provinces and not living up to its obligations as a federal government for the good of the country. It is a shame and the government should be ashamed of itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: “That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 9, 27, 28 and 62 to 64 related to the scientific research and experimental development tax credit be removed from Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and that these clauses do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled Income Tax Act and Related Regulations; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.”

We are moving this motion to ensure that some parts of Bill C-45 are properly examined by the respective committees. We are of the opinion that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology is in the best position to examine these specific provisions of the legislation.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the great member of Parliament for Vegreville—Wainwright.

It is an honour to rise before the House and speak in support of Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012. I am fairly certain that when it comes to budgets and this opposition, the criticism is either going to be that the budget is empty or, in this case, that it proposes too much.

Let us think about this for a moment. The opposition's single greatest criticism to date has been that our government's economic action plan tries to do too much. Today our country is facing one of the most challenging economic environments in history and the greatest criticism from the opposition is that our government is trying to do too much in response to these economic crises.

I find the position of the opposition troubling. The opposition believes we should do less in this budget. While I respect that the opposition prefers a more simplistic tax-and-spend approach to the economy, our government believes in a more balanced approach that recognizes the need to actually grow the economy.

How do we do this? More importantly, how does Bill C-45 enable us to accomplish this goal? The reason why Bill C-45 is called the jobs and growth act is because that is precisely what the bill promotes, jobs and economic growth. That is good news for the citizens of Okanagan—Coquihalla, who will benefit greatly from the implementation of the bill.

Rather than engage in the current opposition debate that has been largely based on what word appears where and how many pages we can count, I would prefer to focus on the actual content and provide an example from my riding that illustrates one of the many reasons why I will be supporting the bill.

Before I begin, I would like to add that earlier this week and again today, we heard the opposition member for Halifax suggest the Navigable Waters Protection Act was about protecting the environment. I have read the act and this claim is patently false. The intent of the act is clear. It says, “No work shall be built or placed in, on, over, under, through or across any navigable water” that would interfere with navigation.

I raise this point as I believe we should be debating the true intent of the act as it relates to Bill C-45. If members have ever had the opportunity to visit my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, in particular the community of Penticton, they would know that one of the most popular summer activities is floating down the Okanagan River channel. In fact, hundreds of thousands of people who have visited Penticton have taken part in the annual summer ritual of floating down the channel with friends and family alike.

I would also like to add that this is one of the most successful aboriginal-owned businesses in my region. How is this possible? It is possible because back in the 1950s, the governments of the day constructed a huge concrete dam at the north entrance to this waterway as a flood control measure. There are also three low-level bridges that span the same channel for vehicle crossings and one pedestrian bridge for a local golf course.

In short, unless one owns an inner tube, this waterway has not been navigable for many decades now and yet it is still subject to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. To be clear, for over 50 years, this waterway has not been navigable and yet it is still subject to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Only to the opposition does this make sense.

It excites me greatly that this body of water will finally be exempt from the Navigable Waters Protection Act as proposed in Bill C-45. Allow me to share my enthusiasm for the reasons why this is important to my riding.

The Penticton Indian Band has been working on a large-scale commercial development on the west side of the waterway for close to a decade now. This is a critically important economic development project for the band. This development will create much needed employment for members of the Penticton Indian Band. It would also provide much needed tax revenues for the improvements. There is only one problem. In order to access this development, the Penticton Indian Band will need to construct a bridge across this very same Okanagan River crossing.

Building a bridge between two communities is no easy task. Aside from the estimated $7 million in construction costs, there are traffic engineering reports and records. Approvals must be sought from the B.C. Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Transportation, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the B.C. Ministry for Aboriginal Affairs. Even the B.C. Attorney General's office is involved.

Anytime we hear an allegation that rules around the environment have been gutted, I can assure members of the House that there is no shortage of environmental approvals or government regulation involved in these processes. However, the Navigable Waters Protection Act is not and should not be one of them.

I am certain all members of the House can imagine the immense frustration of having to deal with no fewer than seven different government agencies, eight, if we include the adjacent municipality. After all of these challenges and hurdles, one must then comply with the demands of the Navigable Waters Protection Act even though the waterway in question has not been navigable for many decades. In fact, the last time this waterway was used for actual navigation was in 1917, which is almost 100 years ago.

Things have greatly changed over the past 100 years. Updating the Navigable Waters Protection Act, as I have just demonstrated, is not just important for the creation of jobs and economic growth in Okanagan—Coquihalla, it also reflects the reality of modern-day infrastructure needs.

Where there are still legitimate navigation needs on the water for economic development, they will continue to be protected. However, when there are waterways that have ceased to be navigable for the purposes originally defined under the act, let us apply common sense. That is exactly what Bill C-45 proposes.

This is only one example of many that I could share with the House in support of the jobs and growth act, 2012, and how it would benefit my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla. I felt it important to illustrate a real-world example of why it is important to have a budget that promotes a balanced and comprehensive approach to creating jobs and supporting our local economies.

Before I close, I would like to take a moment to thank the members of the House for their patience in hearing my comments today. This project is very important for the Penticton Indian Band. Removing this decades-old roadblock would help to speed this project along.

I would also like to take a moment to formally congratulate Chief Jonathan Kruger, who was re-elected to another term of office as the chief of the Penticton Indian Band yesterday.

Chief Kruger was very receptive to hearing that we have proposed changes to other things in the budget implementation act such as the land designation process, particularly in regard to streamlining the government's own process for moving the Penticton Indian Band's community vision and economic development forward once they have come to a democratic decision.

I look forward to continuing to work with Chief Jonathan Kruger in getting this and other important projects moving forward with the help of Bill C-45.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sudbury. With or without hair, he is the best MP ever elected in the history of Sudbury and he has a long career ahead of him.

I rise to speak to the government's second drive-by omnibus bill. I sincerely regret missing the speech from my leader, the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I was in committee. From all reports and from reading the speech myself, I expected to see some yellow tape around the chamber today for what happened here. As I read my leader's speech, I recognized the theft of leadership from the Conservative Prime Minister and cabinet who have failed Canada and who are failing Canadians.

We have an official opposition that is laying out a real alternative vision for the country, one that protects our social safety net, one that offers real protection for food security, one that will not abandon our seniors or our military veterans and one that will lead to good-paying jobs.

I guess I thought I would see yellow tape around here today because the government is now seeing a real assault on all the wrong priorities it has. It favours its friends and the privileged minority who are well off. I also see an all out outbreak on the government's self-serving agenda and the beginning of real debate for our country on its future, on its choices, on sustainable development and on so much more.

I only have 10 minutes to highlight a few of those choices and where we as New Democrats differ fundamentally from the government and its ideology. I have but a few minutes to highlight why those voters in Durham, Calgary Centre and in Victoria, in their by-elections, have the first chance to reject this agenda that has so undermined our country's greatness and our potential for even more.

Budgets are about choices and priorities. I know that, having served for almost four years as a Rayside-Balfour town councillor outside of Sudbury. I know that from working 34 years at Inco mines. I know the value of good-paying jobs and what those jobs do for communities in Nickel Belt.

To set the context for my remarks, I will share some comments from constituents in Nickel Belt about their priorities. I asked them what they would do if they were prime minister. It is clear that they are not drinking the Kool-Aid that the Prime Minister serves his caucus.

They propose: reducing taxes for low income families with children, which would help Canada's economy; redirecting tax dollars to fund only essential services such as health care, education and basic infrastructure; building an oil pipeline from Alberta to eastern Canada, thereby creating numerous jobs and opportunities for everyone; keeping our scientists at work and our stations open; not selling off Canadian oil sands companies to Chinese state-owned companies—we do not need that type of company in Canada; eliminating the two-week waiting period for EI applicants—the bills do not stop for two weeks, nor do a person’s daily necessities; making sure that our pensions are secure; and bringing prices down for houses and cars.

I referred to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. One thing I have noticed about my new leader is that he very much subscribes to the belief of our former leader, Jack Layton, that politics has to be more than opposition. It has to be proposition.

Canadians may reject a party, as they will do with the governing party, but they also want a reason for voting for a party, as they will do for the New Democrats in the next election.

We are here not only to say what is wrong with the budget but to say what we would do. The NDP will always be proud to stand up for transparency and accountability. We will always stand up for environmental protection. We will always stand up for retirement security and health care.

Last spring, the New Democrats did what the Conservative government refused to do. We went out and listened to Canadians about the budget bill.

The NDP promises to work transparently, to be accountable and to promote democratic consultation. We will urge the government to ensure that the relevant parts of Bill C-45 will be debated in the appropriate committees and that this bill can be thoroughly examined.

I know my leader also mentioned commentary by veteran economist and writer, David Crane. Speaking about Canada's abundant resources, this economist said that they are important but not enough. Canada needs a well-diversified economy, both in its sources of economic growth and its markets. These are his important words:

Ignoring the need for a vibrant advanced manufacturing industry and high-value knowledge-based services, as well as a resource sector that upgrades it output in Canada, is a recipe for disaster.

The NDP also wants to build a fair Canada. A country as rich as Canada is capable of paying for decent working conditions, and that is part of what an NDP government would bring.

Over my lifetime in the workplace, I have seen that Canada is losing that balanced economy that we had built up over decades, that being a strong and vibrant resource sector but also a primary sector that includes agriculture, the fisheries, a diverse and strong manufacturing sector and, of course, a service sector. This is where the Conservatives' claim to be good managers of the economy does not add up.

Let us do the math. Since the Conservatives came to power we have lost hundreds of thousands of good-paying manufacturing jobs, jobs that came with enough of a salary for a family to live on and often enough with a decent pension. Now these economic mismanagers like to crow about job creation, which is only part-time precarious work in the service sector and, more important, with no pensions.

We are also leaving a social debt because who will pick up the tab when those people retire without enough to live on? It will be our children and our children's children. If we allow the Conservatives to continue, we will become the first generation in Canadian history to leave less to the next generation than we ourselves received.

Under Tommy Douglas, the NDP was responsible for bringing free universal public portable and accessible medical care to our country. It is wrong to make fiscal choices that have Canadians choosing between having a sick child seen by a doctor and being able to put groceries on the table. Surely we can agree on this and come to a consensus that we do not want an American-style system.

This economic mismanagement by the government is harming Canada.

When we reduce the government's fiscal capacity and introduce service cuts we cannot grow the economy. We see these service cuts in northern Ontario. The Government of Canada increasingly is missing in action with cuts to front line staff, cuts to IT and cuts to online services.

We see Service Canada jobs disappearing in the north, the Government of Canada immigration offices closing and MPs stepping in to offer government services. We see the increasing burden on civil society and charities to feed the vulnerable and look after people facing serious life challenges to their health and well-being.

I will now move to the choices the Conservatives have made in this budget. They have spent tens of millions on propaganda advertising while telling Canadians the cupboard is bare for money for EI or OAS.

They are eliminating the Hazardous Material Information Review Commission that helps protect workers from hazardous materials in the workplace. That is not something the Conservatives talked about in the budget. It will have an effect on the lives of workers and we will fight it every step of the way.

They are dissolving the Canada-EI financing board, leaving the employment insurance account $9 billion in deficit. Do members remember that phantom agency?

They are scrapping the Experimental Lakes Area, which is the only place on the planet Earth where whole lake ecosystems can be studied.

They are cutting $47 million to food safety, over $100 million to air safety and making cuts to marine search and rescue centres. We are talking about services that literally save lives and the Conservatives are making cuts to them.

It is enough. The government is mismanaging the economy. We cannot support its choices or priorities for so few Canadians. We will work hard to oppose its vision and propose--

[Robert Blakely, Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Office, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO]

Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

I'm one of the 500,000 men and women who make their living in one of Canada's biggest and most important industries, the building and construction trades. Shortly put, we build the nation.

We've had a number of fairly important and I think shared concerns with the current Government of Canada dealing with energy, pipelines, nuclear, natural resource extraction, and looking after Canadian veterans. We've been a pretty reliable partner on that with industry and with government.

We would like to build a stronger Canada. What we said we were going to do on that subject with you, we have done. We have done it through regulatory reform, through the pipeline debates, and through Bill C-45. We think the current private member's bill will make a lot of our members question why we would bother to try to work with the Government of Canada. I'm here to ask you not to make a mistake.

We're about putting people to work. What's at stake here is the use of the taxation power of the Government of Canada to punish a perceived enemy that a number of people think has never supported us since Confederation.

Let me put the argument on a higher plane. If the dues paid by a union member are moneys deducted from income prior to tax being paid, then union dues are taxpayer-funded. This premise is wrong, both in law and in logic: the union member gets the tax break, not the union, but let me indulge this for a moment without conceding the point.

If the public policy principle is that if the taxpayer funds it, then the taxpayer gets to know about it, look at your own return when you file it. Line 212 of the income tax return provides for annual union, professional, or like dues. They may be deducted in order to calculate net income. This should apply to doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, engineers, human resource professionals, and a host more, because those sorts of organizations are funded by tax dollars. If they are funded by tax dollars, why would they not be required to disclose, if this is solid public policy?

There are thousands of employer organizations in this country. There are thousands of other not-for-profit, industry-based advocacy organizations that are funded by dues deducted from pre-tax income of corporate Canada. This must of course mean that they are funded by tax dollars. If it is sound public policy to require unions to disclose, why would they not be required to disclose?

The mother of all tax breaks is the 75% of the first $350 we get from our political donations, and that is actually a tax credit for tax paid. The mandate of political parties is to nominate candidates, to set out platforms, to elect leaders—one of whom will eventually become the prime minister of the country—and to affect the country. If political parties are funded by tax dollars, are they required to disclose? The answer is yes, but it is a simple financial statement. There is no breakdown. It is all aggregated data. There is nothing that will tell you what someone has done.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Nickel Belt, the great riding that surrounds my great riding.

I am proud to rise in the House today to debunk the Conservative spin machine about the myths which members of the governing party have been reciting verbatim in their talking points on the government's second massive omnibus budget implementation bill that has been presented this year.

No, this is not The Matrix, but I think I am having a case of déjà vu as yet again parliamentarians have been presented with another massive omnibus bill that would make amendments to a wide range of acts often unrelated to one another and many having no place whatsoever in a budget bill.

The Conservatives clearly have not learned the lesson, which their own backbenchers like the member for Kootenay—Columbia highlighted in a meeting with his constituents on omnibus budget one back in the spring, namely, that Canadians do not approve of the Conservative approach of ramming legislation through Parliament without allowing Canadians and MPs to thoroughly examine it.

New Democrats understand this and, in our role as official opposition, we will not let Conservatives quietly pass this new omnibus legislation.

Canadians deserve better. They deserve transparency. They deserve a government that understands their priorities. They deserve a government that does not place the gutting of environmental protections over job creation. Come 2015, Canadians will get the government they deserve when they elect New Democrats from coast to coast to coast to govern, to increase transparency and prosperity for all Canadians.

The Conservative spin machine would like Canadians to believe that the second budget implementation act would lead to widespread job creation across the country. However, in spite of the ironic name of the bill, the jobs and growth act, the bill lacks significant measures to create jobs and stimulate long-term growth in the Canadian economy.

In fact, while the Conservative's PMO-supplied talking points claim that budget 2012 centres on job creation, Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated that the budget would cost 43,000 Canadians their jobs. Moreover, the budget itself forecasts a real rise in unemployment. So much for the self-created myth that the bill will lead to job creation.

The main policy prescription contained in Bill C-45 to stimulate job creation is the extension of the small business tax credit for new hires. This temporary measure offers a tax refund for small business employers on a portion equal to about $1,000 maximum of the employer's contribution to EI premiums, if the employer's EI premiums, which were $10,000 or less in 2011, and are greater in 2012.

While New Democrats support this measure, it is very limited and only gives employers a maximum of $1,000 in credits on their new EI employer payments. To make matters worse, it is only applicable in 2012.

Further, because the extension of this tax credit was not presented in the first budget implementation act, but rather was deferred until this fall session, small businesses were not able to plan for this measure for 2012, as the timing of this measure's introduction may come too late in the year for businesses to begin the planning necessary to take advantage of this tax credit.

As the Conservative's spin machine has taken a liking to referencing the NDP's 2012 election platform, let me use this opportunity to highlight that the New Democrats proposed a similar yet far more robust job creation tax credit, which can be found on page 8 of the party's platform.

The New Democrats proposed the introduction of a job creation tax credit that would provide up to $4,500 per new hire. Under the New Democrat's plan, employers would receive a one year rebate on the contributions for the Canada pension plan and Employment Insurance premiums for each new employee hired.

Further, companies and organizations that keep a new employee for 12 months or more, would have been eligible for a retention bonus, a $1,000 non-refundable tax credit. At the time of its presentation, independent analysis determined that this initiative would have helped create approximately 200,000 family-supporting jobs a year. Certainly this more expansive tax credit would be more beneficial than the meagre job creation strategy contained in budget 2012. If my math is right, this plan would create 243,000 more jobs than budget 2012 would, as the budget would directly result in the net loss of 43,000. That is some job creation strategy the PMO has cooked up.

Let me now use an on the ground example of how budget 2012 is having a negative effect on job creation in my riding of Sudbury, and I am certain in communities right across our great country. With budget 2012, there was a specific element designed to “streamline” government services. However, this streamlining was really just an exercise in slashing, cutting and burning with what had been effective programs provided by government to serve the needs of businesses both small and large in my community and in communities across our country.

For example, the closure of the regional Citizenship and Immigration office serves as a prime example of this ideological drive to cut back on these important services. The shuttering of Sudbury's office deprives my region of vital service which cannot be replaced by online services. In fact, there are a number of functions that are mandatory and have to be carried out in person, such as immigration interviews and citizenship exams. Depriving my region of immigration offices means that these interviews have to be carried out in southern Ontario, adding a burden for both employer and employee, while making it less likely that people will choose northern Ontario for sectors that require skilled workers and skilled immigration.

Moreover, cuts at Service Canada has businesses of all sizes waiting 14 weeks, which used to be two weeks, for labour market opinions, a dramatic increase in that traditional processing time of two weeks. As a result, some of Sudbury's business owners are now forgoing expansion because of this extra unneeded hassle.

I am not the only one in my community sounding the alarm bells over these cuts. According to the president of the Greater Sudbury Chamber of Commerce, skilled labour remains vital to the success of the local industry and it is a really big issue for its members. He said, “They cannot find sufficient skilled labour locally and are looking nationally and internationally for those workers”.

These examples are illustrative of how the PMO's ideological crusade against government services are having an adverse effect on local industry and the competitiveness of Canadian business, further debunking the Conservative spin that budget 2012 will result in robust job creation.

Ultimately this begs this question. Why is the government stifling economic growth, curbing job growth and putting the long-term health of Canada's economy at risk with reckless cuts contained in budget 2012?

I will close by reinforcing the notion that the New Democrats will always be proud to stand up for transparency and accountability. We will always stand up for sound economic policies which promote job creation and economic prosperity for all. We will always stand up for environmental protection. Finally, we will always stand up for retirement security and health care.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Unless I am mistaken, we are taking what Mr. Jean read and adding the following to it:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conduct a study on the subject matter of the section of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, which directly fall within the mandate of this committee, namely Part 4, Division 9, the Judges Act, and report of its findings to the House no later than Monday, November 5.

If I am not mistaken, this is what people want to vote secretly on.

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

Thank you.

As Mr. Coderre may know, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance made a statement in the House yesterday that expressed our government's willingness to send various parts of the budget implementation act to the appropriate committees following the completion of second reading debate. As a result, I can say that the government members on this side of the table support the idea of having division 9 of part 4 of Bill C-45 studied at this committee.

However, it is our view that it is premature to pass any motions to this effect, because the bill is still at second reading in the House of Commons. I therefore encourage my honourable colleagues to support Bill C-45 at second reading so its various parts can be studied at the appropriate committee. Once the bill has passed second reading, our committee can collectively discuss how and when division 9 of part 4 shall be studied. As I say, we would support it at that time, but not now.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I would like to move the following motion:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights conduct a study on the subject matter of the section of Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, which directly fall within the mandate of this committee, namely Part 4, Division 9, the Judges Act, and report of its findings to the House no later than Monday, November 5.

I call for a recorded division, if I may.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second 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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I did want to be in accord with the official opposition and NDP House leader. However, my disappointment was that before we started debate on Bill C-45, what we first encountered was a delay tactic in the form of a concurrence motion brought by the Liberal Party. Indeed, that was very disappointing to us and a surprise because Bill C-45 is important. It is the government's top legislative priority for this fall. All parties know that. He is quite right that I did want to see it debated in substance in the House rather than see those kinds of tactics to avoid debate.

Bill C-45's measures will further Canada's economic recovery and ensure the foundation for more good-quality jobs on top of the over 820,000 net new jobs we have already had. It includes an extension of the highly successful small business hiring credit that is directly helping Canadian entrepreneurs create new jobs.

Unfortunately, we have seen the NDP take an anti-job creation position. Believe it or not, the NDP finance critic actually dismissed the hiring credit as yet again another across-the-board cut for small businesses.

We want to see taxes lowered. We do not want to see higher taxes or an NDP carbon tax. That is why we have a budget bill that keeps those taxes low.

I am pleased to say that we will be voting on C-45 on Tuesday night at second reading, which will give us the opportunity to send it to the finance committee for consideration. The parliamentary secretary for finance has made it clear that she will ask the finance committee to ask, I believe, 10 other committees to study elements of the bill and potentially make recommendations with respect to changes or adopt its contents. The opposition and government members are free to make amendments at committee based on their own study as well as on the studies of those other committees. Therefore, there will be ample study of the bill and that is good for all.

Bill C-45 will continue to be debated this afternoon, tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday. As I said, the vote on the bill will take place on Tuesday evening.

On Wednesday, we will take up report stage—and, hopefully, third reading—of Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act. Should we be able to make quick work of that debate, the House will take up Bill C-12, the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act, at second reading.

On Thursday morning, the House will consider second reading of Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. And, after question period, we will turn to Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, also at second reading.

Finally, on Friday, we will start report stage of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act. This bill would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama—an agreement whose time has long come. In fact, when I was the public safety minister, I was honoured to be present when the Prime Minister concluded negotiations in Panama City, some 38 months ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with some irony that I rise and enter the debate on what is coming next after we had a description of a point of privilege and a monkey-wrench tactic that the Conservatives somehow surprisingly feel okay and comfortable with.

I will quote the hon. House leader from across the way on the last Thursday question response. When talking about what was coming next, he stated:

I look forward to a vigorous policy debate on the economy and not on procedural games.

One would have thought that a week or more would have passed before that particular statement would prove to be false. We know that for their own part the Liberals chose some procedural games as we began to engage on the debate around Bill C-45, the second omnibus bill, the second budget implementation act. Some have called it ominous and some have called it some other names.

We on this side of the House have personally and privately assured the House leader for the Conservatives that we are committed to a procedural-free exercise so that we can have a fulsome debate on all of the problems that we see in Bill C-45. We expected the government to make some initial commitments to that. We then saw the invocation of time allocation today, which is a method that the government has grown very addicted to for shutting down the debate.

My two questions for the hon. House leader across the way are very specific.

First, can we expect to see more of these procedural underminings of the democratic process when dealing with this second omnibus bill, be it in the House or when the bill is sent to the committees?

Second, is the government willing and open to the consideration, now that it has separated the bill into its component parts for sending to these various committees, of opening those committees in their capacity and ability to actually affect the legislation they are studying?

What Canadians will quickly see is that the government has cynically agreed to separate this huge 450-page bill into some pieces for the committees to study, but those committees cannot actually affect the bill they are studying. What kind of a situation is that for members of Parliament or committees? It is a “look but do not touch” policy that is coming from the Conservative government and one that will not allow MPs to do their jobs.

All MPs from all sides should be interested in this question. The ability to hold government to account remains a central and critical role for members of Parliament from all sides, including the Conservatives, who last time expressed some lament at having brought in and passed such a massive bill.

Therefore, will the government commit to no more of these procedural tactics to shut down debate, be it here, at committee stage or further stages of this bill so that Canadians can finally get a look at what the government is trying to do to them and MPs can do their jobs?

Will the government be open to the suggestion that, now that it has divided up the bill into its proper topics for various committees to study, that those committees actually do more than study and do the job that every committee has always done with every piece of legislation throughout parliamentary history, which is to be able to affect and improve it and correct the errors that are inherent in any piece of legislation, particularly one coming from the current government?

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince Albert on this very important debate that we are undertaking today on Bill C-45, which is the second half of the budget implementation act. It is part of the budget that was introduced on March 29 of this year by our Minister of Finance.

I will begin by talking about one of my favourite movies, The Candidate, starring Robert Redford. Robert Redford was a democratic candidate running for the U.S. Senate in California. When he was picked to run, he was way down in the polls and was not expected to win. He was supposed to be a sacrificial candidate. What happened though at the end of the movie is that he wins. In the very last scene, he and his political consultant were in a hotel room and Robert looks across the room and mouths to his consultant, “What do we do now?”

We knew exactly what to do on May 2, 2011, when our Prime Minister led us to a strong, stable, national Conservative majority government. We did not have to ask what do we do now.

Success does not come by chance. Success is a matter of making the right choices, which our Prime Minister and our finance minister who has been declared the best finance minister in the world by his colleagues, did. The right choices is about building bridges to the future. We are building those bridges. We are not destroying bridges, like the NDP and the Liberals. We are looking forward, not backwards.

The New Democratic Party is a really misnomer. It should be called the old democratic party because it wants to take us back to the old spend-and-tax—

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in the habit of beginning my speeches by saying I am extremely happy to speak to a bill. In this case, however, with a time allocation motion having been moved, I have to say I am extremely disappointed for my colleagues who would also have liked to make the voices of their constituents heard in this House and who will be unable to do so. It is extremely disappointing to see that for at least the 20th time, time is being limited, and for a bill as gargantuan as this. It is simply scandalous. I am therefore extremely disappointed to be debating a bill that I would also describe as antidemocratic for the two reasons I have just mentioned.

Bill C-45 is the second omnibus bill introduced by the government this year—the second bill of this kind in less than seven months. This is certainly a record. At nearly 450 pages long, this is their second titanic bill. We have to ask ourselves whether the government has an iota of respect for democracy and parliamentary procedure. The answer is self-evident: no, it does not.

Why do I say this bill is antidemocratic? Because Bill C-45 is again going to amend over 40 different statutes, in addition to creating a new one. As was the case for Bill C-38, the various pieces of legislation this bill contains have nothing to do with one another. The bill will amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Pension Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Grain Act, and more.

That is why, since the beginning, we have been calling for this bill to be split into several parts, as the leader of the official opposition proposed. The government quite simply has an obligation to agree to that proposal and refer the bill to 13 different committees, so that each of the parts that relate to each committee can be examined effectively and the committees can be allowed to hear the appropriate experts. This an obligation to which the government should be held, in view of that suggestion. The parliamentarians on those committees must also be allowed to present the amendments that are needed to make this bill acceptable.

The government prefers to bundle all these legislative changes into a single bill that will be examined by a single committee and ultimately submitted to a single vote. This is a farce; it is contempt for parliamentary democracy. This is the same thing that happened when the government forced its elephantine bill through Parliament: it is allowing us no opportunity for a thorough examination. The government is preventing the opposition from doing its job, which is to oversee the work on government bills. Instead of showing Canadians that a Conservative government has to be transparent and accountable, the Conservatives have decided to do the exact opposite. What they are proving, as I said, is the extent to which they hold parliamentary democracy in total contempt.

The Conservatives moved a time allocation motion this morning. I do not know how many they have now made since the beginning of this Parliament; I have simply stopped counting. If it were up to them, they would fax the bills to our offices and we would show up here two or three times a year to vote two or three times on a few bills, without examining them adequately. This is quite simply scandalous. Transparency and accountability, to this government, simply do not exist. They seem to be allergic to those concepts. They simply do not want to hear about it.

The Conservatives are introducing a bill like this to have hundreds of changes enacted, changes that I would describe as completely radical, without consulting Canadians—and yet consultation with voters and accountability of the government to the House that represents them are two of the fundamental principles of our parliamentary democracy.

We are not the only ones who think the government is lacking in transparency and accountability. We need only look at what the Parliamentary Budget Officer is having to do to get the information he needs. His job is to assess the budget measures that are in Bill C-38 and their impact. I wager that it will be exactly the same situation for Bill C-45. The government will do everything it can to throw obstacles in the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s way.

The Conservatives are big on giving bills grand titles that mean absolutely nothing, to my mind, while at the same time spending tens of millions of dollars on advertising for propaganda purposes. They have called this bill the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. The title they have come up with may be a punchy one, but there is nothing in this gigantic bill that will create jobs or stimulate long-term economic growth.

Working people and their families are still going through hard times because of the 2008 recession and the current economic slowdown. They need the government to do something to help them get through these hard times.

The government’s response to their problems is a wonderful “economic action plan” that is eliminating more jobs than it creates. At the end of the day, the only people who are benefiting from the Conservatives' action plan are their friends in the oil companies. With this bill, the million and a half jobless Canadians are being left completely to their own devices by the government.

Bill C-45 will create no jobs, and we are not the only ones saying that. The Parliamentary Budget Officer contends that the budget will result in the loss of 43,000 Canadian jobs. In reality, the budget will cause the unemployment rate to rise. Canadians deserve a government that can create jobs, not raise the unemployment rate.

The measures in the budget are going to affect millions of Canadians. The Conservative government is imposing those measures at the same time as it is doing nothing to combat youth unemployment. As well, it is asking people to work longer in order to be eligible for old age security benefits.

According to the Conservative government, Canadians do not work enough. It is therefore going to cut paid holidays by changing the method of calculating how they are paid. Employees will no longer be entitled to holiday pay for a holiday that falls within the first 30 days after they are hired. As well, employees who are paid on commission will have to work for at least 12 weeks before they are entitled to holiday pay. Government employees are also affected significantly by this bill—as if they had not been affected enough already by the current and upcoming job cuts.

The Conservatives have poisoned the atmosphere in the public service because of how they have managed these changes. This is very serious, but it does not seem to bother our colleagues opposite. They keep hammering away, raising employees’ contribution rates to 50%, regardless of when they were hired. The retirement age will be pushed back from 60 to 65 for any employee hired after January 1, 2013. At present, public servants can take early retirement with no penalty after 30 years of continuous service. However, with this bill, employees hired after January 1, 2013, will be eligible for early retirement after 30 years’ service only if they are over the age of 60. Employees aged 55 and over with 25 years’ service or more will be eligible for a reduced pension.

We are very concerned about this. One group of workers will have to work longer in order to be entitled to the same pension plan as other employees, which is simply unfair.

The main job creation measure in Bill C-45 is the implementation of a temporary hiring tax credit for small businesses. In my opinion, this measure is insufficient because it gives employers a maximum credit of only $1,000, which is available only for 2012. In other words, once the bill has been passed, the year will be almost over and the measures will have a very limited application. Despite its flaws, we support this provision.

All these measures, which will be of no help to Canada's labour market, come on top of the major cuts the government is making to employment insurance. We questioned the Minister of Human Resources to try to make her listen to reason. She did an about-face and changed her approach, but the new approach is not much better.

The cuts to old age security will cost people up to $34,000 in benefits. Health transfers to the provinces will also be reduced by $31 billion.

It is important to remember that 100 inspectors lost their jobs and 300 positions at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency were cut, which led to the biggest tainted beef crisis in Canadian history. Why? It is because the Conservatives did not listen to Canadians when making these many changes. This is no longer the Canada that Canadians believe in.

We will not let the government change the laws, policies and programs that Canadians believe in and that they are entitled to. We are going to stand in the government's way. The NDP has an economic plan to improve the health care system and services for Canadians. We are therefore going to oppose many measures in this bill.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

There are many things wrong with the bill, but first and foremost, Bill C-45 is another omnibus bill that conspires to ram a wide range of unrelated legislation through Parliament. Despite claims from the Minister of Finance, much of this legislation is not included in the budget from earlier this year. The problem with an omnibus bill is that it does not allow MPs to properly study, understand and review the legislation. The very purpose of Parliament and the reason we are here as MPs is to review legislation and improve the laws governing our country. This omnibus bill is a flagrant attempt to prevent MPs from doing their jobs. This is an obvious disservice to the Canadians who elected us to represent them.

Due to the size of Bill C-45, I do not have time to outline all the issues I have with it, so I will restrict my focus to only three sections of the bill.

First, I want to talk about the sections that relate to pooled registered pension plans, or PRPPs. New Democrats have been very clear that we need pension reform. However, the PRPPs are not the solution. Canadians do not have extra money for investing. As it stands now, Canadians are not investing in RRSPs. PRPPs are just another scheme that will have little pickup. Why on earth does the government think people will start investing in PRPPs? If they do not have the money, they cannot invest. Those who do invest in PRPPs will find much of their investment siphoned off by banks and institutions through management fees. PRPPs are another scheme that will add to bank profits, with a poor benefit for individual Canadians.

Seniors represent one of the fastest growing populations in Canada today. The number of seniors in Canada is projected to increase from 4.2 million right now to 9.8 million by 2036. With so many more seniors retiring in the years to come, we need to have the social safety net in place now to avoid dramatic increases in the rate of poverty among those seniors in future. We need real pension reform and not a savings scheme that is dependent on the ups and downs of the stock market. Recent bad experiences in the markets remind Canadians how ineffective that kind of saving is. Too many saw their savings crumble away as the markets took a nosedive. This is not how savings for retirement should be organized.

For employees, a PRPP is like a defined contribution or group RRSP. It is a savings vehicle, limited by RRSP limits and regulations, purported to allow workers to save for retirement, but it does not guarantee retirement security. PRPPs are managed by the financial industry, the same crew receiving huge corporate tax breaks from the Conservatives. The PRPP is not a defined benefit plan. It does not provide a secure retirement income with a set replacement rate of pre-retirement income. It is not fully transferrable. It is not indexed to inflation and therefore will not increase with the increasing cost of living.

It is noteworthy that employers, not employees, will decide the contribution levels, and it will not be mandatory for employers to contribute or match workers' contributions to PRPPs. Without employers contributing, it is not really a pension plan. In fact, employers who do not help their employees save for retirement could end up with a competitive advantage over employers who do.

The best option for Canadians is to double the CPP/QPP. We could do that for the cost to an employee of a couple of dollars a week. This is the best option for Canadians, as the money invested would not be going toward big bank profits but would go into the retirees' pockets when they retire.

I want to highlight one more thing about the PRPP section of the bill. It is long and complicated. It needs to be studied on its own as a separate bill. By slapping this into the omnibus budget bill, we cannot do our due diligence as MPs. We cannot give it the proper critical scrutiny it needs. To be frank, we know the PRPP legislation has passed and is going ahead. Consequently, we do need to make changes in tax legislation.

However, there is no reason for this piece to be in the budget bill. This should be a separate bill that could be scrutinized to ensure that no mistakes are made. It is the reasonable and logical thing to do.

The second section of the bill that I want to talk about today is the portion on public sector pensions. Bill C-45 sets out to increase public sector employee contributions to 50% regardless of the date of hiring; to increase the age of retirement from 60 to 65 for all employees hired after January 1, 2013; to eliminate the ability for public servants to take early retirement without penalty after 30 years of continuous service; and it only allows employees hired after January 1, 2013 to be eligible for early retirement after 30 years of service if they are 60 or older. It is also noteworthy that employees who are 55 or older with 25 or more years of service are eligible for a reduced pension.

New Democrats are concerned that this legislation is creating a two-tiered work force in which younger people have to work longer for the same retirement benefits as their predecessors. This appears to be part of a greater agenda by the government to force young people to pay the price for the government's tax breaks to large corporations.

The Conservatives are taking no measures to curb youth unemployment, and we know that it is the young people today whose OAS benefits will not kick in until they are aged 67. It is their retirement security that is in jeopardy. They are paying more for goods and services, making less money, and their pensions are being cut.

Here I would add that the public service has acted as a model for best practice and has had the ability to attract the best and brightest to serve this country. Public servants work to ensure that our country runs smoothly. They work to ensure that federal services are available to Canadians and that federal regulations are in place and followed. They work behind the scenes to draft and improve legislation. They do research and ever so much more. They ensure that this country runs efficiently.

This legislation will jeopardize the ability of the government to attract the best and the brightest. We cannot afford to risk losing such an integral element of government administration.

I am pleased that we were able to split off the MP portion of the bill, but I would like to note how disappointing it was that my colleagues in the other parties would have been quite happy to lump in changes to the public service pension changes despite this split. That would have left us with no opportunity to debate or address the changes to the public services portion of the bill.

The third section of the bill that I wish to discuss is the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Canadians have made it clear that they want us to take action to protect their environment and grow a sustainable economy for the future, while the Conservatives are focused on gutting environmental protection.

The changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act are a prime example of Conservative mismanagement. The government has determined, with the exception of a list of three oceans and 97 lakes and 62 rivers, that the act will no longer automatically apply to projects affecting waterways. This will leave thousands of waterways unprotected, meaning there will fewer environmental reviews by Transport Canada. In fact, the bill would remove water protection from the name of the bill. Now it is just about navigation protection.

Of Canada's 37 designated Canadian heritage rivers, only 10 are included in the new act. One heritage river that has been left off the list is the Thames River, which runs through my community and riding in London, Ontario. The Thames is an important part of our local economy and a part of the fabric of our community, a part of its history. These changes would put our river at risk.

To conclude, the NDP will always be proud to stand up for transparency and accountability. We will always stand up for the environment and we will always stand up for retirement security and health care. In short, we will stand up for Canada.

I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion. I move:

That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, clauses 464 to 514, related to public sector pensions, be removed from Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012, and other measures, and do compose Bill C-47; and that Bill C-47 be entitled an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act,

That Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed, and that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

We are proposing this motion to ensure that Canada's Parliament can fully scrutinize the legislation before it and to look out for Canadians.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

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

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from the riding of Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

The bill is a continuation of our government's steady focus on the Canadian economy. It is what Canadians want and it is what they expect.

In March the Minister of Finance introduced our government's pragmatic and prudent vision for the future of Canadians, one that looked forward to not only the next few years, but also the next generation.

Since 2006, our government has worked to build a strong economic foundation for Canadians. While the effects of the economic downturn of 2008 were felt in homes and businesses across the country, it was through the steady, constant leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, as well as our Conservative government, that ensured the Canadian economy emerged from the recession well ahead of every major developed economy in the world.

We have delivered for Canadians. Our strong record speaks for itself: the creation of 820,000 net new jobs since July 2009; a 3.9% increase in year-over-year growth in manufacturing output; a reduction of personal income taxes and cuts to the GST; income splitting for seniors' pensions; the creation of a landmark tax-free savings account; and lower taxes on Canadian businesses, with Canada having the lowest tax rate on new business investment among major advanced economies.

Our banking system is regarded as the most stable in the world. The OECD and the IMF predict Canada's economy to be one of the international leaders over the next coming years.

Therefore, when we sift through the partisan rhetoric and the inaccurate facts and figures thrown about by my opposition colleagues, our government's record on the economy is laid to bare.

Ours is a low tax-plan that would help create jobs, while the NDP pushes high taxes that would kill jobs and growth.

Ours is a plan that would promote clean energy and enhance the neutrality of the tax system, while the NDP's massive carbon tax would not only take $21 billion out of the pockets of hard-working Canadians, it would also cripple Canadian businesses and kill Canadian jobs.

We are also extending the popular hiring credit for small business, which benefited nearly 534,000 employers last year. In my riding of Simcoe—Grey, business owners from Alliston to Collingwood spoke to me about how this measure provided needed relief to small businesses by helping defray the costs of hiring new workers and allowing them to take advantage of emerging opportunities.

My first job was as a small business owner. I ran a moving company to get through university. I took my inspiration and direction from my father, a construction company owner: hard work, dedication to employees and a commitment to service.

Like my father, Simcoe—Grey small business owners, like Fred Hamilton in Glen Huron, do not want handouts or government telling them how they should be running their businesses. All they want is a fair shot, an equal playing field and a government that gets out of their way, or at least works with them as opposed to against them.

Small businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy. As Winston Churchill wisely said:

This is no country of vast spaces and simple forms of mass production...it is by the many thousands of small individual enterprises and activities that the margin by which alone we can maintain ourselves has been procured.

The hiring credit for small businesses does just that. It supports all those small businesses, like the Home Hardware run by Todd Young in Wasaga Beach in my riding. A huge benefit of this program is the tax credit is actually automatically applied. Business owners need not waste their time filling in forms. We have cut red tape as well as deliver a tangible benefit for Canadian businesses.

I am now pleased to speak about the amendments our government proposes to part III of the Canada Labour Code under this legislation.

As members will see, the proposed amendments will not represent significant changes to either employer or employee rights or obligations under part III of Canada's Labour Code. These changes will be part of an overall effort to reduce red tape, cut the cost of government and make our programs and services more responsive to the needs of Canadians.

Part III of Canada's Labour Code establishes minimum working conditions for employees in federally-regulated industries, such as banking, telecommunications and cross-border transportation.

Part III covers hours of work, general holidays, annual vacations and statutory leaves.

Part III also has provisions to help employees recover unpaid wages and get recourse in case they are unjustly dismissed.

The second budget implementation act 2012 contains a number of amendments aimed at making it easier for employers to comply with part III requirements. These proposed amendments will streamline processes, reduce the costs of administering the Labour Code and facilitate the resolution of complaints. We will all benefit from this: workers, employers, and taxpayers.

First, we will be simplifying the calculation for holiday pay for employees from the nine annual paid general holidays provided for in the code. The current method of calculating general holiday pay is highly complex and difficult to apply. Different formulae have to be used, depending upon whether an employee is paid on a monthly, weekly or hourly basis.

In addition, the current eligibility requirements also exclude many employees, for example, part-time workers, from entitlements to holiday pay. The amendments we are proposing will make things simpler so that employers will find it easier to make the necessary calculations for employees' pay and will also make more employees eligible to qualify for these benefits. For regular employees, little will change. General holiday pay will be one-twentieth of total wages, not counting overtime earned in the four week period preceding the week of a general holiday.

For example, Paul, a regular employee working full-time as a manager for a shipping company and earning $1,000 a week would be entitled to $200 in general holiday pay for Thanksgiving.

For employees on commission whose earnings fluctuate, the formula would be one-sixtieth of total wages, not counting overtime, over the preceding 12 weeks. Therefore, Julie, who works as a sales representative on commission and earns a total of $12,000 of the 12 week period before Thanksgiving, would also be eligible for $200 in general holiday pay.

The proposed amendments will also simplify eligibility of requirements for general holiday pay.

It will still be necessary to have 30 days of employment with the employer, but employees will no longer be required to have earned wages for 15 of the 30 days preceding the holiday. This will be beneficial for part-time employees.

We are setting a clear 30-day deadline for employers to pay any vacation pay owed to an employee once his or her employment ends. This will serve to clarify employers' wage payment obligations under the code.

Currently, any person affected by a payment order or anyone who has been notified that his or her complaint is unfounded can appeal the decision. Appeals are heard and adjudicated by external referees appointed by the minister on a case-by-case basis.

Through these amendments, we are establishing an administrative mechanism to review inspectors' payment orders and their decisions to reject a complaint. The internal review will be conducted by the labour program officials and will confirm, amend or rescind inspectors' decisions. This will create a win-win proposition.

The new administrative review process is intended to lead to a quicker and more cost-effective resolution of complaints, while remaining fair for employers and employees.

As members can see, these proposed changes to part III of the code are mainly administrative in nature. Some of them simply formalize existing policy directives.

I should also mention that these proposed amendments will establish provisions in the Canada Labour Code that are similar to existing provincial legislation.

Finally, we are also proposing amendments to the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act to eliminate the Merchant Seamen Compensation Board. While these amendments will streamline the administration of the act, benefits to affected seamen will not be altered.

The board currently consists of three part-time members who adjudicate claims and determine benefits. The Merchant Seamen Act applies to only five shipping operators. Most of these seamen have eligibility coverage under provincial jurisdiction. In a typical year only one claim is made.

Given the very small workload, there is no good reason for the board to be retained and have yet another unnecessary administrative layer. Therefore, under the current legislation, we will remove the Merchant Seamen Compensation Board and provide that authority to the Minister of Labour.

Many of these changes we have proposed to part III of the Canada Labour Code were recommended by the Federal Labour Standards Review Commission, also known as the Arthurs Commission, in a 2006 report. Overall, these changes will not significantly alter the balance of rights or obligations of employees and employers under the Canada Labour Code. I think both employers and employees will benefit from these amendments, which will reduce the administrative burden and hopefully will result in a quick resolution of complaints.

Bill C-45, the economic action plan 2012, would provide my constituents in Simcoe—Grey a plan for jobs and growth, something that all Canadians want. Our government is responding to that by having an action plan in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. However, I am not quite sure I understand exactly what he is getting at with regard to the fisheries, forestry and funding.

With regard to the number of pages, the length of a bill, whether it is 45 pages long or 200, affects our ability to examine all the measures. In this case, 64 laws are created, eliminated or amended. If we could isolate each of those laws, then we would be able to examine them much more thoroughly than we can in this massive bill.

If the hon. member is referring to the end of my speech, when I spoke about oceanography and research and development, then I would say that yes, we are losing our expertise because of these measures. These measures were impossible to see in the 2012 budget. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is looking into them, but the Conservatives are refusing to give him the information he needs.

Now, with Bill C-45, the government is proposing that the opposition once again vote blindly on a bill without knowing what impact it will have, just as we were asked to do in the vote on the 2012 budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-45, Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, even though, clearly, it does not come close to meeting the targeted objectives.

I know the government members do not like talking about procedure. We cannot avoid talking about it, because that is how we can evaluate this government's good governance.

We are opposition members; of course we examine the government's initiatives, particularly those like Bill C-45. We look at the elements that we do agree with, as well as the elements that we oppose. And we suggest ideas that we think could help the government get back on track regarding certain elements that we believe are headed in the wrong direction.

We have a majority government that can decide whether to accept or reject the proposed recommendations. However, based on what happened when the previous mammoth budget bill was introduced in June 2012, we know that this government has no respect for this process, which is absolutely crucial to the good governance of Canada, and particularly of our economy, which is having difficulty right now and needs our attention.

We are dealing with a 450-page budget implementation bill, which is not to be confused with the budget itself. This bill amends, adds or repeals 64 different laws. Thus, this one bill affects 64 different pieces of legislation.

I heard my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc say that this is a completely normal process. I imagine that is why the Conservatives did what they did in June. That must also be why they introduced a bill that was 800 or 900 pages long in 2009, when stimulus was needed for the economy during the recession.

This is not normal. According to media commentators, constitutional experts and parliamentary experts, our parliamentary system was not designed for this. At present, the government is using a single bill to address a good number of issues that, in many cases, have nothing to do with the budget, were not mentioned in the budget and could have very easily been introduced in a separate bill. We have been sitting since the middle of September. Many initiatives that were not introduced could have been introduced at that time in order to be examined separately. Instead, they are all included in this monster bill.

The government often says that we should not just focus on numbers, such as the number of pages and acts, and that we must read the bill. But we must do both. We cannot do away with process, because democracy itself is a matter of process. This government seems to have profound contempt for the democratic process and the parliamentary process. We need only think of the fact that the Prime Minister's Office decided to prorogue Parliament, not as part of the normal process to transition to a new legislative agenda, but simply to protect itself and avoid a defeat on a confidence vote in the House. We need only think of the gag orders or time allocation motions, such as the one we saw this morning for Bill C-45. I cannot even count how many we have had since the last election. Obviously, there is also the use of omnibus bills like the one before us today.

Omnibus bills are not the right approach. Unfortunately, that is what the government has decided to use in this case. We find that deplorable because our economy is cause for concern right now. We have told the government many times. Economic indicators clearly show that we are in a period of uncertainty. The latest unemployment statistics are one example. Despite the creation of 52,100 jobs, the unemployment rate increased by 0.1% in September 2012. Between 2000 and 2009, Canadian productivity increased on average 0.6% a year, but the average for all OECD countries was 1.5% per year. So we are lagging behind right now.

The government claims that it is taking measures, such as Bill C-45 and Bill C-38, and that the economy is its top priority, but at the end of the day, we have to wonder if it is headed in the right direction.

I would like us to consider two situations. The first has to do with productivity, which is more or less stagnant right now. Since 2006, the government has tried different measures to increase productivity, but nothing is working.

A good indicator of productivity is research and development. In the budget and in Bill C-45—for once there is something in the bill before us that actually has to do with the budget—the government introduced changes to the way companies are allowed to do research and development. Instead of issuing tax credits, the government has chosen to provide companies with direct research and development subsidies.

Unfortunately, there are two problems with this approach that the government has not yet addressed. The first problem is that these measures leave the door wide open for the government to pick winners in every industry. The second is that a lot of money has been lost in the process. Consequently, there will be no increases in amounts allocated to research and development or in corporate assistance for research and development. Canada will ultimately lose out as a result, and our productivity will not improve. This is a recurring problem.

There is another problem with the overall reduction in corporate income tax. The government usually argues that the general corporate income tax measure, which was extended in the last budget, is a measure that allows businesses to invest. However, there are two problems with that. When the Conservative government came to power in 2006, the corporate tax rate was 22%. Starting next year, it will be 15%. Every percentage point cut results in a reduction in revenue, which varies from $2 billion to $4 billion, depending on the year. The government is foregoing an enormous amount of tax revenue through this measure, in the hope, of course—since this is the argument of the government and many economists—that businesses will reinvest the money and create employment.

What have we seen so far? Businesses are sitting on approximately $500 billion, half a trillion in unused cash or dead money. This money is not being reinvested. It is currently lying in coffers waiting to be used, and it is not benefiting the economy in any way.

Another aspect that has to be considered in evaluating the success of these measures is whether the money has in fact been reinvested. If we look at Canadian statistics on reinvestment, we see that net real investment has stagnated in the past 10 or 15 years. So the government is making massive tax cuts and losing the tax room for various programs and services that help Canadians, but we are not seeing any significant increase in investment. Private sector businesses are sitting on a considerable amount of cash that could be invested in economic growth but is not.

The government has to ask itself some questions about this situation. It has to ask itself why the methods it is using do not seem to be working. Yet, we are seeing no such introspection on the government's part. This is a major problem. We know the definition of insanity.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping that things will change.

That is what the government is doing. Eventually, the Conservatives are going to have to revise their economic ideology to allow the Canadian economy to achieve its potential. Right now, it most definitely is not.

As I told the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, there are many things in Bill C-45 that were not in the budget. The Conservatives can do all the mental gymnastics they like, but there are things that were not in the budget, contrary to what the Minister of Finance told the House.

A number of these elements are important enough to warrant separate debate.

Take, for example, the elimination of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. It was created by the Conservatives, but never did much of anything. In fact, its only function was to set employment insurance premiums. Once again, a board created for a very specific purpose will be abolished, even though it could have been useful to the government. In the end, even though the government went to the expense of creating it, the board will be shut down, which will result in more power being concentrated in the hands of the minister. That is another example of the use of discretionary authority, which is becoming a habit with this government.

Who is going to cover the cost of abolishing the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission? Workers. These are not trivial matters. We are talking about monitoring hazardous materials that many Canadian workers handle in chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing. With a stroke of the pen, and with no mention of it in the budget, this commission is being eliminated.

There was also no mention in the budget of abolishing the Grain Appeal Tribunal. The government is trying to make us believe that one measure in the budget, written in very imprecise and vague language, covered this. That is not the case. If a budget is headed in a certain direction and budget items, offices and agencies must be eliminated, then this should be set out in the budget so we can vote on these elements. That is not currently the case.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer raised two very troubling issues that touch on what we are experiencing with Bill C-45. First, he said—and parliamentary experts agree—that members do not have the information in hand that they need to make decisions about the budget.

In April, we voted for the 2012 budget, but we did not have all of the information. The government was talking about eliminating 19,200 public service jobs and making $5.2 billion in cuts. However, we had no idea where these cuts would be made, and where these jobs would be eliminated, or which sectors would be affected. The information is trickling out as we go along.

That was why the Parliamentary Budget Officer demanded that the government be more transparent in the budgetary process by compelling the departments and agencies to report on their cuts. In doing that, he sought to determine what services would be cut and whether Canadians needed those services. Where will those cuts be made? What objectives does the government want to achieve by making those cuts? What will the consequences be?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is unable to obtain that information, in spite of the Federal Accountability Act, which the Conservative government asked us to pass in 2006. We fully supported that act. However, the government decided to contravene its own act in order to prevent the Parliamentary Budget Officer from analyzing the impact of budget 2012.

Honestly, I have to say that if the Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot obtain that information, members will have no access to it either and will not be able to conduct a proper debate on budget 2012 and its impact.

We are studying Bill C-45, and we are clearly feeling the impact of budget 2012, for which we have yet to obtain all the information.

Bill C-38 very significantly watered down the environmental assessment process, the Fisheries Act and protection of fish habitat. Bill C-45 will have very significant consequences for the environment, among other things.

Now with respect to the repeal of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, that act concerns the environment, despite what the government claims. It is trying to create a smokescreen by saying the act concerns only navigation. That is not true: it refers to the protection of navigable waters, including waters where one can navigate in a canoe. This is a rigorous process that the government is in a hurry to water down in order to repeal certain provisions that the lakes and rivers development sector does not like.

This is a big problem and will have major consequences, like the massive watering down of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the amendments to or massive watering down of the Fisheries Act. Some aspects of Bill C-45 also concern the Fisheries Act. We were surprised when we read the division of that bill that concerns the Fisheries Act, because most of the provisions correct the errors and excesses of the previous budget implementation bill, C-38, which was passed in June of this year.

We introduced numerous amendments that would have eliminated those errors and excesses, but the government disregarded them. I recall that the government would not agree to any amendments during the study by the Standing Committee on Finance or in the House. Now, a few months later, the Conservatives realize the opposition may have been right on certain points and they are quickly changing things so that no one realizes it. That is what is happening now.

Because of the major repercussions that will result from these important amendments, they really belong in a bill if that is the direction the government truly intends to take, and should be treated separately and given close scrutiny.

There is a great deal of expertise in ocean science, oceanography and biotechnology in the Lower St. Lawrence. In fact, the Université du Québec à Rimouski was rated the best research university by the Toronto magazine RE$EARCH Infosource for its work in this field. The University of Quebec at Rimouski has the capacity for this work because of the networking done by the Technopole Maritime du Québec.

Within the institutional community, UQAR, with its oceanography department and ISMER, its ocean sciences institute, has solid linkages and networks with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Maurice Lamontagne Institute. The UQAR is also linked to private sector organizations like the Centre de recherche sur les biotechnologies marines. The problem is that the massive budget cuts and the dilution of environmental measures put forward in Bill C-38, and reintroduced in Bill C-45, will cripple a region that has succeeded over a 25- to 30-year period in developing internationally recognized cutting-edge expertise. The Maurice Lamontagne Institute’s department of ecotoxicology and the department that studies fish habitat are about to be shut down. The libraries and archives, the only French-language sources serving the university and researchers in the region, are also being closed.

All of these measures, which were not in the budget but derived from it, and about which the Parliamentary Budget Officer would like further details, will diminish the capacity of Rimouski and the lower St. Lawrence to make their mark as international leaders. Is that really what the government wants?

This government should do some soul-searching and look at the measures being put forward in the various budgets tabled and their budget implementation bills. It must seriously consider whether Canada is moving forward or backward.

All of the Canadian and Quebec stakeholders I have heard speak about this issue have a strong feeling that Canada is moving backward. We are deindustrializing and putting all our eggs in one basket, as we used to do when free trade was almost solely with the United States. At least we have been begun to diversify the countries we trade with.

We are putting all our eggs in one basket once again in terms of industries and relying more than anything else on natural resources. This sector is certainly important, but from an economic growth standpoint, it has become the only sector we can rely on. We need to make sure that other sectors in which we could play a leadership role are supported by this government, but there are no signs of this in Bill C-45.

That is why we will oppose Bill C-45 at this stage. We are against the process being proposed and against the content which, although it does contain some interesting ad hoc measures here and there, is definitely not a panacea for the Canadian economy.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

It is very important legislation that deals with a lot of specific technical changes, such as changes to the registered disability savings plan, which was introduced by this government and is a benefit for families to deal with some of the costs related to a person in the family with a disability. It also deals with changes to the Indian Act, which is something that was presented to the finance committee by the member for Macleod. A member of the Kamloops Band presented the idea with respect to changing the ownership on reserves. This would be a real step forward and it is something I will return to later in my remarks. There are number of measures in this comprehensive legislation.

As chair of the finance committee, I thought I would provide some context for members of Parliament and Canadians in terms of the process that we go through to arrive at budget implementation acts.

The process actually starts at the finance committee each fall. In fact, it starts in June when the finance committee sends out a notice asking Canadians to give us their thoughts on what should be in the next budget in the upcoming budgetary cycle. Canadians respond and, over the last two years, in dramatic numbers. This year we have had nearly 800 submissions from organizations and individuals from across Canada giving us their thoughts on what should be in the next budget.

This year we tried a slightly different process. We put five questions on the public website and asked Canadians to respond to those five questions. We put all the responses online. This is the second time we have done this as a committee. We want to be very transparent in terms of the input the committee is receiving.

The deadline for submissions was in the summer. We then had the submissions translated and put online. Members of the finance committee from all parties are now working diligently to go through those submissions.

In addition to that, we are doing what the committee has done for over a decade now, which is to hear from individuals and organizations before the committee. We will hear from approximately 120 organizations and individuals. We will have a very good dialogue with members of Parliament in terms of what should be in the next budget.

This is a very broad process and there is no topic that cannot be raised at the finance committee in prebudget consultations. However, following some of the discussions last year on the first budget implementation act, there was the thought that maybe we should narrow our focus at the finance committee but members from all sides said no, that it should be a very broad public consultation process. Anyone should be able to come and say anything in terms of where the country should go because fiscal matters are incredibly broad. We hear from environmental groups, health groups, aboriginal groups, small business organizations and chambers of commerce across the country, anyone bringing forward any type of measure. This is not simply related to tax, financial or fiscal information. It is very broad. It is a fantastic discussion and I think members from all sides enjoy the debate.

That then leads to the committee deliberating on what should go into the report that it will table in Parliament in December. Obviously, that report is public and Canadians can compare the submissions that came into the committee to what the committee decided in terms of what it wants to recommend to the government for the next budget. The Minister of Finance then takes the report under consideration and presents the budget typically in February or March.

I would remind members that the budget document is the primary document that the government presents to Parliament each and every year and it is a very broad document. Here are some of the sections in the budget that the minister tabled in March.

With regard to entrepreneurs, innovators and world-class research, the budget proposes to support the research and innovation that is happening in this country, as well as education and training at the universities and colleges across the country.

Improving conditions for business investment deals with a lot of the changes to SR&ED and acts on the Jenkins report, which the government commissioned and which I think it was a report that was fairly well received in all quarters.

The budget also deals with investing in our natural resources; expanding trade and opening new markets for Canadian businesses; keeping taxes low for job creators; strengthening business competitiveness; financial sector advantages; and investing in trade infrastructure and opportunities, which involves human resources in terms of investing in the skills that Canadians have.

On infrastructure, there is the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, but all the infrastructure is funded first through finance.

On expanding opportunities for aboriginal peoples to fully participate, obviously we have a committee and a minister that deals with aboriginal peoples but that is all funded through the budget first.

Supporting families and communities, investing in communities, protecting Canada's natural environment and wildlife, and the sustainable management of public finances are all included in a very large budget document, but the budget document itself, as a policy document, is somewhat specific. In certain areas it outlines in general where the government would want to go with respect to items like responsible resource development, the deficit reduction action plan and returning to balanced budgets over the medium term. Various officials then draft legislation to deal with the budget. They typically do two budget implementation acts, one in the spring and one in the fall. They are very comprehensive pieces of legislation.

In terms of the deficit reduction action plan, which is a policy that was endorsed by Parliament after the budget was introduced, all of the specific items under that action plan are then put forward in the two implementation acts which, in my view, is the way it should be happen. The overall policy should be in the budget, but the specific items, which are what we dealt with both in the act in the spring and then partly in this act, actually deal with everything that is in the deficit reduction action plan.

Some people have asked if they would be able to vote. Our colleague across the way from the official opposition asked legitimately if they could vote on each and every section. In fact, they can at committee. As the member knows, we vote on each and every clause at committee and the official opposition and the Liberal Party can choose to support or oppose that specific clause on the record. We can have recorded votes on any specific clause at committee and the member could say they voted in favour of that clause but still oppose the bill at third reading. That is certainly an option for the members opposite. It is important to know that process.

I want to return to one specific item that was raised by Manny Jules, someone whom I think has been a real trailblazer in trying to improve economic development and the economic opportunities for aboriginals within this country. I believe it was three years ago, and I am looking at the member for Macleod and hoping I am correct in my timeline, that the finance committee actually met Mr. Jules.

We went to a former residential school, which has now been turned into offices, and he described to us the challenges that first nations people have in owning property on reserves. He said there have been some steps forward in this area, but we need to do more to change the legislation to ensure that aboriginal people have the same full opportunities on reserve, frankly, that other Canadians have in terms of ownership of property.

It was a very interesting idea. I thought members of all parties listened to the idea very carefully and in varying degrees, I think they all thought it was a good idea that should be followed up. It has been looked at. It was endorsed by the finance committee in a report. While it is technically under aboriginal affairs, it actually did end up in the budget and it is therefore in a budget implementation act.

This is the way the process has worked for years. This is not something the Conservative government has invented. This is, in my view, the way the process should work. It should go back to an idea presented to a parliamentary committee. That committee puts it in a report. It goes in a budget and then it goes into a budget implementation act. There is a thread through that entire process that I think we have to draw attention to.

In terms of some of the other changes in the implementation act, I know members at committee will take them very seriously. They will go through all the items. In terms of registered disability plans, something that we introduced as a government, many of the people who have used the benefit have said there are ways in which the program could be improved.

People talked about the navigation act. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, municipalities in my area and other areas across this country have said to the government that it has to amend this act in terms of municipalities and their own growth and investment so that they can move forward.

These are responses to things we hear at committee, which are later put in the budget and then come into the budget implementation act.

I want members to go through that whole process. At committee they can do a very thorough study. The government has indicated it is very open to other committees studying the legislation. I heard the member for Wascana say he saw that as something he would certainly welcome.

It is my understanding that we could have any other committee study a piece of the bill and report it back to the finance committee. The finance committee members can then vote yea or nay to any specific clause or provision of the bill.

I look forward to comments from the other side but I do hope they take into account the whole process that occurs, with the policy idea originating here and ending up in a budget implementation act at the end.

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

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on her speech on this important bill, Bill C-45.

I have heard some complaints from opposition members about the size of the bill. I would like to point out that in reality there are 24 sections. They complain about the number of pages but half of them are in French. One can choose a language, English or French, and that reduces the size.

Some of these 24 sections consist of only one clause. For example, the EI change is only one clause. The Fisheries Act section consists of four important clauses that would actually protect fish and that talks about fines for people who put fish at risk.

Ten committees will look at the clauses in the bill to ensure committees can apply their expertise and ensure they are satisfied.

I would like the member to comment on the hysteria that some are exhibiting. This is a jobs and growth bill, and that is exactly what it is intended to ensure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to my friend from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo who truly is my friend. I recognize that speaking notes are prepared by people other than my hon. friend but we are talking about Bill C-45 and it does not include any mention of any NDP election platform, nor is this proper in debate.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Leduc.

I am certainly pleased to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-45, which is our second budget implementation act. As members are aware, the budget was introduced last spring and, as is the typical practice of the House, there are usually two pieces of legislation that turn this aspirational and directional document into legislation. Today we are considering the second important implementation bill.

The opposition has taken a very simplistic view of this process. The opposition members are busy counting pages rather than reading them. They are focused on worrying about the number of statutes as opposed to looking at the current context and the unique challenges that we face as a country.

Canadians want their government to focus on results. They expect us to work hard to ensure that this happens. I want to provide a small example, using MP pensions. Since I was elected in 2008, I have heard regularly and frequently from constituents that they felt the current plan was unfair to the taxpayer.

As a government, we committed to make a change where parliamentarians would pay their fair share. We need to look at this in a little more depth. This represented one line in the budget, but it took 22 pages in the BIA to make the change. To be frank, I do not think Canadians care about how many pages it would take. What they care about is the outcome. They expect legislators to know how to make it happen.

I would like to note the comment of Speaker Parent when the issue of budget scope was debated in 1994. He said:

In conclusion, it is procedurally correct and common practice for a bill to amend, repeal or enact several statutes. There are numerous rulings in which Speakers have declined to intervene simply because a bill was complex and permitted omnibus legislation to proceed.

We are aware that an important plan is necessary. Our government knows we must make changes to ensure Canada's long-term future, a future focused on prosperity, jobs and growth, a future that will help further unleash the potential of Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to innovate and thrive in a modern economy to the benefit of all Canadians for generations to come.

As has been said often in the House, Canada is the envy of the world. We were well-positioned to face the great recession and fared better than most countries. We have over 800,000 net new jobs, most of them in the private sector and most of them full-time.

Our plan is working but we must do more. That is why the economic action plan is so important. There are many challenges ahead that range from a continual fragile global economy to a significant demographic challenge with an aging workforce.

I would now like to give a few examples and focus in on what the BIA 2 will do. We are looking at responsible resource development. It absolutely is critical to ensure environmental protection, but at the same time have some balance.

When I was mayor of a small town, we took incredible pride in the protection of some of our important fish habitats, but we were also tried to put in a walking trail. We had a walking trail, with a tiny footbridge, that had to go over a creek that was wet very infrequently. It was considered a navigable water. The amount of bureaucracy and paperwork involved was stunning. A canoe never went in that water. There was never any navigation in that water. The process we had to go through with Transport Canada in order to put in a small footbridge that would support the recreation and well-being of the community was absolutely stunning.

This is where we need to create better balance in terms of what we are looking at, focusing important resources in areas that are going to be most important.

Another place I would like to look at within this BIA is the expanding opportunities for the aboriginal people to fully participate in the economy. I am really particularly proud of Tk'emlúps Indian Band which has shown real leadership in moving forward for a good economy for its people and using their land in ways that the band approves of but provides challenges.

The Auditor General has identified the designation and leasing processes to be the cause of unnecessary lengthy approval times for projects on reserve.

I have seen that up front, whether it be a number of the bands as they are trying to move forward wanting to do some very important things and the months of delay with the bureaucracy again getting in their way. The legislation has important amendments that would take away some of the government's patriarchal land ownership rulings and let the bands move forward in terms of some important economic opportunities.

We recognize that having a social safety net that supports Canadians must be there for future generations. We cannot leave a legacy of debt that will suffocate our children and we must return to a balanced budget in the medium term, again an important focus of what we are doing right now.

Expanding trade and opening new markets for Canadian business is critical. Our prosperity is ultimately linked to reaching beyond our borders for economic opportunities. I will look at the forestry industry in British Columbia where the new markets in China have seen us through a very difficult time and helped buffer the U.S. recession because our pulp mills and our forestry workers were able to keep working and have looked at a significant increase in terms of trading with China.

Our government also understands the importance of a fair and equitable tax system and that is why this bill includes a number of important measures to improve on certain tax credits and other issues. Overall, these measures would improve access to some very important tax programs. I will talk briefly about the RDSP,which has been very well received. We will simplify the process to open RDSPs for individuals who have reached the age of majority and lack contractual competence. We would reduce the repayment of the Canada disability savings grant and Canada disability savings bonds in certain cases. We are introducing changes to the minimum and maximum withdrawal rules. We are allowing a tax-free roll-over of registered education savings plan investment income into an RDSP. We are temporarily suspending the termination of an RDSP following cessation of eligibility. I could go on and on but essentially these are technical changes that would provide a vast improvement to the program. If it takes a lot of pages, I ask that the opposition members read the pages and support the legislation.

I will contrast our low tax plan focus on jobs and growth with that of the NDP. On page four of the NDP platform, there is a $21 billion carbon tax that would be used for a myriad of government social programs that range from housing to food. We need to be clear that this is a tax that would raise the cost of everything from gas to heating bills and it should be contrasted—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45 is a huge bill. My colleague went through quite a number of areas where the federal government would be really eroding its ability to provide services to people. There are serious implications on Canadian society in receiving services from the government.

The member for Wascana may have touched on the changes to the Canadian Grain Commission, but he did not deal with them in detail. The Canadian Grain Commission has put Canada on the map in assuring that high quality grain gets to market. It gives some protection services to farmers and has enhanced our reputation abroad. Even changes to the Canada Grain Act are in this omnibus budget bill, which is clearly wrong.

Would the member care to comment on the impact that could have on the farm community and Canada as an export country shipping abroad?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. gentleman's concern. In the first half of my remarks today I went into considerable detail about why the procedure being followed here was mistaken. It does jamb Parliament. It limits the opportunity for debate and for serious consideration and, at the end of the day, it calls for all of these subject matters to be voted on together in a single vote. The government has indicated that it does not have to be that way.

Why does the government not fix this problem that it is causing for itself by insisting on the omnibus procedure? The government has already agreed that some things can come out of Bill C-45. That was demonstrated by the reforms to MPs' pensions. The bill can be severed. That has been demonstrated by what was done with the pension provisions.

The government has also indicated that the subject matters can be considered in different committees. It all does not have to go to finance committee. It can be divided up among eight, ten or twelve different committees of the House and the committee that has the expertise in a particular subject area can examine that portion of Bill C-45. That too is progress and it demonstrates that we do not have to have the omnibus procedure.

The government needs to go the one extra step and say that after the committees have done their consideration, the House can vote on these topics not all in one lump, but one by one, so the vote result can be clear and honest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member for Wascana that, last June, we discussed Bill C-38, which amended, created or eliminated approximately 70 laws with a single signature and a single vote.

Right now, this mammoth monster bill includes over 60 laws. Even if it were divided and the parts were examined separately by different committees, the fact remains that it amends, creates or eliminates about 60 laws. Once again, we will have to decide with a single vote.

The problem is that we do not have time in committee or in the House to carefully examine each of the laws that will be amended. The government gave us 70 hours to examine Bill C-38 in committee. We might be given the same number of hours to examine Bill C-45.

We heard from 150 witnesses. Given the number of laws that are being amended, created or eliminated, the time that has been allocated is truly laughable. Generally speaking, we hear from 15 to 20 witnesses and have 25 to 30 hours per law. However, we are not being given that much time here.

The government is telling us that all we talk about is parliamentary procedure, while it is talking about the economy. However, procedure is important because it is the foundation of democracy.

I would like to hear what the hon. member for Wascana has to say about the way in which this government is making a mockery of Parliament, parliamentary procedure and democracy by introducing massive bills such as this one.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the debate on Bill C-45, the concerns of the Liberal opposition fall into two categories.

First, from a procedural point of view, the government is again trying to jam Parliament, making sensible debate very difficult and rendering any votes on the bill both muddled and meaningless, all because Bill C-45 is another offensive omnibus bill, one that exceeds every legitimate precedent and that clearly constitutes an abuse of power.

Second, when economic growth is slowing to a crawl; when Canadian productivity is worse than we thought; when household debts are reaching dangerous proportions; and when worldwide financial risks are “alarmingly high”, to use the words of the IMF, Bill C-45 is stunningly complacent. There is nothing significant to promote growth, jobs, innovation and productivity, or to achieve genuine sustainable development in one of the world's most important resource economies, or to foster a dynamic and successful middle class, or to combat growing inequality between different sectors, regions and demographic groups.

On the procedural point, so-called omnibus bills obviously bundle several different measures together. Within reasonable limits, such legislation can be managed through Parliament if the bill is coherent, meaning that all the different topics are interrelated and interdependent and if the overall volume of the bill is not overwhelming. That was the case before the government came to power in 2006.

When omnibus bills were previously used to implement key provisions of federal budgets, they averaged fewer than 75 pages in length and typically amended a handful of laws directly related to budgetary policy. In other words, they were coherent and not overwhelming.

However, under this regime the practice has changed. Omnibus bills since 2006 have averaged well over 300 pages, more than four times the previous norm. This latest one introduced last week had 556 sections, filled 443 pages and touched on 30 or more disconnected topics, everything from navigable waters to grain inspection, from disability plans to hazardous materials.

It is a complete dog's breakfast, and deliberately so. It is calculated to be so humongous and so convoluted, all in a single lump, that it cannot be intelligently examined and digested by a conscientious Parliament.

Worse still, routine matters and positive measures are interwoven willy-nilly with destructive and contentious issues so that at the end of the day there can be no clear vote on anything, and thus the basic reason for this House to exist, to vote and to decide, is subverted.

Clearly Bill C-45 and its immediate predecessor, Bill C-38, are an abuse of power, and there is no greater authority for that indictment than the Prime Minister himself. When he served in opposition, he complained bitterly about a rather tiny omnibus bill back in 1994 that dealt with just five interconnected topics and ran a grand total of 21 pages.

In high dudgeon at the time, the Prime Minister said that the modest bill was:

—so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.

He continued:

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.

He asked government members in particular to worry about the implications of omnibus bills for “democracy and the functionality of...Parliament”. That was the Prime Minister in 1994 complaining about a bill of a mere 21 pages.

By contrast, what we have before us today in Bill C-45 is massive, with more than 400 pages and more than 500 sections covering more than 30 different topics, amending more than 60 other pieces of legislation, some of which were never mentioned in the budget itself.

The Prime Minister must be totally twisted out of shape by this perversion of parliamentary democracy. It is either that or, now in power, his previous principles have become expendable. Canadians fear the latter is the case.

It is not just manipulative omnibus bills that break the rules of decent behaviour. It is also ministerial binges on $16 orange juice and lavish limousines and ornamental gazebos in Muskoka, all at the taxpayers' expense, and never a word of complaint from the Prime Minister. It is hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on the most self-serving tax-paid advertising, external crony consultants, a bloated cabinet and 30 extra totally unnecessary MPs. It is routinely invoking closure to stifle debate. It is forcing parliamentary committees to do the public's business in secret behind closed doors. It is ministers' offices interfering with the public's access to information. It is systematic personal attacks to discredit and intimidate charities, NGOs, public servants and parliamentary watchdogs from the budget officer to the Auditor General, from the information commissioner to Elections Canada. The government will try to shut up anyone who has the temerity to speak truth to power. Ultimately, all of this leads to bad governance, like the multi-billion dollar F-35 stealth fighter boondoggle, which both the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have depicted as dishonest and incompetent.

Expendable principles also lead to election financing fraud, for which the party opposite has been charged and convicted. It also leads to deceitful robocalls and tampering with people's right to vote. Abusive omnibus bills are part of that same matrix of wrongdoing with impunity.

How can this be fixed? The government accepted a Liberal idea last Thursday and Friday to carve out MP pension reforms, which were previously in Bill C-45, so they could be approved separately and immediately. That was a decent start. It proved that these bills are severable. Yesterday, the government accepted another Liberal suggestion to subdivide Bill C-45 for committee study. Instead of being sent as a single lump to the finance committee, the various subject matters in Bill C-45 will each be examined in detail by the House standing committee that has the appropriate expertise.

That is a very good second step. However, voting is the key. After all the debating is done, the vote will still remain convoluted because Bill C-45 will not be voted upon in sections or by topics but rather all together, at once, as one lump sum. That makes any such omnibus vote quite meaningless.

This too can be fixed. We call upon the government to structure the final vote on a topic-by-topic basis. It should not muddle scientific tax credits with bridges to Detroit, not confuse the IMF with the EI financing board, but should call separate and distinct votes on each of these topics and let the result be clear and honest.

With distinct and honest voting, and subject to the detailed review that will take place in the appropriate committees, there are certainly some measures in Bill C-45 that Liberals could support—for example, the IMF reforms, the CMHC adjustments, the concept of monetary penalties for violations of the internal trade agreement and, no doubt, others.

On some topics we would like to offer the government better alternatives. One example is the employment insurance hiring credit for small business. This measure is necessary only because the Conservatives are increasing the payroll tax burden on small businesses, indeed on all employers, each and every year. Last year and the year before and next year and the year after and every year into the foreseeable future, the government is increasing job-killing EI payroll taxes by some $600 million every year. Then it brags about a tax credit that gives back about $200 million. It takes away $600 million and gives back $200 million. As a consequence, employers are generally worse off. Those employers are paying more new Conservative taxes on jobs than they are getting back in any of the credits.

Business would have a greater incentive to generate new jobs if the government would just stop its annual payroll tax increases. When Liberals faced the challenge of a tough economy in the 1990s, we first froze EI payroll taxes and then we cut them, not once, not twice, but 12 consecutive times. We brought them down by more than 40%, and 3.5 million net new jobs were created. There is no room here to brag about the hiring credit. It is a temporary band-aid over the damage being done by higher and higher Conservative EI payroll taxes year after year.

Another area where Liberals would suggest a better idea has to do with the registered disability savings plans. The changes outlined in Bill C-45 are fine as far as they go. They offer some technical improvements in the plans, but they do not go far enough. Still left out, still discriminated against, are those unfortunate Canadians who are diagnosed with long-term debilitating conditions, like multiple sclerosis, for example. Given the capricious nature of diseases like MS, the sufferers may be fine today, with no signs of disability yet emerged, but they know that their future prognoses are quite likely to be problematic. What they would like to do now, while they still are able to earn a living, is to set up a registered disability savings plan and start building some financial security for their more difficult days down the road. But the government says no. To have an RDSP, they must be permanently disabled right now. They cannot make provision for the future. They have to wait until their disability overtakes them. Such rigidity in the rules is shortsighted, mean-spirited and just plain foolish. It can and it should be fixed in Bill C-45.

In the fight for greater equality of opportunity, other things should be done too. Personal tax credits for children's arts and sports, for volunteer firefighters and for family home caregivers should be made equally available to all of those who qualify, not just the more wealthy. As strange as it sounds, the government's tax credit structure is designed in such a way that those below a certain income level do not quality. It is perverse. It punishes the poor. Why is a child from a wealthy family more deserving than a child from a low-income family? Why are more wealthy firefighters or caregivers more deserving than low-income firefighters or caregivers? Of the 25 million people who file tax returns in Canada each year, more than one-third, some nine million families, have incomes so low that they are not eligible for these tax credits. It is unfair, it is wrong and it should be fixed.

Therefore, the government should stop increasing the EI payroll taxes and fix the flaws in registered disability savings plans and family-based tax credits. These things would actually promote economic growth and reduce the inequality among Canadians, but sadly, they are not in Bill C-45. Also, the government should not mangle the scientific research and experimental development tax credit by eliminating capital expenditures from the formula, because that is explicitly discriminatory against some sectors and some regions of the country that need this incentive.

We also want the government to get serious about the situation of young Canadians. Most of those young Canadians have seen very little improvement in their prospects since the depth of the recession four years ago. Unemployment among those under the age of 25 keeps hovering close to recession-like levels of 15%. Some 250,000 fewer young Canadians are employed today than before the recession began. Worse still, 165,000 young Canadians have just given up and dropped out of the job market. From preschool to grad studies, continuous, high-calibre learning is one of the keys to a strong, productive Canadian economy in a precarious world. While fully respecting provincial jurisdictions, the Government of Canada needs to be more than just an idle spectator when it comes to this crucial determinant of Canada's overall economic success and Canadians' individual wellbeing.

We will thrive, or not, in a tough global environment on the quality of our brain power. Therefore, it is good public policy for the federal government to invest in early learning and childcare, to break down financial barriers to post-secondary studies and skills, to ease the burden of student debt and shift toward more grants than loans, to bolster more curiosity-based pure research, to foster innovation and to make Canada the most connected and digital country in the world.

Squarely within federal jurisdiction for aboriginal education, the federal government must end the cap that limits first nations' access to post-secondary learning. In the kindergarten to grade 12 system, the feds need to fill that disgraceful gap between what they invest to educate aboriginal children and the much higher amounts the provinces invest for non-aboriginal children. That discrepancy has to be fixed.

Sadly, none of these courageous measures are to be found in Bill C-45, nor does the bill address the urgent need for more affordable housing, especially for seniors, students, the disabled and others with special needs. It does not take the creative step of transferring the entire federal gas tax to local municipal governments to help underpin community infrastructure. It does not advance the principle of a more extensive CPP, while it perversely maintains the government's odious decision to cut the future pensions of the poorest and most vulnerable of senior citizens. Those pensions will be cut gradually in the future at a saving of something approaching 0.3% of GDP. The burden of that minor saving for the Government of Canada will fall squarely on the backs of the lowest-income and most vulnerable older Canadians who have no alternatives.

Bill C-45 fails in the first obligation of every government, to keep Canadians safe. There is erosion in border services, prison security, our spy system, Maritime search and rescue, consumer product labelling, emergency preparedness, community crime prevention, cyber security and, most blatantly, food safety.

Why the government would choose to make these areas its primary focus for cutting has a lot of Canadians scratching their heads. They want to be able to count on their governments to ensure public health and safety, first and foremost. However, the government seems to have that priority nowhere significantly on its list.

On procedure and on substance, for what it does and what it fails to do, Bill C-45 in our judgment cannot be supported as it stands today.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in this debate on Bill C-45, the concerns of the Liberal opposition fall into two categories—

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second 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.

Bill C-45—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am genuinely outraged, because we have seen this sort of thing before. The Conservatives have become experts in time allocation motions.

I think this does a real disservice to our democratic process, because when the government refuses to allow us as members, as parliamentarians, to debate a bill as important as Bill C-45, it is an affront once again to our democracy. This is also an affront to Canadians, because muzzling us, the members of the House, means muzzling all Canadians.

I want to say that we can still discuss and debate the contents of the bill, both here in the House and in committees. The work of parliamentarians is done in both places. It is important to remember that.

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, not more than four further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the fourth day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a quick question for Mr. Sinclair.

In Bill C-45, which is part 2 of the Budget Implementation Act, we're calling for a one-year extension of the small business hiring tax credit. The NDP has already said they're opposed to it. You represent small business, medium-sized business. Can you talk about the advantages of that, why it has been so successful and why it needs to continue for another year?

Bill C-45--Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Our economic action plan is working and it has helped support the creation of over 830,000 net new jobs since the downturn, but there is more to do. To continue this work we need to implement our plan for the passage of Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act.

I would like to advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. Thus, 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 this stage. It is my intention to propose four further days for the second reading debate of Bill C-45.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

That the clauses mentioned in section (g) of this motion do compose Bill C-53; that Bill C-53 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Health;

That the clauses mentioned in section (h) of this motion do compose Bill C-54; that Bill C-54 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration;

That the clauses mentioned in section (i) and (k) of this motion do compose Bill C-55; that Bill C-55 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development;

That the clauses mentioned in section (j) of this motion do compose Bill C-56; that Bill C-56 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food; and

That the clauses mentioned in section (l) of this motion do compose Bill C-57; that Bill C-57 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

That Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

Mr. Speaker, we are proposing this motion to better study individually in the appropriate parliamentary committees this omnibus budget bill, which touches on dozens of different pieces of legislation. We find this motion to be in the interests of this parliamentary institution that has been so hard pressed by a Conservative majority that thinks it can run roughshod over the rights of Parliament.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for your ruling in this regard and remind you that this complaint is coming from the person who, earlier, referred us to page 282 of the budget, saying that it had to do with the Navigable Waters Protection Act when such is not the case.

The changes in the budget change the rules of the game for teachers and engineers. What we are trying to say about employment insurance is that, from now on, people will have to look for jobs located up to an hour away from where they live, otherwise they will lose their benefits. This is an unbelievable threat to industries that depend on seasonal workers.

For example, what are people in Atlantic Canada who work in the fishery supposed to do if the minister is saying that, from now on, they have to move? Someone cannot train to be a fisher in five hours, five days or even five months. It takes several seasons to train someone to work on a boat. The government is already draining these communities of their lifeblood because of our artificially high dollar. All our export industries are suffering terribly. This is being felt in Atlantic Canada in particular.

Governing also means understanding the country, the regional differences and the different regional needs. Rather than making allowances for that, the Conservatives are applying the same remedy everywhere. They are attacking regions that are sorely in need of a helping hand. Instead of that help, these regions are getting hit hard. That is what the Conservatives are doing.

What is more, the Conservatives are creating an economy where salaries will be much lower. There is less pressure with regard to all working conditions because of a series of measures that are being implemented. It is not by chance that, for the first time in Canada's history, the middle class has seen a clear drop in income, and this occurred in tandem with the signing of NAFTA.

Over the past 25 years, the middle class has seen its real net income drop. This is the first time this has happened. In other words, the richest 20% of Canadians are experiencing a rise in income while the other 80% of Canadians—it has been measured and proven—are experiencing a drop in income. These are the results of the neo-conservative policies of the current government and its Liberal predecessors, who aggressively pursued the same goals for 25 years.

This is putting downward pressure on incomes and on employment conditions. As though that were not enough, these agreements are creating a race to the bottom: temporary foreign workers who used to come and work in a few sectors, such as produce farms, will now be in several employment categories. The government trumpets the fact that we can pay them a lot less than Canadians. People are working hard in mines and many other sectors and what is the result? One simply has to go visit the steelworkers in Prince George, British Columbia, to see what kind of pressure they are under. It is hard work. They work hard their entire lives. They fought hard for fair wages only to be told that the Conservatives are going to force them to work two years longer before they can retire. Then, as though these workers did not have enough pressure on them, the Conservatives want to bring in workers from other countries and pay them lower wages, and this adds even more downward pressure. That is the Canada the Conservatives dream of, where workers are subjected to working conditions from the early 1900s. That is their vision.

The NDP wants to build a fair Canada. We hear appalling speeches, like the one we heard earlier, suggesting that our dream is heresy. A country as rich as Canada is capable of paying for decent working conditions, and that is part of what an NDP government will bring.

That is the path that the Conservatives are paving for us.

Do not forget that Bill C-38, the Conservatives' budget bill in the spring, repealed the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. That is their vision.

They are not attacking one particular group or sector. Their goal is to drive down wages for all Canadians, a total lack of an economic plan. The government is not just failing workers but businesses that create jobs too. Canada faces a perfect storm of economic challenges. We have 500,000 lost manufacturing jobs, a $50 billion trade deficit, household debt at an all-time high, the worst American downturn since the Great Depression, and we are still in the middle of a eurozone crisis.

When we talk to Conservatives about the interest that we have in using our experience, our expertise and our capability to help in Europe, we get the usual talking points of “You want us to write a big cheque to Europe”. What imbecility. As if the idea of using our experience and our expertise to help avoid a crisis that will invariably negatively affect us is something wrong.

Yet those are the talking points that come out of the PMO because they make stuff up. That is all they have. They have nothing else. They make up pages in the budget and they make up plans for the NDP that have never existed, other than the ones that were the same ones they had. They make stuff up all day long because they cannot defend what they are actually doing. That is what we are talking about now, what is actually in here, what they are actually doing and the negative effect it is having on Canadian workers across the country.

What an irony Bill C-45 is. The jobs and growth act does not contain a plan to generate either. Budget 2012 kills more jobs than it creates. It contains no strategy for the 1.4 million out-of-work Canadians. The so-called centrepiece of the economic plan is the small business tax credit, which members can applaud because the NDP supports a tax credit. It was part of our 2011 platform. This one does not go far enough. It is worth a maximum of $1,000 and it lasts just one year. At best, it may be enough to help companies hire one full-time employee. It will not even make a dent in our lagging job numbers.

The truth is that the government continues its failed policy of lavish corporate tax cuts, even as companies ship jobs overseas. For example, one company demanded a 50% pay cut and shut its doors after receiving $5 million from the Conservatives. It was called Electro-Motive Diesel in London. I got to visit the workers on the picket line in the middle of the winter. It was an extraordinary experience because just a few months earlier a beaming Prime Minister had been out there with a $5 million cheque, because this was evidence of the success of his plan for jobs in Canada.

As soon as that election campaign was over, there was a little meeting. The bosses sat down and said, “We have a deal for you. You accept a 50% pay cut or we move your jobs south of the border”. The company closed, the jobs have been moved, it kept the $5 million and there are no longer any jobs in Canada. That is the Conservative plan.

Thirty years ago a young worker could work his or her way up a company ladder. Now workers have many different jobs in a lifetime. The incentive to invest in workers is being lost. A large workforce is no longer a sign of pride. A couple of generations ago, someone who was running a big company would be very proud and take great pride in stating the numbers in his workforce. Now the great pride is saying how many of those jobs were shipped to another country. That is the change. We have to get back to a feeling in Canada that it is a social responsibility to be proud to be creating good-paying jobs.

Why do we keep doing what the Conservatives do, investing in companies like Electro-Motive Diesel that do not invest in our workforce? This is the type of short-sightedness that we see all over Bill C-45.

For example, under the changes to the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, the program would be cut. The $500 million a year that it costs would be eliminated, but it would also reduce government support for business research and development at a time when businesses need to increase innovation to compete.

To put it another way, if we cannot get the Conservatives to do the right thing because it is the right thing, let us try to get them to do the right thing because it is actually good for the economy. The only way to increase wealth in our society is to increase knowledge, and this is the dumbing down of Canadian business. That is the Conservative legacy. It is going to hit manufacturing particularly hard at a time when they need a little oxygen to keep going.

We need tailored incentives that better serve businesses and our economy as a whole. There are a couple of good examples that can be looked at in Canada where long-term vision and incentive by the government has produced a great result.

For example, take a look at the TV and film industry in Toronto. There used to be a time when it was only New York and Hollywood. Now, Toronto is in there competing with them every step of the way, but it required a partnership between government, business and labour. Those tax incentives were there for decades and they worked their way through the system and are producing the great result of bringing in billions of dollars a year and lots of high-quality jobs. However, it required government involvement every step of the way. The Conservatives simply do not believe in that.

We should be building the next success story now. Instead, we are getting less for workers, less for Canadians and less for our economy. That is what the Conservatives are about, less for everyone.

In the business environment there should be the creation of a climate for growth. We have to ensure predictability. However, look at the catastrophe this week with the sale of a gas company. The government cannot even give the criteria on which the decision was based and it released its decision at 11:57 p.m. on a Friday.

The Conservatives cannot explain the decision. They have to hide it. Then when they come back into the House, they go back to their talking points and keep referring to the statute, but the decision uses criteria that are not in the statute. How is a foreign company looking to invest in Canada supposed to make an intelligent decision? We saw the effect on the stock market immediately on Monday. Stocks were getting pummelled. People do not know. This is a government that boasts about being close to business, but its actual decisions are hurting business.

This lack of predictability is something that we would change. We would clarify the rules for foreign investment. We would welcome investments and trade as long as it was reciprocal, responsible and fair.

What concerns us the most is that since 2009, there has been a strong trend towards eviscerating anything that has to do with environmental protection in Canada. In 2009, the government even did away with one of the first steps, which was the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

I remember that the Minister of Foreign Affairs called it the greatest job killer. We were confused. At the time, we told ourselves that it was not possible to pit the environment against the economy, since the past 50 years have shown us that they go hand in hand, because both of these things must progress together.

I remember being speechless in parliamentary committee, when I saw the Liberal Party vote with the Conservatives for the first time to start dismantling the Navigable Waters Protection Act. That was in 2009. That continued in 2010 and 2011, based on what we are seeing here. They are getting rid of the protections that are so important for everyone.

But the businesses themselves are the ones that want some predictability in all of this. They do not want to end up being told that they did not fulfill their obligations.

Instead of enforcing federal environmental protection legislation, such as the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, and so on, what are they doing? They are gutting these laws and changing them completely.

This is interesting, because we know that there are procedures, processes and ways of doing things, particularly in the oil sands, where the federal government no longer enforces these laws. The lack of enforcement will cause more degradation of ecosystems.

This government claims to be a law and order government. Normally, when a company violates the law, we force it to change its practices. But the Conservatives instead change the law to bring it in line with those practices.

I will give a concrete example having to do with the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which we were talking about earlier. In Canada, 37 rivers are considered to be heritage rivers. Of these 37 rivers, 27 will no longer be protected.

Now, 27 of Canada's 37 designated heritage rivers will no longer be protected. They include the Bloodvein River, in Manitoba and Ontario; the Cowichan River, British Columbia; the Clearwater River, Saskatchewan and Alberta; the Main River, Newfoundland and Labrador; the Margaree River, in Nova Scotia; the South Nahanni River, Northwest Territories; the Tatshenshini River, Yukon; the Mattawa River, Ontario; and the Upper Restigouche River, New Brunswick.

Mr. Speaker, I actually enjoy responding to the peanut gallery when they heckle. The question was, “Is it navigable?” Duh, yes. It is a definition in the law. No amount of rebranding will take away from the fact that the Navigable Waters Protection Act was meant to ensure sustainable development for future generations.

I mentioned the decision of Judge Lamer in the Oldman River case in my opening remarks. Let me read one section:

The Minister of Transport, in his capacity of decision maker under the Navigable Waters Protection Act must thus consider the environmental impact of the dam on such areas of federal jurisdiction as navigable waters, fisheries, Indians and Indian lands.

After that, the Conservatives stood up and said that law had nothing to do with the environment. Shame. It is Orwellian. The Conservatives made their website disappear after a question was asked by my colleague from Halifax yesterday. There were 29 references to the environment, and the Conservatives made them disappear. They want to make the environment disappear.

We are going to stand up and protect the environment, for now and for future generations. We are going to continue to fight the Conservatives' omnibus budget bills.

There are two different aspects that are being discussed today. When we look at the contents of what they are proposing, we get the results we are looking at here. We are hurting people. We are taking away programs. We are taking away protections that have been given in Canada for generations.

Before we even look at those, there is an aspect that all Canadians have to consider in what we are going through today, which is the continuation of what the Conservatives started in the spring. This type of omnibus budget bill is affecting dozens and dozens of different laws. We have fallen into the American trap of avoiding our parliamentary debate. Our system is different from the American budget system, where they tack on and tack on.

We remember the Prime Minister, and it was not something we have said, admitting that he never watches Canadian television and he never watches the Canadian news. He gets all his news from the Fox network. I guess it is not surprising that he thinks the American system applies here and he has simply given instructions to his House leader and his other officers to start following the American system of using a budget bill as sort of a catch-all, where they can throw in all the stuff they want to change. That is what we have here, again.

That is an undermining of our parliamentary democracy. Those are our institutions. The Conservatives are not only taking away things like medicare, free universal public medical care, and putting it in danger, the cuts I referred to earlier, the $36 billion that they announced without discussion or debate will lead inexorably to a two-tier system. That is just a fancy way of saying that poor people are going to have trouble seeing a doctor and rich people will have access because they will be able to pay for it.

That is not the Canadian system. That is not the Canadian way. We will stand up and fight that.

Yes, at every step, we will stand up because for the first time in a very long time we are beginning to have hope. In the next campaign, there will be two opposing visions for our country. There is the Conservative vision, which slashes the social safety net and takes out $10 billion every year. That is the figure they tried to hide. The cat was out of the bag yesterday.

I heard the member for Saint Boniface say earlier that they held lengthy budget briefings. Let us talk about those briefings. I was the finance critic for the official opposition for five budgets before I became the leader of the official opposition. Never before had I seen what I saw last spring. We often see the same people from year to year. They are usually in their offices. There is very little reason for them to be here, except for the few times they attend parliamentary committee hearings.

Officials are there to provide us with information. When I saw not only the budget cuts, but also the two-year increase in the retirement age, I went to see them to ask for a single figure that could be readily obtained. I asked them what adding two years of work would mean and how much money the government would be taking out of seniors' pockets.

This is what they told me, and I quote:

“I can't give you that information.”

I know a half-truth when I hear it. So I answered:

Are you telling me you can't give me that information because you don't have it, or are you telling me you have that information but you can't give it to me?

And the response, which was worthy of George Orwell, was:

“I can't give you that information.”

That is the Conservatives.

Yesterday the Auditor General confirmed the overall number. The Minister of Finance was asked that question at a press conference right in front of the House of Commons a few months ago. On our side, we had estimated that it was somewhere between $10 billion and $12 billion. We were not far off. They estimated it at $10 billion. The minister refused to give the number. He replied with his usual smile, as though he were saying “I do not give a damn”, that he had heard approximate numbers. Imagine that, a Minister of Finance who says such things. I can say one thing to my colleagues and to any seniors watching us at home: they can be sure that the two-year increase in the retirement age will be cancelled by an NDP government; we will put the retirement age back to 65.

We will stand up, unlike the members opposite who, day after day, have to parrot the lines written by the Prime Minister's Office. They sometimes have one minute a day in their poor little parliamentary lives to finally talk about their ridings and about real issues, and what do they do? They act like parrots. They are puppets, marionettes. They stand up and say exactly what the Prime Minister's Office tells them to say.

We can be reasonable. We can stand up and keep the real objectives in mind. We tell Canadians that when it comes to pensions, the integrity of our Parliament and our free, public health care system, we are proud to stand up for them. We will stand up for the environment, because we in the NDP know that we deserve better than what the Conservatives have been offering us for the past six years.

Since the Conservatives came to power, they have found many opportunities to invent titles for bills that say exactly the opposite of the bill's contents. Last week, I had the opportunity to say that if, by chance, they actually used the most recent incarnation of the mammoth budget bill to do what they promised to do in the election campaign, which was create jobs, we would vote in favour of the bill.

In the comments I made yesterday, I clearly explained that we could have a good discussion about some of the elements in this bill if we could split it. It could be done by splitting the bill and having different committees study it.

We believe that some things can and must be done. I gave an example earlier when I spoke about tax credits for creating jobs. That is how we could go about it.

We will not let the Conservatives fool us. We have become too accustomed to their empty promises. We are telling them outright that if they split the bill and divide it into coherent parts that can be easily studied, they will find that our party is willing to co-operate.

We shall see what they end up doing. We will test the Conservatives' ability to be true to their word. In the case of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, we saw that they said one thing and what was in the documents was altogether different.

Here are some of the elements that could be split off from the bill.

Here are some of the elements of Bill C-45 that could be split off from the bill and studied separately and properly in a parliamentary committee. It has already been shown it is possible because we did it last week.

By the way, I open a little parenthesis to say that there are 450,000 public servants in Canada who are very happy that the NDP actually read what the Liberals were putting in, because such is the Liberal incompetence that they were about to give one-two-three agreement to the enactment of a law that would have taken MPs' and senators' pensions and dealt with them on the same footing as the pensions of 450,000 civil servants.

The NDP stood up, demanded a change, and was able to get it done right.

It was so pathetic to see the House leader for the Liberals standing in the hallway, stuttering away, saying, “It was a spelling mistake. It was a typographical error.” That is one of his classics. Four hundred and fifty-thousand people are a typographical error for the Liberals.

Here are some of the elements that could be split off from the bill.

The gutting of the Canada Environmental Assessment Act should be before the environment committee. The gutting of the Navigable Waters Protection Act should be before the environment and transportation committee. The elimination of the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission should, of course, go to the health committee. Cutting the SR and ED tax credits should be before the industry committee. Changes to the Fisheries Act should go to fisheries and oceans committee. Changes to the Indian Act should go to aboriginal affairs and northern development committee. Changes to the new Bridge to Strengthen Trade Act should go before the transportation committee. Eliminating the grain act tribunal should go before the agriculture committee, and pension reforms should go before the human resources, skills and social development committee.

Therefore, I would like to seek unanimous consent, and I am sure it is going to be given, to move the following motion.

That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, that Bill C-45, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures be amended by removing the following clauses:

(a) clauses 9, 27, 28 and 62 to 64 related to the scientific research and experimental development tax credit;

(b) clauses 173 to 178 related to the Fisheries Act;

(c) clauses 179 to 184 related to the proposed bridge to strengthen trade act;

(d) clauses 206 to 209 related to the Indian Act;

(e) clauses 210 to 218 related to the Judges Act;

(f) clauses 264 to 268 related to the Customs Act;

(g) clauses 269 to 298 related to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act;

(i) clauses 316 to 350 related to the Navigable Waters Protection Act;

(j) clauses 351 to 410 related to the Canada Grains Act;

(k) clauses 425 to 432 related to the Canada Environmental Assessment Act; and

(l) clauses 464 to 514 related to pension reforms

That the clauses mentioned in section (a) of this motion do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

That the clauses mentioned in section (b) of this motion do compose Bill C-48; that Bill C-48 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

That the clauses mentioned in section (c) of this motion do compose Bill C-49; that Bill C-49 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

That the clauses mentioned in section (d) of this motion do compose Bill C-50; that Bill C-50 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

That the clauses mentioned in section (e) of this motion do compose Bill C-51; that Bill C-51 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

That the clauses mentioned in section (f) of this motion do compose Bill C-52; that Bill C-52 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

moved that Bill C-45, A second 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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairperson, if I could, I have had the opportunity to talk to Ms. Sims, and I believe the New Democratic Party would support what I am going to suggest.

Mr. Chairperson, I would ultimately ask if we could have the committee canvassed on the budget bill, which is Bill C-45—

Government Operations and Estimates

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates presented on Wednesday, June 20, be concurred in.

He said: I realize that we are delaying the debate on the budget Bill C-45 but I believe it is for an important reason. The government operations committee conducted a detailed report on how the House studies the estimates and produced a report that was unanimously supported with one minor exception.

Before members of this place can begin to properly debate the budget and the proposed expenditure cuts, we must clarify our desire for better and more timely information. Concurring in this report would do just that. I hope members on both sides of the House appreciate that this is not a hostile move. I believe that the President of the Treasury Board indicated on Monday during question period that he will support concurring in this report and I am confident that the motion will also receive the support of opposition members.

I will begin by providing a little background for the study in the words of the report itself. It reads:

In recent history, there have been two wide-ranging reviews of the estimates process, one by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in 1998, and another by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates...in 2003. Of the 75 recommendations that came out of the two reports...few changes were made. The process for considering the estimates and supply should be revitalized, as there is still a need for more meaningful scrutiny.

In terms of an overview of the study, I will quote O'Brien and Bosc from The Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of Its History and Present Form by Josef Redlich in terms of the importance of this topic. He writes:

The whole law of finance, and consequently the whole British constitution, is grounded upon one fundamental principle, laid down at the very outset of English parliamentary history and secured by three hundred years of mingled conflict with the Crown and peaceful growth. All taxes and public burdens imposed upon the nation for purposes of state, whatsoever their nature, must be granted by the representatives of the citizens and taxpayers, i.e., by Parliament.

Because Canada follows the British parliamentary model, that same statement applies to this country.

The first topic of the report I will talk about is “cash versus accrual accounting”. Recommendation 1 of the report is:

That the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat complete its study of accrual-based budgeting and appropriations and report back to Parliament by March 31, 2013.

We have been told by the government that it will provide this report by March 31, 2013.

In terms of the rationale, I will read, again, from the report:

In the course of its study, the Committee considered the matter of cash versus accrual-based appropriations in the context of what information is most useful for parliamentarians in their consideration of estimates and approval of supply. The Committee heard from some witnesses who suggested that the financial information and appropriations in the main and supplementary estimates should be presented on an accrual basis as opposed to a cash basis. However there was no consensus among witnesses on the matter and the Committee heard from several witnesses who strongly favoured that information in the estimates remain on a cash basis.

In other words, there was no consensus among the experts as to whether cash or accrual accounting was better and, therefore, we did not pronounce on that issue, but we have asked that the Treasury Board Secretariat complete a study in the coming months.

The next issue concerns the timing of the budget versus the main estimates. Recommendation 6 reads:

That, to the extent possible, the budget items for a given year are reflected in the main estimates for that same year; and therefore that the government present its budget in the House of Commons no later than February 1 of each year; that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs pursue amendments to the Standing Orders, procedure and practice of the House of Commons in order to move the date on which the main estimates are presented to the House back to a later date in March; and that the Committee report to the House on its study by March 31, 2013.

The government does not support fixing the budget date as no later than February 1. The rationale for this, as confirmed by many expert witnesses, is that the earlier the budget is made, the more it is likely the budget measures of the current year will be included in the main estimates. The government makes the argument that this reduces the flexibility of the government. However, in the view of the committee, such a flexibility reduction is worth it in order to bring promptness of information to those who study the estimates. Indeed, Auditor General Michael Ferguson confirmed this point when he stated at committee:

The Main Estimates do not provide a complete picture of the spending plan and is not connected with the Budget. When we performed the audit in 2006, we found that the main reason for including items in the Supplementary Estimates was timing. The tabling of the Main Estimates in advance of the Budget was a key factor that gave rise to increased use of Supplementary Estimates.

In other words, the timeliness and usefulness of the information would be much enhanced if the government would agree to the committee's unanimous proposal to say that the budget must not be later than February 1.

The next issue involves questions in advance.

Recommendation 10 states:

That, where feasible, standing committees provide questions to departmental officials in advance of hearings on the estimates, and that committee members endeavour to ensure the necessary departmental officials are invited to appear for estimates hearings.

This is an issue that falls within the purview of the House of Commons rather than the government.

Recommendation 11 states:

That standing committees review statutory programs on a cyclical basis, at least once every eight years. This also falls within the purview of the House.

Recommendation 12 states:

That departments and agencies include tax expenditures, currently included in the Department of Finance’s Tax Expenditures and Evaluations report, in their reports on plans and priorities, as determined by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to best fit their mandate.

The government does not support putting the tax expenditures in the reports on plans and priorities, but has said that it would coordinate the release of the annual tax expenditure report with the main estimates and that the Finance Department would offer briefings.

Recommendation 13 states:

That standing committees review tax expenditures presented in departmental reports on plans and priorities on a cyclical basis at least once every eight years to assess whether or not they are meeting their intended objective.

This too is within the purview of the House of Commons.

I come now to the topic of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Recommendation 15 states:

That the House of Commons give its Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates the mandate to undertake a study of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer which would include a thorough analysis of the mandate and function of the Office in order to better serve members of Parliament; and that in its study, the Committee should consider all structural models for the Office including, but not limited to, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reporting directly to Parliament as an Officer of Parliament.

This also is within the purview of the House. However, the government did not display great enthusiasm for this proposal, stating that the Library of Parliament committee had already studied the question of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This was some time ago, and I think members of the committee, including Conservative members, were in agreement that now, just a few months before the current Parliamentary Budget Officer leaves the job and another person is appointed, would be a very good time to conduct a new study of the desirable mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I will quote a couple of expert witnesses.

First, Allen Schick, distinguished professor, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, stated, “Canada” in establishing a Parliamentary Budget Officer:

—was following a trend that is quite widespread around the world, and that is staffing up parliament to be able to better perform its budget-related responsibilities....The role often is to review the estimates to see whether they are reliable. The key budget work today around the world is not simply whether the money should be spent, but are the assumptions underlying the estimates robust? Are they reliable?

I think that is precisely the area where research done by the Parliamentary Budget Officer is invaluable.

Joachim Wehner, associate professor in public policy at the London School of Economics, stated:

The first one [change] is to protect and enhance the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer....Internationally, the Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada is very highly regarded, and it's certainly a major change...in the degree the parliament in Canada has access to an independent, highly professional research capacity...some adjustments are possible to the legal framework for the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In particular, this role could be strengthened, or the status be strengthened, if he were a full officer of Parliament. Moreover, steps could be taken so that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has total access to all relevant information. I see some scope for strengthening it also on the basis of international experience.

These are two very laudatory reviews of our current Parliamentary Budget Officer and very definite proposals that he be made an officer of Parliament.

I come now to recommendation 16 on online resources, which states:

That the government develop a searchable online database that contains information on departmental spending by type of expense and by program.

The government is committing to make this information available in a better digital format.

Recommendation 14 states:

That standing committees dedicate an in camera meeting at the beginning of a new Parliament, and periodically as needed, for a briefing session on the estimates and supply process and the related documents, with a focus on the committee’s role in scrutinizing government spending

This recommendation is within the purview of the House. The purpose is to ensure that all committee members have adequate training and information to carry out an examination of the estimates in an efficient and proper way.

Next is recommendation 2 on vote structure, which states:

That the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat transition the estimates and related appropriations acts from the current model to a program activity model, that they assist federal departments with this process, and that they prepare a timeline for this transition by March 31, 2013, and transmit this timeline to the Committee.

The government said that it would provide a detailed report on transition to a program activity by March 31, 2013.

I would like to quote the current Parliamentary Budget officer, Kevin Page, because it is a very good quote. He states

On structure, it makes little sense in a 21st century world for parliamentarians to be voting on inputs like operations and capital, and grants and contributions that cut across a department spending many billions of dollars for a diverse set of program activities. Given the recent experiences with border infrastructure funds and aboriginal housing and education, would it not make more sense to consider program activities (five, 10 or 15 per department) or their associated outputs as more relevant control gates? Why should ministers and their accountability officers be able to move monies from one activity to another without scrutiny or consent? Would voting on program activities not encourage more meaningful scrutiny on service level impacts as we move forward with spending restraint? Would this not help simplify our estimates system, which collects financial and non-financial performance data on program activities?

The answer to all of those questions is a definite “yes”. I can assure members that the committee was absolutely unanimous that in the 21st century it made absolute sense to proceed with estimates based on program activity.

Next I come to the deemed adopted rule. Currently, the main estimates must be tabled by March 1 and reported back by May 31. Supplementary estimates must be reported back no later than three sitting days before the final supply day in the related supply period.

Recommendation 8 states:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs pursue amendments to the Standing Orders, procedure and practice of the House of Commons in order to require standing committees to consider during a minimum amount of time the estimates referred to them, and that the Committee report to the House on its study no later than March 31, 2013.

That is within the purview of the House, as is recommendation 9, which states:

That as part of its amendments to the Standing Orders, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs examine the feasibility of providing standing committees at least two sitting weeks to consider and report on the supplementary estimates, and that the Committee report to the House on its study no later than March 31, 2013.

I will quote Ned Franks, professor emeritus of the Department of Political Studies at Queen's University, who thinks that the deemed adopted rule needs to stay.

He states:

I do not like the process of deeming, which means that the votes are deemed to be passed whether they come out of committee or Parliament has approved them or not. But bearing in mind the capacity of parliamentary committees and Parliament itself to delay, procrastinate, and simply obstruct business, I think deeming is an essential part of the Canadian financial processes.

He later continues:

—I think we need that deeming thing in there as a protection against just pure bloody-minded obstruction and the refusal to pass budgets in minority parliaments.

Some of my colleagues might believe that there is never any bloody-minded obstruction in this place, but that is what the expert has suggested. It is for that reason the committee did not propose to get rid of the deeming rule, but rather to propose measures that would ensure a certain minimum amount of time was spent in examining the estimates and the supplementary estimates.

That completes the essence of our recommendations.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are continuing their attacks on Canadian heritage lakes and rivers.

By weakening the Navigable Waters Protection Act and thus eliminating protections for our lakes and rivers, all through measures hidden in a second massive budget implementation bill, the Conservatives are allowing the development of infrastructure that could harm these same waterways without requiring that environmental assessments be conducted first.

How many lakes and rivers will be laid to waste and how many environmental assessments will be set aside because of Bill C-45?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First let me mention that I'm going to ask the committee to take a moment at the beginning of our meeting on Thursday to consider the motion that I gave notice of this morning and that you're aware of, which would call on the committee to study the changes to the SR and ED program that are contained in parts 1 and 4 of Bill C-45, the second budget bill, which is before the House today.

Bill C-45—Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the House recognize that the provisions of Bill C-45 dealing with members' pensions should be enacted as quickly as possible, and passed without further debate;

That Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be divided into two bills: Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and Bill C-46, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; and

That Bill C-46 be composed of

(a) clauses 475 to 514 of Bill C-45, as it is presently composed,

(b) a clause, inserted before all of the other clauses, to provide that “This act may be cited as the Pension Reform Act”, and

(c) a clause, inserted after all of the other clauses, to provide that “This act comes into force, or is deemed to have come into force, on January 1, 2013”;

That Bill C-46 be deemed to have been read the second time and deemed referred to a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed;

That Bill C-46 be composed of its remaining clauses;

That Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order;

That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; and

That Bills C-45 and C-46 be reprinted.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations concerning the provisions of the second budget bill dealing with members' pensions. I hope to receive the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. It is a slightly edited version of what was proposed by the Liberal House leader yesterday.

I move that the House recognize that the provisions of Bill C-45 dealing with members' pensions should be enacted as quickly as possible and passed without further debate; that Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be divided into two bills: Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures; and Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; and that Bill C-46 be composed of: (a) clauses 475 to 553 of Bill C-45 as it is presently composed; (b) a clause inserted before all of the other clauses to provide that this act may be cited as the pension reform act and; (c) a clause inserted after all of the other clauses to provide this act comes into force or is deemed to have come into force on January 1, 2013; that Bill C-46 be deemed to have been read the second time and deemed referred to committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read the third time and passed; that Bill C-45 be composed of the remaining clauses; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior the adoption of this order; that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary; and that Bill C-45 and Bill C-46 be reprinted.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I would have been quite happy to have consented to the motion had the member not included in it a provision for an additional opposition day. Had the member decided to conclude that NDP was prepared, since its subject for today was food safety, to make the balance of the day the debate on Bill S-11 and then have it proceed to committee, we would have been quite delighted to consent.

In terms of his suggestions on the budget bill, I am looking forward to meeting with him and discussing with him what opportunities might exist there further.

Earlier today, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012.

This important piece of legislation will bolster Canada’s economy and help improve communities with initiatives that build a strong economy and create jobs, support families and communities, promote clean energy and enhance neutrality of the tax system, and respect taxpayers’ dollars.

We will start second reading debate of Bill C-45 on Wednesday—once honourable members have had a chance to review the bill and discuss it at next week’s caucus meetings. The debate will continue on Thursday and Friday.

I genuinely hope all members will take advantage of the budget bill study week that is available to review the valuable measures that are set out as the second half of our legislative arm of our comprehensive economic action plan 2012. One highlight of the study week will be a briefing arranged by the minister for all hon. members on Monday evening. I hope many MPs can attend, and certainly more than the paltry attendance of opposition members that appeared this spring for the briefing on Bill C-38.

I look forward to a vigorous policy debate on the economy and not on procedural games.

I turn now to the business of the House leading up to Wednesday.

This afternoon we will see the conclusion of the NDP's opposition day. Regrettably, I was personally disappointed that the official opposition did not answer my call last week to lay out the details of its $21.5 billion carbon tax and how it would raise the price of gas, groceries and electricity. Though, I was encouraged that this week in question period the New Democrats actually did acknowledge the subject and raised it.

Tomorrow and Monday will see us resume second reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. I understand we should finish that debate sometime on Monday, at which that time we will then turn to Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act.

On Tuesday, we will debate the second reading of Bill S-11, the safe food for Canadians act, unless we find some other approach that would allow us to move on a more urgent basis. Since we did not get unanimous consent to move it forward quickly, we are hopeful there will be some other approach that can be agreed upon to move quickly with it. We hope that if we do debate it that day, we will be able to deal with it quickly and then spend the balance of that day debating Bill C-15 and Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a great idea.

It is an honour for me to rise to ask the government, on behalf of the opposition, what it has in store for the House for the rest of this week and for next week.

This government clearly did not understand the message that thousands of Canadians sent it last spring regarding the omnibus Bill C-38 on the budget. Canadians said that the bill was an attack on the democratic process and on the integrity of the House, and a violation of the right of all Canadians to hold their government to account.

Today we have received Bill C-45, another monstrous bill from a government that simply does not seem to understand. The bill is 450 pages long and combines measures such as cutting funding for research and development and watering down environmental assessment rules with actual budgetary measures.

Clearly this government has not learned its lesson. Canadians expect more transparency and accountability from the Conservatives.

Eighteen years ago, the member for Calgary Southwest, the Prime Minister, said, and I want to quote him to set the context for what I am about to approach:

Mr. Speaker, 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.

We now know that same member, as the Prime Minister, does not believe that applies to him any longer. At the very least, as we need to understand this bill and fully analyze, I will ask the government three questions about what follows.

Will the government split this bill into its component parts to allow for proper study?

If not, will it allow for multiple standing committees to study the divisions of this bill that fit into those committee mandates?

At the very least, will it allow for full debate on this bill without slamming the door with further closure or time allocations, as we saw last spring?

Last, New Democrats welcomed this morning's long overdue arrival of Bill S-11 from the Senate, which has been waiting for passage there for more than 120 days, and was killed by prorogation by the government previously. We are interested in passing this bill quickly to committee.

We are also interested in the integrity of the legislative process. I am somewhat surprised that the government is not so much. It has had to amend a number of its hastily written bills and has asked Canadians to simply trust it on this one and move it all stages. It cannot work with a Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food who has failed us repeatedly and seriously in his role.

With Bill S-11 in mind, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, this House move immediately to debate at second reading of S-11, that today's order for supply be deemed not to have been called, and that the order for the putting of the question on the supply motion and the deferral of that vote be deemed to have been withdrawn.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)