House Publications

    Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced by my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie aims to appoint a commissioner for children and young persons in Canada. I agree with the substance of these measures.

    I became involved in the NDP because I saw the work my party has been doing for years, including for instance, the motion moved by former NDP leader Ed Broadbent aimed at eliminating child poverty by the year 2000. I probably do not need to point out that successive governments have failed to achieve that goal. Nor do I need to explain how hard my colleague from Timmins—James Bay has been working on behalf of aboriginal children, particularly on initiatives such as Shannen's dream.

    The current state of affairs is appalling. Canada is no longer a leader when it comes to children's well-being. Out of 30 OECD countries, Canada ranks among the bottom third regarding infant mortality, health, safety and poverty. Those statistics are cause for alarm. Our children and teenagers should be at the centre of our policies and actions. We should work on their behalf. We should not need a commissioner to remind us of that, but unfortunately, as history has shown, it seems we do.

    Regardless of the mandate of such a commissioner and the impact the office will have, we as a country must take a greater interest in our children. We should invest now to provide them with better services and better living conditions. This summer, I attended the Canadian Medical Association's annual meeting in Yellowknife, where the focus was on health determinants. Delegates attended a presentation by Sir Michael Marmot, a subject matter expert from the United Kingdom.

    Social determinants of health are gaining greater attention and being more widely studied. A number of health-focused organizations are investigating them. One of the highest-profile organizations studying health determinants is the World Health Organization. WHO defines social determinants of health as the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, including the health system.

    These circumstances reflect policy choices and are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. The social determinants of health are mostly responsible for health inequities—the unfair and significant differences in health status seen within and between countries.

    In his presentation, Sir Marmot identified six strategic objectives for healthy living, and I would like to list them all: strengthen the role and impact of ill health prevention; create and develop healthy and sustainable places and communities; ensure a healthy standard of living for all; create fair employment and good work for all; enable all children, young people and adults to maximize their capabilities and have control over their lives; and give every child the best start in life.

    As Sir Marmot said in his presentation, the longer we wait to rectify inequalities, the worse problems associated with low income become. Quoting from his own work, Fair Society, Healthy Lives, he said:

    The evidence is there and experts have said it on more than one occasion: we must address the socio-economic factors. Poverty has an impact on health. It has an impact on education and crime.

    In the case of health, I would like to provide some statistics from the Canadian Medical Association: 68% of Canadians with an income greater than $60,000 describe their health as excellent or very good. For Canadians with an income of less than $30,000 a year, this rate drops to 39%, a difference of 29%. Furthermore, 59% of those with an income of less than $30,000 accessed the health care system, compared to 43% of those with an income of $60,000 or more.

    Canadians with an income of $30,000 or less are also more likely than those with an income of $60,000 or more to use tobacco—33% versus 10%—and to have been diagnosed with a chronic illness—41% versus 28%.

    With regard to children, I would like to point out that 22% of children in families with an income of less than $30,000 are very or somewhat overweight, compared to 9% of children in families with an income of over $60,000. I would like to remind hon. members that not everyone can afford to register their child in hockey, especially if the family income is less than $30,000.

    The numbers are there and I have just presented some of them. Yet, this government has decided to punish the poor of our society. The government's ad hoc employment insurance reform will penalize many families and will have an impact on children. The cuts to the federal tobacco control strategy will have an even greater impact on people with incomes of less than $30,000. All these measures will affect our health care system.

    It is important to create this type of position for the health of our children. In a 2009 report, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the CPS, called for the creation of a commissioner for children and young persons. The report explains that the CPS recommends that a Canadian commissioner for children and young persons be appointed so that the opinions and needs of these individuals are taken into account in all federal government initiatives affecting them. UNICEF Canada and a number of other child advocacy groups have made the same request.

    We need tools to ensure that Canada fulfills its commitments under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, we must look at the big picture and make a consistent effort. By not giving our children what they need now, we are jeopardizing their health, and that is unacceptable.

    Mr. Speaker, a bill for the establishment of a commissioner for children in Canada is crucial because of the deterioration of the socio-economic conditions of children in our country.

    For years, one crop of MPs after another has tried to fight poverty and to ensure that Canadian youth have an equal opportunity to succeed.

    Unfortunately, we have to admit that Canada's children and youth continue to be on the excessively long list of people who are exploited, abused and criminalized. The number of children suffering from malnutrition continues to grow. Children who suffer the consequences of hunger, violence and a lack of education are legion in our society, and we are concerned about this scandalous situation in a developed country such as ours.

    In a special report to the UN, which was tabled in Geneva on February 6, 2012, the Canadian Council of Child and Youth Advocates stated that Canada must do better today and tomorrow. Irwin Elman, the Ontario representative of the group, pointed out that Canada does not have a monitoring mechanism to provide a detailed and reliable national view of living conditions and the progress made in furthering the rights of aboriginal children and youth. This council also reiterated its request for the creation of a national commissioner for children's rights.

    We must examine this proposal to create a commissioner for children in the context of budget cuts that are affecting the most disadvantaged in our society. Creating a commissioner for children and young persons would remind us of our commitments under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Defending the rights of children around the world has been part of our political agenda for decades. We now have the opportunity to take another important step to protect youth.

    The notion of fundamental rights has changed significantly since the creation of the League of Nations and the publication of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a society, we are now in a position to include measures for child protection and development that are consistent with our collective wealth. A country like ours, with our material and intellectual resources, is in a position to create this structure independent from the government and to give children a voice.

    As set out in the bill, a commissioner for children must be independent in order to inform the public about the shortcomings of and the progress made by our institutions dedicated to children and young people. The position of commissioner is held during good behaviour for a term of five years, in order to create the judicial independence needed for the investigations that are part of his or her duties. The commissioner would protect all children benefiting from the laws and conventions that define and govern children's rights. The commissioner has jurisdiction over criminal laws that affect the rights of children and young persons. The application of these child protection principles is very complex, particularly in light of the number of laws, regulations, departments and agencies that directly or indirectly influence these rights.

    The machinery of government is so complex that it is unrealistic to think that elected officials have access to all the information they need to connect children's fundamental rights with the thousands of government programs operating in rural or urban regions.

    A commissioner for children would have to promote the government's rights and responsibilities towards children, in order to democratize this information and to reach all segments of the Canadian population.

    We have failed to protect our children from the discrimination and suffering resulting from violence and abuse. We have ignored our important obligations to protect children. We have enshrined laws and conventions on human rights, while overlooking the main issue of applying the related principles.

    The mandate of a legislator includes obligations related to executing the rules that govern our democracy. Essentially, we have agreed on the principles of education, mental health, criminal liability and children's health care. However, how can we ensure equity and respect for the rights provided for by our laws and conventions without creating an office of the commissioner that is independent from the government? How can we claim to support justice without knowing how children and young people are treated by our court system?

    Answers to our questions about the status of children in Canada are long overdue. We live in a huge country where our guiding principles must be applied fairly. We cannot allow departments to take a random approach to honouring the fundamental rights of children. Despite thousands of government programs to combat inequality, children across Canada are victims of abuse, exploitation and poverty. Our institutions are so complex that sometimes we do not hear the complaints and grievances of Canadians, be they young or old.

    Creating a children's commissioner dedicated to the study of social phenomena affecting children is in line with the principles in our laws. The commissioner could work with agents across the country to demonstrate the application of laws and conventions that define children's rights. The commissioner could receive reports and recommendations from individuals and groups concerned about the status of children in an effort to enrich our understanding of the situation.

    This bill promotes the involvement of children in decision-making processes that affect them. The greater interest of the child guides legal decisions in Canada, and the office of the commissioner must make involving children a priority in fulfilling its mandate. We have agreed to basic rights for all citizens of this country, but our work will not be done as long as our Charter, laws and conventions apply only in theory, and we continue to fail the populations that our institutions should be protecting.

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my Liberal colleague for introducing this bill, which will make up for the Conservative government's lack of leadership since coming to power.

    I will explain in detail why the NDP and I support this kind of initiative. It is based on the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child. For years, the NDP has been championing the rights of children in Canada, supporting the work of those advocating for the rights of children, and promoting collaboration with international bodies like the UN.

    We know that co-operation with international organizations has been going poorly lately because of the Conservatives' attitude. However, once Conservatives are removed from power in 2015, I am confident that we will be able to get Canada back on the right track as a fairer, greener, more prosperous country that cares more about the well-being of children.

    As I mentioned, we support this bill. However, we do have some reservations, since the Conservative government will be the one to appoint the commissioner. Considering the Conservatives' patronage appointments in the past, particularly regarding the immigration bill that gives more power to the minister, we are very reluctant to give the Conservatives any more power. I am pretty sure that people watching us at home feel the same way. That said, I would like to put partisanship aside, because it is actually a pretty good bill and I want to make sure we have enough time to debate its merits.

    In 1991, Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Essentially, it committed all parties, including Canada, to take all necessary measures to ensure the respect, protection and implementation of children’s rights. It also required Canada to review its legislation on children. Furthermore, it committed the parties to re-examine their legal system, social services and health care networks and their education system, as well as to review the funding levels available to those systems.

    Unfortunately, the Government of Canada deserves a failing grade. If this were a grade on a report card, Canada would get an “F”. It might get a few marks for effort. However, at the end of the day, since Canada does not have such a commissioner or an independent person responsible for the well-being of children, many of the ratifications and measures proposed by the government and meant to protect young people or ensure their well-being have been nothing but empty promises. No one behind the scenes has really done anything to implement the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

    If a commissioner were appointed, he or she could play a leadership role. He or she could either be part of the parliamentary branch or be completely independent. We in the NDP prefer that people who serve the House of Commons be independent. That way, it is easier to ensure positive results no matter which party is in power. In that regard, I would like to congratulate Kevin Page, who has demonstrated that the independence of individuals in positions like his is crucial to playing a leadership role in Canada.

    Bill C-420 would establish the position of commissioner for children, who would be responsible for ensuring that Canada complies with provisions of the convention, as I mentioned, and also for implementing the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, which Canada also ratified in 2000 and 2005 respectively. These are good measures that have the support of the NDP, and we truly want the government to take a leadership role in these areas. The position of commissioner established by this bill would allow the government, as the leader, to fulfill this role.

    According to the report of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, many children in Canada face obstacles to realizing their full potential as young Canadians, even though most children's basic needs are met. Unfortunately, even in a rich country such as Canada, too many children live in poverty for many reasons that I do not necessarily wish to address at this time.

    My purpose is not so much to speak about poverty as to describe the situation of our young people. That is an area in which Canada also lags behind. While doing my research, I even learned that Canada is lagging behind with respect to the basic indicators of child welfare. This is due in part to the fact that, as I mentioned, Canada's federal system does not have an intergovernmental mechanism to ensure that international treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child are implemented across the country.

    The NDP supports the appointment of an independent or parliamentary child advocate. We support this measure, but we also believe that Canada could take the lead in other initiatives, especially if the Conservative government is interested—I am reaching out here—in introducing a children's health initiative to support and expand healthy meal programs for children in community centres and schools. These are practical measures that can make a difference and help many of these young children whose basic needs are not being met.

    Are hon. members familiar with Jordan's principle? It is a principle that the NDP supports. In short, this principle seeks to resolve jurisdictional disputes between two federal government departments or between two levels of government, for example, between the federal and the provincial or territorial governments. This prevents interminable delays during which the needs of the child are not met.

    Let us take the example of an aboriginal child who should normally have the same access to services as any other Canadian. Since it is unclear which authority is supposed to pay for these expenses, aboriginal young people often have to wait a very long time before their needs are met.

    We therefore support Jordan's principle, which would make it possible, in the case of such jurisdictional disputes, for the government or department of first contact to meet the needs of the child and then refer the matter to the jurisdictional dispute mechanism. We believe that it could be worthwhile for the commissioner to play a role in this regard.

    The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is a strong supporter of the Shannen's dream initiative. I would like to commend him for the great work he has done in this regard. Shannen's dream urges the federal government to ensure that all first nations children attend a school that is in good repair and that all first nations schools receive equitable education funding.

    Unfortunately, the poverty rate in Canada is high, particularly among first nations. I find this very distressing. I am proud to live in a country that is rich in human and financial resources, but I think it is very unfortunate that so many people are still falling through the cracks.

    To come back to the issue of creating a national office of child and youth health, I think that we could even rally the Conservative member for Simcoe—Grey to this cause and get her support. In fact, in 2007, she was the government's advisor on healthy children and youth. She published a report entitled, “Reaching for the Top”, in which she strongly recommended that Health Canada and the Government of Canada create a national office of child and youth health. I hope that the Government of Canada will support the Liberal initiative as the NDP is doing.

    At the end of the day, we need leadership in Canada with regard to children's health, particularly since, unfortunately, Canada is doing so poorly in terms of measures to support early childhood development, for example. The OECD countries devote an average of 0.7% of their GDP to child care expenses and early childhood development. Were hon. members aware of this? That is more than double Canada's investment in this area. What is more, only 50% of Canadian children with disabilities have access to the technical assistance they need to ensure their well-being.

    Canada is definitely lagging behind, which is a major problem. I would simply like to remind hon. members that the NDP has been a strong advocate of the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child for a long time. I would like to commend my Liberal colleague and thank him for introducing this measure in the House. I would like to remind those watching at home that the NDP will continue to stand up for children's rights. I hope that the Conservatives will vote with their hearts in favour of this bill, as the Liberals and New Democrats are going to do.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-420. I would like to thank those who have spoken to this bill, who have shared their thoughts with me and who have taken the time to listen to me.

    In speaking with other members of Parliament, I was reminded of how parliamentarians, regardless of party, can work together to achieve common goals.

    Indeed, at the heart of the bill is a goal that we all have in common, improving our children's lives. Twenty-three years ago all parties committed to end child poverty by the year 2000. We failed. We did not fail because we could not agree or because we did not care; we failed because we got distracted. That is why we need a commissioner for children, so that we do not get distracted again from improving our children's lives. This is not a partisan issue. The Liberals were in power for most of the last 23 years and we did not create a children's commissioner.

    Over the past weeks I have heard several concerns about a children's commissioner, that it would be costly, redundant and would step on provincial toes. While I understand these concerns, I do not believe they apply when one takes a closer look at Bill C-420. Let me address each of them in turn very quickly.

    First, some have said that the $5 million cost of a children's commissioner would be better spent on programs for children. While these programs are an integral part of what we can do for children, a children's commissioner would help us learn how to use our money more efficiently. For example, many of today's programs for youth are focused on addressing problems after they have arisen. A commissioner could help us focus on prevention, surely a more cost effective way of helping young people. The investment in our children's future is worth every penny.

    Second, some have said that a children's commissioner would be redundant, duplicating processes that already exist at the federal level, such as parliamentary studies, reports to the UN and committees within government.

    Yes, parliament does study children's issues, but certainly not enough or we would have succeeded in eradicating child poverty. Moreover, it was one of these parliamentary studies, a Senate report entitled “Children: The Silenced Citizens”, that recommended establishing a children's commissioner.

    Yes, Canada does report to the UN every five years about children's rights, and every five years the UN reminds us that we have not yet established a children's commissioner.

    Yes, there are committees within government that focus on children's issues, but these committees coordinate between different departments and levels of government. They do not focus on improving children's rights in Canada.

    A children's commissioner would provide us with the information we need to improve what we do for our children.

    Finally, some worry that a children's commissioner would infringe on provincial jurisdiction. They are right that many issues affecting children are provincial, and because of this nine of the ten provinces have established children's advocates, like the one proposed in Bill C-420. But these provincial advocates are calling for the establishment of a federal commissioner. Why? Because there are many areas affecting children beyond the reach of the provinces, such as aboriginal affairs, youth criminal justice, marriage and divorce law. For example, which drugs can be given to children under state care? Additionally, there are many areas of shared jurisdiction where children are falling into the cracks, like child welfare, health care and combatting child poverty. A federal children's commissioner could study any of these issues without stepping on provincial toes.

    Consider a few questions a children's commissioner could ask. How do custody laws affect children going through divorces? How effective has the Youth Criminal Justice Act been in fighting crime among young people? These are but a few examples.

    It is by answering questions like these that a commissioner for children can help parliamentarians focus on eliminating child poverty. According to Statistics Canada, today, nearly one in 10 children lives in poverty. The proportion rises to one in four children living with single mothers and one in three children living in aboriginal communities. In all, that is more than a half-million children who live in poverty in Canada.

    With the help of a commissioner for children, we can change this.

    I urge all members to vote in favour of Bill C-420 to send it to committee, where it can be improved. This will prevent us from once again getting too distracted to focus on eliminating child poverty.

    We owe this to our children.

    The time provided for debate has expired.

    The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the nays have it.

    And five or more members having risen:

    The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 5, 2012, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

    Debate having completed on the private member's business, we will suspend the House until 12 p.m.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-45, in clause 321, be amended by adding, after line 13, on page 291, the following: (2.1) The addition of the navigable waters listed below is deemed to be in the public interest and the governor in council shall by regulation, as soon as it is reasonably practicable after the day on which this act receives royal assent, add those navigable waters to the schedule, including with respect to lakes their approximate location and latitude and longitude, and with respect to rivers and riverines the approximate downstream and upstream points, as well as a description of each of those lakes, rivers and riverines, and where more than one lake, river or riverine exists with the same name indicated in the list below, the Governor in Council shall select one to be added, namely:

    Lac du Gros Morne, Emily Creek, Pendleton Lakes, Lac du Canard, Fifteen Mile Creek, George Creek, Petit lac des Chevaux, Upper Gimlet Lake, Tatisno Creek, Lac Lise, Healey Lake, Trapper Creek, Lac Boomerang, South Riske Creek, Grand lac Rouleau, Ferrier Lake, Charlie Chief Creek, Lac Walter, Slop Lake, Knife Creek, Petit lac du Rat Musqué, Lunch Lake, San Jose River, Lac de la Bouderie, Twenty Mile Creek, Hendrix Creek, Lac Long, Petitot River, Rivière Yamaska Nord, Hopian Lake, Sand Creek, Lac Blanc, Francis Creek, Taltzen Lake, Lac Bellevue, Three Mount Bay, Genlyd Creek, Grand lac Marlow, Davis Lake, Holte Creek, Ruisseau de la Belle Rivière, Hilltop Lake, Morrisey Lake, Lac Faudeux, Toronto Lake, Skeena River, Lac des Chasseurs, Moss Lake, Sandell River, Lac de la Ligne, Carafel Lake, West Road (Blackwater) River, Ruisseau Bonhomme, Partridge Lake, Peter Aleck Creek, Lac Dupire, Lipsy Lake, Pitka Creek, Lac Beaver, Grass Lake, Fiftyseven Creek, Lac des Érables, Minnow Lake, Ormond Creek, Lac Fortmac, Black Sturgeon Lake, Ling Creek, Lac de la Crute, Alexander Lake, Bulkley River, Lac Côme, Tompkins Lake, Red Rock Creek, Lac Mikwasau, Little Boulder Lake, American Creek, Lac Vert, White Spruce Creek, Lac Rock, Porter Lake, Lussier River, Lac de la Montagne, MacFarlane River, Nome Creek, Lac Loan, Talbot Creek, Alix Lakes, Ellis Creek, Coglistiko River, Rivière Nouvelle, Betula Lake, Porcupine Lake, Lac Clapier, Grass Creek, Kwanika Creek, Lac à Florant, Boffin Lake, Cornwall Creek, Lac Simard, June Lake, Fortress Lake, Lac Bass, Bolton Creek, Conkle Lake, McCuaig Lake, Lac Ouimet, Larder Lake, Kaiser Bill Lake, Lac du Cerf, Turner Lake, Lac Briend, Pistol Lake, Wasley Creek, Lac Sam, Alexander Lake, Petite rivière Rimouski, Lyn Creek, Lac Otter, Misema River, Keily Creek, Lac Alfred, Flora Lake, Lac du Pylône, Twin Birch Lake, Swamp Creek, Lac à Théodore, Paulson Lake, Lac Sept Milles, Sydney Creek, Lac Doré, McKenna Lake, Cambridge Creek, Lacs Daviault, Chapleau River, Lac de Boue, Grassy Lake, Jackson Lake, Lac du Pont de Cèdre, Walker Creek, Lac Watson, Suez Pit, South Albert Creek, Lac Albanel, Hand Lake, Lac Verrier, Burgess Lake, Thomas Creek, Rivière Chibouet, South Nation River, Chapperon Creek, Petit lac du Castor, Brewery Lake, Étang Irving, Dorothy Lake, Ramhorn Creek, Lac Savignon, Wilson Lake, Durney Creek, Lac Bixley, Swartman Lake, Red Deer Creek, Lac Petasoon,

    Sandcherry Creek, Fern Creek, Salmon Arm, Indian River, Lac à L'Aéroplane, Two Island Lake, Etsho Creek, Lac des Robin, Hemlock Lake, Selman Creek, Lac Perdu, Kilpecker Creek, Kitza Creek, Lac Tourville, Hub Lake, Soo River, Anders Lake, Suschona Creek, Rivière Bourlamaque, Ambrose Lake, Big Bar Creek, Lac à Dick, Fullerton Lake, Meldrum Creek, Lac Carbert, Vrooman Creek, Troutline Creek, Lac du Grand Homme, Jawbone Lake, Spahomin Creek, Lac Pougnet, Laval Lake, Pulley Creek, Lac Roy, Rivière Escuminac, Lac Ti-Jean, Lac Carvel, Lac Numéro Trois, Lac Rouge, Lac Secondon, Fullerton Lake, Donaldson Lake, Steed Lake, Clay Lake, Port Darlington, Mackay Lake, Bat Lake, Kettle Lake, The Cut, Pirie Lake, Wood River, Grant Creek, Halden Creek, Jarvis Lakes, Chipesia Creek, Klicho Creek, Eleven Mile Creek, Hewson Lake, Roe Lake, Pulley Creek, Spahomin Creek, Troutline Creek, Akehurst Lake, Little Bobtail Lake, Scott Creek, Hemp Creek, Kuthai Lake, Webster Creek, Orren Creek—

    Order. The hon. member seems to have a very lengthy list. Usually in these types of situations the motion is put to the House to see if there is consent and then, if there is consent, to move on.

    I am going to stop the member there, first to see if there is consent for the motion to be moved—

    Some hon. members: No.

    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am somewhat confused and I would seek some clarity on your most recent decision.

    My hon. friend from Halifax was in the process of moving a unanimous consent motion.

    There is no consent.

    I will thank the Minister of Public Safety for his comments.

    As the Speaker well knows, there is very clear direction to the House when a member is in the process of moving a unanimous consent motion. Some have been quite lengthy and complex in their nature. My friend is seeking to amend the omnibus legislation Bill C-45, which removes many tens of thousands of lakes and rivers from the protection of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which all members know well, and should know page 590 very well, says:

    This is an important part of the instruction given to this House. After the motion has been read in extenso,

    It is impossible for the House to make a decision on a motion that has not yet been fully read. That is clearly the direction that has been given to this House.

    We have had the former House leader for the government move such a motion on one of their own bills. It was extensive. It was long and complicated. However, the House gave leave for that member to read the extensive motion.

    What I am a bit concerned about is that in the decision the Speaker just made to curtail the ability of the member for Halifax to read out the motion, the Speaker called for a question that has not yet been put. Clearly in our instructions that we follow stringently in this place, that question cannot be asked until it has been asked.

     I will remind the Minister of Public Safety that the latitude given to members is a liberal latitude and that there is some extensiveness used in guiding the Speaker and this House as to what can be done under unanimous consent motions.

    The clarity over the Speaker curtailing the ability of the member for Halifax to read the motion out, and then calling the House to answer the question yea or nay seems to me an impossibility and in direct contravention of the rules that guide this place.

    I humbly seek some clarity as to how this process has proceeded.

    Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I would point out the motion being made was made without notice and it requires an extraordinary remedy in the circumstances of unanimous consent of this House. Thus, at any point when it is clear that there is no unanimous consent, I think it is appropriate that be terminated.

    I would like to move 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 five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage, and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, and at the expiry of the time provided for the consideration at report stage, and at 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to consideration of the third 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 disposable of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

    I appreciate the eagerness of the hon. government House leader. I have not yet called for orders of the day, so I cannot hear that motion just yet.

    However, if I can get back to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, it does say in O'Brien and Bosc that if no dissent is detected then the House is obviously allowing the member to move the motion.

    I take the member's point with regard to the reading of the names. In my view, the member had moved the substance of the motion and was in the process of reading an abnormally lengthy list of names of lakes that would be added. She had the floor for approximately 10 minutes.

    There was a similar case that Speaker Milliken dealt with, wherein the member at that time was reading a long litany of the names of members, I believe, and there were several points of order. The Speaker decided that because it was unduly lengthy, and in view of the fact that there was obvious disagreement to the motion being moved, in order to manage the use of the time in the House efficiently he intervened to see if there was consent.

    In my view, there is a similar parallel here. As was her right, the member sought the floor on a point of order to ask for consent to put the substance of her motion, and then got into the part of the amendment that added all of the names of lakes, and perhaps rivers, that she was interested in. Given that it was likely to go on for a significant period of time and that she had already had the floor, in the interests of allowing the House to make a decision on that, and sensing that the House was eager to do so, I asked to see if there was even consent for her to move the motion.

    I do not want to get into hypotheticals. However, if the House would have granted consent, I am sure the House would have then wanted to hear the whole term of the motion.

    I will hear the hon. member again as a courtesy, but I do believe I have made my points on this.

    Mr. Speaker, we looked for precedence as well. We think there is an important grey zone. You read the reference in terms of hearing the substance of a motion, yet we have tried to rely on the core issue that guides the House when it comes to unanimous consent.

    We looked at the motion from, I believe, Mr. Epp, who started to name various members of Parliament in his motion. In that precedent, he named every member of the Liberal Party by name and riding. Speaker Milliken had to intervene. However, I do not think that the intervention was on its length but rather the fact that the member started to name members of Parliament of an entire party.

    We looked at the precedent of the now Minister of Justice who moved a similar motion both in extension and length. It was on a money laundering and terrorism bill where the government sought to make substantive amendments to a bill at this stage in debate, which is exactly what we have tried to do. The minister read out a very lengthy amendment seeking unanimous consent. He rose on a point of order and the House had to hear the entire motion before it could decide whether it was in favour or not of allowing that practice.

     We know this place can do almost anything under unanimous consent, and that is what the minister sought to do that day. The member for Halifax is attempting the exact same process.

    Reading out those particular bodies of water that would no longer be protected has importance. I am sure members of the Conservative Party would also be interested in this, particularly the Minister of Public Safety, as we had not even got to the lakes and rivers in his constituency that would no longer be protected. His ability to say that he gives no consent before having even heard the motion, or any of the Conservative members to say “nay” before they have heard it, pleads ignorance before the facts have been read out. It is disturbing as to their own decision-making process in that they no before they have heard.

     This reminds me of the government House leader who just last week said that it did not matter what amendments would be moved, that the Conservatives would vote against them anyway. It shows a certain amount of disregard for the parliamentary process.

    In terms of your role, Mr. Speaker, in this intervention, I want to be quite clear with the way we are approaching this process. This is a grey zone created by moving a substantive and detailed amendment, which the member for Halifax is seeking to do to protect Canadians' lakes and rivers. After the bill passes, these lakes and rivers will no longer have protection for their navigation and other important environment considerations.

    The House has not yet heard the terms for the particular lakes and rivers that are involved. I think this would be of interest to not just members in this place, but the Canadians they propose to represent as well. To say “nay” before one has heard about the lakes and rivers in one's riding seems to say that they are not important and that moving the motion is not important.

    The Minister of Public Safety can keep muttering out “no consent”, but the fact is he does not yet know the implications to his own constituency, nor do any of the Conservatives. This is why it is important to have the capacity to do this.

    Mr. Speaker, I respect the ruling and judgment that you have given in referring to other parts of our practice, but it seems that this quote is quite clear:

    

     This is what the Minister of Justice, then House leader, did before to address the crime bill. Also:

    This is then read in extenso. It seems to me that maybe you heard the essentials of the motion, Mr. Speaker, in the first iteration from the member for Halifax, but one would hope Conservatives, hearing about an important lake or river in their ridings, might think they should have a moment where they would be allowed to change the legislation for the better.

    I know it is a novel concept for the government because in almost 900 pages of omnibus legislation it has not changed a comma or a period. All these things seem to have been made perfect by the Conservatives in their first writing. However, we know that not to be true because this omnibus bill is making corrections to the last omnibus bill.

    Therefore, in this case, the member for Halifax is attempting to make improvements to the bill through unanimous consent, which seems to me to be worthwhile and viable according to the rules we are guided by.

     I understand your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the initial preconception. However, in terms of members being able to vote on a motion that they have not yet heard, even if it is large, seems to be a practice that the House should be very careful of and wary in moving down that path, particularly with a government like that one that seems so keen on shutting down debate at all its various stages and allowing legislation to go through untouched.

    I appreciate the points made by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. However, I would remind him that there are two stages in seeking unanimous consent, the first of which is to ask for the ability to move the motion, and there are many reasons why members may wish to do that or not.

    I do find in situations in which we can envisage points of order to seek unanimous consent potentially take quite a bit of the House's time and when there is a clear lack of consent right at the outset, it is up to the Speaker to judge what is in the best interest of the House.

     Given the previous example when there had been a practice for the member who was in a certain point of motion, reading names in that case and in this case listing lakes and rivers, because they are unusual and not moved under the normal rubric for motions with proper notice to see if the House would like to continue hearing the motion, or if the House is not giving consent at the outset, is where this is coming from. I appreciate hon. members' points on that.

     moved:

    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-45, in clause 321, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 291 the following: (2.1) The addition of the navigable waters listed below is deemed to be in the public interest and the Governor-in-Council shall, by regulation, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the day on which this act receives royal assent, add those navigable waters to the schedule, including, with respect to lakes, their approximate location in latitude and longitude and, with respect to rivers and riverines, the approximate downstream and upstream points, as well as a description of each of those lakes, rivers and riverines, and where more than one lake, river or riverine exists with the same name indicated in the list below, the Governor-in-Council shall select one to be added, namely: Natla Lake, Chartrand Lake, McDonald Lake, Hottah Lake, Moraine Lake, West Hans Lake, Bunting Lake, Grodsky Lake, Lake Bovie, Jennejohn Lake, Germaine Lake, Seven Islands Lake, Fallaize Lake, Fishing Bear Lake, Willowlake River.

    Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. We are going to do the same thing we did in the past where members have a minute to put the question and give the response.

    Mr. Speaker, I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-45, in clause 321, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 291 the following: (2.1) The addition of the navigable waters listed below is deemed to be in the public interest and the governor in council shall, by regulation, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the day on which this act receives royal assent, add those navigable waters to the schedule, including, with respect to lakes, their approximate location in latitude and longitude and, with respect to rivers and riverines, the approximate downstream and upstream points, as well as a description of each of those lakes, rivers and riverines, and where more than one lake, river or riverine exists with the same name indicated in the list below, the governor in council shall select one to be added, namely:

    The list is short: Ross Lake, Giauque Lake, La Loche Lakes, McCrea Lake, Bewick Lake, Broken Dish Lake, Sam McRae Lake, Magrum Lake, Winter Lake, Lac à Jacques, Greyling Lake, Basler Lake, Rummy Lake, Tatti Lake and Yellowknife River.

    Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to clarify whether the question period to the government's invocation of closure has begun and we are now into the process of the 30 minutes. Could you clarify this? The clock started as of a couple of minutes ago after the House leader for the government moved it. Are we now into that section of time?

    Yes, we are.

    Just to make it formal, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

    Mr. Speaker, the rules reign supreme.

    The government has sought again today to shut down debate on an incredibly important budget bill. It seems the number of times government members have to come face to face with democratic principles of the House is fatiguing to them. It is tiresome to them that democracy is such a cumbersome weight to drag around, particularly when the Conservatives have a majority government, of which they like to abuse their power so frequently and with such fervour. The government members need to rationalize and justify, each and every time, why they shut down our ability to hold them to account.

    The principal role of any Parliament, and this one in particular, is to hold government to account. Conservative members might be interested in this as well. The last time they did this charade of democracy and parliamentary function was Bill C-38, which stripped away pension rights for seniors, employment insurance, environmental protection. They got a bunch of it wrong. How did that happen? They rammed the legislation through. What are they doing now? Correcting their mistakes from the first time.

    The problem with this is not just the Conservative Party's inability to write good legislation, but this impacts the lives of Canadians each and every day. We began to talk about the number of lakes and rivers, tens of thousands of them in our country, that would no longer be protected by the laws of Canada. The Conservatives who claim to have such a love for the great outdoors, the hunters and fishermen they seem to represent, do not seem to mind this idea. It does not really matter when put up against the interests of oil companies and large outfits that do not want to go through the hassle of an environmental assessment, or public meetings and those annoyances.

    Again, why does the government seem to be so upset with the idea of democratic process and principle? Why does it seem to have such an allergy toward the idea of debate and of holding government to account and of improving legislation, which this time is meant to afford us, that it has to bring in these measures to shut down debate again?

    This is so reminiscent of the government members' absolute blunt denial and refusal to admit there was a recession in 2008. We all remember that. If they just stuck their heads in the sand long enough, the recession would simply go away. They introduced an austerity budget in the middle of a global recession and called themselves economic geniuses.

    Here we are again with a fragile global economy, all sorts of indications within the Canadian economy that there is serious trouble at home. This is not some European, Greek, American problem. This is a Canadian situation. The government has introduced another bill, another austerity measure in the face of the growing concerns of Canadians. It has cut to the bone on the services Canadians rely upon.

    Rather than face the music and hold a democratic debate, the government members do this. They shut down Parliament again. They like prorogation, closures and shutting down debate, but Canadians do not. It may serve the Conservatives in the short term, but we know for a fact that Canadians are watching. Canadians care and want parliamentarians to do their jobs. Why will the government not let MPs do their work?

    Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about why we are actually extending debate beyond an unprecedented number of hours.

    Witnesses were actually brought to 11 different committees. Canadians need to know there were 11 committees that oversaw witnesses appear in front of members of Parliament to answer fair and open questions. It was a great opportunity for those individuals.

    I have spent a fair bit of time, as much as I could on weekends, back in Alberta. In fact, I was in Edmonton this last weekend, talking to a number of constituents who were quite encouraged to hear that Canada was still on track. The fact is we have nearly 820,000 more Canadians working now than at the end of the recession. We have said this all along, if there are any Canadians still looking for work, we as legislators need to ensure we put in policies that will encourage those people to get back to work. That is what we are doing.

    A lot of this is time sensitive. I can refer to the specific items in here that are time sensitive. We need to get that moving, but we are encouraging debate in the House.

    Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see the New Democratic Party come alongside the Liberal Party, at least at this stage. In committee, the NDP members were quite eager to vote with the government to pass things through and limit debate on the bill.

    Only the Liberal Party has constantly held the government to task for the introduction of this budget bill, and for good reason. We believe that the budget bill, which is historic in terms of the way in which it is abusing the House, needs to be opposed at all stages, not just at third reading or second reading. We are glad that the NDP has finally seen the light and has decided to join the Liberals in opposition to the bill. We look forward to maybe having a little more support toward that.

    The government, once again, has seen the merit in bringing in time allocation in order to force through the bill. Surely to goodness it recognizes, given that the bill takes into consideration numerous pieces of legislation, that the bill itself could have been a legislative agenda. It is unfair to expect Canadians, especially parliamentarians, to provide due diligence in ensuring that what we are passing is being done properly.

    A number of years ago, when the Liberals brought in a 21-page budget bill, the current Prime Minister criticized the Liberal government saying that the bill was far too big. Now we are talking about hundreds of pages. In fact, the Prime Minister back then told the Liberal government that dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent the views of their constituents on each of the different components of the bill. There are a lot more components to this bill. We are talking about hundreds of pages as opposed to 21 pages.

    What has changed? Why has the Prime Minister decided that these types of bills are proper today when he opposed them so firmly back in the 1990s? Like the NDP, he has had a flip-flop. Why?

    Just before I go to the Minister of State for Finance, I have allowed both the opposition parties lengthy first questions but from now on questions will be limited to one minute maximum. I expect the responses from the government side will also be limited to that same period of time.

    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to some of the pieces that are in the legislation. I knew that a lot of these were time sensitive, so I just did a bit of fact checking to ensure I was right. Passage of this bill is urgently required urgently because a lot of the improvements and enhancements that we are making to grow the economy, to help grow jobs and to make an environment where businesses are interested in expanding their businesses and, therefore, growing their labour populations, a number of these are dependent on getting this passed and receiving royal assent by January 1, 2013.

    One, for example, division 14 of part 4, amends the agreement on internal trade implementation. It also repeals subsection 28(3) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. This is important to moving forward so we can actually trade from province to province. I think all members in the House recognize the impediments that we have had. We had a piece of legislation just plain and simply trying to allow Ontarians to enjoy the beautiful wine that is produced in British Columbia. We have internal trade barriers. We need to move forward on getting trade opened up interprovincially.

    Mr. Speaker, they keep talking about investment, but one of the internal problems we have is a dollar that is too high for those who want to export their products. The government does not have much to say about that.

    Since the member wants to talk about urgency, I would like to raise an urgent matter in my riding: fortunately, the Richelieu River is still protected by the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but none of its tributaries are protected.

    A river is like a human body: cut off a limb, and the rest of the body suffers as a result. It is ridiculous to suggest that protecting some of our waterways but not others will not have negative consequences. The Minister of Transport said that the Navigable Waters Protection Act had nothing to do with the environment. I am trying to understand how failing to see that all departments are connected can possibly qualify as good governance.

    This all seems very irresponsible to me.

    Mr. Speaker, many questions have been answered in the House about the purpose of protecting navigation, and that is exactly what we are doing, but not to the detriment of the actual functioning of municipalities and those who are operating outside the rivers. It is important that we protect navigation but it is also important that we protect individuals who live along those river courses and water courses. That process is already in place. The Minister of Public Safety oversees that.

    There have been some challenges all across this country this year with flooding. The Minister of Public Safety does not use navigable waters to deal with that. He uses his authority to compensate people who have been flooded.

    Mr. Speaker, before I ask a question of my hon. colleague from Calgary, I must say that my colleague from Winnipeg needs to take a little history lesson. In fairness to him, the fact is that it was the Liberal Party, through confidence votes, that kept the Conservative government alive for 100 votes. He is the last person who should be talking about supporting the Conservative Party.

    What the Minister of State for Finance is saying is incorrect. If there are urgent aspects in the bill that need to be done by January 1, the government could easily take those aspects out of the omnibus bill, seek consent from the House, especially from the official opposition, and move those aspects of the bill quite quickly, like we did with the pension reform legislation. The problem is that by lumping all of these aspects into a massive bill, which even he has not read and I doubt anyone in the House has read, there will be mistakes and errors.

    Why does the government not just take out those aspects that the member says are so critical, seek unanimous consent, see if they can be moved rather quickly and allow proper debate on the rest of the bill?

    Mr. Speaker, I have read quite a bit of the budget. Everything that is in the budget implementation act, both part one in the spring and budget implementation act two, is a reflection of what was approved by the House in the budget.

    I know my hon. colleague wants to slow things down.

    We are a government that promised Canadians that we would do everything within our power to provide an environment so they can get a job. We have put forward policies in the budget that will encourage businesses. We are reducing taxes for businesses. We are getting red tape out of their way so businesses can grow, prosper and continue to provide jobs in this country. That is of primary importance.

    Canada is in exceptionally good shape when compared to many other countries but we need to continue with our plan so we can ensure that anyone who hopes to find a job has that opportunity.

    Mr. Speaker, on Thursday evening, in Bouctouche, New Brunswick, I was at a large public meeting with over 600 people who were very concerned about the changes that the government is making to employment insurance, particularly with respect to employers in seasonal industries and those who work for those employers.

    The government has decided to shut down debate on this budget implementation bill. That will do nothing to reassure these 600-plus people who are concerned about the changes that the government is making. Many people live in small rural communities where there is no other employment and forcing them to drive perhaps an hour to accept a minimum wage job would not be economically possible.

    I am wondering what the Minister of State for Finance could say to these people who are worried that these last minute changes, which his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, is making, will make the situation much worse and will lead to real anxiety on the part of employers and employees.

    Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. House leader from the Liberal Party on his appointment.

    We are concerned when we hear that people are uncertain about their access to employment insurance. That is why the minister has ensured that she is improving the system and making it more accessible for people. Not only that, as part of this legislation is a portion that would allow people who are still collecting EI to accept part-time work. That was not allowed before. We look at that as a good option. People can now get themselves into a job that, hopefully, will turn into a full-time job.

    Mr. Speaker, people at home are truly worried. They are worried about what is in the budget and especially about the attitude of this government, which amended 70 acts with Bill C-38 and will amend 62 acts, without debate, with Bill C-45.

    My question is for the minister. In light of the Conservatives' strategy, will they one day introduce a bill to automatically amend 200 or 300 laws, and then bid farewell to Parliament and parliamentarians for the rest of the year?

    That is the kind of distortion of democracy we are seeing. People at home are worried about the Conservatives' brand of democracy.

    Mr. Speaker, what I hear from Canadians as I travel across the country is support for what we are doing, support for the fact that we are providing an EI hiring tax credit for businesses that want to employ more people and yet are just on the edge. This would help them offer a job to someone who is not working right now. That is the message I am hearing from businesses. They are supportive of that. That is also very time sensitive. We all know that for this to take place we need royal assent by January 1, 2013.

     Why would the hon. member want to stand in the way of businesses being able to hire more Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, I will address my question to my colleague across the way.

    Today, in The Globe and Mail, a study came out on Canadians' attitudes toward democracy which showed that over the past eight years there has been a substantial decline in their belief in the democracy that we hold in this Parliament.

    We have seen the government bring closure after closure on a multitude of issues, issues which, in some cases, had no time relevance at all. Does the Minister of State for Finance believe that moving forward with further closure would in any way assure the people of Canada that their democracy is in working shape?

    Mr. Speaker, I, too, was reading the newspaper this morning. Guess what I discovered? I discovered a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers stating that Canada has now moved up three notches and is within the top 10 countries in the world with the best tax rate for businesses to operate.

    The last time I checked, it is not government that employed people, it is businesses that employ people. Businesses have moved up its role.

    I will quote from the PricewaterhouseCoopers report. It states:

    Is the opposition going to stand up and vote against small and medium-sized businesses having these opportunities?

    Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the Minister of State for Finance talk about Canada being a great place to do business, because in November some 11,000 jobs were in fact shed by the Canadian economy. There seems to be no recognition of that by the government.

    He mentioned talking with Canadians. However, I met one of my local business improvement associations yesterday representing small businesses in Danforth, who do not like the Conservatives' hiring tax credit because they know they are going to have to pay it back on payroll taxes down the road. What they want to see instead are apprenticeships and wage assistance so they can hire and train people and we can actually bridge that skill shortage that exists in Canada. They would like to have better education and information from the government.

    We know that as front-line services get cut at Service Canada and other areas, Canadians and businesses are having a tougher time getting information out of the government. What is the minister going to do about that? Why is that not in the budget?

    Furthermore, the member spoke about committees. Why was there not enough in this budget to have it sent to the industry, science and technology committee? The government likes to talk about being good for R and D, and science and technology and industry, but there was not enough in this budget to actually take it there so we, the members of the committee, could look at it. Why not?

    Mr. Speaker, frankly, I am shocked. I did not think the NDP members were going to stand up and say there was not enough in this budget implementation bill. I thought they were actually arguing the opposite. However, so be it. I guess maybe the comments by the Liberals earlier on were actually quite reflective of the House not being quite sure of where the NDP is going.

     One thing I will reflect on is what Canadians are telling me. They do not want to go down a road where they would be encumbered by a $21.5 billion carbon tax scheme that the NDP would foist on all Canadians. It is not a trading system but a tax whose revenue would go to the government.

    We will not entertain that. It does not make sense. We are working on a low-tax plan. We continue on that plan. That is why we need to get this legislation in place so we can continue with that solid plan that is actually helping Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, I must say I was surprised to hear my friend, the Minister of State for Finance claim that everything in Bill C-45 and Bill C-38 was found in the budget. I think that has been pretty thoroughly disproven.

     I would be interested to know on what page of the budget we can find the efforts in Bill C-45 to create barriers to tourism in Canada. That will hurt our economy and hurt our tourism sector. I can see no excuse whatsoever for bringing this forward without adequate consultation. The idea of having an international automated list for tourists from Europe, Australia or New Zealand who want to come to Canada is an added barrier in a sector that is currently struggling.

    Mr. Speaker, indeed, tourism is a very important sector of our economy. I am always proud to attend the Calgary Stampede, where this year we set an incredibly high record. It was their centennial stampede and a new record was set in Calgary this year.

    We continue to encourage people to come to Canada to see the wealth of scenery and what a wonderful country we have. They come here and see what a strong government we have. Many of them reflect on that outside of this country.

    When I travel outside this country, I proudly wear this lapel pin, the Canadian flag. Many people outside this country have come up to me and said they envy the fiscal position of our country and the strong Conservative government we have. I am always happy to hear that.

    Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I had the pleasure of working with St. Vincent de Paul volunteers on the weekend. We collected money for families in need. However, and this is the very bad news we heard on the weekend, the volunteers who work in the community and knock on doors are reporting that the situation is deteriorating and families are living in greater poverty than before.

    This comes as no surprise since the government knows absolutely nothing about the economy. I will give a very specific example, a clear sign that the major players in our economy do not have confidence in this government: the staggering $550 billion that has not been invested by our businesses. They do not have enough confidence to invest this money and we cannot blame them.

    How can my colleague boast about the Conservatives' achievements, when there is absolutely nothing he can say to dispute this clear sign?

    Mr. Speaker, I am not bragging about Canada's accomplishments but about the accomplishments of the businesses of this country that employ Canadians. We have put in place a lower tax plan that leaves more money for businesses to expand. It is businesses that create the jobs and employ Canadians, and that is exactly what makes the economy work.

    When I hear comments like the member's, I cannot help but ask, as many of my constituents have done in the last few weeks, what on earth it would cost if we allowed the NDP to throw a $21.5 billion carbon scheme on top of this.

    We put in the budget implementation act improvements to the registered disability savings plan. We are putting in place many things like that, including taxation rules for the pooled registered pension plan. These are all to help Canadians and to keep them sustainable.

    Mr. Speaker, I am tired of hearing the minister spout nonsense about the carbon tax. I would much rather hear him talk about the list drafted by the hon. member for Halifax.

    About a dozen of the lakes she mentioned are in my riding, and I am familiar with many of the other ones, since I am familiar with many lakes across Canada, including some in Yukon and British Columbia. It is clear that the Conservatives know how to shoot their mouths off, but when it comes time to protect our waterways, they do nothing.

    Are they not concerned about the fact that an entire industry depends on our lakes and rivers? If they are not protected, that industry will disappear.

    Mr. Speaker, I share my hon. colleague's frustration that we have heard so much about a $21.5 billion carbon tax. That was not our idea; we are just repeating what the NDP said. They should stop saying it if they do not want to hear any more about it.

    We have an incredible environment minister who is actually at an international conference right now, making sure that we are able to protect our environment. I represent some of the most beautiful landscape in this country, beautiful mountains and pristine streams. We all realize how important they are, but we protect them through environmental regulations. We do not do it by stopping or increasing navigation on any river. There are different departments that look after different things in this country.

    It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

    Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.

    And five or more members having risen:

    The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

    I wish to inform the House that, because of the proceedings of the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for their reception. I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of my riding, Sherbrooke, to speak out against Bill C-45. This is especially true considering that I also voted against a time allocation motion. I am pleased to rise here to oppose the budget put forward by this government, which is incapable of managing public funds and our economy.

    I would like to elaborate on several matters. Since the bill is 450 pages long, I could address any number of subjects, many of which were not even mentioned in the budget presented in March. So when the Conservatives say that everything in today's budget reflects what was in the budget document in March, that is completely false.

    This is another massive omnibus bill that makes changes to many laws. 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 carefully.

    The Conservatives say that jobs are being created. However, with this budget, we are talking about a loss of 43,000 Canadian jobs, as pointed out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who analyzed the number of jobs that would be lost as a result of the Conservatives' measures. They are talking about job creation, but I have a hard time believing it, since they are eliminating 19,000 jobs in the public service. This is quite simply a job-cutting budget.

    The government is also severely weakening environmental regulations—

    Order, please. There is way too much noise in the Chamber. If you want to carry on a private conversation, please exit the Chamber. If you are going to stay in the Chamber, keep the conversations to a very low voice.

    The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

    Mr. Speaker, they may not like listening to me because I am telling the truth. I will continue my speech despite all of the noise in the House.

    I was saying that this bill severely weakens environmental legislation. That was the case with Bill C-38, the first budget implementation bill. Today we are debating the second budget implementation bill, with which the Conservatives are unfortunately continuing to weaken environmental regulations, at the expense of future generations, who will have to live with the consequences of what they are doing.

    The NDP thinks that Canadians deserve much better than what the Conservatives have put forward. We will therefore oppose the bill at third reading, just as we have opposed it at the other stages. We will continue to oppose it during the vote that will probably be held tomorrow, since the Conservatives are rushing us through things. We would have liked to have much more time to examine the bill. However, the vote will likely be held tomorrow. The Conservatives left us little time to examine these 450 pages, or, if we also include the budget, these 900 pages. We received the budget in March, and the two bills were then introduced. If we add them together, that makes 900 pages of bills, for a single budget. That is completely unacceptable. Furthermore, it is completely unacceptable that the government does not respect our institutions and is ramming through such massive documents.

    As I said earlier, the Conservatives have laid off 19,000 government employees. In my opinion, this is contributing to poor public administration since services have been affected. It is possible to consider all the information available and make cuts in the right areas. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have decided to act blindly and make cuts to services. In Sherbrooke, many services have been cut. Positions have been cut at Service Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency office is no longer accessible to the public at all. No one can go there. The people of Sherbrooke have spoken out against these cuts.

    We had hoped that the Conservatives would be more open-minded when we tried to move substantial amendments in committee. However, unfortunately, once again, they did not demonstrate any open-mindedness with regard to this bill. This is not the first time this has happened.

    The Conservatives are also making clear cuts to scientific research and experimental development. The budget implementation bill makes changes to the tax credit program. These changes reduce the tax credit rate, particularly for big businesses, and eliminate eligible capital investments. The combined effect reduces government support for businesses that use the scientific research and experimental development program, just when Canadian businesses most need to promote innovation and productivity if they want to succeed in a very competitive global economy. This will particularly affect the manufacturing sector.

    The NDP's vision involves making a place for innovation in the manufacturing sector so that it can remain competitive in relation to other emerging economic sectors that, unfortunately, have a workforce that is paid far less than ours. The government's role is to promote innovation in order to remain competitive in a globalized market, ensure the survival of our businesses, and keep our good jobs here in Canada. If the NDP were in office, things would be done much differently. We would use innovation to increase competitiveness and access other markets, thereby allowing us to keep our jobs. That is the NDP's vision.

    Unfortunately, the Conservatives have done a terrible job of managing the Canadian economy. They have created the largest deficit in Canada's history. I am really surprised to hear them say that they are doing such a great job with the economy when they have created both the largest deficit and the largest trade deficit in Canadian history. Then the minister tells us that he is going to miss the deadline. That is further proof of bad management and bad public administration. I feel it is my duty to speak out against that here.

    As I said at the beginning of my speech, there are other changes that affect environmental protection. It started with Bill C-38, three-quarters of which was about environmental protection, or rather, environmental deregulation. The Conservatives are chipping away at environmental protection. Bill C-45 is a continuation of the previous bill, particularly with its changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which will now be called the navigation protection act. This small change will mean big changes. The bill is no longer about water. The word “water” has been removed from the title of the bill.

    The government is discarding the concept of protecting water and is focusing solely on navigation, even though we know the two go hand in hand. It should go without saying that protecting navigation means protecting the environment that makes navigation possible. Unfortunately, the Conservatives added schedule 2 to the bill, a list of all of the lakes and rivers that will still be protected under the new act, which will be called the navigation protection act. Only about 180 of Canada's tens of thousands of lakes and rivers will be protected. Most of our lakes and rivers will not be protected under the new act, which will be passed soon.

    This means that the Saint-François and Magog rivers, which are in my riding, will no longer be protected by this legislation. People in Sherbrooke have reacted negatively to these changes. People want to know what the long-term effects will be.

    In the old days, projects that could affect navigation and water bodies required the minister's approval. From now on, projects such as pipelines will not require approval. Maybe the Conservatives are trying to make sure that major pipeline projects can go ahead with no environmental restrictions whatsoever. Pipelines will be laid under, over or even along rivers.

    We could also talk about major energy and power line projects that pass over rivers. In Sherbrooke, people were worried about the negative repercussions that such projects could have on lakes and rivers and the potential dangers they could pose. If a pipeline is allowed to pass over a river, needless to say, a leak would have a negative impact on the environment.

    Lastly, I would like to quote someone who talked about the bill and whose name might ring a bell with the Conservatives. Warren Everson, senior vice-president of policy at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, had this to say: “The budget 2012 decision to cut a quarter of the SR and ED tax credit was, in our opinion, a step in the wrong direction.”

    I talked about this earlier in my speech and I would like to emphasize the point: even the Canadian Chamber of Commerce opposes this decision. I therefore hope the Conservatives will come to their senses and support our proposals.

    Unfortunately, I know that we are almost out of time, since the final vote will be held tomorrow. Perhaps the Senate will take a different approach and a more enlightened view in order to improve certain parts of the bill.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

    I have already introduced amendments to Bill C-45 to lessen the destructive changes being made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

    Will the NDP member vote in favour of my amendments to protect all navigable waters in Canada, and not only those on the short list mentioned in Bill C-45?

    Mr. Speaker, consider the approach that we tried this morning.

    This very morning, we tried to protect all the other lakes and rivers. My colleague, the environment critic, tried to add all the other lakes and rivers to Bill C-45, but did not succeed because the Conservatives were being very closed-minded about it.

    Unfortunately, the Conservatives used procedure to reject the proposal. The NDP wanted to add these lakes and rivers. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused.

    If there are other options that will help protect them, we will focus on those and definitely vote for them.

    Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Sherbrooke, and I have a request for him. Could he talk more about the substantial amendments the Bloc Québécois presented with regard to Bill C-45?

    I thank the member for his question. I did not have time to go over all the amendments from all the parties. However, I can say that we will look at them very carefully to determine if the amendments are pertinent and substantive.

    We, too, are doing our part by proposing a number of amendments, and we will support them of course. I am certain that most of them are good amendments. I will have to examine the amendments more closely in order to speak to them all. Generally speaking, we have some very valid points and we hope the government will be open-minded.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech and for mentioning the famous research and development program known as SR&ED.

    He rightly criticized the Conservative government's mistake of reducing tax credits that we know are going primarily to major corporations that make huge profits.

    We recently received the Emerson report, dealing with the aerospace industry, a sector that is critical and very important to Quebec and other regions in Canada. This directly affects the manufacturing industry, which is part of the aerospace industry. These are good-quality jobs. Good jobs.

    I would like my colleague to speak more to the damage that changes to the SR&ED program will cause.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She does extraordinary work on this file.

    I had an opportunity to talk to members of the business community in Sherbrooke, who also criticized these cuts and who spoke in particular about the benefits that this could have for them. I spoke a bit about our theory. The NDP's vision is to take advantage of this desire to innovate that is seen among manufacturing companies wanting to develop new technologies to ensure that emerging countries and their workers—who are paid less than workers here—do not come and take all these jobs or to ensure that our jobs are not sent there.

    When companies innovate and develop new technologies, they can remain competitive and stand out among emerging countries. That is what will enable Canada to keep good, well-paying jobs, since emerging countries will not necessarily have the technology to take on such ventures. We must take advantage of that to ensure that we remain competitive and keep jobs here in Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak today to Canada's economic action plan 2012.

    Canada has one of the strongest fiscal positions in the G7. Fitch Ratings, Moody's, and Standard & Poor's have all renewed Canada's AAA credit rating. Canada has, by far, the lowest net to GDP ratio in the entire G7. Due in part to the government's low tax plan, Forbes Magazine ranked Canada number one in the world for business to grow and create jobs.

    Indeed, with the help of Canada's economic action plan, Canada has emerged as one of the world's top performing industrialized countries.

     However, too many Canadians are still looking for work and the global recovery remains fragile. That is why economic action plan 2012 moves ahead to secure jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canada by promoting job creation and helping small businesses thrive through reducing red tape, strategic investments, supporting seniors, families and communities, as well as ensuring long-term sustainability through investing in green technology, keeping taxes low and leading the global economic recovery.

    My focus today will be on the impact of budget 2012 on small businesses, families and seniors.

    With regard to small businesses, our Conservative government recognizes the vital role small businesses play in the economy and job creation. That is why we are committed to helping small businesses grow and succeed.

    As someone who started working in my father's wholesale hardware business at the age of 12 on Saturdays and in the summertime, I understood at a very young age the importance of small business to the big picture of Canada and jobs, and ensuring that our economy is strong.

    Budget 2012 includes a number of key measures to support the growth of small businesses, like my father's business, and to promote job creation, such as extending the hiring credit for small business. This is a temporary credit of up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2011 EI premiums over those paid in 2012. This temporary credit will help approximately 536 employers defray the costs of additional hiring. These employers will take into account these savings when hiring and, in some cases, it may even make the difference between whether to hire a new employee.

    For small businesses, we are also reducing red tape, implementing the one-for-one rule and committing to develop a red tape reduction action plan to reduce unnecessary and ineffective regulations. This would small businesses to focus on what they do best, which is grow and create jobs. Ultimately, reducing the administrative tax burden on small businesses does help them create jobs.

    Our government is also supporting entrepreneurs, innovators and world-class research. An excellent example of how strategic investment by government in a solid, local company can make a major contribution to our economy is Electrovaya Inc. located in Mississauga South. Electrovaya is an innovative company that designs and builds the next generation of environmentally friendly lithium ion battery energy storage systems for commercial and industrial use. Our government invested $3.6 million through Sustainable Development Technology Canada to this company to help it develop and provide clean energy technology and create high-quality jobs in Mississauga.

    Members may have heard about Electrovaya recently because they were part of the Prime Minister's trade mission to India. Electrovaya signed a deal to provide an Indian company with its lithium ion batteries for electric bicycles that are being sold in North America and Europe. Companies like these create good, high-paying jobs for our community, as well as innovative products to export to other nations, and they do it in an environmentally sound way to protect the future for all of us.

    The hon. member will have 5 minutes and 45 seconds when we resume debate.

    Mr. Speaker, last June the CBC exposed a disturbing trend in private ultrasound centres around the country. It reported that a majority of clinics were willing to do a gender test in the early stages of pregnancy for people who were considering terminating their pregnancies because their unborn baby was not the right gender.

    This followed upon studies that suggested that unfortunately when it comes to unborn baby boys and girls, it is unborn girls who are most discriminated against. They are terminated simply because they are girls.

    Canadians are both shocked and upset that this is happening in Canada. When the CBC report was televised, the practice of gender selection pregnancy termination was condemned by all political parties, and by gynecologists, doctors and human rights groups across the country.

    Canadians do not tolerate gender discrimination, particularly when it is directed against women and girls, and Canadians definitely do not support the practice of gender selection. I encourage Canadians to speak up, to write their MPs and to publicly voice their grave concern regarding gender selection.

    Mr. Speaker, today is the 15th anniversary of the Ottawa convention on the banning of land mines. Long after the end of a conflict, explosive remnants of war kill 4,000 innocent people each year. Thanks to the Ottawa convention, we have made huge strides in solving this problem over the past 15 years. There is 80% of the world's countries that have joined the convention, and tens of thousands of stockpiled mines that have been destroyed.

    We celebrate this day as an example of Canadian leadership on the global stage. We also celebrate the Canadian consensus that has underpinned our foreign policy for generations, the understanding that by working together we can make tangible progress and concrete change for good.

    Alas, when the world community looked for similar leadership on the issue of cluster munitions, Conservatives were not a willing partner. The Conservative legislation currently before the Senate undermines the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It is an offence to Canada's good name.

    Today we reaffirm our commitment to Canada as a leader in multilateral efforts for global peace and security.

    As the year comes to an end, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the tremendous contributions made by the volunteers of non-profit organizations and community associations in my riding of Calgary East.

    Having served as the president of Monterey Community Association, I have seen how hard these great Canadians have worked for our communities. Let me give a few examples. At Albert Park Radisson Heights Community Association, volunteers spend time on cleanup events. They also organize the garden club, which encourages people to do home gardening. At Marlborough Park, there are the soccer programs, and at Forest Lawn, they are organizing Christmas for Kids.

    I wish to offer a very heartfelt thanks to all of these volunteers. A merry Christmas and a happy new year to all the great Canadians who help our communities.

    Mr. Speaker, there was never a stronger champion for cattle producers than Neil Jahnke of Gouldtown, Saskatchewan. Colourful, forceful and fearless, Neil was a natural leader who worked his heart out for the industry he loved.

    He rose to the top of the Saskatchewan Livestock Association, the Saskatchewan Stock Growers, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Beef Export Federation, the Beef Information Centre and Agribition. As Minister of Agriculture in the 1990s, I saw Neil at work expanding markets in Asia, and our exports almost quadrupled. Then, in 2004, as Minister of Finance, I remember how well he fought for $3 billion to help deal with the fallout from BSE.

    He earned the Saskatchewan Order of Merit and a lifetime membership in the Agricultural Institute of Canada. He was also inducted into the Saskatchewan Agricultural Hall of Fame.

    Neil Jahnke was taken from us far too soon last week. Our thoughts and prayers are with Marilyn and his family.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the unsung heroes in a parliamentarian's world, the staff who support us every day, both on the Hill and at home in our ridings. They support the families who are desperately trying to connect with a loved one who has encountered tragedy overseas. They share in the joy of those reunited, as they arrive in Canada through our immigration program. They worry about their own safety as they try to assist the troubled or mentally ill individuals who turn to our offices for help and do all they can to make sure they receive the care they need.

    It is not uncommon for them to serve coffee to demonstrators as they listen to their concerns, or sit blurry eyed through all-night committee filibusters. In what other job does the simple act of opening a parcel provide both delight and sometimes fear, all the while sorting through hundreds of emails, often with complex questions and the expectation of an immediate response?

    On behalf of all parliamentarians, I would like to salute and thank all staff, who truly are the wind beneath our wings.

    Mr. Speaker, on this International Day of Persons with Disabilities, the NDP is celebrating everything that these individuals have done for our country.

    An estimated 4.4 million Canadians have a disability. A great deal of progress has been made in eliminating barriers for people with disabilities. However, too often, they are still expected to meekly accept the barriers that prevent them from reaching their full potential and from participating in certain aspects of life that the rest of Canadians enjoy.

    The NDP is aware of the difficulties that Canadians with disabilities face: greater financial insecurity, substandard housing, limited job opportunities and unequal access to the health care services they need. We are calling on the government to fulfill its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as quickly as possible.

    The NDP team is dedicated to building a fairer and more prosperous Canada where all Canadians can reach their full potential. The NDP is asking all members to work with us to improve the lives of Canadians with disabilities.

    Mr. Speaker, veterans have sacrificed much for all that we have. By putting themselves in harm's way, they have helped to shape our country and defended the values we hold dear. As Canadians, it is important that we show our appreciation and thanks and honour their achievements and legacy every day.

    Today I would like to recognize all veterans in Richmond Hill, and World War II heroes, such as: Captain Thomas McKeage, a driving force behind the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 375; Art Fortin, who fought on Normandy Beach; Bill Renwick, who parachuted into France on D-Day; Angus MacDonald, who helped to liberate Holland; and Albert Wallace of the Bomber Command. There is William Harris, who works tirelessly assisting other veterans, Jim and Muriel McAlister, Rudy Nardini, Jim Noble, Tom McRae, and, Korean war veterans Bill Robinson and Ron Norton. These and others are our Canadian heroes.

    I am grateful to our veterans and know that all Canadians join me in thanking them.

    Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 24, I had the pleasure of attending the Canadian Christian Association's annual Christmas banquet with some of my parliamentary colleagues. While there was some merriment, the bulk of the evening was spent recognizing volunteers for their great work in the community.

    I would like to thank and congratulate the Canadian Christian Association's president, John Gill, and the association's entire board and all of the volunteers for their great work.

    The Canadian Christian Association has tirelessly campaigned for human rights around the world. That night, it also paid tribute to two courageous young women, Malala Yousafzai, the young girl shot by the Taliban for championing girls education, and Rimsha Masih, a Pakistani girl who was falsely accused under the country's repressive blasphemy laws. They remind us all that we must renew our commitment to giving a voice to the voiceless and always strive for human dignity and freedom.

    Mr. Speaker, with Christmas fast approaching, I would like to commend the generosity of hundreds of Sherbrooke residents who are working hard to help those less fortunate have a nicer Christmas.

    As it does every year, the Fondation Rock Guertin will distribute over 1,300 Christmas hampers. Meanwhile, the Sherbrooke firefighters will continue their tradition of distributing toys to hundreds of children. The Knights of Columbus will be serving a generous holiday brunch to hundreds of people in need.

    For my part, as the MP for Sherbrooke, I invite the people of Sherbrooke to drop off food items at my constituency office to help respond to the many requests for food assistance that Moisson Estrie receives over the holidays. I would also like to invite my constituents to my annual blood drive, which will be held all day long on December 14 at the Centre Julien-Ducharme in Fleurimont.

    I am appealing to everyone this Christmas: please be generous.

    Unfortunately, because of the Conservatives' policies, there will be more needy people this year. Changes to employment insurance are one reason why.

    That is why I wish to invite my constituents to come and discuss this with me at a public forum I will be hosting at 7 p.m. on December 12, 2012, at 187 Laurier Street in Sherbrooke.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 20th annual International Day of Persons with Disabilities. Today, among others, we honour our inspiring Paralympians, athletes and coaches with disabilities.

    Our government is proud to support the Canadian Paralympic Committee and parasport, at record levels. No other government in Canadian history has done more to build an inclusive society. Whether it be funding the labour market agreements for persons with disabilities, which assist over 300,000 Canadians; extending the opportunities fund, which has helped 60,000 people overcome barriers to join the workforce; providing further support to the enabling accessibility fund, which has funded 835 projects to increase community accessibility across Canada; or the creation of registered disability savings programs that allows families to save for the future of their children with a disability which, to date, over 60,000 individuals have signed up for, we are getting the job done.

    Unfortunately, the NDP and the Liberals voted against every one of these initiatives.

    Mr. Speaker, December 1 was World AIDS Day. Even with prevention campaigns, more than 3,300 new cases are reported every year in Canada. In Quebec, an estimated 20,000 people are HIV positive, and 25% do not even know it. This is alarming and worrisome.

    The global situation is even worse as 34 million people are infected. However, even though a recent study by the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS has shown that the best way to prevent the spread of AIDS is with the use of anti-HIV medications, the Conservatives have decided to prevent millions of people from having access to medications by defeating Bill C-398, which would have made medications available to everyone.

    The campaign slogan of the Coalition des organismes communautaires québécois de lutte contre le sida states that we should never forget that we must exclude AIDS, not HIV positive people.

    Mr. Speaker, for days the person who claims to speak for the NDP on matters of foreign affairs has refused to answer the simple question of how his party would have voted on last week's unilateral resolution at the United Nations General Assembly. While the member for Ottawa Centre has been dodging important questions on NDP policy, his leader has been tellingly silent.

    Canadians want to know, where does the NDP stand, and who is in charge of its foreign policy? Is it the wishy-washy critic from Ottawa Centre, or the deputy leader, who in the past has denied Israel's right to exist?

     It is indeed disturbing that the official opposition cannot answer basic policy questions, such as whether it believes Israel has a right to exist, and at a time when the NDP's big union bosses are down in Rio, participating in a radical hate-filled conference.

    When will the leader of the NDP be clear with Canadians on where his party stands on this most recent unilateral action?

    Mr. Speaker, atop the highest point in Guelph is one of its oldest and most beautiful buildings, Church of Our Lady Immaculate, which celebrates its 125th anniversary this year. In 1827, Guelph founder, John Alexander Galt, gave the hill in the centre of the town to Bishop Alexander Macdonell, for his advice on the formation of Galt's Canada Company. Upon that hill, from 1876-88, Joseph Connelly, one of Canada's most notable architects, built the Church of Our Lady Immaculate, a masterpiece of the Gothic Revival movement.

    Since then, the Church of Our Lady Immaculate has not only remained the physical centre of Guelph and the home of a dedicated and vibrant Roman Catholic community, it is also an important social and cultural centre. The church endures as a symbol of the importance we in Guelph, and Canadians as a society, place on heritage and culture, by understanding where we are going through where we have been.

    I am pleased to congratulate Church of Our Lady Immaculate on 125 years as a Guelph faith and cultural landmark, and I wish it centuries more.

    Mr. Speaker, in case you have not heard, the NDP leader's proposed carbon tax will raise the price of everything, from gas to groceries and electricity. This carbon tax plan is not simply a Christmas wish. In fact it was written in black and white on page four of its campaign documents.

    If the NDP leader, Captain Carbon, has his way, Canadians will not wake up to Christmas joy, but instead to coal in their stockings on Christmas morning. The job-killing bah humbug carbon tax would stall the economy and make it more difficult for Canadian families to make ends meet.

    Our government will always stand up against that Christmas grinch's proposed carbon tax. This holiday season, Canadians can sleep tight knowing that our government remains focused on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

    Mr. Speaker, I had a dream this weekend. Well, maybe it was a horrible nightmare. I dreamed I was a Conservative MP, stuck on the assembly line of misleading statements and being handed script after script by those kids in the Prime Minister's Office.

    Then my nightmare went on. Conservatives have been raising fees on Canadians. Over the last six years, 47 billion dollars in user fees have been imposed on men, women and children. The Conservative fees were raised on birthdays, on Thanksgiving, even on Christmas. I cried out, “When will the Conservatives stop raising fees on everything”?

    It was horrible. It made me realize how bad I feel for my colleagues across the way who have to repeat, over and over, so many misleading statements.

    I feel for my Conservative colleagues, but there is a solution. Instead of standing and making things up, try standing and repeating the facts.

    Mr. Speaker, I have some facts. Under our Conservative government, Canada is finally seeing real greenhouse gas emission reductions. In fact, Canada is now halfway toward its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. That is a sharp contrast to the 27% increase in emissions that Canada saw under the Liberal government.

    Not only is Canada realizing greenhouse gas emission reductions, but we are doing so without a job-killing carbon tax, like the NDP is proposing. While our motivation is achieving results on climate change, while ensuring our economy is protected, we know the NDP's motivation is $21 billion in new revenue to feed its out-of-control spending habit.

    Mr. Speaker, last quarter, Canadian economic growth slowed to a rate of just six-tenths of one per cent. Conservatives have now missed their own economic growth targets three quarters in a row. They have had to downgrade their economic growth forecast for 2012 by nearly a third and it is now widely expected that the Bank of Canada will have to downgrade its own economic forecast as well.

    The Minister of Finance announced new economic numbers just three weeks ago. Does the minister still stand by those numbers today, or will we have to downgrade his economic projections yet again?

    Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not first stand and extend our congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the announcement coming from Clarence House earlier today.

    This government presented an economic action plan designed to build on the hundreds of thousands of new jobs that were created in the country. Before the House today, we have a number of very important issues which are being debated, such as extending the job-creating credit for small business, something that has helped hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We are expanding tax relief for investment in clean energy, among many things. Let us get the NDP on board.

    Mr. Speaker, the truth is that there are now 350,000 more unemployed Canadians than there were before the recession.

    These people spend an average of 16 weeks looking for work. Over the past six months, the private sector has not created one single net new job. Not a single net new job. That is the Conservative record.

    In light of these facts, how can the Conservatives keep telling us that everything is fine and dandy?

    Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Since the end of the global recession, over 800,000 new jobs have been created in Canada. We are very proud of that.

    Our government has put an economic action plan, a plan for economic growth, before the House. That is our goal.

    To date, nearly 400,000 new jobs have been created. Since the beginning of the global recession, the good news is that economic growth is on the way, and we will continue to work very hard on that.

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives cannot replace high-quality manufacturing sector jobs with part-time McJobs and call it a win. Give me a break.

    A CIBC study showed that disparities in Canada's labour market are making the country's economic situation worse. There are too many jobs without workers and too many workers without jobs. Those are not the NDP's facts. That comes from one of Canada's biggest banks.

    When will the Conservatives realize that they have to focus on training unemployed Canadians rather than plug the gaps with temporary foreign workers?

    Mr. Speaker, I have some good news for the leader of the NDP. Eight hundred and twenty thousand net new jobs have been created since the end of the recession. The better news is that 90% of those net new jobs are full-time jobs. That is a great start, but the job is not done. As long as there is one Canadian looking for work, the government will remain focused on job creation and economic growth.

     When it comes to skills training, it is this government that has increased the transfers to provinces by 3% a year, something substantive and meaningful for job creation.

    Mr. Speaker, there are 350,000 more unemployed workers. Canadian families deserve better than that; that is for sure.

    The Conservatives do not want to have any public debate on the trade agreement with China. They are refusing to hold any public consultation on the nationalization of our natural resources by a Chinese state-owned company, and they are unable to develop clear criteria. A serious government would consult experts, investors, and above all, the public. There are now seven days left.

    When will the new rules be published and when will this government finally act responsibly?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians can count on a government that has a responsible approach. We are open to foreign investment as long as it provides a net benefit to Canada. On the other side of the House, the NDP has a radical and irresponsible anti-investment and anti-trade agenda.

    Each transaction that is proposed in Canada is assessed on its merit based on what will bring the greatest benefit to Canadians and what will be in their best interests. This is the approach that we are going to continue to take.

    Mr. Speaker, under a responsible NDP government, we will have clear criteria. We will consult Canadians because Canadians deserve better than what they are getting from the government. Incompetence, thy name is Conservative.

    We are seven days away from a final deadline on Nexen and there is still no criteria, no transparency and Canadians have been completely shut out. Billions are at stake and so is control of Canada's natural resources. Industry has no clue what is going on. Wall Street traders are confused. Share prices are falling fast. Therefore, where is the new criteria? When will the government do its work? When will it start to act responsibly?

    Mr. Speaker, clearly the criteria proposed by the NDP members is no investment at all, no trade at all, no progress at all in terms of the economy. They propose a carbon tax of $21.5 billion on the shoulders of Canadians. It would be a job-killing tax. They want to tax everything. They want to raise taxes everywhere. That is not responsible.

    We welcome foreign investment that provides net benefit for Canada. Each transaction is reviewed under its own merit.

    Mr. Speaker, one thing we do know is that with slower growth, inequality is only going to be increasing in the country. It poses a very serious challenge, particularly to those who are disabled.

    I have a very simple question for the government. The government has a disability tax credit, but it only applies to those people who are disabled and who have an income. Would the government consider making this income tax credit refundable?

    Mr. Speaker, this government has taken substantial efforts to encourage economic growth and substantial efforts to help those Canadians with a disability.

    For example, just with respect to inequality, this government has an EI hiring tax credit, the third quarter project, a youth employment strategy, an apprenticeship incentive grant. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has a substantial amount of work going on. A report on Canadians with disabilities will be coming to her in very short order. We are certainly prepared to continuously do more to help Canadians with disabilities.

    Mr. Speaker, one thing we know is that, with a significant slowdown in economic growth, inequality in our society is only going to get worse. This is a growing problem.

    Once again, I am asking the minister the question that he did not answer: why not make tax credits for people with disabilities refundable?

    Mr. Speaker, this government has taken substantial initiatives to help all Canadians who seek employment. We are particularly concerned, obviously, by those Canadians who are disabled and have trouble seeking employment. That is why this government has brought in a series of initiatives to try to specifically address the needs of Canadians with a disability.

    As I said, my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, has a report coming very shortly, which will outline even more advice to the government of what more we can do to help Canadians with a disability. We are going to continue to do even more.

    Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple fact that most of the tax credits that the government has introduced for all kinds of things, for sports equipment, piano lessons, whatever it may be, do not apply, are not refundable for people who do not have taxable income. There are millions of people who do not have taxable income, 9 million families.

    Why not make these tax credits refundable? In particular, why not make the tax credits refundable for those people with disabilities? It is a very simple and basic change and a very simple question.

    Mr. Speaker, this government has brought forward a substantial number of tax reductions that help all Canadians, including those Canadians with a disability.

    Just before Parliament we have measures to improve registered disability savings plans. The Liberals are trying to delay those initiatives from being tackled. This government has brought forward the working income tax benefits. This government has brought forward substantial tax reductions. This government cuts taxes for Canadians who pay taxes, and that is, I guess, a fundamental difference from the Liberal Party.

    Mr. Speaker, when it comes to combatting climate change, developing countries need financial help from richer countries to meet their commitments. Canada has the worst record in this regard.

    While Canada heads to Doha empty-handed, CO₂ emissions reached record highs last year. Without an effective national policy, there will be no international treaty.

    Do the Conservatives recognize the urgency of taking action both here in Canada and abroad?

    Mr. Speaker, when Canadians wake up in the morning they switch on their lights to electricity that is produced from some of the cleanest sources in the world and under regulations that regulate coal-fired plants. They also drive vehicles that will be 50% more efficient than they were when our government took office.

    Under our government, even though Canada only produces 2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, we have seen a stabilization and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for the first time ever. This is our government's track record on climate change.

    Mr. Speaker, being ranked last in the developed world is nothing to be proud of. It is our children who are going to pay the biggest price for Conservative inaction.

    The head of the climate talks had a clear message for those who think it is a problem they can put off: “The door is closing fast on us because the pace and the scale of action is simply not yet where it must be”.

    Exactly how much of the Arctic melting will it take before the Conservatives stop stalling?

    Mr. Speaker, our government's track record with regard to international talks has been to encourage an agreement where all major emitters come to the table. We need to make sure that emitters like China, India and Brazil come to the table so that we do not have an agreement where only 13% of the world's emissions are covered.

    We have also contributed hundreds of millions of dollars, which are seeing increased soil fertility, food security and reforestation in vulnerable countries. Canada is a world leader on the global stage when it comes to climate change.

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' track record is one of dumping the environmental deficit on future generations and dismantling social programs.

    The new social security tribunal will double the wait times for appeals, and there will be no guarantee that an appeal will be heard. The Conservatives have systematically reduced access to programs, and they are now doing the same thing with appeal mechanisms. Why discourage unemployed workers from appealing, if not to force them to move and accept a lower wage?

    Mr. Speaker, this new tribunal will hear appeals more quickly and efficiently than before. That is why we created it.

    We have to wonder whether the hon. member is loyal to Canada or to separatists, because she made donations to the Québec solidaire party. Is she fighting for or against Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a $100 donation to Élaine Hémond, who encouraged women to become involved in politics.

    We will always vote against the dismantling of social programs—unlike the members opposite—and against unfair budgets that target unemployed workers and deprive people of their rights. The question is not only whether the system is more complicated, but also whether it takes rights away from the unemployed. An in-person hearing is essential to ensure that the ruling is fair. However, the new tribunal will be able to reject an appeal without having to provide an explanation.

    Why is this government violating the rights of unemployed workers?

    Mr. Speaker, the member complains that the current system is too slow. We are trying to speed this system up so that unemployed workers can get fair and equitable decisions more quickly. That is what we will do.

    Why is she opposed to that?

    Mr. Speaker, the minister could write an entire manual on how not to reform a government program. Instead of a simpler, fairer process, we get a more complex and less transparent EI appeals process. The Conservatives' new social security tribunal will now have the power to summarily dismiss appeals.

    How can one fairly rule on an appeal before one has even heard from the person? Why is the minister turning the EI appeals process into a kangaroo court?

    Mr. Speaker, the current system just is not working as well as it should for Canadians. It takes too long, it is too cumbersome and too burdensome, and there are replications and duplications. That is not what Canadians deserve. They deserve a fast, efficient, responsive appeal system. That is what we are introducing. It is one that will meet the needs of Canadians much better.

    Mr. Speaker, a fair process is precisely what they are not getting from the government. The Conservatives tell the unemployed to take any job at any salary or lose their benefits. They claw back benefits from part-time workers who find just a day or two of work each week and they introduce an appeals process that is twice as long and takes away a person's right to defend themself.

    Why are the Conservatives denying benefits to the very people who have paid for them? Why are they targeting the unemployed?

    Mr. Speaker, our target is to help the unemployed get a new job, one that will pay them more than employment insurance and not working. We want to help Canadians get the skills and training they need so they can take better advantage of the opportunities that are being created right across this great country. Over 800,000 net new jobs have been created. We want to do even more and help those who are unemployed get jobs so they and their families will be better off. Why does the NDP keep opposing these measures?

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals dipped into the employment insurance fund. Now the Conservatives are trying to kill the program all together. That hurts Canadian families.

    The Conservatives would have us believe that the electoral fraud happened only in the riding of Guelph, when in fact, no less than 55 other ridings are currently under investigation: 20 in British Columbia, 14 in the Prairies and 20 in Quebec, and that number continues to rise.

    The Conservatives voted in favour of our motion to give the commissioner more powers and they promised to make changes, but nothing has been done since.

    When will the Conservatives take electoral fraud seriously?

    Mr. Speaker, a comprehensive proposal from the government will be forthcoming shortly.

    The fact is that the Federal Accountability Act passed through the House in 2006. In that act we eliminated any donations by corporations and unions, and yet knowing that the NDP still accepted thousands of dollars in illegal donations from unions.

    The real question is, can it follow the law?

    Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but we are talking about an investigation into voter fraud. I do not know if the member understands that. Maybe he does not understand that 56 ridings are now being investigated. The Conservatives' claims that they are co-operating do not add up because we have found out that Conservative Party lawyers delayed responding to Elections Canada for 90 days. That is not co-operation; it is called stalling for time.

    Since the numbers have been traced back to the Conservative Party's headquarters, when is the government going to get serious about holding itself to account? Whom are the Conservatives covering up for?

    Mr. Speaker, we have said all along that we are working proactively with Elections Canada to find out exactly what went on in the riding of Guelph.

    That is in stark contrast to the approach of the NDP when it accepted $340,000 in illegal union money. That party did not co-operate with Elections Canada or anyone else. That party tried to cover it up so that Canadians would not find out. Canadians did find out and the NDP will be held accountable by the Canadian people.

    Mr. Speaker, the member needs to update his Rolodex of sleazy excuses.

    The Conservatives claim that the issue in Guelph involved one kid. We are talking about 56 ridings and the fact that they refuse to answer to Elections Canada.

    Speaking of that, the Labrador minister has refused to come clean about his breaking of election laws. He has refused to explain why he hid free flights and refused to explain why he and his campaign manager were promoted by the Prime Minister after they broke the rules.

    Since it has worked out so well for him, I would like to ask the member for Labrador, does he take the issue of election crime seriously, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, of course he does. I think all Canadians take it seriously when they learn that a political party has taken $340,000 in illegal union money.

    On this side of the House we have a member of Parliament for Labrador who is working hard to defend the interests of the people he represents and working to create jobs in his community. What does the opposition do? It attacks him for spending too much time in his community and making too much of an effort creating jobs for his constituents. Those are the kind of attacks that we can live with.

    Mr. Speaker, Conservative financial incompetence has ballooned Canada's national debt to more than $600 billion, but it is Canadians who are being punished. Nowhere is this more evident than in first nations education.

    Despite the insulting assertion of the minister, the chiefs know that funding for each student attending reserve schools is less than half of that for students off reserve. They want action for their youth, who have the lowest educational outcomes in this country.

    Why is the minister making first nation students pay the price for the government's financial incompetence? When will he close the gap?

    Mr. Speaker, every year we invest in education for over 117,000 students on reserve. Recently I announced additional measures, such as early literacy programming to further education outcomes. I also made announcements in regard to new school infrastructure.

    We have already completed 263 school projects, including 33 new schools. We are continuing to take concrete steps to improve educational outcomes for first nation students.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being punished with cuts to core services to pay for Conservative financial incompetence. That is being seen as Canada's national debt rises to over $600 billion.

    Closures of immigration offices across Canada and in Buffalo have left people asking questions they cannot get answered. The CIC website barely provides updates on increases in processing times but is a virtual black hole when it comes to updates on personal files.

    When will the minister reinstate these services and make the necessary changes, instead of leaving people in the dark?

    Mr. Speaker, the member has it absolutely wrong. Our new central processing office in Ottawa is processing applications more quickly than they were in Buffalo.

    This is astonishing, coming from the Liberals. The Liberal immigration legacy left us with wait times of eight and nine years across the entire range of programs. There was a million people waiting in the backlog.

    Thanks to strong action taken by the government, opposed consistently by the Liberals, we are now getting to a just-in-time system that is going from seven and eight year wait times to one year processing times for applicants for immigration.

    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development plans to eliminate 46% of jobs in Service Canada offices in Prince Edward Island.

    The Minister of Veterans Affairs plans to close our only district office and eliminate 800 jobs.

    The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has already closed our only Citizenship and Immigration Canada office.

    The Minister of National Revenue closed our only consultation office, where people could go in person.

    Why is Prince Edward Island being punished for the Conservatives' financial incompetence?

    Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. Yes, it is true that, as part of our efforts to reduce operating expenses in order to reduce the deficit, we have decreased the number of offices. However, we have increased our online services in order to meet people's needs much more efficiently.

    The Liberals' immigration policy forced permanent resident applicants to wait up to eight years for a response. We are moving to a just in time system that will process new applications for permanent residence in one year or less. Those are the kinds of results our government is achieving.

    Mr. Speaker, Bill C-398 proposed simple changes to Canadian legislation, which could have saved thousands of lives at no cost to taxpayers. A number of Conservative members caved in to pressure from the Prime Minister's Office and refused to send the bill to be examined in committee, even though a similar bill was passed by the House in the last Parliament.

    Why did they vote against streamlining the system, thereby refusing to save lives?

     Mr. Speaker, that is not true. The bill would not improve the lives of the people it purported to help. The real question is this: why did the NDP vote against $4 billion in initiatives that would have provided medications to countries in need?

    The NDP always voted against those initiatives. The $4 billion would have secured a global fund of $10 billion. Those are real initiatives, not just rhetoric. That is real action. Shame on the NDP for voting against them.

    Mr. Speaker, that sounds like more hollow excuses.

    Conservatives could have acted. They could have agreed with those around the world who believe that we have a responsibility to act. Even the Toronto Sun lamented the cruel death of this lifesaving bill. Forty-four percent of women, men and children living in sub-Saharan Africa do not have access to lifesaving medicines.

    Why will the Conservatives not put partisan games aside and work together with everyone to ensure that we get lifesaving medicines to the people who need them?

    Mr. Speaker, that is not true. This bill would not help the ones that it claims to. The fact is that we put forward $4 billion of initiatives to make sure that medicines are provided to the countries in need, and the NDP always voted against it. The question is why it votes against it when we know that this $4 billion helped to secure a global fund of $10 billion for the countries in need. This is real action, and shame on New Democrats for voting against that.

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are failing yet again to show leadership in health care, and Canadians are paying the price. The Canadian Institute for Health Information reported that Canada has the highest percentage of people waiting more than four hours in emergency rooms, and more than half of Canadians say they cannot get appointments with their family doctors when they need them.

    Why is the Minister of Health cutting billions of dollars from health transfers rather than working with the provinces to reduce wait times, which is a significant issue in this country?

    Mr. Speaker, our government is absolutely playing a leadership role when it comes to health care. I appreciate the hon. member's question because it gives me an opportunity to talk about all the great investments our government is making. Transfers to the provinces and territories are at record levels and will increase to approximately $40 billion per year by the end of the decade—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. The hon. Minister of Health has the floor.

    Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who cut the transfers.

    We are also funding more than 10,000 health research projects across the country. We have introduced debt forgiveness programs for doctors and nurses who work in rural and remote areas. The opposition talks a good game, but our government is taking concrete actions.

    Mr. Speaker, a recent poll indicated that Canadians care about Tommy Douglas's legacy and the universal health care system. That is a Canadian value.

    But leadership is also required to maintain a health care system capable of meeting Canadians' needs. Reducing provincial transfers is not leadership.

    When will the Conservatives provide the resources the provinces need to do their job?

    Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, transfers to the provinces and territories have increased to $40 billion by the end of the decade.

    It also gives me an opportunity to talk about more investments we are making. We have created the Mental Health Commission of Canada; we have made significant investments in food safety; we funded the creation of medical residents positions; we fund national organizations like the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The list goes on.

    Mr. Speaker, union bosses from CUPW want taxpayers to cover their trip to an anti-Israel conference in Brazil, which advocated the release of Ahmad Sa'adat. Sa'adat heads a banned terrorist group called the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Public Safety Canada says this group “took part in some of the boldest terrorist attacks”, hijacking three civilian airliners and using suicide bombers and guerrilla tactics.

    Sa'adat is imprisoned right now for 30 years for ordering the assassination of an Israeli minister. Does the government still consider Ahmad Sa'adat's PFLP to be a terrorist organization?

    Yes, we do, Mr. Speaker. Convicted murderer and terrorist Ahmad Sa'adat wrote a jailhouse letter thanking conference goers, including the Canadian postal union bosses. Now union bosses plan to use workers' dues to file a grievance because Canada Post refuses to fund the trip to the freedom-for-terrorists conference. Here we have the latest example of union bosses using other people's money to lavish themselves and to fund the most odious of causes. Is it not time for union financial transparency?

    Mr. Speaker, in 2008, the Prime Minister promised aboriginal peoples and all Canadians that reconciliation was at the heart of the historical apology to survivors of residential schools, but it was all empty words. Years of mounting frustration over access to government records has prompted the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, just like the Parliamentary Budget Officer, to turn to the courts for help because the government is blocking it.

    The right to use these documents is a vital part of the truth and reconciliation process. Who is holding up the release of these documents?

    Mr. Speaker, my department is working with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and 22 other departments to ensure that all relevant documents are made available. To date, almost one million have been disclosed, and it is our aim to have the remaining disclosed in 2013.

    Our government remains committed to bringing closure to the legacy of residential schools, and we will continue to honour the agreement.

    Mr. Speaker, to fulfill its mandate of healing and reconciliation, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada must have access to the documentation. The fact that the commission had to go to court to get the documents it needs goes against the principle behind the apology made in the House.

    The commission may not be able to complete its work on time and within the budget it was given.

    Do the Conservatives really want to get to the bottom of what happened in the Indian residential schools?

    Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have already turned over a million documents. We are working with 22 other departments.

     This is a court-supervised process. It involves the churches. It involves all of the other stakeholders, and it involves 22 departments. We are working with all of them, and we are doing our very best to make sure this process is completed in 2013.

    Mr. Speaker, Conservative mismanagement has meant that some people are just being left behind.

    On Friday, the minister held a news conference and used strong language about Hungary's treatment of the Roma. He spoke of “crazy and hateful xenophobic nutbars”. Yet he is planning to declare Hungary a safe country.

    The minister loves to talk about bogus refugees from countries like the EU and Hungary, but will the minister now admit that his plans are flawed and he could be rejecting legitimate refugees?

    Mr. Speaker, I am sure we join with all members of this place in condemning the attitudes and actions of organizations like Jobbik and the Magyar Guarda in Hungary.

    As it relates to the designated country list for our new fast and fair asylum system, that has not yet been fully determined or published.

    I can point out, however, that it is peculiar that the European Union is the number one source region for asylum claims to Canada, that Canada gets 98% of Hungarian asylum claims filed worldwide and that about 95% of those claims are abandoned or withdrawn by the claimants themselves or subsequently rejected by our fair and generous Immigration and Refugee Board.

    We are here to provide real protection to real refugees, but to discourage false claims.

    Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has done an about-face with regard to the statements he made about Hungary, he can no longer ignore the chaos that has reigned since the Buffalo visa office was closed. Some people have been waiting for over two years for news about the status of their application for permanent residence. The minister says that applications are being processed in Ottawa.

    Can the minister tell us how much longer it will take for these applications to be processed and exactly how many people are affected?

    Mr. Speaker, my answer does not have to do specifically with the program, but I can tell the hon. member that we expect that most of the files that were transferred from Buffalo will be processed within a few months. In fact, in most areas of immigration, new applications submitted to Ottawa are being processed more quickly than they would have been during the same period last year in Buffalo. For example, applications from Quebec-selected skilled workers are being processed in nine months at the new Ottawa office as compared to the 15 months it would have taken the Buffalo office.

    Mr. Speaker, as countries gather at the UN climate conference in Doha, Canada has already won two fossil awards, because the government has undermined global efforts to address climate change.

    This week, Canada ranked 58 out of 61 countries on climate policy, trailed only by Kazakhstan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

    Canadian is listed as the worst performer in the developed world. When will the minister and his failed sector-by-sector approach take real action on climate change and end the international humiliation?

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has no basis to even talk to this issue when all it has had with regard to climate change policy is a 30% increase in greenhouse gas emissions, a $15 billion carbon tax and a dog named Kyoto.

    When we compare that with our track record, we are seeing a stabilization of greenhouse gas emission growth and we have also seen our economy grow. We are getting it done.

    Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago today, world leaders, MPs and NGOs gathered here in Ottawa to sign the Ottawa treaty to ban anti-personnel landmines, which unanimously passed. Since then, Canada has been one of the leading funders for the removal effort. However, under the Conservative government, the funding for the landmine clearance has been cut.

    Canada has gone from being in the top five to, now, number ten. Will the government commit to renew funding for the landmines clearance and return Canada to a leadership role?

    Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians can be very proud of the role our government played in the Ottawa treaty. Lloyd Axworthy, one of my predecessors, as a distinguished foreign minister, worked very hard on this issue. Canada continues to be a top 10 funder of this.

    Canada also has other priorities and other challenges that it seeks to tackle, particularly the Prime Minister's leadership on maternal health. It is something that Canadians can be equally excited about, the international leadership that has been shown by another Government of Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. We represent 15% of Canadians.

    In 2010, the government ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The agreement stated that in April 2012 a report would be submitted on steps taken to improve the living conditions of Canadians with disabilities. Eight months later, the Conservatives still have not fulfilled their obligations.

     Where is the report? When will it be tabled? This time, I hope I get a real answer.

    Mr. Speaker, no government has done as much as we have to help those with disabilities.

    For instance, we set up the RDSP to help families save for the future. We have also asked for a report, which I expect to receive very soon, on how to help people with disabilities enter Canada's labour market.

    We want to help these people, that is what we are doing and we want the NDP's support.

    Mr. Speaker, let us look at their record instead. Conservatives have refused to adequately fund the public service disability insurance plan and they used the enabling accessibility fund almost exclusively for Conservative ridings, refusing other worthy projects.

    On this International Day of Persons with Disabilities, it is clear Conservatives have failed to support Canadians with disabilities. When will the government keep its international promises and get behind fair and balanced programs?

    Mr. Speaker, we have been doing exactly that, and at every single step of the way the NDP has opposed that action. It has opposed the working income tax benefit. It opposed the enabling accessibility fund that has benefited over 800 new projects that have increased accessibility for all persons within Canada. It even opposed the opportunities fund, which helps Canadians with disabilities prepare for the workplace, to get out there and become more self-reliant and independent.

    We are the ones working to help people with disabilities become included in society. It is too bad the NDP opposes us every step of the way.

    Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is focused on the economy, and we are getting results, with over 820,000 net new jobs created since July 2009. We are getting those results through low taxes, cutting taxes over 140 times and lowering the tax bill for Canadian families by over $3,100 a year. We are also leaving more money in the hands of entrepreneurs to grow and create more jobs.

    Today, PricewaterhouseCoopers released a new report confirming we are on the right track. Could the Minister of State for Finance tell the House what the report had to say?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex for his question. That is accurate. PricewaterhouseCoopers today confirmed that, due to our government's actions, Canada has one of the best tax systems to help businesses create jobs. In fact, we have moved up three spots. We now rank in the top 10, earning high praise for low taxes and less red tape.

    Let me quote from that report. It states that Canada has “attractive tax regimes, which impact all companies—in particular small-medium sized domestic companies”.

    Mr. Speaker, from grain to lumber, from chemicals to cars, captive shippers have been asking for legislation since 2007 to provide enforceable level of service contracts. After five years, will we finally see that legislation this week?

    Without discrimination, will all level of service contracts include six mandatory elements: services and obligations, communication rules, performance standards, performance metrics, consequences for non-performance, and a dispute settlement mechanism? Will we get that legislation this week?

    Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear that from a member who has been here for 13 years before and had done absolutely nothing.

    We will fix it. We said that we would introduce a bill during the fall and we will do it.

    Mr. Speaker, the Emerson report confirms what many people already knew. The Conservatives are not doing enough for Canada's aerospace industry. Our industry is even falling behind. Tomorrow, the Conservatives will be passing a massive budget bill in which they cut research and development tax credits just when the industry needs them the most. This makes no sense.

    Other governments are fighting for their industry. Why are the Conservatives sitting back and doing nothing rather than protecting jobs that belong to Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, David Emerson tabled his report last week, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his excellent work.

    This is important because we have an excellent aerospace industry. Our industry ranks fifth in the world, but we must not rest on our laurels. Our government has a vision, and we need the expertise of outside consultants to know where we will be in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. Right now, Canada is the best place to invest, and Canada is the country with the best corporate tax system.

    We want to continue to lead in the aerospace industry, and we hope that the NDP will support us in our endeavours, for once.

    Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions increased by a whopping 27%. In the words of the former Liberal leader, “We didn't get it done”.

    On the other hand, we have the NDP that has already told Canadians that it would implement a $21 billion job killing, tax on everything carbon tax.

    Would the parliamentary secretary update this House on the outcome and accomplishments of this government's climate change efforts to date?

    Mr. Speaker, our government's record when it comes climate change is that we are over halfway to achieving our Copenhagen target in 2020. Our greenhouse gas emissions in this country have stabilized. We are working with vulnerable countries to come up with climate change adaptation measures. We are working with communities in the north to build strong infrastructure to respond to climate change. We are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in climate change research. Our government is getting it done.

     Mr. Speaker, if it were up to the Conservatives, Canadians would know nothing about Luc Plamondon and André Gagnon. These artists, influential pillars of the Quebec cultural scene, do not exist on the Library and Archives Canada site. Although the Conservatives would have us believe that budget cuts have no impact, this situation is a sad reminder that this is not true.

    When I asked the minister about putting the brakes on cuts to Library and Archives Canada last week, he replied that his choices enhance access to content. What content? Content that does not exist? Will he stop taking us for fools and put an end to these ideological cuts?

    Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague may not believe our record when it comes to arts and culture but here is who does.

    This is what Joe Rotman, chair of the Canada Council for the Arts, said about the budget that we will be voting on this year. He said, “This government clearly appreciates the positive contribution the arts have to the economy and the identity of this country”.

    The member may not think that I am perhaps the best spokesperson for the arts but here is who does. Simon Brault, president of Culture Montreal, said, “Funding for the Canada Council of the Arts will remain intact and we owe a debt of gratitude to this government for listening to artists”.

    Mr. Speaker, while the government was preparing to announce its unfair funding for the Lower Churchill project, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously reiterated its opposition to federal assistance. The Bloc Québécois was the only party in the House to condemn the great unfairness of Ottawa using Quebeckers' money to support projects that are counter to their economic interests and that will compete directly with Hydro-Québec, a government entity that the Quebec nation built itself.

    How can this government, with the support of the Liberals and the NDP, have such disregard for the interests of Quebec?

    Mr. Speaker, a loan guarantee is not an allocation of taxpayers' money; it is the use of our credit rating, which reflects the government's strong financial performance. Last week, during my telephone conversation with Quebec's natural resources minister, Martine Ouellet, I reminded her that the federal government is prepared to support other major regional or Canadian projects that are economically viable and that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs said “that the member was not factual and has given a false report”.

    I wrote to the minister on September 20 and I got a response back that said “quiet diplomacy”. I wrote to the minister on October 4 and again on November 8.

    I wrote to the minister not twice but three times.

    Mr. Speaker, during question period I witnessed the member for Mississauga—Streetsville make a gesture in the House that is truly unacceptable.

    After the last question by the member of Toronto Centre, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville used his hand by forming a gun and putting the trigger to his head.

    As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, many families have had some of their loved ones fall victim to gun-related crimes and suicide. Such gestures have no place in the House of Commons.

     I respectfully ask that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville apologize to the member for Toronto Centre and to the House.

     Perhaps the member will come back to that. I do not think the member is here right now.

    It is my duty, pursuant to section 21 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to lay upon the table a certified copy of the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Manitoba.

    This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 31 petitions.

    While I am on my feet, I move:

    The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

     Some hon. members: No.

    The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

    And five or more members having risen:

    The Speaker: Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

    The hon. member for Mississauga South has six minutes remaining to conclude her remarks.

    Mr. Speaker, before question period, I started talking about the benefits in the economic action plan 2012 for small businesses. Next I would like to focus on the benefits for families and seniors.

    For the most part, it is about our promise to keep taxes low. Unlike the high tax NDP and Liberals, our Conservative government believes in low taxes and leaving more money where it belongs, in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families. That is why we have cut taxes over 140 times since 2006, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in nearly 50 years.

    We have removed over one million low-income families, individuals and seniors from the tax rolls altogether. We have cut taxes in every way government collects them: personal taxes, consumption taxes, business taxes and more. This includes cutting the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%, increasing the amount Canadians can earn tax free, providing seniors with pension income-splitting, reducing the GST from 7% to 5%, putting nearly $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family.

    We have also introduced the children's fitness tax credit and the children's arts tax credit, as well as the universal child care benefit offering families more choice in child care by providing $1,200 a year for each child under the age of six. We introduced the child tax credit providing personal income tax relief of up to $320 in 2011 for each child under age 18. This Conservative government's low tax record has provided tax savings for a typical Canadian family totalling over $3,100.

    Also in order to help families, we are improving the registered disability savings plan to help ensure long-term financial security of children with severe disabilities. We introduced the family caregiver tax credit, a credit of up to $2,000 for caregivers of all types to infirm, dependent relatives, including spouses, common-law partners and minor children.

    We are investing in small public infrastructure with $150 million to support repairs and improvements to existing community structures. This includes investments in my community, including the Clarkson Community Centre Pool, the Lions Club of Credit Valley Outdoor Pool, David Ramsey Outdoor Pool, Lewis Bradley Pool, as well as the Lakeview and Lorne Park public libraries. Thousands of children, their parents, students and seniors in Mississauga South use these pools and libraries every day.

    With regard specifically to supporting seniors, our Conservative government recognizes that Canada's seniors helped build and make our country great. That is why economic action plan 2012 introduces new measures to improve the quality of life and expand opportunities for Canadian seniors, including the Third Quarter project, an innovative online approach to help employers find experienced workers over age 50 who want to keep using their skills in the workforce, improving flexibility and choice for senior workers.

    For those who do wish to work longer, economic action plan 2012 provides the option to voluntarily defer take-up of old age security benefits. Those doing so will subsequently receive a higher annual actuarilly adjusted pension on take-up. This builds on top of the tax relief our government has already provided to seniors and pensioners since 2006, including removing over 380,000 seniors from the tax roll, again, introducing pension income-splitting, increasing the age credit amount by $2,000, doubling the pension income credit to $2,000, increasing the age limit for RRSP to RRIF conversion from age 71 to 69, establishing the tax-free savings account, which is particularly beneficial for seniors, and introducing the largest GIS increase in over 25 years, helping more than 680,000 seniors across Canada.

    I am also proud that we have taken steps to combat elder abuse in all its forms, including abuse awareness activities through the new horizons for seniors program and introducing legislation in March of this year to ensure tougher sentences for those who abuse seniors.

    I was proud to serve on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women where our review and study of elder abuse did make this recommendation to the government for tougher sentences for those who abused our most vulnerable senior citizens.

    Let me reiterate that Canada is leading the global economic recovery. Our Conservative government is squarely focused on the economy and jobs. In fact, Canada has created over 820,000 net new jobs since July 2009. Canada has, by far, the best rate of job growth in the entire G7 and has had that since 2006. Canada's unemployment rate is significantly lower than that of the U.S., a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades.

    However, the global recovery remains fragile and we must secure Canada's recovery. While the NDP and the Liberals want to engage in a reckless spending spree, and maybe even a $21 billion carbon tax, our Conservative government is committed to returning to balanced budgets.

    Budget 2012 focuses on jobs and economic growth, ensuring that Canada's small businesses, and families and seniors are our top priorities. I would encourage all members to support this jobs and growth bill, our second budget implementation act, and vote for Canada's economic plan 2012.

    Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by the hon. member for Mississauga South.

    As I demonstrated earlier with a very simple example, the Conservative government is completely incompetent when it comes to our economy, considering the staggering $550 billion in capital that Canadian businesses are hanging on to. This is a sign that entrepreneurs and business leaders do not have confidence in the future. They are refusing to invest their money, and who could blame them? If anyone is to blame, it is those responsible for this poor economic climate.

    The fiscal imbalance, which is now huge, is another problem this government is responsible for. Approximately 80% of the tax burden falls entirely on the shoulders of individuals, while large corporations are enjoying tax breaks.

    So I have a question for the member. Just how far will the government go to get out of having to support people and abandon them to their fate?

    Mr. Speaker, I wonder what Canadians would think if the opposition were the Government of Canada, whether they would even remotely consider investing in Canadian businesses if the NDP had its way and its high-tax agenda were implemented. Frankly, I think Canadian businesses are frightened of that prospect. They are frightened of the fact that the NDP is anti-investment and anti-trade.

    Canadians deserve better than this radical opposition. Unlike the NDP, our Conservative government will not raise taxes or slash transfers to the provinces. In fact, just today PricewaterhouseCoopers said that Canada has one of the best tax systems, including for small to medium-size businesses to thrive. That is what the experts are saying. That is the confidence that Canadians businesses have in this government and how we are helping them.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Mississauga South, knowing how dedicated she is to her constituents, particularly the families in her area. She has a young family herself. I know how important the services and other items are to both her family and constituents.

    One of the things this budget really focuses on is small businesses. I know that in the member's riding of Mississauga South there are a number of small businesses, all of which are delighted with the direction this budget is taking and how it is going to help them become even more prosperous and to create even more jobs.

    I wonder if the member could comment on the impact of this budget on small businesses in her riding of Mississauga South.

    Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Simcoe—Grey supports small businesses and families in her riding as well. I very much appreciate her question and the opportunity to talk about how this budget helps small businesses.

    In particular, I have heard many businesses talk about how the reducing red tape initiative will be helpful to them. When businesses are spending time doing that, they are not being productive and growing as businesses.

    We are also expanding trade around the world, which helps small businesses. I talked about the example of Electrovaya in my community, which makes lithium ion batteries and is contributing to energy efficient green technology.

    Most of all, I think that small businesses in Mississauga South and across Canada appreciate the hiring tax credit. It is very unfortunate that the NDP voted against this very worthwhile initiative.

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and address the House this afternoon on the important reforms our government is making in budget 2012. Economic action plan 2012 is focused on what matters most to Albertans and all Canadians, building the right conditions for prosperity today and generations to come.

    I want to highlight aspects of Bill C-45, the second budget implementation bill, that support research, create jobs and promote clean energy. Not only do these initiatives advance innovation in Canada and play a key role in achieving the priorities outlined in the economic action plan but they are also critical to who we are as Albertans and Canadians.

    We know well that economic prosperity is not a given. It is the fruit of hard work and tremendous imagination. Investing in our students, entrepreneurs and researchers is our strongest guarantee that Canada's future will be bright, that we will break the confining limits of the past and open new opportunities for a long and prosperous future. Indeed, the OECD predicts that Canada's economy will lead the developed world for the next half century.

    Since 2006, we have taken concrete steps to make sure that Canada is a global leader in research and innovation, and have invested nearly $8 billion in new funding for initiatives to support science, technology and the growth of innovation firms in Canada, including $5 billion for advanced research, education and training; $2 billion for post-secondary infrastructure; and $1 billion for applied research and financing.

    For instance, budget 2012 directs $71 million over four years to further establish the Canada excellence research chairs to attract the world's best researchers to Canada, and over $600 million to support cutting-edge research throughout Canada via the Canada Foundation for Innovation. I am proud to say that the University of Alberta has been awarded more research chairs than any other institution in Canada.

    We are confident that our government's support for research commercialization will help bridge the gap between Canadian innovations and the ability to bring these ideas to market. For instance, our economic action plan proposes $440 million to create centres of excellence for commercialization and research to help transform great ideas into concrete success in the Canadian marketplace.

    Economic action plan 2012 also targets $470 million over four years to support strategic innovation projects in key sectors of the Canadian economy, including the automotive, aerospace, forestry and clean technology sectors.

    Investing in Canadian research and innovation is not only fundamental to developing a robust competitive global economy; investing in innovation is not only about creating jobs and generating economic prosperity, though it does that too, but it is also the case that investing in great minds and pioneering approaches to science and technology affects every aspect of daily life in Canada. I will provide an example.

    Marquis, a wheat variety developed at the sunset of the 19th century in Indian Head, Saskatchewan, led to an explosion of cereal production in Canada. The ingenuity of crossing two kinds of wheat to develop a grain that could thrive in prairie climates resulted in a wave felt in communities across the Prairies.

    Great Canadian innovations have shaped the course of our history from Marquis wheat to insulin in the 1920s, the snowmobile and the electron microscope in the 1930s, canola in the 1940s, Research in Motion's BlackBerry in the 1990s, and the countless universities and businesses across Canada that are on the leading edge of research today.

    While the private sector plays the leading role in research, innovation and commercialization, we know that institutions such as the National Research Council can be important partners in discovering these new engines of growth. This is why the 2012 economic action plan also proposes $67 million to support the National Research Council in refocusing on business-led, industry-relevant research.

    Edmonton Centre is home to many world-class research institutions and companies at the forefront of the innovation economy. Earlier this month, I was honoured to join Ceapro, an Edmonton-based biotechnology company, to announce the signing of a letter of intent with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to collaborate in the development of a unique variety of oats. This new variety of oats will enable Ceapro to extract larger quantities of its flagship product, an active ingredient found in oats. Ceapro's team of chemists, biologists and engineers is developing cutting-edge ways of extracting natural ingredients from oats that have health benefits. These active ingredients are then used by major brands in cosmetic and therapeutic products. Ceapro's success, both as a corporate citizen and local employer, is a great example of the multiple benefits that economic innovation brings to communities like Edmonton and, by extension, to the rest of Canada.

    Another example of how these initiatives are playing out in innovation capitals like Edmonton is the impressive work of a company named Synodon. Based in Edmonton, the company has developed a system that can remotely detect gas, enabling the monitoring and measurement of methane gas in the Arctic. The funding will allow this technology to be used by Natural Resources Canada to survey the vast Canadian Arctic. Synodon's proposal is one of over 60 that will be supported by the new program, Canadian innovation commercialization.

    Public Works and Government Services Canada has been working with selected companies, like Synodon, to build partnerships that allow their innovations to be matched with federal government departments.

    Companies, like Ceapro and Synodon, bring with them jobs and economic growth to Edmonton, to Alberta and to Canada. They also bring additional benefits. They advance the very science that the next generation of students will study. They achieve feats of human creativity that set the bar to which students, teachers, scientists and researchers aspire. Technological innovation underpins both the history and the future promise of Canadian economic development.

    Budget 2012 regenerates and reinvigorates Canada's capacity to innovate and to play a leading role in global research. The first budget implementation plan, Bill C-38, outlined many of these initiatives. In addition, Bill C-45 also advances our ability to cultivate a competitive clean energy market in Canada.

    For instance, through the economic action plan, the government initiated a clean energy fund. This fund is providing nearly $795 million to support research and development projects to advance Canadian leadership in clean energy technologies. This program is already off to a good start. To date, the clean energy fund is supporting two large-scale carbon capture and storage projects in Alberta totalling $150 million. The goal of the clean energy fund is to help create a variety of clean energy technologies and knowledge needed to ensure that these technologies are widely used in the future.

     Our government is committed to sustainable resource development in all sectors. Bill C-45 expands the eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment to include a broader range of bioenergy equipment, and phases out the corporate mineral exploration and development tax credit, and phases out the Atlantic investment tax credit for activities related to the oil and gas and mining sectors. These shifts will create a more level playing field for taxation in the energy sector and will support a new generation of clean energy producers.

    We will continue to work hard to create the necessary conditions in the economy that will bring new jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Though we are on track for the Canadian economy and Canadian families, with over 820,000 net new jobs created since July 2009, we will work as hard as ever to honour our commitment to Canadians to be global leaders in economic stewardship. Against the backdrop of a fragile global economy, especially in Europe and the United States, our largest trading partners, we will continue to make economic stability and prosperity a bedrock priority.

    The people who gave me the great honour of representing Edmonton Centre expect things to get done here in Ottawa. Budget 2012 and Canada's economic action plan are doing just that. This is not the time to rest on our laurels, to sit back and let partisanship get in the way of delivering results for Canadians.

    I would like to speak for a couple of minutes to the nationwide economic benefits of activity in Alberta. Contrary to some recent regrettable remarks by a couple of members opposite, which I will not bother to dwell on, it is the job of Alberta MPs to represent all that our province is and all that it has to offer to the rest of Canada. That is no different from the job of MPs from every part of this country. At the same time, we all have a responsibility to be part of a much bigger picture and that is the picture of Canada.

    While the resources in any province are technically the property of that province, Alberta MPs certainly understand that our natural resources are there for the benefit of the entire country. By an accident of geography and geology, Alberta and Saskatchewan have vast reserves of oil and gas to be developed for the national good. By an accident of geography and geology, Quebec is blessed with the capacity of hydro power, British Columbia with forestry and so on across the country. None of these accidents of nature make one part of the country better or worse than any other. What they do collectively is make us the richest country in the world in terms of natural resources. We should all be proud of that and we should all appreciate what each part of our great country offers to the overall good of each and every Canadian.

    We should not be practising the politics of division. We should be preaching and practising the politics of unity and sharing a common bright future in Canada that is much more than merely the sum of its parts. All members of this House were elected to strengthen the economy and lay the foundation for jobs of tomorrow.

    I am proud of our government's accomplishments to date but there is more to be done. I urge all members of this House to support the budget implementation act and allow it to continue to move forward in carrying out Canada's economic action plan.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a document titled, “The Government's Response to Question on the Order Paper No. 988”.

    Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if that was a proper point of order. The time to have put that forward was in the period for routine proceedings which, by her own party's manoeuvres, was ended for today and we were prevented from putting forward petitions, reports from committees or any other routine proceedings.

    In response to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, it is my understanding that the minister was merely tabling a document. This is not the answer that is being tabled. Ministers may rise at any time in the House to simply table a document. The answer that will be required will have to be tabled in the appropriate procedure at some point in the future.

    Questions and comments. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague who is a member of this government, probably the most incompetent government in the history of Canada. In fact, it has run up the largest deficit in Canada's fiscal history and the largest trade deficit in Canadian history. Some 330,000 more people are unemployed today than before the recession.

    I am therefore pleased to ask this question of the member, who talked about research and development. This government has made cuts to the scientific research and experimental development program, cuts that have been condemned by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

    Can my colleague comment on the government's decision to go ahead with those cuts to research and development? Why does he think his party did that?

    Mr. Speaker, with respect to deficits and so on, our deficit is the smallest in the developed world with respect to the GDP, which is the true measure of a deficit. Of course, the number is larger than it was 50 years ago but, with inflation, that is what one would expect.

    When we talk about trade deficits, part of that problem is Canada's strength. If our trading partners are weaker and not buying, that will generate some trade deficit. It is actually a measure of our strength. We are working hard with our partners in the EU, U.S. and other places to encourage them to increase their economic output and that will balance out in the longer term.

    With respect to R and D, our government is focusing our R and D dollars on where they will do the most good.

    If the member wants to talk about chambers of commerce, the biggest chamber of commerce in the country is in Edmonton. Believe it or not, it is even bigger than in Toronto or Montreal. I meet with it on, not quite on a daily basis but very often, and it is very impressed and appreciative of the focus that this government is putting on R and D in the places where it will do the most good.

    We are not here to sprinkle a few droplets everywhere. We are here to focus on things that will matter most to Canadians, to the Canadian economy and to jobs and long-term prosperity.

    Mr. Speaker, Canada's investment in business research and development support was concentrated in the scientific research and experimental development tax credit but we will be cutting that eventually by something like $500 million a year. If we look at the announced spending that is supposed to come from those cuts to the SR and ED tax credit, they do not add up anywhere near $500 million.

    A lot of companies in my riding and elsewhere rely on that tax credit. These are the innovative companies that are creating jobs that use that tax credit to develop the innovations that make Canadian workers more productive.

    I would ask my hon. colleague for Edmonton Centre whether his constituents in the oil and gas technology sector who heavily rely on the eligibility for capital expenditures for the scientific research and experimental tax credit would be happy. Why is he increasing taxes on his constituents in the oil and gas technology sector by cutting the tax credit for SR and ED?

    Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit rich when people stand up and dump on Alberta MPs, Alberta and the Canadian government in general for what they consider to be too much support for the oil and gas business. I will give the member credit for not being one of those people.

    The simple fact is that we are in partnership with Canadian industry, certainly the oil and gas industry which is driving the economy of the country at this point, and I think my hon. colleague realizes that. The economic progress is a work in progress. We are going to work with all sectors of the Canadian economy and all technology sectors, as we have been doing, as I laid out in my remarks.

    Nothing stays the same forever. We need to focus down the road. We are not focusing on tomorrow necessarily. We want to take care of the short-term needs but we also want to look down the road 20 to 40 years to see what Canada and our economy will look like to ensure we are planning properly for that day.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After question period, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing raised a concern about a gesture that she believes I did or did not do in the House during question period. That is the case and if she or others were offended, I apologize to all members of the House.