House Publications

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

    Mr. Speaker, furthermore, while I have the floor, 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.

    Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to speak to Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012.

    As Canadians know, our government's top priority is creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We have ensured that we have provided initiatives that will build a strong economy and foster job growth. We are dedicated to supporting Canadian families and communities, protecting our environment and supporting business and development.

    We invested over $63 billion in targeted stimulus and investment that helped to protect Canada from the worst global recession. It is no wonder that Canada has been envied by countries around the world, as we have weathered the economic slowdown.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry but I am having a terrible time hearing the hon. parliamentary secretary's remarks. I know that we are just finishing one vote and going on to another but I cannot follow what he is saying and I would like to be prepared to ask questions.

    Order, please. There are a lot of conversations going on. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism has the floor and I would ask members who wish to carry on other conversations to perhaps depart to their respective lobbies.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary.

    Mr. Speaker, I will begin again then. I am honoured to speak today to Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act.

    As Canadians know, our government's top priority is creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We have ensured that we have provided initiatives that will build a strong economy and foster job growth. We are dedicated to supporting Canadian families and communities, protecting our environment and supporting business and development.

    We invested over $63 billion in targeted stimulus, an investment that helped to protect Canada from the worst global recession. It is no wonder that Canada has been envied by countries around the world as we have weathered the economic slowdown much better than other countries.

    Our government understands that the global recovery remains fragile. There are still a lot of Canadians looking for work and that is why economic action plan 2012 moves ahead to secure jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canada.

    We are supporting entrepreneurs, innovators and world-class research. We are acting on the Jenkins report, announcing $1.1 billion to directly support research and development, and $500 million for venture capital.

    Prior to becoming the member of Parliament for Willowdale, I was an entrepreneur. I started five businesses and had staff in these businesses ranging from 5 people to 400. These measures are important to Canadian entrepreneurs.

    Innovation in science and technology is important to our government and that is why we will invest $37 million annually to Canada's granting councils.

    We know that it is important to improve conditions for business investment and that is why we believe in responsible resource development. We are ensuring that major resource projects are not bogged down by the regulatory system that one project receives only one review in a clearly defined timeframe.

    In undertaking the most ambitious trade expansion plan in Canadian history, we know it is important to growing our trade relations with countries that offer markets in which we need to expand.

    As a former entrepreneur, I know all too well the importance of having good business conditions. In extending the hiring credit for small business, we want to encourage additional hiring and lower total business payroll taxes by $205 million.

    This government knows that it is important to keep Canadian families strong, and that is why economic action plan 2012 introduced several key measures to help Canadian families. They include: first, improving the registered disability savings plan to help ensure the long-term financial security of children with severe disabilities; second, improving first nations water infrastructure with over $330.8 million to ensure safe and clean drinking water on first nations reserves; third, investing in small public infrastructure with $150 million to support repairs and improvements to existing community facilities; fourth, promoting more active lifestyles with continued support for participation and its community-based physical activity and fitness programs; and fifth, enhancing the victims fund to ensure victims of crime have an effective voice in the federal justice and corrections system.

    Those build on top of the strong action our Conservative government has taken to support families since 2006.

    I will give the House other examples of what we have done to help Canadians. We have cut taxes over 140 times since forming government. We cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We removed over one million Canadians from the tax rolls. We increased the amount Canadians can earn tax free. We reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, putting nearly $1,000 back in the pocket of an average family. We introduced 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 6. We introduced the family caregiver tax credit, a credit of up to $2,000 for caregivers of all types of infirm dependent relatives, including spouses, common-law partners and minor children. We introduced the child tax credit, providing personal income tax relief of up to $320 in 2011 for each child under the age of 18.

    We introduced the children's fitness tax credit, promoting physical fitness among children through a tax credit of up to $500 in eligible fees for programs associated with physical activity. We introduced the children's arts tax credit of up to $500 in eligible fees for programs associated with children's artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities.

    We brought in the landmark tax free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since the RRSP.

    We doubled the in-study income exemption to $100 a week, allowing full-time students to earn more money without affecting their loans.

    We eliminated the marriage penalty for one-earner families by increasing the spousal amount to the same level as the basic personal amount.

    We introduced the registered disability savings plan to help families with children with disabilities.

    In addition, families are benefiting from other new targeted measures, like the first-time homebuyers tax credit, the expanded homebuyers plan and the public transit tax credit.

    I know that my constituents of Willowdale work hard for their paycheques and they believe in lower taxes. I am proud to be part of a government that supports low taxes and leaving more money where it belongs: in the pockets of hard-working Canadians and job-creating businesses. 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, excise taxes and much more. This includes cutting the lowest personal income tax 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 another $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family; introducing the child fitness tax credit and child art tax credit; bringing in the landmark tax free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since the RRSP; reducing the small business tax from 12% to 11%; and lowering business taxes to 15%, as passed in Parliament in 2007.

    Indeed, our Conservative government low tax record has provided tax savings for typical Canadian families totalling over $3,100.

    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.

    Our economic action plan 2012 builds on our Conservative government's low tax record, including extending the hiring credit for small business for an additional year and providing business with a credit of up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2012 employment insurance premiums over those paid in 2011. This new tax credit will help up to half a million employers with additional hiring, reducing small business' 2012 payroll costs by about $205 million.

    Supporting Canadian students is also a priority for this government. Seneca College is located in my riding of Willowdale. I was honoured recently to join the Minister of State for Science and Technology in the announcement of a grant to bridge innovation and commercialization. We know that Canada's students need to succeed in the global economy with the help of the best education possible. That is why, since 2006, our Conservative government has provided much needed support for our students.

    I will now share with the House some of the measures we are taking to prepare our youth for the challenges of the 21st century. We are investing more than $10 billion annually in students and education, including more than $3 billion in transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education and over $7 billion in direct support for students and their families.

    We are investing $2.5 billion per year to help students to deal with the cost of education through grants, scholarships and basic programs.

    We have established the Canada student grant program, which is providing up to $250 per month of study to low-income students and up to $100 per month to middle-income students.

    We are providing $140 million per year to encourage more young Canadians to pursue apprenticeships, including the new apprenticeship incentive grant and apprenticeship completion grants. We created the new apprenticeship job creation tax credit to encourage employers to hire new apprentices.

    We have lowered the in-study interest rate for part-time Canadian student loan recipients from prime plus 2.5% to zero, bringing them in line with full-time students.

    We have increased the family income threshold for part-time Canada student loan and Canada student grant recipients, bringing the eligibility thresholds in line with thresholds used for the full-time students.

    We have invested $9 million in the north to expanded territorial colleges' literacy and numeracy programs, including in remote communities.

    However, in the economic action plan 2012, we are doing more to ensure Canadians students are even better equipped and better integrated into the workforce. We are increasing support for youth employment opportunities. We are doubling graduate internship to innovative firms. We are clarifying eligibility for federal loan forgiveness.

    I am proud of the measure that this government has taken. I know that these initiatives will be good for my constituents in Willowdale and for all Canadians. I am proud to stand in support of the economic action plan. I ask members of the House to support this plan today.

    Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member opposite thinks it is reasonable and responsible that, under Bill C-45, less than 1% of Canada's waterways will be protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which will be called the navigation protection act from now on.

    Before this bill, all waterways in Canada were automatically protected by the government, which was responsible for the common good. From now on, less than 1% of our waterways will be protected.

    Mr. Speaker, we have to distinguish between the two types of waterways. There are navigable waterways and other waterways. Navigable waterways are designed to increase commerce across Canada. Throughout our history, Canada has created navigable waterways such as the Welland Canal and the Rideau Canal system for the primary purpose of trade and commercialization in this nation.

    As for natural waterways, yes, those will be protected under the Environmental Protection Act.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's good articulation of the speaking notes from the Prime Minister's Office. However, I think he missed a couple of points.

    For instance, the government, headed by the Prime Minister, has said that it wants to increase the retirement age for seniors from 65 to 67. The member missed that talking point. He also missed the one that I really like, that the Prime Minister and the government have decided to increase the number of members of Parliament when the vast majority of Canadians do not want more MPs.

    While we are seeing those types of priorities, we are also seeing severe cuts to our civil service, and there are issues affecting services for the unemployed and pensioners. There is a litany of cuts.

    Why did the member overlook some of those more significant measures that the Prime Minister has taken to the detriment of all Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising those issues, because there are so many points proposed in our economic action plan that I cannot possibly articulate them all at this time.

    Increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67 is in line with what is happening internationally. The fact is that Canadians generally have much better health these days and, based on actuarial reports, they are living longer.

    With respect to the civil service cuts, this is a process where we have increased efficiency in how we do business. Therefore, we are able to survive with a smaller civil service.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his remarks, and I recognize, of course, that he deals with the area of multiculturalism.

    I am very concerned about the aspects of the bill that work against our inclusive culture as a nation, particularly the new requirement that even visitors on vacation in Canada would have to fill out a form and receive permission from the Minister of Immigration before they are to allowed to come here as tourists on vacation.

     Has the hon. parliamentary secretary reviewed that within his department to consider its implications for multiculturalism?

    Mr. Speaker, Canada's border needs to be secure. In this increasingly globalized world, it is very easy for visitors from all around the world to come to Canada. We are still a very generous and open country. However, we need to put a modicum of pre-arrival security checks in place to ensure that our borders are secure, such as with the United States within the framework of the North American security perimeter.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-45, which as anyone who is watching knows, is the Conservative government's second omnibus budget implementation bill. Judging by the bill's 414 pages and 516 clauses amending over 60 different pieces of legislation, it is clear that the Conservatives just do not get it and, I fear, never will.

    Despite the recent Liberal motion condemning omnibus legislation and Canadians' overwhelming opposition to Bill C-38, the government's last omnibus budget implementation bill, the Conservative government introduced yet another undemocratic omnibus bill.

    When Canadians worry about the way the government is writing legislation, ministers throw their hands up in the air and tell Canadians not to concern themselves with process. However, Canadians are concerned about process. They understand that the process of elections, the process of debate, the process of accountability, the process of parliamentary study and consultation are the roots of Canadian democracy and go hand in hand with the success and stability of our economy. When the Conservative government tells worried Canadians not to concern themselves with process, Canadians sit up and take note.

     In the face of unyielding abuses of power by the Conservative government, Liberals continue to fight for democracy and our economy and, in doing so, for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. For example, Liberals introduced a successful motion to separate the changes to MPs' pensions from the budget implementation bill so that these important changes could be fast-tracked through Parliament. We were pleased that the government worked with us on this particular issue.

    In an attempt to ensure proper debate and consultation on Bill C-45, we requested that many unrelated measures be presented in separate stand-alone legislation. While the Prime Minister rejected Liberal calls for a more democratic approach, we were nevertheless encouraged that at least he agreed to allow Bill C-45 to be studied by 11 separate standing committees. Unfortunately, it became clear that the government's permission for the bill to be studied by committees was nothing more than a public relations ploy.

    Tragically the government's refusal to split this enormous bill meant that only the finance committee had the order of reference from the House, meaning that only that committee could amend this legislation. For instance, had the fisheries committee discovered an error in division 4, which amends consequential provisions relating to the destruction of fish habitat under the Fisheries Act, the fisheries committee would have been unable to correct the legislation.

    Bill C-45 is flawed and that is why Liberals introduced over 3,000 amendments at committee. It was our hope that some of these amendments would find bipartisan support so that we could have the best legislation possible. Unfortunately, the Conservatives proved yet again that when it comes to working together, they have no interest in doing so.

    Many Canadian families are still feeling the harsh effects of the economic downturn and are struggling to make ends meet. I know that in my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's people were hoping that the Conservative government would surprise them and show leadership for a change by introducing a budget implementation bill that would help to create jobs. Unfortunately, Bill C-45 does very little to help create jobs and does even less to help struggling families feeling the burden of the growing gap between the rich and low and middle income Canadians.

    Under the Conservative government, the Canadian economy is struggling. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is predicting a slower rate of growth that will cost the Canadian economy $22 billion every year. Even the Minister of Finance is predicting a slower growth rate and has stopped being so bullish about his deficit targets, embarrassingly conceding yet again that he will not meet his own deficit targets.

    While the bill is known as an implementation bill, it may be more accurately described as a budget correction bill. Bill C-45 is tasked with cleaning up Conservative legislative mistakes in Bill C-38. For example, some of the measures that it seeks to correct include errors in the amended Fisheries Act regarding the travel of fish species in or through bodies of water, as well as fixing poor drafting of the new environmental assessment law's transition provisions and the unclear ministerial approval process for specific investments by public investment pools.

    Part of the problem with omnibus legislation is that its sheer size and scope prevents Parliament from properly scrutinizing it and making sure that it actually achieves the desired outcomes. That is what we have been asking for, an opportunity to work with the government and all parties in the House to make sure that we have the best piece of legislation we can possibly have for Canadians who elect us to do just that.

    When we combine the more than 400 pages of Bill C-38 with the Conservatives' penchant for limiting debate and ignoring facts that do not fit their ideology, it is not hard to understand why Bill C-38 had so many mistakes. These mistakes now have to be corrected.

    Instead of the government presenting Canadians with legislation focused on jobs and the economy, it is attempting to correct mistakes that it should not have made in the first place, mistakes that are now taking up the time of the House of Commons when we should be debating other important pieces of legislation. This should have been dealt with and not have come back here so that members of Parliament again have to stand and point out the errors of the Conservative government. Had the government split the bill, as the Liberals requested, the government would not have had so many sloppy mistakes.

    Furthermore, many of the measures introduced in the most recent omnibus bill, Bill C-45, do not belong in a budget implementation bill because they have nothing to do with the process of implementing a budget. The Minister of Finance's claim that all measures introduced in Bill C-45 were in the budget is simply not the case. For example, changes to the definition of aboriginal fishery were not in the budget and do not impact acts under the finance department. Changes to land designations in the Indian Act were not in the budget. I note that both of these changes to legislation affecting first nations peoples were done unilaterally, without consultation, and in fact violate the constitutional responsibility to consult aboriginal peoples. That is a blatant failure of the government, the failure to consult with Canadians from coast to coast to coast on issues that impact every facet of their lives on a daily basis. Still, the government just goes straight ahead and does what it wants to do without consulting those who will be most directly impacted.

    Another interesting example of a measure that was not in the budget but appears in the budget implementation bill is the suspension of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. Not only is the elimination of that board not in the budget, the budget actually promised the exact opposite. Page 146 of the budget states that “Over the next few years, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB) will continue to set the rate...”. Bill C-45 eliminates this board and centralizes the rate setting responsibility in the hands of cabinet.

    In addition, the board set the employment insurance rate and was supposed to invest employment insurance surpluses, but under the Conservative government, so many people had been without work that the board has never had a surplus to invest.

    Instead of addressing the harsh fiscal realities of many Canadians, Bill C-45 continues the Conservatives' reckless abuse of power. Cutting important job creation tax credits, like the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, the Atlantic investment tax credit and the corporate mineral exploration and development tax credit will not help our economy thrive.

    I cannot support a piece of legislation that does more to harm jobs than to create them.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. Excessive use of time allocation motions is undemocratic. This massive omnibus bill, which will make major changes to various aspects of bills, was not introduced democratically with respect to discussion by Canadians or members of the House.

    I would also like to say that, despite the Conservatives' claims that this budget will create jobs, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that this budget will result in the loss of 43,000 Canadian jobs. This budget will lead to higher unemployment.

    My colleague touched on that. Can she comment further?

    Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of time to look at a budget bill this size and the various clauses it contains, and anyone who takes the time to go through it clause by clause realizes that the intention of the government is not to help create jobs but to cut jobs. That is precisely what we are seeing throughout the country.

    If we look at Service Canada, for instance, we see so many job losses just in that organization alone. On the other hand, we see job cuts in public service personnel who respond to issues with respect to employment insurance. We see jobs cut from veterans offices. We see job cuts across the board, and people are being directed to Service Canada. However, the reality is that the government is cutting resources at Service Canada as well, so Canadians are being impacted not only by the loss of jobs but the loss of public services that they are entitled to and have been used to receiving. Now the government is telling them to go online, forgetting that a lot of people, particularly in rural communities, still do not have access to computers to go online. Then they are told to go to a Service Canada office, where they will find fewer employees to deal with the issues with which they need help.

    Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate.

    I would like to ask my colleague and friend from Random—Burin—St. George's about one of the most devastating cuts to services in Newfoundland and Labrador, the closure of the marine search and rescue sub-station in St. John's, which impacts all of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is the closure of the one in Quebec City as well.

    I know the member has worked hard with the individuals who were displaced, and I am wondering if she has any thoughts on that.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Avalon, who is more than well versed in what has transpired in Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to cuts to search and rescue. In fact, the closure of the maritime rescue sub-centre in St. John's struck a blow not just to everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, because that search and rescue centre provided service for anyone who travelled on the North Atlantic.

    The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are continuing to fight the good fight, but the Conservative government turns a blind eye and pretends not to hear the outcries from those who know precisely what will happen. Unfortunately, as a result that closure, there is going to be a tragedy that may well convince the government of the need to reinstate that maritime rescue sub-centre.

    Quebec City has been given a reprieve and the centre is not closing, but it is not because of the good wishes of the Conservative government. The reality is that it could not find competent French-speaking personnel to be part of the Trenton rescue centre. It is not because the government does not want to close Quebec but because it really does not have a choice at this point.

    Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of the jobs and growth act, 2012, which implements key elements of economic action plan 2012.

    When we introduced the plan back in March, we highlighted its importance in taking decisive action to ensure our economy would create good jobs and sustain a higher quality of life for our children and grandchildren, including measures to help the environment.

    When it comes to the environment, Albertans care deeply about the natural beauty of our province and about protecting it for future generations. When my family and friends come to visit, I love to show them the beauty of Kananaskis, Banff and Jasper. However, the concerns of Albertans with respect to the environment can be seen in many other ways besides our pride in our national parks.

    For example, more and more Albertans are looking into thermal heating solutions. I paid extra to install the technology in my new home. As Albertans, we are not afraid to put our money where our mouth is. However, the key factor is balance. That is exactly how I would describe the measures contained in this bill.

    In my remarks today I will focus on elements of today's legislation that expand the eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean, green energy generation. Not only would this measure help protect Canada's natural environment; it would support our government's top priority, that being jobs and growth.

    Before I speak to that in greater detail, I will speak to the larger economic action plan 2012.

    This is a low-tax plan that will build on the strong economic foundations we have built since forming government in 2006. It is a plan that has ensured and will continue to ensure that we avoid the problems facing other countries.

    Creating jobs and long-term economic growth is key to our success, not to mention that it is the reason we first introduced Canada's economic action plan. Central to our strategy is our government's low-tax plan for jobs and growth, a policy that has made Canada one of the best places in the world to invest. Not only that, but our economy has created more than 800,000 net new jobs since July 2009, of which 90% are full time.

    What is more, all of the major credit rating agencies, such as Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's, have renewed Canada's AAA credit rating.

    The plan includes a bold tax reduction plan that has branded Canada as a low-tax jurisdiction for businesses to invest—and the best place to do business, according to Forbes magazine.

    Indeed, we are making it easier for Canadian businesses to successfully compete in the global economy and more attractive for others to invest in this country, with the end goal being more and better jobs for Canadians and a healthy, thriving economy.

    We must now stay the course with our low-tax plan to protect the economy and create jobs, a plan that has made Canada the envy of the world.

    In the words of German Chancellor Angela Merkel:

    Nevertheless we know that, when looking to the future, it is important to find a balance between economic and environmental priorities.

    Canada is an energy superpower, with one of the world's largest resource endowments of both traditional and emerging sources of energy. More and more, the rest of the world looks to Canada as a secure and dependable supplier of a wide range of energy products.

    Since 2006, our government has taken significant steps to establish our country as a global clean energy leader, including through regulatory actions, investments in technology and innovation, and broad-based incentives.

    This past March, acting on the advice of the witnesses who appeared before the House of Commons finance committee's prebudget consultations and on the advice of the committee report, which recommended that “the federal government continue to use tax incentives to promote the development and use of renewable energy”, economic action plan 2012 proposed to support these sectors through the tax system by expanding eligibility for the CCA, accelerated capital cost allowance, for clean energy generation equipment.

    For the purpose of today's bill, let me quickly describe for Parliament and for Canadians watching at home the technical details behind the accelerated CCA for clean energy generation contained in part 1 of the bill.

    The existing measure applies to a broad range of specified equipment that generates or conserves energy by using a renewable energy source, using fuels from waste or making efficient use of fossil fuels.

    Through today's legislation, our Conservative government proposes to expand this incentive. Currently, waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment produces heat using waste sources.

    Today's legislation proposes to expand the eligibility of the accelerated CCA for clean energy generation equipment to allow waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment to be used in a broad range of applications, including space and water heating. For example, wood waste could be used as an alternative to heating oil for space and water heating in a shopping centre.

    District energy systems transfer thermal energy between a central generation plant and a group or district of buildings by circulating steam, hot water or cold water through a system of underground pipes.

    We propose to expand the accelerated CCA for clean energy generation equipment by adding equipment that is part of a district energy system that distributes thermal energy primarily generated by waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment.

    For example, in a remote community, a district energy system that uses heat generated by waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment could provide an alternative to equipment that uses only fossil fuels.

    And finally, today's legislation proposes to add the residue of plants to the list of eligible waste fuels so that it can be used in waste-fuelled thermal energy equipment.

    The residue of plants, such as straw, corn cobs, leaves and similar organic waste produced by the agricultural sector, can be used in a number of ways, including the production of heat, electricity, biofuels and other bio-products.

    Our government believes that investments in our energy future will be essential to realizing economic opportunities, creating employment and enhancing the Canadian advantage.

    It is through measures like expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy equipment that we will balance environmental protection and economic growth.

    Economic action plan 2012 recognized, for example, that to effectively compete and succeed globally we need to maximize the value that Canada draws from its natural resources, while protecting the environment at the same time.

    I am proud that the measures contained in today's bill will help further unleash the potential of Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to innovate and thrive in the modern economy, to the benefit of all Canadians for generations to come.

    In doing so, our Conservative government will reinforce Canada's comparative advantages and ensure the sustainability of public finances and social programs for future generations.

    I would therefore encourage all members to support this bill and economic action plan 2012, to support Canada's economy, and to cast their vote for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my government colleague a question about research and development. We know that major changes were made to tax credits for scientific research and experimental development following the Jenkins report.

    There are some particularly troubling elements in Bill C-45, including the fact that the government will cut tax credits for certain industries that really need them right now by $500 million. These credits will be converted into grants. Winners and losers will be chosen by the government.

    The second element we do not like is the fact that capital expenditures will no longer be eligible for tax credits. This will cause significant harm to some industries, such as those in the manufacturing and natural resource sectors, because they need to set up pilot projects.

    I would like to know whether the member is comfortable with the fact that the government is planning to decide who wins grants and who loses rather than provide tax credits. Why will capital expenditures, which were not mentioned in the Jenkins report's recommendations, no longer be eligible for tax credits?

    Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that this government has a record of having the maximum tax deductions in the history of Canada.

    The government believes in balancing its approach, attracting business and creating jobs by reducing taxes. That is the record of our government. I suggest my colleague go back and study this.

    Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, he articulated that a 21-page budget document was not appropriate to be passing as it was affecting too many pieces of legislation. That is what he argued just a number of years ago. However, today the current budget bill far exceeds that 21-page document.

     The current budget bill is hundreds of pages and affects numerous pieces of legislation. It is somewhat hypocritical for the Prime Minister to say that it is not okay to have a 21-page budget bill, but when he is Prime Minister, he presents this massive document which is, in essence, a historical precedent for budget bills never before seen in the House of Commons.

    Why has the Conservative majority government decided to sneak through so many changes in legislation through the back door with this budget?

    Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question, but I laughed when I heard my colleague from the Liberal Party ask it.

    There is nothing groundbreaking in this. Indeed, the Liberal government's last budget implementation bill in 2005 amended dozens of different pieces of legislation. A wide range of legislation was amended, including everything from the Auditor General Act, the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canada Post Corporation Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, the Department of Human Resources Development Act and many more. I suggest my Liberal colleague go back and check his own records.

    Mr. Speaker, it is with some concern that I rise to speak here today. I said I am concerned, and that is the right word to describe how I feel about Bill C-45, because it will have a huge impact.

    The bill is over 400 pages long and amends dozens of existing laws. It is a real statutory juggernaut, if not a monster. Its repercussions will be felt for a very long time all across Canada. Instead of letting us study this bill properly, the government has imposed a gag order. That is what frightens me. How are we supposed to do our jobs if we cannot debate the bill?

    I was elected to represent the people of Alfred-Pellan. How can I voice their opinions and concerns if our study of Bill C-45 is reduced to a bare minimum? It makes no sense. I would even say that this brutal way of imposing legislation on Parliament goes against common Canadian values. Canada has always been a place of debate, discussion and compromise. It is unfortunate that this government does not promote those values.

    The being said, I would like to take the next few minutes to clearly explain what I dislike about this bill. My main concern has to do with the environment. Indeed, Bill C-45 seems to use every available means to gut the environmental protections that we are so proud of. As we know, Canadians have traditionally cared about respecting the environment. This has generally been the consensus, but for the past few years, ever since the Conservative government came to power, that consensus has been called into question. My Conservative colleagues do not seem to be concerned about nature. They want to put development before protection. This is a very dangerous approach that will prove ineffective in the long run.

    For instance, Bill C-45 guts the protection of navigable waterways in Canada. Quite some time ago, we decided as a society that it was important to protect the lakes and rivers that we all care so much about. Thousands of waterways were thus protected by the legislation. Before developing a project like a bridge, wharf or pipeline, a proper assessment had to be done.

    Is there an environmental hazard? Will species at risk be affected? What impact would an accident have on the environment? This is the type of question that made the Navigable Waters Protection Act so important. It responded to a logical requirement: it made people stop for a moment before developing without thinking. The pros and cons of a project were considered. If everything seemed fine, then the project went forward. If not, then it was back to the drawing board. This was the right way of doing things. It was an acceptable compromise between development and respect for the environment. Unfortunately, Bill C-45 is ruining all that.

    Over 99% of the 33,000 bodies of water that were once protected will now be abandoned. Only a handful of rivers and waterways will still be protected under the new navigation protection act. As for the rest, it will be a wild west scenario. Companies will be able to build, develop and destroy without question. They could build a pipeline, bridge or wharf without any problems. They will build first and then have second thoughts later if things happen to go awry. The wisdom and critical judgment that were at the very heart of our values have gone out the window.

    In short, the Conservatives are giving the keys to Canada's wilderness to big business. Too bad for the balance between the economy and nature, too bad for first nations, too bad for communities that care about their natural heritage and too bad for the environment. All that is being sacrificed for the sake of economic development.

    My colleagues and I hope that Canada's economy grows. What we do not want, however, is for the economy to develop to the detriment of the environment. What good is making a buck if we have to destroy everything to do it? Bill C-45 is bad news for the Canadian wilderness. And yet, the beauty of that wilderness is one of the things for which we are recognized throughout the world.

    If we ask people from other countries and tourists what they like about our country, they often answer that it is the wilderness and the wild open spaces. Canada has the longest coastline in the world. We have breathtakingly beautiful lakes and rivers. By doing away with the environmental protections for these waterways, Bill C-45 damages that reputation. This bill is a frightening step toward a damaged and spoiled wilderness.

    I have discussed this with many of my constituents, and some environmental groups have also talked to me about it. What do they think? They are ashamed of their government. They do not understand how it can just dismiss the balance that Canadians worked hard to achieve over the past few decades. They feel like they are going back in time. The provinces and territories are also concerned about Bill C-45. By putting an end to the protection of waterways, the federal government is abdicating its responsibilities. It is abandoning all of this and letting the provinces deal with it on their own.

    This means more responsibilities for the provinces without the additional funding they need. They are merely being told to deal with it. Is that the government's so-called open federalism? For the good of our federation, I hope not.

    Another aspect of Bill C-45 concerns me. Earlier, I spoke a little about the economy. Upon reading the bill, I had a question: where is the government's plan to stimulate job creation?

    I looked through the 400 pages and unfortunately found nothing. Of course, the government's response will be that abolishing the environmental protection of rivers will stimulate the economy. That is so cynical that I do not even want to respond. However, I must, and I will repeat that economic development does not have to happen at the expense of nature. There is a way to strike a balance. Bill C-45 will eliminate the balance in our laws.

    From what I can gather, the government has only one job creation strategy: development at any cost. Not only is this despicable from an environmental point of view, but it is also counterproductive. All kinds of measures could be implemented right now to stimulate the economy and create jobs. My colleagues and I keep proposing measures right here in the House, and none of them will result in an environmental disaster.

    I am thinking, for example, of reducing the obscene credit card fees charged to small and medium-sized companies. Why has the federal government not taken action on this? It is a matter of putting the major banks in their place by preventing them from abusing SMEs, which are job creators. This is simple and effective, and it would put more money in the pockets of honest business owners to help them hire people.

    Giving tax breaks to small and medium-sized companies that hire would be another way to stimulate job creation. All economists agree that SMEs are essential to making Canada's economy run smoothly. They are the ones we should be helping, not the big oil companies and banks that are making money. The government does not seem to realize that. When it must choose between multinational companies that earn billions of dollars and small businesses, it chooses the big guys. Unfortunately, that does not make much sense.

    We must be careful. We cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. No one, especially not me, is opposed to the existence of big companies. They also contribute a lot to our society. Once again, this is a matter of balance. As with protecting the environment, we must find a happy medium. Under Bill C-45, this happy medium will no longer exist. The government will replace it with a scale that is tilted to the right, and always more to the right.

    That is why I strongly oppose the quick passage of Bill C-45. Its repercussions are much too significant and its targets are much too poor to receive my support. I urge all my colleagues to think carefully before supporting this bill. If they examine it closely they will see that it is headed in the wrong direction.

    There is little time left for debate. I am very happy and grateful to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-45. However, I want to reiterate that it is extremely sad that this bill is being passed at lightning speed. It is also very disappointing that this omnibus bill was not properly studied in committee and that the few committees that did have a chance to study it did not have enough time to do so. Some of them had only one day for their study, even though this bill is over 400 pages long. It is extremely sad to see just how much our democracy is being undermined.

    As a final point, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion.

    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: Sunken Lake, Thonokied River, Bear Head Lake, Shark Lake, Coyne Lake, Ontadek Lake, Frame Lake, Rufus Lake, Barnston Lake, Great Bear Lake, Anderson River, Tuitatui Lake, Hornaday River, Bedford Lake and Basile Lake.

    Does the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): There is no unanimous consent.

    Mr. Speaker, under successive Conservative governments, the economy has repeatedly been pitted against the environment. Laws have been weakened and repealed to fast track development, putting the environment and the health and safety of Canadians at risk. The Conservative government should recognize that our children are being exposed to unsafe environments and should meaningfully address this challenge. The government should put health, and particularly children's health, back in the environment debate. Simply put, our future depends on it.

    I would like to ask the member when the debate changed from protecting the environment to safeguard human health and wellbeing to gutting environmental protection to streamline expansion and growth. Is it not time we made human health, and particularly our most vulnerable, our children, a consideration in the environmental debate?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Etobicoke North for her question and comments. This all reminds me of a householder I sent out a few weeks ago in Alfred-Pellan to the people of Laval. The document addressed some environmental concerns and, more specifically, Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol.

    My colleague might be surprised to learn that dozens, if not hundreds, of my constituents wrote to me about this, explaining how upset they were about Canada's withdrawal from all these environmental programs and about the destruction of our environmental laws. They noted that the Conservatives are not thinking about future generations and wondered why this government is acting this way. My colleague's comments are therefore very relevant, and it is important that the government across the way realize this.

    Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my colleague's speech. She had a lot to say about the environment. A very happy event is approaching for her and her loved ones, but what legacy will we be leaving for future generations if the government undermines environmental legislation and takes away research and development sector subsidies that are crucial to the development of green energy?

    There is nothing in this bill for wind or solar power, absolutely nothing for the development of hydrogen-powered vehicles, and nothing to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from the auto industry either. China and the United States now have greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles coming off the assembly line. Canada has done nothing. What impact will this have on future generations?

    How sad it is to see the government undermine the economy like that. Sometimes, all it takes to stimulate job creation is support for local economies. But the government is not doing anything in this budget.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for sharing his totally legitimate concerns and comments with us.

    What does this bill have to offer future generations in terms of environmental standards? Unfortunately, it contains no environmental standards to protect future generations. As I mentioned, the official opposition and my Liberal colleagues are not the only ones worried about this problem. Many of the people of Laval, who care deeply about their environment, are worried too.

    People at the eastern end of Laval are strongly attached to their bodies of water. Two navigable rivers cross the riding: the Rivière des Mille Îles and the Rivière des Prairies. People in that lovely part of the country really want all of their bodies of water, which they are constantly trying to raise awareness of, to remain protected and to be in better shape for future generations.

    I was talking about this to the Conseil régional de l'environnement de Laval, with which the four Laval MPs work very hard. The organization is shocked at the extent to which the government is abandoning future generations and at how little attention Bill C-45 pays to sustainable development and the environment.

    Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak today about our government's priorities: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

    The Minister of Finance is doing a terrific job with our financial policies and has helped create well over 800,000 new jobs since the global economic recession. This has made Canada the envy of the world and the G8. We will continue to become more competitive as we invest in infrastructure, science, innovation and tax reduction while reducing barriers to trade. We have initiated the most ambitious trade expansion plan in Canadian history. We are strengthening our ties with the U.S., opening trade agreements with India and the European Union, building our growing trade relationship with Asia and much more.

    Expanded trade benefits the resource communities I represent and the ones the members opposite want to destroy with their policies. In my constituency, many export crops are grown. Probably the most important is canola. Indeed, my riding is the number one canola-producing constituency in the country. Farmers, jobs and value-added industries depend very strongly on this trade.

    This is a government that has continually lowered taxes. It has cut taxes over 140 times. Budget 2012 spends Canadian taxpayer dollars responsibly, with the goal of balancing the budget and ensuring that a strong plan is in place to create jobs.

    We are working to strengthen the financial security of workers, businesses and families and to create good jobs and long-term prosperity from coast to coast to coast. To do this, we will extend by one year the hiring tax credit for small business. This has helped many small businesses in my own constituency. Many businesses in my constituency export to the United States and around the world. I hope that the NDP and Liberals opposite do not disregard the importance of these small job creators by continuously attacking the resource sector that works hand in hand with the small businesses that need the oil, gas, lumber and metals they produce to make their goods and fuel their businesses.

    We will invest in upgrades to infrastructure to maintain safe rail service, renew the Canadian Coast Guard fleet and improve facilities at our borders. Furthermore, we will increase funding for skills training for students, older workers and Canadians with disabilities. We are also working to reform Canada's immigration system.

    In terms of our responsible resource development program, in 2010, Canada's natural resources sectors employed more than 760,000 workers across the country. Right now the mining and energy sectors alone represent 10% of the Canadian economy and 40% of our exports. In the next 10 years, more than 500 new projects, representing over $500 billion in new investment, will be proposed for Canada. The potential for job growth is simply enormous.

    Since 2006, our government has been working to streamline the review process. Our efforts have already made a difference, without any negative environmental impact whatsoever. Currently, companies undertaking major projects must navigate a complex maze of regulatory requirements, long approval processes, and most importantly, unpredictability. That is why our government is acting, in Canada's economic action plan 2012, with our plan for responsible resource development.

    Responsible resource development streamlines the review process for major economic projects by providing predictable timelines for project approvals. It prevents long delays that kill potential jobs and stall economic growth by putting valuable investment at risk. Responsible resource development will create good, skilled, well-paying jobs in cities and communities across Canada while continuing to maintain the highest possible standards for protecting the environment. Again, emerging economies, such as Asia, are burgeoning markets for our natural resources.

    I serve on both the fisheries and the environment committees of the House. I would like to talk a bit more about these two areas and the importance of the sustainable use of our resources and how government can play a productive role working with the conservation community and resource industries.

    In terms of fisheries, our government is introducing changes that will focus on fish and fish habitat protection rules. These changes solidify our government's commitment to protecting recreational, commercial and aboriginal fisheries and the habitat that supports them. We are adopting a sensible and practical approach to managing real and significant threats to fisheries and the habitat that supports them while minimizing the restrictions on routine, everyday activities that have little or no impact on the productivity of Canada's fisheries.

    The old laws were indiscriminate and meant that all bodies of water where fish live or could possibly live, or might live in another time, are subject to the same rules and evaluation regardless of size and environment, and most importantly, are in line with their contribution to a fishery that people actually use. We have heard Canadians tell us about farmers being prevented from cleaning out their irrigation canals, municipalities being delayed in repairing infrastructure and doing routine maintenance, businesses not being allowed to clear flooded fields and campsites and cottage owners prohibited from keeping up their properties, all because of the existing rules that lack common sense.

    The new changes would focus the rules by drawing a distinction between vital waterways that support important fisheries in Canada, and unproductive bodies of water, like drainage ditches and irrigation canals, as well as identifying and managing real threats to the fisheries, including direct impacts on fish, habitat destruction and aquatic invasive species.

    The fisheries minister would also have tools to establish clear new and accessible guidelines for Canadians to follow for projects in or near water. Regulatory standards actually do not exist at this time for routine low-risk projects, such as building boat launches or docks. The minister could now identify ecologically significant areas that require enhanced protection. Currently, all areas are treated the same under the law. As a fisheries biologist myself, I agree with focusing our efforts on bodies of water that have fisheries important to people and local communities.

    These changes would also allow the government to enforce the conditions associated with Fisheries Act authorizations. At present, DFO cannot enforce the conditions. We would align infractions under the Fisheries Act—

    Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order.

    Mr. Speaker, could you indicate what the quorum count is currently? Are there enough members in the House for a quorum?

    And the count having been taken.

    Seeing sufficient quorum for the debate to continue, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

    Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, Canada's families deserve the cleanest air, water and environment possible and the trends are good for Canada's environment. That is why, since 2006, our Conservative government has made major investments to preserve our environment and protect the health and wellbeing of Canadian families for today and tomorrow. The list includes $1.1 billion for the eco-energy retrofit homes program; $1 billion for a priorities, such as green energy generation and transmission infrastructure; $1 billion to support pulp and paper mills to reduce their emissions and become leaders in the production of renewable energy from biomass; $1 billion in support of clean energy research; $200 million to help address the health and environmental risks posed by dangerous chemicals through the chemicals management plan; $100 million to support clean energy generation in Canada's forestry sector; $68 million to clean federal contaminated sites; $38 million to reduce the risk of invasive plant and animal species; $35 million to support climate and atmospheric sciences research; $27 million to improve Canada's weather services; over $18 million to support reporting on key environmental indicators, such as clean air, clean water and greenhouse gas emissions; $16 million to protect and clean the Great Lakes, and I could go on and on. The list is absolutely enormous.

    Economic action plan 2012 builds on our Conservative government's impressive record of supporting a cleaner and more sustainable environment. We are committed to providing continued support to clean up Canada's lakes, including Lake Winnipeg and Lake Simcoe, and providing expanded tax relief for clean energy generation.

    Economic action plan 2012 supports families and communities, strengthens health care in rural and remote communities and, of great importance to my constituency, strengthens access to broadband in rural areas. Moreover, in Manitoba, as the country knows, flooding is a significant issue. Economic action plan proposes up to $99.2 million over three years to assist the provinces and territories with the cost of permanent flood mitigation.

    We are also increasing access to support for business innovation, and federal transfers to provinces and territories are at a record high. I have a lot more information to provide, but I see that my time is up. I would say that I am very proud to be part of our government that is focusing on ensuring that Canada remains economically strong.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his speech and tell him that, yesterday, I was in Conservative ridings in the area of Saint-Georges-de-Beauce and Lac-Mégantic to tell the people there that Lac Mégantic and Rivière Chaudière will no longer be protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

    What a surprise. The people there were not aware that this was happening. I therefore encouraged them to find out about what the Conservatives are up to. Why are Lac Mégantic, Rivière Chaudière and Rivière Saint-François in my riding being abandoned while hundreds of lakes and rivers in Conservative ridings—at a rate of 90%—are being protected?

    Why this unfairness? Why do the people of Drummond, Lac-Mégantic and Saint-Georges not also deserve to have their waterways protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act?

    Mr. Speaker, I must say that I enjoy serving with the hon. member opposite on the environment committee.

    The old Navigable Waters Protection Act was about navigation, and we have changed it based on the misapplication of the act. It is now the navigation protection bill, and its job is to protect navigation.

     Under the old regime, minuscule and very small bodies of water were often listed as navigable waters. Indeed, in my own constituency, one rural municipality was building three crossings across intermittent streams, and the Navigable Waters Protection Act was brought to bear. The bill for the bridges they were being told to build was $700,000. The total budget for the municipality was $1.4 million. That is how ridiculous the application of the act was in the past.

    We are introducing common sense.

    Mr. Speaker, one of the pieces that is being proposed in the budget bill is to put in place another tier for visitors coming to Canada. In essence, after this budget bill passes, we will have created a tier for people coming from countries from which we will now require a visitors' visa; a tier for American citizens, who will now be the second type of visitor we get; and a third tier, which is virtually unknown, for anyone from a European country such as England, and also for countries like Australia, who will now have go onto a website and get permission before he or she can actually come to Canada.

    These are significant changes. When I asked the question in committee, there was no idea or sense of what the implementation cost would be or anything of that nature.

    Does the member not recognize the value of having that whole debate in a separate piece of legislation where due diligence could be applied?

    Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, and indeed all of Canada knows, immigration levels to Canada are at a record high. Again, we are experiencing a shortage of skilled workers that our emerging and growing economy needs.

    How we manage our borders is of critical importance to Canadians and our economy. There are many people, of course, who want to enter our country and we know that we have to be very careful to ensure they are screened. As the son of immigrants myself, I know the contribution that immigrants make to our country, but it is very important that we control our borders.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the expertise he has brought to bear in the environment committee.

    Yesterday, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country brought up his experience as a former city councillor in discussing this budget. The FCM has said that it supports the changes to navigation proposed in Bill C-45. I, too, am in support of those.

    I just want the member to know that the Penticton Indian Band has also reiterated its support for it. The costs that the Navigable Waters Protection Act would impose on their community and economic development by forcing them to build a bridge at a different height, despite the fact that the Okanagan Channel has not been navigable by any boat for the past 50-plus years, just shows that this act needs to be changed.

    The opposition continues to oppose the bill for no practical reason. I would just like to hear the member's thoughts why that is.

    Mr. Speaker, the reason the opposition members are opposing all of our environmental, resource, and navigation regulations and our new acts and laws is simply that they are in love with the process. Notice how the members opposite never talk about environmental results. They never talk about how our environment is improving. They never refer to environmental indicators. For them it is always about process, process, process. How about focusing on results?

    Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

    “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:

    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: the Alsek River, the Arctic Red River, the Bay du Nord River, the Bloodvein River, the Bonnet Plume River, the Boundary Waters-Voyageur Waterway, the Rainy River in Thunder Bay, the Clearwater River, the Coppermine River, the Cowitchan River, the Hayes River, the Hillsborough River, the Kazan River, the Kicking Horse River, the Main River, the Margaree River, the Mattawa River, the Missinaibi River, the Seal River, the Shelburne River, the Soper River, the South Nahanni River, the St. Croix River, the Tatshenshini River, the Thames River, the Thelon River, the Three Rivers and the Upper Restigouche River.” 

    Does the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): There is no consent.

    Resuming debate. I would tell the member for Newton—North Delta that there will be approximately eight minutes available in the time allocated for debate this afternoon on the question that is before the House. I will give her the usual signal ahead of that time so she will know how much time remains.

    The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-45 because, once again, we have before us another reiteration of an omnibus bill. Instead of respecting parliamentary democracy and dealing with issues and different aspects separately, whether it be the environment; changes to EI, labour laws or immigration; protecting our waterways; or pensions; the government has buried all of those issues into this omnibus bill, thus preventing us as parliamentarians from having an in-depth debate.

    When MPs are elected, it is stressed how important it is for us to do our due diligence and provide oversight on the budget but the Conservatives keep moving time allocation. Here we are at report stage and once again my colleagues across the way, with an absolute lack of respect for parliamentary democracy and elected parliamentarians, have shut down debate, more or less saying that because they have a majority they can be the bullies that they are surely proving to be.

    It is not only members of the NDP who think that way. If there were no time allocation, I could stand here for the whole day and there would be others who would speak and support the position we are taking.

    With respect to Bill C-38, Andrew Coyne, who is not exactly a Liberal commentator, wrote the following, which also applies here:

    From the emails received by many colleagues with whom I have spoken, we can see that this is of major concern, not only to members in the House but also to those who care and cherish our parliamentary democracy. Our citizens are wondering what the government has to hide and why it is not debating key issues in Parliament on their own merit instead of burying them in a new piece of legislation that is the size of a phone book and a phone book larger than those in many of the cities in Canada.

    The mantra we also hear, which is a learned kind of refrain, is that the NDP voted against it. I am proud to be standing here speaking against the legislation because it would not do what the Conservatives purport it would do. They say that the bill is all about job creation but we know that is another misleading comment and a kind of mantra used to try to stop what I would call proper discourse on key issues.

    The Conservatives claim that the budget is about job creation. However, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared before committee he said that the budget would cost 43,000 Canadians their jobs. That does not seem like a job-creating budget. The budget would actually lead to a loss of jobs. I am not the world's best mathematician, nor will I pretend to be, but I understand what losing 43,000 jobs would mean. I also understand that it is not just the people who will lose their jobs but also the communities in which they live that will lose. When one person loses a decent paying full-time job, it has an impact on the whole community. It has an impact on the business community, on our health care and on all of our institutions. I predict that the job losses will be a lot larger.

    The Conservatives claim that they have encouraged jobs by giving tax breaks to small businesses. That tax break will expire before the budget is passed. It is only a minimal $1,000 and it is only there for the year 2012. What a misleading piece of propaganda the Conservatives exude.

    It will not be with pleasure, but I will be proud to stand in the House and speak against a budget that attacks the basic Canadian values of our environment, our pensions, our jobs and so on.

    At this time 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: 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 the 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, Calder Lake, Rusty Lake, Drybones Lake, Contwoyto Lake, King Lake, Tukweye Lake, Sandy Lake, Dissension Lake, Mid Lake, Hook Lake, Crooked Lake, Tsu Lake, Duckfish Lake, Marion Lake and Cotterill Lake.

    Does the hon. member for Newton—North Delta have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): It being 12:14 p.m., pursuant to an order made Monday, December 3, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

    Before completing debate at report stage of Bill C-45, I wish to explain the process to the House.

    Since the motions in Group No. 1 have already been proposed, I will only refer to the motion number when putting the questions on the motions in that group.

    With respect to the motions in Group No. 2, they will be put to the House in the usual manner. When the House is ready to proceed with the putting of the motions of said group, I will only refer to the motion number.

    To this end, I have asked that copies of the report stage section of today's notice paper be placed on each member's desk for ease of reference.

    I would like to point out that this is the same process that was used last June at report stage of Bill C-38.

    We shall now proceed to the putting of the question on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is not in the House.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour. Because the motion was moved in the past, the member who moved the motion does not necessarily have to be present in the House.

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

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): In my opinion the nays have it.

    And five or more members having risen:

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

    The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 22, 25, 26, 34 to 38, 61, 63 to 65, 95, 96, 99 to 106, 108 to 110, 114, 115, 139, 142 to 147, 155, 157 to 160 and 162.

    The next question is on Motion No. 7.

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

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): In my opinion the nays have it.

    And five or more members having risen:

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The recorded division on Motion No. 7 is deferred.

    The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 9, 11, 18, 32, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 74, 97, 111 to 113, 116, 131, 136, 138 and 140.

    I will now put the motions in Group No. 2 to the House.

     moved:

    seconded by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

     moved:

    , seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

     moved:

    moved:

     moved:

     seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

     moved:

     seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

     moved:

     seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

     moved:

     seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

     moved:

     moved:

     seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

     moved:

    , seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved:

     moved:

    seconded by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved: