House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
41st PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 121
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 10, 2012
House of Commons Debates
VOLUME 146
NUMBER 121
1st SESSION
41st PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Interparliamentary Delegations
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly respecting its participation at the 11th Winter meeting held in Vienna, Austria, February 23 and 24, 2012.
Jobs, Growth and Long Term Prosperity Act
Mr. Speaker, we have tried to reach out to the government to encourage a fuller debate on its budget implementation act, which is a very complicated and detailed bill that we believe needs more thorough examination.
Therefore, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 52 to 67, 163 to 169, 315 to 325, 578 to 594, and 699 be removed from Bill C-38, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures and do compose Bill C-38A; that Bill C-38A be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development; that Bill C-38 be reprinted as amended; and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.
We are proposing this motion in order to give a full examination as parliamentarians to a very important and far-ranging bill.
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: There is no consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we have tried to compromise with the government in order to be able to examine this bill in a reasoned manner, given that it is massive, includes many provisions and amends many laws.
That is why I am asking for unanimous consent to move the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 132 to 156 and 411 be removed from Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-38A; that Bill C-38A be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans; that Bill C-38 be reprinted as amended; and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.
We are proposing this motion in order to have the full debate that this bill requires because of its broad scope and the number of laws it amends.
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: There is no unanimous consent.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of reaching out to the other side and to have a full debate of a complicated omnibus bill, I would seek unanimous consent for the following: that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, that clauses 223 to 303, 350 to 367, 432 to 467, 603 to 619 and 685 to 698 be removed from Bill C-38, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-38(A); that Bill C-38(A) be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities; that Bill C-38 be reprinted as amended; and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.
We are proposing this motion in order to have a full debate and be able to bring in expert witnesses on some very key changes that the government is proposing.
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: There is no consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of a proper analysis of this bill, I would seek unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 218 to 222, 420 to 426, 468 to 472, 476 to 478, 516 to 524, and 711 to 712 be removed from Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-38A; that Bill C-38A be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; that Bill C-38 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.
We are proposing this motion to ensure that this important and far-reaching bill be studied properly by various committees, given the number of laws it would amend.
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: There is no consent.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of having a full debate on some important and complex legislation, and in an effort to reach out to our colleagues on the other side of the House, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 412 to 419, 473 to 475, 506 to 515, be removed from Bill C-38, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures and do compose Bill C-38(A); that Bill C-38(A) be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food; that Bill C-38 be reprinted as amended; and, that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.
We are proposing this motion because we believe Canadians deserve a full democratic debate on some very complicated and far-reaching changes that are included in the bill.
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: There is no consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in this same spirit of compromise and in the interest of having a reasonable and reasoned debate on a very broad bill, and also in an effort to honour democracy, I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 68 to 131 be removed from Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-38A; that Bill C-38A be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources; that Bill C-38 be reprinted as amended; and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.
We are proposing this motion because Canadians and Quebeckers want a debate on the many far-reaching changes that are included in the bill.
[English]
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I have a very large number of petitions that I want to present. The petitioners come from across Canada, virtually every province. They are asking Parliament to take a look at the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in regard to the right to self-defence and to make appropriate amendments in legislation for that.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to table a petition signed by literally tens of thousands of Canadians who call upon the House of Commons and Parliament to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known. They point out that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial and occupational causes combined, yet Canada remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos in the world. They also point out that Canada spends millions of dollars subsidizing the asbestos industry and blocking international efforts to curb its use.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to take note and ban asbestos in all of its forms and institute a just transition program for asbestos workers in the communities they live in, to end all government subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad, and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam convention.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of many Canadians, most of them in my riding, which draws to the attention of members of Parliament that 21% of Canadian child care is publicly funded. In these tough economic times, in order to make ends meet, both parents need to work outside the house. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on Parliament to enact universal public child care.
Madam Speaker, I have another petition. This petition is calling on the government to bring forth legislation that would help prevent life-threatening anaphylaxis by requiring that peanuts and tree nuts, like walnuts to be sold either pre-packaged or in closed bins, and that necessary labels be mandatory.
Approximately 1.2 million Canadians suffer from food allergies. The petitioners believe that the legislation they are seeking will help to prevent the possibility of cross-contamination in stores selling foods and other commodities.
I want to thank the Nikiforos family for bringing that forward.
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions this morning. The first is from over 200 petitioners from southwestern Ontario. They point out that Canada is the only nation in the western world, and in the company of China and North Korea, without any laws restricting abortion.
They call on the House of Commons, and Parliament assembled, to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.
Madam Speaker, the other petition relates to the definition of a human being. The petitioners, from the Waterloo region, call on the House of Commons to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending section 223 of our Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.
Madam Speaker, I have a petition I am presenting on behalf of thousands of Canadians, mostly in British Columbia. They are concerned about stopping the proposed Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation's transport of toxic jet fuel anywhere into the Fraser River estuary and the building of a marine off-loading terminal and fuel storage facility. They recognize that the Fraser River is a Canadian heritage river and its estuary lies within a globally significant Pacific migratory bird flyway. Eleven per cent of the wetlands of the estuary have survived human activity, and this is a critical area. They also recognize that the Fraser is one of the world's largest salmon rivers and is vital to the survival of the Pacific salmon.
The proposed VAFFC terminal is to be sited in the Fraser River, which is prone to flooding and severe shaking and liquefaction during earthquakes. They are very concerned about that, and they raise this issue through their petition.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House two petitions that call upon Parliament to confirm that every human being, even pre-born children, are recognized by Canadian law. Currently, Canada's 400-year-old definition of a human being says a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth, contrary to 21st century medical evidence. Therefore, children in the womb receive absolutely no legal protection in Canada.
The first petition calls on Parliament to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending section 223 of our Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.
Madam Speaker, the second petition points out that 72% of Canadians would like there to be some legal protection for pre-born children. Petitioners call upon Parliament to open up a respectful dialogue on abortion in an effort to determine what sort of protection should be granted to children before they are born.
Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition from residents of Toronto—Danforth. Hundreds of residents have signed a petition protesting the raising of the eligibility age for old age security over time from age 65 to 67. This petition treats this as a direct attack on the poorest seniors, who rely on that money for daily living expenses. The petition states:
...we, the undersigned, citizens of Canada, call upon the Parliament of Canada to maintain funding for the OAS and make the requisite investments in the Guaranteed Income Supplement to lift every senior out of poverty.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and present a petition from concerned southwestern Ontarians, calling upon the Government of Canada to support the hundreds of thousands of victims of asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer by banning the use and export of asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos, and by supporting international efforts to add chrysotile asbestos to the list of hazardous products covered by the Rotterdam Convention.
The science on asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos, is clear. It is dangerous to human health and accounts for roughly 100,000 deaths per year worldwide. If chrysotile asbestos is not safe enough to use in our Parliament buildings, it is not safe enough to export to developing countries where safety practices are unknown and most likely inadequate or non-existent.
Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to stand in the House today and present two petitions.
The first petition that I have the honour to present is signed by my constituents from Alberta communities including Morrin, Caroline, Airdrie and Drumheller. The constituents have declared that the Supreme Court of Canada has stated it is Parliament's responsibility to enact legislation regulating abortion. Therefore, they have called upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.
Madam Speaker, I should also make mention that today is the day that we have the March for Life on Parliament Hill. Thousands of people will be on the front lawns. Members may read about it on page 92 of any of the papers tomorrow.
Therefore, the second petition is a petition signed by my constituents of Chestermere, Morrin, Calgary and Airdrie, who call upon Parliament to look into the definition of a human being. According to the current legislation, a child does not become human until the moment of complete birth. They would like section 223 of the Canadian Criminal Code to be amended in order to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law.
It is my pleasure to present the petitions.
Madam Speaker, I am also honoured to present petitions. It sounds as if they are similar to those of other members in the House.
The first one states:
Whereas Canada is the only nation in the Western world and in the company of China and North Korea without any laws restricting abortion;
And whereas Canada's Supreme Court has said it is Parliament's responsibility to enact abortion legislation;
Therefore, we call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.
Madam Speaker, the second petition states:
Whereas Canada’s 400 year old definition of a human being says a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth, contrary to twenty-first century medical evidence;
And whereas Parliament has a solemn duty to reject any law that says some human beings are not human;
Therefore, we call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending Section 223 of our Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect twenty-first century medical evidence.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Madam Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first is from residents of Shellbrook, Saskatchewan; London, Ontario; Peterborough, Ontario; Sharon, Ontario; and Ottawa.
These petitioners call upon the House of Commons to move to provide stable and predictable funding to our national public broadcaster, the CBC, noting that the CBC and Radio-Canada bring Canadians together from coast to coast to coast, and there is no commercial substitute.
Madam Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Vernon, British Columbia, who have written to the House of Commons and petitioned, as have tens of thousands of British Columbians already, to call upon the current Conservative Privy Council to stop promoting the Enbridge project, which proposes a very risky pipeline scheme leading to an even riskier supertanker scheme along the coastal waters of British Columbia.
By a margin of three to one, British Columbians do not want this project approved, and they call upon the government to listen.
Questions on the Order Paper
[Text]
With respect to clinical trials for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI): (a) what was the deadline for receiving applications for clinical trials for CCSVI and has the application process closed; (b) how many applications were received, and, for each application received, (i) from what institution and country was it received, (ii) are the researchers who submitted the application practiced in the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI; (c) why was it decided that an international review panel was needed to assess applications for clinical trials; (d) what was the specific process for and who was involved in choosing the members of the international review panel; (e) who had the ultimate decision-making authority on the appointments to the international review panel; (f) has the international review panel been chosen, and, if so, (i) who is on the panel, (ii) why was each member chosen, (iii) for each member, is he or she practiced in the diagnosis and treatment of CCSVI; (g) how will all potential conflicts of interest of members of the international review panel be (i) recorded, (ii) confirmed, (iii) publicly declared; (h) has the review process of applications begun, (i) is it in progress, (ii) by what date is the review expected to be finished; (i) what specific criteria have been established to review applications; (j) by what date is an announcement expected to be made regarding the chosen research team or teams; (k) what, if any, monies have been set aside for clinical trials, (i) how was the required amount of money decided, (ii) will the monies allow for an adequate number of patients to be included to demonstrate clinical efficacy at the 0.05 level of significance; (l) what timeline is being allowed for ethics approval; (m) by what date is patient accrual expected to take place; (n) by what date are clinical trials expected to commence; and (o) what is a detailed timeline of what can be expected over the next year in terms of significant dates for clinical trials, as well as any dates for meetings regarding CCSVI?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on April 18, 2012, the Minister of Health announced that a team of researchers has been selected to undertake an interventional phase I/II clinical trial for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, CCSVI, in persons with multiple sclerosis. The objective of this trial, which is to be co-funded by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, is to determine the safety and efficacy of the procedure proposed by Dr. Zamboni.
The successful team will now need to obtain ethics approval from their relevant university research ethics board or boards before recruiting patients and conducting the trial. The funds will be released and the study will begin as soon as ethics approval is granted. The clinical trial is expected to begin in the fall of 2012.
The closing date to submit applications to conduct this clinical trial was February 29, 2012. Applicants were invited to devise the best possible trial with a sample size of 100 patients and then propose the budget required to implement such a trial. For this reason, the budget was not specified in the funding opportunity. Both the MS Society of Canada and CIHR are committed to funding the trial subject to positive outcomes at ethics review stages.
Further information concerning this announcement, evaluation criteria, conflict of interest requirements and next steps, such as review by the research ethics board of the research institute concerned, may be found at http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45249.html, http://www.researchnet-recherchenet.ca/rnr16/viewOpportunityDetails.do?progCd=10266&language=E&fodAgency=CIHR&view=browseArchive&browseArc=true&org=CIHR and http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/193.html.
[English]
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Madam Speaker, If Questions Nos. 491 and 549 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
[Text]
With respect to Canada’s aid and reconstruction funding allocated to advancing women’s equality in Afghanistan since 2006, for every project funded, what is: (a) the name of the project; (b) the location of the project within the country; (c) the amount of funding received by the project broken down by (i) grant or contribution, (ii) interest-free loan, (iii) repayable loan, (iv) non-repayable loan; (d) description of project; and (e) the department where the funding originated?
(Return tabled)
With regard to the Prime Minister’s trip to China that began February 7, 2012: (a) what staff and guests accompanied the Prime Minister and what were (i) their duties on the trip, (ii) the destinations they travelled to, (iii) the total expenses for each person; (b) for all meetings convened or attended by the Prime Minister or his staff and/or guests in connection with the trip, what were the (i) meeting dates and their purpose, (ii) meeting locations, (iii) meeting participants, including full name and position, (iv) costs associated with each meeting; (c) for each of the commitments and commercial deals signed or announced by the Prime Minister or his staff or guests during trip, including but not limited to the “very important deals and the billions of dollars of contracts we signed this week” (statement attributed to the Prime Minister in a Feb. 11, 2012, Globe and Mail article), (i) what is each commitment, agreement, or commercial deal, (ii) who are the specific parties of each commitment, agreement, or deal, (iii) what are the government’s obligations under them, (iv) what is the cost of each commitment, agreement, or deal, (v) by what approximate date (i.e., month/year) will the government fulfill each obligation, (vi) what are the estimated economic benefits to the Canadian economy; (d) what specific actions or negotiating positions were taken that concerned (i) issues of fundamental freedoms and human rights, (ii) the connection between trade and “fundamental national values” (statement by the Prime Minister at a February 10, 2012, business dinner hosted by the Chinese ambassador to Canada), (iii) issues such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of belief and worship; and (e) what information or evidence does the government possess in support of the Prime Minister’s statement about “foreign money and influence that seek to obstruct development in Canada in favour of energy imported from other, less stable parts of the world” (statement by the Prime Minister at a February 10, 2012, business dinner hosted by the Chinese ambassador to Canada)?
(Return tabled)
[English]
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
[English]
Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act
The House resumed from May 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Madam Speaker, I am certainly proud to rise today in support of the budget 2012 implementation act tabled by the hon. Minister of Finance. This budget not only delivers strong results for today's economy; it holds sound promise for the future of all Canadians.
By identifying the economic challenges facing future generations, the government has developed a thorough plan to tackle these challenges and inspire hope in our young people.
Canada's economic action plan 2012 is a plan for jobs, growth and prosperity. It includes many important measures to expand our economy, and it preserves the quality of life for all Canadians.
According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities president Berry Vrbanovic, from my own city of Kitchener, Canada's municipal leaders welcome today's commitment by the federal government to continue working with cities and communities to rebuild the local roads, water systems, community centres and public transit that our families, businesses and economy depend on. Today's budget continues building a new infrastructure partnership that creates jobs and strengthens Canada's future economic foundations.
Let us take a look at some of the new initiatives introduced in this budget, which will deliver future prosperity for all Canadians.
One such measure recognizes the importance of a well-trained, highly educated workforce. In my riding of Kitchener Centre, I have had the opportunity to meet with plenty of youth who are attending our local institutions, Wilfrid Laurier, the University of Waterloo, Conestoga College and others.
In speaking with these bright young minds, I am constantly reminded of how essential it is that these individuals have jobs to look forward to on completing their education. This budget addresses their worries about finding suitable employment opportunities. It offers additional avenues for young people to train for careers in new and exciting fields.
The youth employment strategy began in 2011. It is a program created to reduce barriers to employment faced by some of our young people. It has helped to connect 70,000 young Canadians with job experience and valuable skills training. In particular, one of this program's streams, the skills link program, has had a significant impact in my riding, and I am pleased that our government has committed to deliver an additional $50 million over two years to further enhance the youth employment strategy.
In addition to tackling the challenges of an uncertain job market for young workers generally, we cannot neglect the difficulties disabled Canadians are also facing. Improving labour market opportunities for those living with challenges has always been a key agenda item for this government, and it remains so with this budget.
For example, economic action plan 2012 delivers $30 million over three years to the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities. I know that this fund has provided opportunities to people in my riding, connecting them with valuable work experience. We can never overlook the importance of integrating the skills and experience of every Canadian into our economy.
We should also commend the government for its commitment to helping to expand small businesses. In my riding of Kitchener Centre, I am consistently amazed by many small business owners and their willingness to find innovative ways of doing things. This progressive spirit confirms to me why small businesses can and will be prepared to compete in an increasingly competitive global economy.
To illustrate this government's commitment to small business, I will start by noting that budget 2012 extends the temporary hiring credit for small business by one year, an investment of $205 million. An investment like this not only reduces payroll costs but it helps small businesses to retain more of their earnings for expansion. It permits them to create new jobs.
Building on this dedication to expand small and medium-sized businesses, we have also proposed an additional $95 million over three years to make the Canadian innovation commercialization program permanent. This program has shown exceptional results. It connects small and medium-sized companies with federal departments and agencies. It builds their capacity.
In supporting programs like this, we are providing a solid foundation for these companies to compete in the marketplace. We position them to further create high-value jobs and long-term economic prosperity.
In addition to our commitment to building the private sector and helping small businesses, budget 2012 offers much more. In keeping with our promise to ensure prosperity for years to come, we have also upgraded our social programs to ensure future generations have a secure retirement to look forward to.
We have given more than 10 years' notice of a gradual increase in the age of eligibility for old age security, not starting until April 2023. We are also allowing for the voluntary deferral of the basic OAS for up to five years, starting July 1, 2013. These important changes would ensure that the cost of the old age supplement remains balanced and proportionate for many years to come. Moreover, following a triennial review by Canada's finance ministers of the Canada pension plan, we have confirmed that the plan will remain sustainable for at least the next 75 years, giving our young people an assured sense of future financial security.
By making responsible decisions like these, we are able to make considerable investments in skills training. We can support our science and technology sectors, creating an optimal environment for high-value jobs. As financial situations change, older business practices are continually being superseded at a rapid pace in a knowledge-based economy. Following an extensive review conducted by an expert panel in the fall of 2011, a number of recommendations were made on how the government could improve our support for innovative businesses. Canadian businesses spoke and the government listened.
We knew that we needed a new approach to directly support innovation in Canada, and this budget delivers. Economic action plan 2012 contributes $1.1 billion over five years for direct research and development support. It also makes $500 million available for venture capital. This funding would go toward research collaborations, new procurement opportunities and applied research financing. Innovation leads to success, and I have seen many examples of this in my riding of Kitchener Centre.
Of course, a driving premise behind this budget and every Conservative budget to date has been keeping taxes low so that hard-working Canadian families can continue to thrive in challenging global economic times. Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle still seem not to understand the importance of this low-tax agenda. They believe that raising taxes will somehow magically create prosperity. I cannot stress enough the savings this low-tax approach will deliver for Canadians.
Our government paid down more than $37 billion in debt between the years 2006 and 2008, before the global recession, and that maintained Canada's low net debt position throughout the recession. Even still, we were able to implement a remarkable stimulus phase included in Canada's economic action plan. Even in times of global economic fragility, the Canadian government is continuing to focus on the drivers of job creation and growth. Learning from the international landscape has shown us the importance of taking action now rather than delaying. We are prudent; we are far-sighted; we are planning for the future.
I am reminded of a comment made by one of Canada's great prime ministers, Wilfrid Laurier. “In 1908, Canada has become a star to which is directed the gaze of the whole civilized world. That is what we have done”, he declared. Today, more than 100 years later, we can once again say that Canada has become a star to which is directed the gaze of the whole civilized world. That is what the government has done with our economic action plan, and that work continues with this bill. I am proud to support a government that will continue to support and put a priority on a balanced budget and building a strong economy for all Canadians.
Madam Speaker, very deep down in the bowels of Bill C-38 is a clause that hardly anybody even noticed. It abolishes, it repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act for federally regulated construction projects.
Why would anyone want to abolish something called the “fair wages and hours of work” act? I will tell the House why, and I would like my colleague's comments.
It is a striking coincidence that now, in federally regulated projects like pipelines, a contractor can now post a job as follows: “Wanted: carpenters, $10 an hour”. Nobody is going to apply. Now, by this legislation, it will be perfectly okay to do so, and working for 70 hours a week with no overtime will be perfectly okay. No Canadian is going to apply, but guess what? The government has opened the door for temporary foreign workers, with a 10-day waiting period. No fair contractor in this country will ever win another job, because the government has eliminated the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act by virtue of this legislation.
Does the hon. member think it is fair for a budget bill to eradicate and destabilize the entire construction industry by eliminating the fair wages act?
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question and for keeping his language clean and his tone high. We always appreciate that when it occurs in the House.
I want to specifically thank the hon. member for raising the issue of construction, because it gives me an opportunity to tell the House what the Canadian Construction Association president, Michael Atkinson, had to say about this bill.
He said:
The reforms promised by the budget to the environmental assessment process and immigration will ensure the country is well placed to take advantage of the more than $500 billion in major economic projects expected in Canada over the next ten years.
I know the hon. member opposite is not that concerned about creating jobs and prosperity for Canadians, but the government is. That is why the construction association president is praising our budget.
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre spoke about the Conservative government's having paid down debt from 2006 to 2008, before the recession began.
I know why the hon. member said that. In 2006, the government inherited a budget that was in large surplus, which it had inherited from the previous Liberal government.
Why did the hon. member end his period in 2008? It is because his Conservative government put the federal budget into deficit. As he said, that was before the recession began.
It is funny how government members can spin facts to make them sound good, when what they really do is explain how the government has mismanaged the fiscal matters of this country.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comment, although it proves to me once again that there is sometimes a need for the opposition members to train themselves how to listen.
What I actually said was that we had paid down the debt before the recession, and that as a result, we were able to maintain our low net debt to GDP ratio through the recession.
I suppose we should be honoured that the hon. member thinks it is our government that caused the recession, but I have to ask him to go back and reread his history. He will see that it was actually a global economic phenomenon and that our government did not cause the recession and did not cause the deficit. It was necessary—
Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I would like to ask for a little bit of order in the House.
The hon. member for Kitchener Centre has the floor. If he would like to complete his comments, we will resume debate.
Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that Canada has come out of that recession more quickly and in a better and stronger position than any other member of the G7, and that is thanks to our government.
Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague his thoughts on how the NDP is handling this issue of the budget before Parliament.
What I have seen is that NDP members are asking for more time, yet they are frittering away the time they have with procedural tactics, as we saw yesterday. As well, one of their members ended up talking for 13 hours. In my books, that works out to about 50 time slots that NDP MPs could have used to actually debate the budget.
Could my colleague share his thoughts on that?
Madam Speaker, it is a very astute observation that the NDP members refuse to actually debate what is in the budget. All they want to talk about is process, and that is because what is in the budget is really beyond debate. It has been so well received across Canada that there is nothing they can say to criticize it.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to add my voice to the debate on the omnibus budget implementation act, Bill C-38. The budget is being described as a Trojan Horse, and for good reason. It is yet another omnibus bill from a government that favours broad, sweeping legislation that defies appropriate scrutiny and oversight. It is another attempt to baffle Canadians with a huge bill that does too much.
To top it off, we have time allocation on it, which is no longer a surprise from a government that seems to consider closure as a normal feature of the parliamentary cycle. That is why we say it is a Trojan Horse, and it is on a fast track to boot.
However, as the official opposition we have given the government the opportunity to appear to be a little more democratic and have proposed a solution to make Bill C-38 better match the way that Parliament is supposed to work. In fact, New Democrats are really just calling for respect for Parliament and long-standing tradition when we say that the budget should be split into five separate, manageable pieces of legislation.
It is the right thing to do. At the very least, it would allow for proper scrutiny by this House and from the appropriate committees. Sadly, we know that the government feels the need to rush this bill past Canadian eyes and will not consent to the reasonable oversight that is the job of Parliament and parliamentarians. In that respect, we are not being allowed to do our job, and that is a shame.
[Translation]
Before I go any further, there is something I would like to address right away, and that is how the Conservatives apply their own logic to NDP decisions. I am sure there will come a day when the Conservatives will point out the few useful measures in this budget and criticize the NDP for not supporting them.
However, I would like to point out that we absolutely cannot support the budget because this is really an omnibus bill—and it is therefore impossible to study it thoroughly—and because blind environmental deregulation is the dominant theme.
I hope the Conservatives will remember this before they engage in their revisionist history, but I might as well believe in the goose that lays the golden eggs; there are so many other things that I would rather see and hope for. The NDP understands that this budget does not at all reflect Canadians' priorities.
[English]
New Democrats are listening, and we know that Canadians do not want their environment gutted in the name of economic expediency. Canadian families do not want regulations tossed aside because they are not convenient for big oil and foreign investors who only want to export Canada's resources with a minimum benefit to Canadians, but that is what the budget does.
Canadians do not believe there should be a time limit on processes designed to protect our environment. That speaks to a mindset that does not appreciate nature's delicate balance. I am reminded of the phrase “fools rush in”; those words are not the lyrics of a song, but an age-old maxim that speaks to the wisdom that time and perspective allow for. When we are dealing with things as sensitive as the great salmon and steelhead rivers that are part of the constituency represented by my friend the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, there can be no such thing as taking too much time to make the right decision, and I am sure that the majority of Canadians feel the same as we do in the official opposition feel.
New Democrats know that Canadians do not want to gamble with our children's future, but that is what a full one-third of this budget does.
New Democrats get it. They get it that Canadians do not want power concentrated more and more at the cabinet level, but that is what this budget would do by allowing the cabinet to overturn National Energy Board rulings that it does not like. These are not the priorities of Canadian families, who want their environment to be protected; they are the priorities of investment bankers, who want to win at any cost, and that is not the Canadian way.
We are being asked to gut environmental regulations and legislation that other Parliaments have carefully considered. We are being asked to undo years and decades of work in just one week of debate. How is that reasonable? It is not, and Canadians will not be fooled.
Over these past few weeks we have watched the Minister of Natural Resources rushing about, claiming that the sky will fall if Parliament does not fast-track the budget and that somehow our energy reserves—the ones that the government cannot get out of Canada quickly enough—will be cast aside as undesirable by big oil and international investors if we do not move fast.
However, that is not the case at all. The only thing that will happen if we do not swiftly gut our environmental regulations and rig the deck for big oil is that Canadians will pay attention to what the government is up to and rain down a chorus of disapproval.
It shows us how the government is worried that downloading federal environmental responsibilities and dumping those costs onto the provinces, territories and future generations will come under the watchful eye of most Canadians who actually care about the environment, and that what is left of their support will disappear.
The government is worried that anglers will figure out what is happening to the Fisheries Act and that cottagers and campers will start to wonder if their lake is next. I know this much: Canadians did not want protection of fish habitat removed from the Fisheries Act and replaced with market-based language. Canadians get it. They understand that fish live in ecosystems that are complex webs of food items and interdependencies.
This is knowledge shared by elementary school students who study basic science, but it is ignored by a government keen to remove all barriers to development so that it can please its friends who want to fast-track a pipeline through some of the most pristine parts of British Columbia.
It is a bit much to see the changes to the Fisheries Act. They came just days after I received an update from the Bright Lake Association celebrating the fact that the water in the lake was so pure that it could sustain a population of northern redhorse suckers, a fish that can be considered an indicator species for excellent waterway health, much like the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Those suckers will not receive any protection under the amended Fisheries Act; the preoccupation of the act is now commercial and sport fisheries, not habitat and systems.
If we ask someone who fly-fishes about how fish habitat works, that person will tell us about bugs that grow under rocks and mate in trees. They will tell us about prey fish, like sculpin and stickleback, that will lose protection if the Fisheries Act is changed to discard the protection of fish habitat. The government claims it is only helping farmers who have been hamstrung by the Fisheries Act, but the government is not acknowledging that there are other ways to fix those problems. It claims it is stopping the Fisheries Act from protecting unnatural habitats; we know that the government knows all about unnatural waterways and fake lakes.
We also know that the government has spent more hard-earned tax money for self-promotion in the past few years than it has for protecting the Great Lakes. I and my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River and many communities across northern Ontario know that the government has actually cut funding for the Lake Superior Binational Forum, and we are extremely concerned.
It had no end of cash to tell us what a great job it was doing to build that infamous fake lake. I say Great Lakes over fake lakes every time, and the government should get back to protecting fish habitat in Canada or the anglers of this country will be casting for something in the next election that the Conservatives will not like at all.
What is obvious is that the budget marks a crossroads in Canada. It attempts to put an end to publicly scrutinized development of resources and puts blind faith in private sector self-regulations and regulators. It marks the end of a national vision and the ascent of a mindset that sees Canada as a corporation.
We now have two very distinct political parties in Canada. One believes in science-based, carefully considered regulatory practices and reporting. It is a party that sees the benefit of careful consideration and long-term planning for our natural resources. It cherishes the treasure we have inherited and must carefully steward and ultimately deliver to future generations.
The other party wants to rig the deck for its corporate friends. It guts our environmental legislative and regulatory framework. It wraps itself in small, divisive issues, but it sets to work on great sweeping changes that cut to the heart of the Canada most of us cherish.
The Conservatives see only opportunity and blind themselves to negative outcomes while they deafen themselves to dissenting opinion. They have little regard for things like endangered species, and are well on the way to becoming as--
Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear my NDP colleague refer to the two approaches. She was clearly referring to the Liberal Party of Canada when she was talking about the party that stands for a thoughtful, careful science-based approach to resource development and environmental protection, because that is what the Liberal Party has shown over many generations.
My question for the member is on rural economic development. I am concerned about the budget of the Canadian Tourism Commission being cut 20%. The commission promotes tourism, which is important to our rural areas. The economic development agencies are being slashed, WED out west is losing $30 million and EI payroll taxes are going up.
Could my colleague comment on how the budget would impact small and medium-sized enterprises and tourism?
Madam Speaker, I certainly was not referring to the Liberals. While the Liberals signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol, they did nothing to try to reduce our emissions until it was too late. They voted in favour of previous budgets, which began the Conservative government's work of unravelling environmental protection in Canada. They supported measures that rolled back navigable waters protection and weakened environmental assessment by exempting hundreds of projects. I certainly was not talking about them.
I am concerned with respect to the impact that this bill would have on small businesses and on the economy as a whole. The government is putting people out of work and it is telling us that its goal is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. I do not know how it can do that.
I would add that we have a lot of concerns with respect to business, which is extremely important in northern Ontario especially.
Madam Speaker, just for the purpose of historical accuracy, it should be noted that there were good climate plans put in place, although late in the day, by the previous Liberal government, that were cancelled by the current government.
My question for my colleague relates to the Fisheries Act. I am so thrilled to hear someone in the House talk about suckers and sculpins because they would not be protected by this new approach to fisheries.
The bill, probably unintentionally, would create an incentive for the mining industry to drain a lake, remove all the fish, destroy the habitat and to then have a dry hole into which it can place tailings rather than go through an approval process to add tailings to an existing lake. That is the kind of bad consequence that happens from a rushed piece of legislation.
Madam Speaker, coming from Elliot Lake, I know a lot about tailings.
I will elaborate a bit more on the impact this would have on some of our communities. I have an email from Ian Ross in Elliot Lake with regard to the end of local weather reporting in that community. Mr. Ross told me that he was concerned on a personal level because it was convenient to know what the local conditions were. Now the planes landing in Elliot Lake, which bring workers to Elliot Lake at times, will not know what the weather is like there for them to land. That is extremely concerning. This is another way of seeing how the government's actions are negatively impacting our communities.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the budget that was presented has a very short-term vision, despite its size. For instance, in terms of the environment, would my colleague agree that this short-term vision will be even more costly in the future?
Madam Speaker, absolutely; we are very concerned about this. I touched on that in my speech. These changes will definitely have a huge impact on future generations. I do not know what they plan to leave for future generations, but we certainly do not want to see it, because we know what is going to happen.
[English]
Madam Speaker, in advance of March's budget, I had the opportunity earlier this year to discuss creating job opportunities and economic growth in Canada with a wide variety of stakeholders in my riding of Barrie, Ontario. Included in these consultations were a number senior staff in the city of Barrie: cultural leaders, such as real estate brokers, hospital administrators, health care professionals, YMCA executives, outreach staff members, seniors issues advocates, faith leaders, lawyers, tourism representatives, grassroots media and business people from a wide variety of areas, including manufacturing, financial services, transportation, construction and home heating.
Each of those participants provided insightful contributions from different aspects of our city. Many shared the same concerns as all Canadians: ensuring good jobs are available, keeping taxes low, investing in long-term growth and ensuring sustainability for generations of retirees.
With over $63 billion in targeted stimulus, Canada's economic action plan helped protect Canada from the worst of the global recession and the city of Barrie had tremendous support from the federal government during these tough times.
Through the steady leadership of our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance, we have seen Canada's economy expand for nine of the last ten quarters. We have seen Canada create close to 700,000 net new jobs just since July 2009. Canada's unemployment rate is significantly lower than that of the U.S., a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades.
Overall, since we have formed government in 2006, over 1.2 million net new jobs have been created. Even better, Canada has had, by far, the best rate of job growth in the entire G7 since 2006.
Canada has the lowest overall tax rate and new business investment in the G7. Our net debt to GDP ratio remains the lowest in the G7 by far and we have the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7. Both the independent International Monetary Fund, IMF, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, forecast that Canada will be ahead of the pack for economic growth in the G7 for the years ahead.
I am particularly proud to say that Canada has maintained its AAA credit rating through the period of economic downturn and uncertainty, something that has rocked nations from around the world.
However, the global recovery remains fragile, especially in Europe and the United States, and too many Canadians are still looking for work. That is why I am so pleased to see that budget 2012 is clearly focused on jobs, economic growth and ensuring Canada's economic advantage remains strong today and into the long term.
One of the most important exercises in ensuring future success is for us to return to balanced budgets. Before the global recession hit, our Conservative government paid down over $37 billion of debt, bringing Canada's debt to its lowest level in an astonishing 25 years. Our fiscal responsibility and aggressive debt reduction plan placed Canada in the best possible position to weather the global recession when the global recession hit. We made a deliberate decision to run a temporary deficit to protect our economy and jobs, and all parties in Parliament agreed.
Reducing debt frees up tax dollars that would otherwise be used to cover interest costs, keep interest rates low and, most important, ensure lower taxes for Canadian families.
Our plan to get back to balanced budgets is working. In the past two years we have already cut the deficit in half.
In 2010, we started down the road to balanced budgets by winding down temporary stimulus spending, putting into place targeted spending restraint measures and reviewing government administrative and overhead costs. In 2011, we continued to return to balanced budgets by delivering over half a billion dollars in new ongoing savings.
In 2012, we are building on our existing efforts by refocussing government, making it easier to deal with and streamlining back-office administration to achieve $5.2 billion in ongoing savings for taxpayers. Almost 70% of the savings will come from eliminating waste in internal operations of government, making it leaner and more efficient. These modest savings, less than 2% of federal program spending, will help ensure that Canada returns to balance over the medium term, while also respecting taxpayer dollars.
Unlike what other parties in the House would do if they had the chance, our Conservative government will not raise taxes and, unlike the former Liberal government, we will not slash health, education and support for seniors through provincial transfers.
Economic action plan 2012 demonstrates our Conservative government's strong support for my home province of Ontario through record federal transfer support for hospitals, schools and other critical services. Totalling $19.2 billion in the 2012-13 fiscal year, the transfer support represents an increase of nearly $8.4 billion, or 77%, since the former Liberal government was removed from office by the voters of Canada. We are continuing the long-term stable funding arrangement with the provinces for health care social services that will see transfers reach historic levels of $40 billion by the end of the decade.
As indicated by the recent Canadian Institutes of Health Research information data, federal transfers are projected to grow faster than average provincial spending in health care. We are leading in health care investment.
Federal support for health care will keep growing every year beyond the record levels the federal government already invested since 2006 and in a way that is both predictable and, most important, sustainable. This will help ensure Canada's health care system, including doctors and nurses, will be there when Canadians and their families need them most. This is very good news for all Canadians.
Balancing the budget and reducing debt interest costs help keep interest rates low and instills confidence in the Canadian economy, allowing families and businesses to plan for the future. It will also ensure sustainability of Canada's social programs, like health care, for future generations. I applaud our Minister of Finance for the responsible, realistic and common sense approach contained in this budget.
Another key area of prudent fiscal management is to stop unnecessary spending. There is probably no better example of this than the elimination of the penny. By stopping the production of the penny this fall, our government will do what should have been done years ago. An independent study estimated that the economic cost of maintaining the penny amounted to $150 million. The penny has lost its purchasing power over the years and now most are hoarded, resulting in a useless expense for Canadian taxpayers. In fact, taxpayers pay 1.6¢ for each new penny made. This costs taxpayers $11 million every year.
After hearing strong support from consumers, retailers and small businesses, a recent public study by the Senate committee recommended the elimination of the penny. I am pleased to tell Canadians that this government absolutely concurs. Eliminating the penny is a lot like the penny itself. Producing pennies may not seem like much in the context of the entirety of the federal budget, but every penny makes a difference. However small things may seem, they can certainly add up to something significant over time. Former U.S. president Ronald Reagan once said that government was the people's business and that every man, woman and child becomes a shareholder with the very first penny of tax paid. We have a responsibility to our Canadian shareholders. No amount of cost is insignificant, no amount of waste is acceptable.
Canadian families deserve the cleanest air, water and environment possible. That is why, since 2006, our Conservative government has made major investments to preserve our environment and to protect the health and well-being of Canadian families for today and tomorrow. Economic action plan 2012 builds on our Conservative government's impressive record for supporting a cleaner and more sustainable environment. The budget proposes $50 million over two years for the protection of wildlife species at risk. The Species at Risk Act is one of the government's main conservation tools to protect wildlife species, maintain healthy ecosystems and preserve Canada's natural heritage.
We are also committing to the creation of a new near-urban national park in Rouge Valley, Ontario, only 40 minutes south of beautiful Barrie, Ontario. I am particularly pleased with our commitment to the continued support of Canada's lakes, including Lake Winnipeg and Lake Simcoe. In 2008, the federal government's unprecedented $30 million funding for the Lake Simcoe cleanup was an extremely welcomed initiative for the residents of Simcoe county and Barrie. To see included in this year's budget a commitment to continue the cleanup of Lake Winnipeg and Lake Simcoe is a wonderful thing.
The cleanup of the lake has had dramatic effects. For four decades, phosphorous levels have gone up. High phosphorous levels mean a reduction of marine habitat. It means excessive weed growth. For the last four years, because of this federal funding, we have seen the lake become cleaner. We have seen phosphorous go down for the first time. It is a remarkable achievement in cleaning up our lake.
We are improving conditions for businesses, for environment and for Canadian families.
I want to commend the Minister of Finance for a prudent, responsible budget that I believe protects and enhances the best interests of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Madam Speaker, the hon. member from Barrie, who like me, represents a riding in Ontario where unemployment has been persistently high. How can he account for the fact that under the government, between 2007 and 2011, according to Statistics Canada, temporary foreign workers account for about 30% of all net new paid employment? This is before the changes that the government will bring in under the budget that will allow temporary foreign workers to be brought in on 10 days notice and be paid 15% less than the so-called going wage, which will drop as we get more and more temporary foreign workers. These workers, as we know, are not just working in agriculture or in northern Alberta, they are in workplaces across Ontario. How does he account for that?
Madam Speaker, there are things we can look at in our immigration system. The focus of my speech today is on the budget. However, in terms of job creation and foreign worker permits, there are some parts of the country where there are significant human resource shortages, which is an important tool of the immigration system.
Let me talk about the creation of jobs. I think that is what the member is interested in. One thing the budget does, this economic action plan, is it takes steps to encourage entrepreneurship, innovation and world-class research, with over $1.1 billion in significant investments for research and development, $500 million for venture capital, support for increased public and private research collaboration and much more. These initiatives create jobs.
Supporting industrial research pays dividends. In my own riding of Barrie, there was a partnership with Wolf Steel to create a high efficiency furnace. It was mentioned on page 62 of the budget as an example of job creation through innovation. That is the type of job creation on which we need to focus.
Madam Speaker, I have two questions on the budget. I see two big hits. The first is in Cape Breton, where the Conservatives are cutting jobs in Parks Canada and Veterans Affairs.
The other is with CIDA. There are over $380 million in cuts. Many NGOs will be unable to help Canadians develop and deliver aid. Recently I heard about the Canadian Nurses Association that does great work around the world with CIDA, and the Conservatives have cut its funding.
Where is a good part for Cape Breton or international aid in the budget? I do not see it.
Madam Speaker, Canada, on a per capita level, has been one of the largest donors toward international aid. Canada still contributes huge amounts.
In February, I had a chance to go on an all party visit to Tanzania with the good member from Newfoundland. The Canadian contributions there made incredible differences. We can see in many areas of the world where CIDA has made huge differences, and continues to do so.
When it comes to this budget, every department looked at efficiencies and more effective ways of spending.
When the last significant recession hit in the 1990s, a Liberal government was in power. The decision was to slash particularly one area, health care. It also slashed the area of education. Those were areas that Canadians could not afford to have slashed. I am happy this budget has been balanced in the medium term. We have had a prudent approach with small efficiencies in a wide variety of departments, not focusing on one area like gutting the health care system. We still face the consequences of the Liberal gutting of the health care system in the mid-1990s today. We are facing doctor shortages and hospitals at capacity because of the short-sighted decisions made during that administration.
I am happy this budget took a much more responsible and prudent approach to ensure efficiencies were found across the board in a much more even manner.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to stand in support of Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, the key legislation to implement the economic action plan 2012.
Our Conservative government, as demonstrated through today's act, is focused on what matters to Canadians, which is keeping the economy on the right track. In that regard, the nearly 700,000 net new jobs Canada has created since July 2009, 90% of those being full-time jobs, is a positive sign we are on the right track for Canadian families.
Indeed, a recent Wall Street Journal editorial praised Canada's economic leadership focus on private economic growth and its sound policies as a model for others to follow. As CIBC World Markets chief economist Avery Shenfeld recently declared:
Canada’s federal government remains the very picture of health, standing head and shoulders above many developed countries in terms of fiscal sustainability.
Nevertheless, we recognize global economic turbulences remain today and too many Canadians are still looking for work. That is why the economic action plan 2012, legislated through Bill C-38, takes responsible, positive action to support the economy now and over the long term, while keeping taxes low and returning to balanced budgets.
This plan has been largely welcomed by Canadians from coast to coast to coast, save the ideological NDP opposition.
For instance, the Vancouver Board of Trade, representing thousands of businesses in the Lower Mainland, assigned an overall grade of A to the economic action plan 2012, noting:
The federal government's reasonable and prudent 'game plan' continues to be the right one for British Columbia and Vancouver, and it remains the right strategy for Canada within a challenging global economic environment
For the remainder of my time today, I want to focus on the aspects of the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act that deal with responsible resource development and how we have found the right balance between economic and environmental priorities.
Let me be clear. Our Conservative government is committed to being proactive in our stewardship of our national treasures, preserving them so we can pass them down to future generations. However, unlike the ideological NDP, we recognize that a healthy environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. Major economic projects create jobs and spur development across Canada.
In 2011 alone, the natural resource sector employed over 790,000 Canadians in communities throughout the country. It is predicted that in the next 10 years more than 500 major economic projects, representing $500 billion in new investments, are planned across Canada.
Increasing global demand for resources, particularly from emerging economies, will create new economic and job opportunities from which all Canadians will benefit. Canadians will only reap the benefits that come from our natural resources once investments are made by the private sector to bring the resources to market. Currently conditions are hardly ideal for any business that wants to do so.
Canadian businesses in the resource sector that wish to undertake major economic projects must navigate a complex maze of regulatory requirements and processes. Approval processes can be long and unpredictable. Delays and red tape often plague projects despite few environmental risks. In the federal government alone, accountability for assessments rests with dozens of departments and agencies, each with its own mandate, processes, information needs and timelines. This leads to duplication and the needless waste of time and resources.
The starting point of federal environment assessments can also be unpredictable, which can cause lengthy delays. This leads to delays in investment and job creation, and some plans are even abandoned because of them. Frankly, that is unacceptable.
As stated in a recent Vancouver Sun editorial:
Currently, worthwhile projects are needlessly bogged down in repetitive environmental and regulatory assessments that increase costs to industry without adding value for Canadian taxpayers.
That is why we have worked hard, since 2006, to streamline and improve regulatory processes. However, more work still needs to be done. A modern regulatory system should support progress on economically viable and significant projects and sustain Canada's reputation as an attractive place to invest, all the while contributing to better environmental outcomes.
That is why we are focusing on four major areas to streamline the review process for major economic projects in economic action plan 2012, specifically making the review process for major projects more predictable and timely, reducing duplication and regulatory burdens, strengthening environmental protection and enhancing consultations with aboriginal peoples. This modernized federal regulatory system will establish clear timelines, reduce duplication, regulatory burdens and focus resources more effectively to protect the environment.
We will achieve the goal of one project, one review, in clearly defined time periods, something long overdue, especially for my home province of British Columbia. In the words of British Columbia's finance minister Kevin Falcon:
The moving to a one-permit, one-process approach on environmental assessments is extraordinarily important for British Columbia...We have many major, major projects on the table today that are in the billions of dollars that could have important ramifications for jobs and employment. I’m really encouraged by that...
He went on to say that what they always said about the environment was that they should not measure the environmental process based on how long the process took, that it should be measured based on outcome and that was what they believed in.
Rest assured our Conservative government also understands that long-term economic prosperity and a high quality of life requires a healthy and sustainable environment. That is why protecting Canada's environment and the health of Canadians is a key priority of this government.
For instance, the safe navigation of oil tankers is very important to our government. Oil tankers have been moving safely and regularly along Canada's west coast since the 1930s. For example, 82 oil tankers arrived at Port Metro Vancouver in 2011. Nearly 200 tankers visited the ports of Prince Rupert and Kitimat over the past five years. They all did this safely.
Canada's regulatory system had a lot to do with that. Oil tankers in Canada must comply with the safety and environmental protection requirements of international conventions, and while in Canadian waters, with Canada's marine safety regulatory regime.
These requirements include double hulling of ships, mandatory pilotage, regular inspections and aerial surveillance. In fact, in 2011 almost 1,100 inspections were carried out across Canada, 147 of them on oil tankers.
We have a strong system, but any responsible government must continually work to make it stronger. That is why economic action plan 2012 includes further measures to support responsible energy development, including: new regulations which will enhance existing tanker inspection regime by strengthening vessel inspection requirements; a review of handling processes for oil products by an independent international panel of tanker experts; improved navigational products, such as updated charts for shipping routes; research to improve our scientific knowledge and understanding of risks; and to manage the impacts on marine resources habitat and users in the even of a marine pollution incident, and much more.
As I indicated in my introduction, we must be vigilant in guarding our spectacular natural treasures, but unlike the NDP, we realize that Canada's economic prosperity cannot be sustained without a healthy environment, just as environmental progress cannot be achieved without a healthy economy.
That is why I urge all hon. members to join with me in supporting Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, and supporting a stronger Canadian economy.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, this is very alarming. I cannot believe that the members opposite are talking about the budget as though it is something good for the environment. Just this past Tuesday, the commissioner submitted his report, which painted a very grim picture.
Bill C-38 will dismantle several tools related to the environment, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which produces independent scientific studies on the environment. There are still 13,000 contaminated sites awaiting assessment and cleanup, and major oil development projects are on the way.
How can we trust a government that says one thing but does the complete opposite?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I assure my hon. colleague that the environment is a priority for this government and will be into the future.
At the same time, we must also look at our resource sector. We must find environmentally sustainable ways to get our products and resources to the marketplace in other parts of the world as Canada is a trading nation. Therefore, we are making the review process for major economic projects more timely and transparent while protecting the environment, and helping realize the objective of one project, one review in a clearly defined period.
This is extremely important because those companies that are interested in investing large sums of money, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars, need certainty with respect to finding out if their projects will be allowed to go forward within a specified time period.
Madam Speaker, there are many topics that my hon. friend from North Vancouver touched upon in his speech, which I would love to probe further, but I want to focus on the tanker statements that he made.
This is a debate on Bill C-38 and nothing in Bill C-38 speaks to tankers, regulations for tankers or funding for tanker safety, so I will set that aside. That comes from other documents. There may be regulations in the future, but there is nothing in Bill C-38 on tanker safety.
I also would dispute the claim that the B.C. coast has had lots of oil tankers. There has been a moratorium against supertanker traffic on the B.C. coast, particularly the northern coastline, with the exception of Vancouver because it was grandfathered. Vancouver harbour was left out of the 1972 moratorium, which was respected by every level of federal and provincial governments since 1972. That is why there have not been tanker accidents.
Madam Speaker, I can say that from my home in North Vancouver I can see oil tankers go up Burrard Inlet on a regular basis. This has taken place since the 1930s without a single incident. It is responsible management. We have very strict regulations in place and it is because of those strict regulations that we have been able to keep our waters safe for almost 90 years.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, the fact is that eastern Canada has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions, while western Canada has increased emissions. Despite the provinces' ongoing efforts, the situation is still not under control.
Why is at least one-third of Bill C-38 about environmental deregulation?
[English]
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the environment is a priority for this government and we intend to continue to protect our environmental treasures for future generations. At the same time, we are looking for ways of expanding the marketplace for our resources, which will be done in a responsible manner.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the first implementation bill of budget 2012, an omnibus bill that should never have been.
If we want to talk about the budget that is one thing, but when everything is thrown into this bill, it makes it impossible for Canadians to have a real handle on exactly what it is that is in this budget, which causes a problem not only for me as a member of Parliament representing the people of Random—Burin—St. George's, but, I would expect, for all MPs who take great exception to what the government has done here.
Canadians from coast to coast to coast anxiously awaited this budget as they continued to struggle to make ends meet. I know that from first-hand experience as there are difficult times in my own riding of Random—Burin—St. George's, particularly when we are talking about seasonable industries, which is another issue that we need to deal with.
With sporadic job growth in the last six months and thousands of full-time jobs being replaced with part-time jobs, Canadians expected the budget to focus on jobs. Unfortunately, the government let Canadians down once again. Rather than focusing on much-needed job creation, the government has chosen to focus on dividing Canadians.
Since 2006, the government has sought to divide Canadians. It is obvious that budget 2012 is no different. Given the damage that will be done by this budget, it is impossible for anyone concerned about the future of our country to support its implementation.
As the government irresponsibly pits generation against generation, and we see that with the OAS changes, region against region, economy against environment, and when we consider that over 120 pages of the budget deal with the environment, it is reckless. In its reckless quest to divide and conquer, the government has done all of these things.
Canadians stand united in opposition to the government's dangerous politics and policies. The Liberals have never shied away from ensuring that government is run efficiently.
As members debate the implementation of this austerity budget, it is important to remember how Canada's economy reached this stage. The last Liberal government left the Conservatives with a $13 billion surplus and the Conservatives promptly spent the Liberal surplus into a Conservative deficit well before the recession. In fact, the Conservatives have the distinction of being the highest spending, largest deficit creating government in Canadian history, and now they are trying to have Canadians take responsibility for that. The Conservatives are taking it out on the backs of Canadians.
Had the Conservatives not spent so much irresponsibly before the recession, Canada's deficit would be nowhere as high as it is today.
Bill C-38 is the first in a series that will attempt to implement the Conservative's slash-and-burn agenda and cause havoc in Atlantic Canada in particular as federal jobs and services are cut.
The Conservative government began its slash-and-burn agenda in the 2010 strategic review that saw $32 million in cuts over three years to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, with an additional $17.9 million in new permanent cuts. These new cuts in budget 2012 represent nearly 20% of ACOA's entire operating budget. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians rely on ACOA to create opportunities for economic growth in their region, just as the rest of Atlantic Canada does.
Now is hardly a time to cut programs that stimulate the economy, help create jobs and increase federal tax revenue in the process.
Adding to the $6.6 million in cuts over three years to Marine Atlantic, which occurred in the last budget, budget 2012 cuts an additional $10.9 million in new permanent cuts. These cuts are especially difficult for my constituents when we consider that the Marine Atlantic ferry service is our connection to the rest of the country.
These cuts also include the closing of vitally important washing stations in Channel-Port aux Basques and Argentia. Some vehicles need to be washed off because they have picked up contaminated soil that is prevalent in Newfoundland and Labrador that carries the potato wart and the potato cyst nematode infected soil. Washing the vehicles ensures that the contaminated soil is not exported to other Canadian provinces where it could do irreparable harm, particularly in P.E.I. and New Brunswick, to the multi-billion dollar potato industry in this country.
History shows even a minor infestation in a potato-producing area can have serious consequences. In 2000, when a small area, a mere 24 hectares, of Prince Edward Island soil was found to have been contaminated by the potato wart fungus, the United States moved immediately to close its borders to P.E.I. potatoes for months. This resulted in a $22 billion loss to P.E.I. potato farmers.
For a province such as Prince Edward Island where the potato industry is a major contributor to its economy, the loss of this industry would be as devastating as the cod moratorium is to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I can only explain how devastating that was when today that cod moratorium is still in existence. The cod has not returned and I can only imagine how it would be in P.E.I. if the contaminated soil were to impact the potato industry there to the extent that the cod moratorium has impacted Newfoundland and Labrador.
Of particular concern to my constituents in Random—Burin—St. George's and to the many coastal communities in Canada is the dangerous approach the government has taken to the fishery.
Last year's budget cut the Department of Fisheries and Oceans by $84.8 million over three years, while this budget goes further, permanently cutting an additional $79.3 million from the DFO budget. Worse, the government is rolling the dice when it comes to fish management strategy by cutting the financial capacity for evidence-based fish monitoring and protection of fish habitats and removing the protection of many freshwater fish species.
Even the Conservatives are upset with this attack on the fishery. Former Conservative fisheries minister, Tom Siddon, said, “This is a covert attempt to gut the Fisheries Act, and it’s appalling that they should be attempting to do this under the radar”.
In addition to the Conservatives' cuts to the fishery, they are considering sweeping changes to the fleet separation and owner operated policies, which would directly affect 30,000 jobs and destroy small rural fishing communities. If DFO were to cancel the fleet separation policy, allowing large processors to engage in the inshore fishery, the traditional harvester would eventually be squeezed out of the industry. Clearly, the Conservatives have no interest in seeing the fishery survive.
As I mentioned earlier, I also have concerns with the proposed changes to employment insurance in Bill C-38. While not all changes are negative, we know already from budget 2012 that instead of working to help create more jobs, the government is increasing a direct tax on employment by hiking the employment insurance premiums by $600 million. EI recipients must apply for suitable employee vacancies to qualify for benefits. Bill C-38 would delete the provisions that deem employment opportunities to be unsuitable whether or not the opportunity is in the claimant's usual occupation and offers a lower rate of pay or working conditions that are less favourable than the claimant has a right to expect, only something that we would all expect.
This bill also would unduly grant the minister the power to make changes to the EI Act without legislation and parliamentary approval by giving the minister the power to change the definition of “suitable employment”. What is suitable employment? There was no consultation whatsoever with either employers or employees with respect to these proposed changes to the EI. The Conservatives have yet to announce details of what they will consider suitable employment and yet they expect Parliament to grant them unrestricted power to do so. People are nervous and naturally scared not knowing what to expect.
One has to wonder if the government's end game is to force Atlantic Canadians to relocate permanently to Alberta for work or to accept jobs outside of their skill area. There is no discussion about appropriate training for people and, of course, when they get to the age of 55 or 60, particularly if they have been working in a fish plant all of their life and, in a lot of cases, in the seasonal industry in the fish plant, what are they going to retrain for? What other skill will they retrain for at that age in their life? It is a time when they would like to retire and they would like to retire at 65, as has always been the case. However, the government has seen fit to move that age of eligibility from 65 to 67, making it even more difficult on people who work in demanding environments.
In contrast to the government's attempt to implement its austerity budget is the government's shockingly expensive advertising campaign to try to convince Canadians that the government is not failing Canada, not as badly as it seems anyway.
Madam Speaker, I respect the member for the passion that she brings to her speeches.
She began her speech by saying that our government was running deficits before the global recession. That is not true. It is misleading the House to say so. Our government had balanced budgets, and she should know this well. The global recession that took place was beyond Canada's control. She should also know that Canada is doing better than any other G7 country in handling the global recession. We have created 700,000 net new jobs, three-quarters of them are in the private sector and 90% of them are full-time jobs. We are doing incredibly well.
She said that our government has driven us into deficit, and then spent the last 90% of her time saying that we have a slash and burn agenda. She has completely contradicted herself. I do not know if she is aware of how contradictory she was and how badly she failed in messaging a position on this.
She should note that the Liberal Party, her party, voted for those budgets that she says were so devastating. She stood and voted for them but she thinks they were awful. If they were so awful, perhaps she should apologize to her constituents.
Later in her speech she said that “clearly the Conservatives have no interest in seeing the fisheries survive”. Does she--
Order, please. I must give the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's the opportunity to respond.
Madam Speaker, obviously my hon. colleague is being very defensive, and rightly so, but it is impossible to defend what the government has done. The Conservative government spent a $13 billion surplus. It ran the country into the highest deficit position ever and now it is trying to take it out on the backs of Canadians. Yes, slash and burn, because the decisions the government is making are hurting Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Why is the government increasing the number of seats in the House of Commons? I would like my colleague to explain that to Canadians. The government wants to increase the House of Commons by 30 additional seats. That is totally unacceptable.
Why is the government looking at spending billions on--
Madam Speaker, there is a quaint expression where I come from and it is “fair wages benefit the whole community”. It is based on the notion that a well-paid, consuming, middle class is good for the economy.
Why then, deep within the bowels of Bill C-38 do we find this little jewel that repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act for the construction industry? It used to be the prevailing wage was somewhere close to union scale for federally regulated construction projects, like pipelines for instance. Now, a construction contractor can offer any salary and any hours of work with no overtime. If no Canadians apply within 10 days, that contractor gets temporary foreign workers in there who will work for peanuts and sleep six to a hotel room and undermine the entire prevailing wage set by the industry.
Some people have worked 100 years toward setting fair wages for the construction industry and that was manifested in the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. This piece of legislation would repeal that and enable pipeline contractors to build the next pipeline with temporary foreign workers.
Does my colleague realize that 30% of all the jobs created since 2007 in this country have been filled by temporary foreign workers? These are not landed immigrants. They are now being paid any wage they want.
Madam Speaker, what we are seeing is a reflection of the thinking behind the government and absolutely no respect for people who work in seasonal industries in particular. The government is suggesting that people will have to find suitable employment right away but they do not even get to decide what suitable employment is. The fact is, the minister will decide.
Absolutely no consideration is being given to Canadians who need and want work but for whatever reason are not able to avail themselves of work. They are being forced to take whatever is available. If this legislation is going to leave it up to the minister to define suitable work, then we have a problem in this country.
With respect to foreign workers, I too am concerned that we are going to end up driving down the wages of Canadians by going down this path.
Madam Speaker, I am very proud to have the opportunity today to rise on behalf of the citizens of Winnipeg South Centre and to speak to my colleagues about the government's economic action plan 2012.
As a chartered accountant, I am proud to be part of a government that represents sound fiscal planning, job creation and economic growth. As a mother, I am grateful for the government's direction on long-term prosperity. We have to take care of future generations. We need to be responsible and make sure that our children do not start their lives with their futures mortgaged. It matters that we are good stewards. It matters to our children's futures and well-being. It matters to our country's future and well-being.
I would like to speak of our government's support in economic action plan 2012 for research and development and commercialization because it also matters for the future.
[Translation]
The Minister of Finance regularly consults private-sector economists to find out what they think about the future of Canada's economy. The economic forecasts in our 2012 economic action plan are based on a survey carried out in early March of this year and take into account the viewpoints of 14 independent private-sector economists. The average of these independent private-sector economic forecasts has been used as the basis for financial planning since 1994, which gives our economic forecasts an independent dimension. This practice is endorsed by international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund.
In addition, since the 2012 economic action plan was tabled last month, Canada's leading economists have applauded its prudent outlook and Canada's solid economic performance.
[English]
For example, on March 29, economist Patricia Croft said of the budget's “ initiatives in the job front and addressing the demographic challenge.... In both regards I’d have to give the budget probably an ‘A’.... In a global context, I think Canada is in a fabulous position”.
Avery Shenfeld, Chief Economist, CIBC World Markets, said in The Toronto Star on March 30 that the budget “makes sense in a world economy that is still not what we would like it to be… Relative to what anybody else is doing, we still come out with flying colours”.
I mentioned that I am a chartered accountant. I would like to speak to comments made by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants regarding the government's budget. The CICA is a professional body representing CAs in business, government and public practice. It even represents a member of Parliament. In its budget brief 2012, it said that the budget “positions Canada well for the future while providing prudent fiscal management”. These are the fiscal managers of Canada. It continued, “Budget measures being introduced are designed to serve the short-term while maintaining a vision that embraces the long-term.”
Given those glowing remarks, I am going to share with the House today some of the initiatives being taken by our government to support innovation and create a reputation for Canada as a world leader in cutting-edge research, development and commercialization.
[Translation]
The global economy is changing. Competition for the brightest minds is intensifying. The pace of technological change is creating new opportunities while making older business practices obsolete.
Canada’s long-term economic competitiveness in this emerging knowledge economy demands globally competitive businesses that innovate and create high-quality jobs.
[English]
As the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages just said, we have created over 700,000 jobs since the global crisis in 2009 and 90% of those are full-time positions.
[Translation]
Since 2006, the government has provided nearly $8 billion in new funding for initiatives to support science, technology and the growth of innovative firms. Despite strong policy fundamentals to support innovation in Canada, Canadian businesses do not take full advantage.
Canada continues to lag behind peer countries in terms of overall innovation performance, including private sector investment in research and development and the commercialization of research into products and processes that create high-value jobs and economic growth.
Following a comprehensive review of federal support for research and development by an expert panel led by Thomas Jenkins, the government is committed to a new approach to supporting innovation in Canada by pursuing active business-led initiatives that focus resources on better meeting private sector needs.
In economic action plan 2012, our government announced $1.1 billion over five years to directly support research and development and $500 million for venture capital.
These investments and actions keep our economy strong, create high-quality jobs and ensure that Canada is a premier destination for the world's brightest minds.
Economic action plan 2012 implements important measures that will make it possible to meet the challenges and to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the global economy, while maintaining sustainable social programs and sound public finances for future generations.
[English]
I engaged in significant pre-budget consultations within my community and I continue to consult widely to best serve my constituents. I recently had the honour of speaking with Mr. Kevin Dancey, the national president of the CICA. We discussed the budget. Of course, Mr. Dancey is very interested in serving his community of chartered accountants, and there were three areas that Mr. Dancey singled out and praised.
First, the new tax incentives for innovation, which I have already referenced.
Second, the significant reduction of red tape being undertaken by the government to assist small businesses in particular to create jobs and assist with continued economic growth.
[Translation]
Economic growth is truly necessary.
[English]
Finally, critical to Canada's accounting professions and to many other professions in Canada are the measures being taken by the government's commitment to support improvements to foreign credential recognition.
Economic action plan 2012 was developed with current and future Canadians in mind. It creates new opportunities for the brightest Canadians to create jobs through innovation and fosters long-term financial growth. Its prime focus is on job creation. The economic action plan focuses on economic growth and long-term prosperity. I am very happy to say that it recognizes the importance of support to science, technology and commercialization.
As the global economy changes, I am proud to see Canada remain proactive in preparation for a future of economic prosperity that will benefit our children.
To that end, I am so proud to be associated with a government that not only cares about the right now but cares enough about our future generations to make things possible. We do not just care about giving pensions to pensioners now; we care about making sure that our children and their children will also have those privileges.
I am proud to be associated with a government that is focused on creating jobs for Canadians and on ensuring we have une croissance économique extraordinaire et, franchement, le meilleur du monde and is focused on long-term prosperity.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, Bill C-38 amends the Employment Equity Act so that it no longer applies to federal contracts. Women's groups have been fighting for pay equity for several decades.
Would the member, who has a federal contract, agree to be paid less for her work rather than having equal pay for equal work?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member is aware, but all employees of the House are employees of the federal government and are working for Canadian citizens. We have taken a pay cut for three years. Members of Parliament have taken a pay cut.
Therefore, in answer to her question, I am very proud to do so because we are all doing our part.
[Translation]
We have a plan for economic growth, which is very important. The first part of our plan will create jobs, which is key. The second part of our plan will address economic growth and, as I mentioned in my speech, that is very important for long-term prosperity.
Madam Speaker, I have worked with my Conservative colleague and I know that she really believes what she is saying. By the way, I would like to congratulate her on the continued improvement of her French.
She spoke a great deal about job creation. I would like to know how she reconciles this with, for example, what the Parliamentary Budget Officer told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. He confirmed that the Conservatives' austerity budget will result in the loss of 43,000 jobs and slow the economic recovery, and that the budget and previous cuts together would result in a total loss of 103,000 jobs.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I take pride in her comments about the improvement in my French. That is important to me.
As I mentioned, Canada's economic growth has been tremendous.
[English]
We truly are the envy of the world.
[Translation]
We have been recognized by the International Monetary Fund, and publications such as Forbes magazine, Fortune magazine and The Wall Street Journal have published articles on our economy.
[English]
I will learn how to say this en français very soon, but we are the envy of the world.
[Translation]
We have created more than 700,000 jobs since 2009, which is incredible in this fragile global economy. Some of our counterparts in Europe are grappling with economies that are still too fragile. I am pleased with our approach to job creation and economic growth, but most of all, I am pleased with our current prosperity and the outlook for generations to come.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking today on budget 2012, which is going to be keeping our taxes low and returning Canada to a balanced budget over the medium term, which is good news for Canadians.
Economic action plan 2012 focuses on creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Budget 2012 also demonstrates the Conservative government's strong support for British Columbia through record federal transfer supports for hospitals, schools and other critical services. Transfers totalling over $5.6 billion in 2012-13, represent an increase of over $1 billion from the former Liberal government.
The average hard-working family is paying $3,100 less in taxes under our government. It is also keeping taxes low for small and medium-sized business, and it facilitates the responsible development of Canada's energy and natural resource sector. We will do this without raising taxes and without cutting transfers to the provinces for services that families rely on, like health care and education.
There is more that our government can and will do in the years to come to ensure Canada remains competitive in the world market and provides great opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
The natural resource sector employs more than 760,000 people in communities throughout the country. It is the engine that drives our great nation. Over the next 10 years, 500 major projects, representing $500 billion in new investment, are planned across Canada. In the rich oil sands developments, the Canadian Energy Research Institute estimates that in the next 25 years oil sands growth will support, on average, 480,000 jobs per year in Canada and will add $2.3 trillion to our GDP.
In my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, Teck Resources, the world's second largest producer of metallurgical coal, is expanding to ensure that it is able to keep up with the world demand for steelmaking coal.
We must ensure that the natural resource sector can move forward with projects in a timely and transparent manner, while effectively protecting the environment. With that in mind, our government will focus on four major areas to streamline the review process for major economic projects. We will be making the review process more predictable and timely. We will reduce duplication. We will strengthen environmental protection. We will enhance consultation with aboriginal peoples. With that, we are going to consolidate responsibility for reviews and have fixed beginning-to-end timelines. Panel reviews will be 24 months. NEB hearings will be 18 months. Standard EAs will be 12 months. We will institute a one project, one review process.
There are countless examples of companies having to go through a dual process for a project only to be approved at one level and denied at another. At best, this is extremely frustrating, provides no surety to investors in the project and further bogs down the process.
What are we going to do? We propose to invest $54 million to renew the major projects management office to transform the approvals process for major natural resource projects by shortening the average review time from 4 years to 22 months and improve accountability by monitoring the performance of federal regulatory departments.
We propose to invest $13.6 million over the next two years to support consultation with aboriginal peoples. We want to ensure that their rights and interests are respected and also facilitate discussions on how they can benefit from economic development opportunities.
We propose investing $35.7 million over the next two years to support responsible energy development.
I have heard much about the concern of tanker traffic specific to our west coast. Oil tankers have been moving safely along Canada's west coast since the 1930s; 82 oil tankers arrived at Port Metro Vancouver last year, and over the past five years nearly 200 oil and chemical tankers have visited the ports of Prince Rupert and Kitimat. They all did so safely.
Tankers in Canada must comply with the safety and environmental protection requirements of international conventions, and they must also comply with Canada's marine safety regulatory regime. This includes double hulling of ships, mandatory pilotage, regular inspections and aerial surveillance.
We propose to invest $13.5 million over the next two years to strengthen pipeline safety. We will do this by increasing the number of inspections on oil and gas pipelines from 100 to 150, and we will double the number of annual comprehensive audits from three to six, to identify issues before incidents happen. Why? Because we value the importance of economic stewardship. We want our natural resource sector to continue to be the safest and most environmentally responsible in the world.
Our government also recognizes that in order for our business sector to flourish, we must open new markets for it. That is why we will continue to explore free trade agreements with countries around the world. It is the best way for Canada to grow its economy and create jobs.
Our Conservative government recognizes the importance of clean energy and the opportunities available to those who wish to explore this avenue. As such, under the capital cost allowance regime in the income tax system, class 43.2 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Regulations, we will provide an accelerated CCA rate for investment in specified clean energy generation and conservation equipment. Here are some examples: using a renewable energy source such as wind, solar and small hydro; using fuels from waste such as landfill gas, wood waste and manure; and making efficient use of fossil fuels such as in high-efficiency cogeneration systems, which simultaneously produce electricity and useful heat.
This is an exciting opportunity for communities across Canada to look at investing in cogeneration plants that can create electricity and heat from solid waste, as it is something that every community across Canada must deal with on a daily basis. It opens up opportunities for companies across Canada to expand in new technology, which will benefit Canadians for generations to come.
Finally, I am extremely pleased that our government will invest $150 million over the next two years to support repairs and improvements to existing community facilities. This will be done under the community infrastructure improvement fund. As a former mayor, I can say that keeping community facilities updated is vitally important to ensure they can be used in a safe and efficient manner. Every community in Canada can benefit from this program, and in turn it will promote healthy and vibrant cities and towns from coast to coast to coast.
This touches on just a small portion of the economic action plan 2012. I am proud to be part of a government that continues to focus on jobs, growth and the economy. This is what Canadians want us to do: be responsible, forward-thinking and prudent.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my Conservative colleague, I would like to point out a glaring contradiction in his speech. He just said that the budget seeks to reduce conflicts between environmental assessments, but Bill C-38 does exactly the opposite by allowing cabinet to overrule the National Energy Board's assessments. The NEB approves or rejects projects, but cabinet could overrule those decisions. What is more, Bill C-38 limits the review timelines for the NEB and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. That is serious. Canadians need more safety, not less.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, one project, one review. It is what I have heard from my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia with Teck Resources, who go through a number of these every year. One project, one review for the oil sands, one project, one review for all natural resources.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives truly want to ensure that all Canadians live in prosperity, then how do they explain that there is nothing in the budget for social housing when everyone knows that the gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, by creating jobs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and not only the natural resources sector, but other sectors across this great land, we will be able to provide greater transfers to the provinces to allow those provinces to work with social housing and to assist those who need it.
I believe that by creating jobs it will do what the hon. member asked for.
Mr. Speaker, representing British Columbia, I would like the member to tell members of the opposition why they should consider voting for the bill. When it comes to our environment, one project, one plan, because of how important it is for the pipeline to go through northern Alberta and British Columbia.
I would like him to expand on how important that is for our economy.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to everyone in British Columbia, not only for the Enbridge pipeline but for all natural resource projects in British Columbia to move forward. It is vastly important, not only to British Columbians, but all Canadians because of the amount of jobs that will be created. It is an awesome opportunity for everyone across this country.
I believe that when Canadians see how much opportunity is available in British Columbia, they will come, they will work, they will create families there and they will be able to do a lot of things that make Canadians prosper.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member had to say. His interests are no different from mine or anybody else's in wanting people to have access to good jobs.
I wonder if he would comment on the fact that in the government's haste to create good jobs is the effect of taking away of the Fisheries Act or the environmental assessment legislation to sufficiently guard against the soiling, the contamination of rivers, streams, air and land that will not be fixed for generations. Is that not a distance too far to go in our haste to create a few jobs in the short term?
Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia, as well as across Canada, we have some of the greatest environmental assessment processes in place. I do not believe at all that by eliminating what we are about to do that we would jeopardize anything in any type of recognition of assessment.
I believe the EA process is one of the best in the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that the Conservatives could present a bill that is 421 pages long and then limit debate to the bare minimum. It is clear they want to pass this bill quickly, but does that not suggest that perhaps they are afraid of the public's reaction to the bill if we were to take the time to properly examine it?
I have examined this bill thoroughly and I can assure you that I have never seen such a hodgepodge in the House of Commons. In true Conservative style, this document is not at all what it claims to be: rather than a budget implementation bill, it is a bit of a free pass for businesses and politicians who have no use for transparency.
Bill C-38 is much more than just an omnibus bill, like those we have become accustomed to with these Conservatives. This bill constitutes a brutal and unreasonable seizure of power that leaves Canadians unable to challenge any of it. We are therefore very surprised as we watch this government getting rid of anything that could limit the damage caused by its blind ideology. After taking a laissez-faire approach for so long, now they want to dismantle everything.
This bill ridicules the institutions of the very government that introduced it. Is that not ironic?
We have already seen the Conservative government's bias in favour of employers in certain disputes, for instance, those involving Air Canada and Canada Post. However, this government does not seem to care at all about well-paid, stable jobs for Canadians, because this new bill will cause even more poverty.
This government is allergic to basic rights and has restricted the right of free association by giving a minister—a minister, mind you—the power to veto collective agreements.
In other words, this government thinks it is okay to scuttle a good-faith negotiation between two parties to further a partisan and ideological political agenda. That applies to all workers. In addition, a significant number of federal government workers will also be affected: women.
I have fought for women's rights for 40 years. There are no words strong enough to describe how angry I was when I realized that the government no longer intended to make its contracts compliant with the Employment Equity Act. The Conservatives seem to believe that father knows best and a woman's place is in the home. All the historic progress we have made toward achieving equality is being recast as purely cosmetic.
Women have the right to be treated fairly, and trying to make women pay the price for the government's penny-pinching is downright disgraceful. How can the government justify such an irresponsible decision?
By so doing, the Conservatives are saying that feminist struggles, which were particularly successful in Quebec, were simply a glitch in history's patriarchal plan. Well, that is not how I see this country and I am certain that many of my fellow Canadians agree with me.
While the Conservatives are throwing the door wide open to privatization, I am saying that we are soon going to take over this government and give the control and the benefits back to Canadians. This government, which seems to work harder for shareholders, has gone too far this time. Canadians are not fools and they can see that the Conservatives are trying to deceive them.
And what is all this for? Over a third of this giant bill is dedicated to doing away with environmental protection measures in a clear path that goes from the plains to the Pacific Ocean, where the Conservatives hope to get a share of Asia's wealth. What a plan.
Promoting the economy is not a bad thing in and of itself. However, Canada used the approach of putting all its eggs in one basket for too long for us to want to go back to it.
Focusing all our energy on oil can only lead to a historic dead end of monumental proportions. It is a well-known fact that the wealth of economies that depend on a single resource is short lived and poorly distributed.
In any case, sustainable development is not of interest to this government, which is also doomed to be unsustainable. The champions of “bigger and better” will end up realizing that irreversible climate change has already begun to transform things.
Although some believe that they are in the Texas of the 1950s, I would like us to be rooted in 21st century Canada.
In terms of the environment, it is not surprising to learn that the Conservatives intend to broaden the definition of prohibited political activities for environmental groups, but only so they can place more restrictions on these groups.
While this government cozies up to oil companies and eliminates all the so-called legislative constraints with respect to the environment, it is also limiting the fundamental right of freedom of expression for hundreds of Canadian groups.
Do Canadians who have been given the right to assemble under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and who choose to express their opinions, again by virtue of this Charter, not have the right to enjoy the full benefits of their citizenship?
On another matter, Bill C-38 confirms what we already knew: Rights & Democracy will be abolished. It was obviously an embarrassment to this government to support an organization that was neutral, independent and dedicated to the cause of democracy. Totalitarian governments, oil dynasties and, worse, communist dictatorships do not favour the independence of institutions. Have the Conservatives become communists?
For the Conservatives, it is all about the open market, except for matters under state control, which they manage with an iron fist. The Conservatives seem quite motivated to give more and more arbitrary powers to their ministers. That is the case for the Minister of Health, who will now be able to approve certain products without having them go through the usual inspection process, which is supposed to take place with any imported product.
Based on the government's priorities, Canadians' health has taken a back seat to profitability. But who will benefit from this profitability? When we consider that so much freedom is being given to business and so little to the people, we are justified in wondering who this government is working for. The answer is obvious.
More proof that this government does not care about well-paid jobs is that it thought it would be a good idea to enshrine in this bill the possibility of allowing 2,500 foreign workers to fill highly specialized positions in Canada and then leave again. Now the government wants to contract out Canadian citizenship.
Neo-liberalism loves outsourcing because it sets workers in a race to the lowest wages. This government has taken that to a new level. If it cannot outsource our resources, then it will import workers. Importing workers means the commodification of human beings by virtue of an ideology that would eliminate all trade barriers, but add many barriers to life for the general public.
With the Conservatives, it is law and order for the people and anarchy for big business. It was not enough for the Conservative government to considerably reduce the powers of the Auditor General and to completely get rid of the Inspector General of CSIS, who was getting in the way of its agenda; now the government is opening the door to privatizing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
In other words, by playing with alliances and subsidiaries, a business could wind up doing its own inspections. Is that the kind of rigour that Canadians deserve? In addition to the Conservatives' devious behaviour and their refusal to submit their bill to thorough examination, we also see a threat to freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, transparency and oversight.
While perhaps not an outright coup d'état, this bill places Canada on a dangerous path towards dictatorship. This bill's shortsighted short-term vision is eclipsed only by the long-term, harmful effects it will have. We all want a prosperous economy, but that should not be a government's only goal, since a government has many roles to play. There are many important responsibilities that only a responsible government can assume with authority. Otherwise, it would be too easy.
With this bill, the Conservative government is undermining its own legitimacy and giving up on what it sees as inevitable. It is high time that this government started showing some leadership and did us the honour of behaving like a real government for this orphan country. Instead, it seems to be doing everything in its power to destroy our institutions, sully our international reputation and shoot down everything that reflects basic common sense.
The Conservatives do not think like us. They spend. They spend money on prisons, on F-35s and on $16 glasses of orange juice, yet they slash away at the very essence of our democratic way of life. It makes no sense. This government already looks old, used up, wasteful and tired. It seems incapable of assuming the most basic responsibilities towards the public. The government must always remember this: Canadians are not fools. No, we are not fools.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. I think she raised a number of interesting points that I agree with.
I am very concerned about the fact that the government is using its budget and its omnibus bill to attack environmental institutions. For example, it has significantly weakened protection provided by the Fisheries Act, including fish habitat protection. I think that is a mistake. In the long term, industries will suffer because of this government's obsession with abolishing all possible restrictions preventing companies from doing things like building pipelines across rivers. In the long term, that will cause tremendous economic harm to people who depend on natural resources such as fisheries.
Is my colleague as concerned as I am about the way this omnibus bill attacks environmental institutions and laws?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a very good point.
Yes, I am very worried about our environment and about fish. Obviously, if our rivers and oceans are polluted, we will not have any fish to eat, nor other creatures, such as shellfish, because they will be too contaminated by chemicals such as petroleum. That is why we must protect our environment. That is the only way to ensure our food sovereignty.
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her incredible and passionate speech.
She was saying that she has advocated for women's rights in her riding and in Quebec for a long time. I would like to know to what extent this budget does not meet the needs of the public and, by extension, the needs of women.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.
Yes, I have been working for 40 years to advance the status of women, not to have it move backward. I did this work at an association in Quebec.
With regard to pay equity, this is another step backward. We are once again regressing. However, it is important to know that it is not only the situation of women that will be regressing, but also that of single mothers, who will have less income when they retire.
It is very important to achieve pay equity because, if not, women will still be poor at age 67.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments but under this government's leadership Canadians are better off.
Parents are recognized for the investments they make in their children's sports and arts. I had a group of seniors here from Aurora this week. When they visited Parliament Hill they thanked us for allowing the pension income splitting , because many of them are now able to stay in their own homes.
I know that constituents in Newmarket—Aurora are very pleased with the fact that our government has created over 700,000 net new jobs across the country.
This budget continues these kinds of investments in Canadians, creating opportunities for the next generation. We consulted across the country. When will the NDP get on board with the rest of Canadians?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.
That is certainly not what I personally am hearing in my riding and it is not what I am hearing from my NDP colleagues. Back home, people are concerned and do not know how they are going to pay their rent or make their mortgage payments.
They are concerned about having to retire at 67 when they may no longer be able to work at 63 or 65. I am thinking, for example, of those who work in construction or of women who spend their days on their feet behind a cash register at a business of some sort. They are very concerned.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to highlight some of the key measures in Bill C-38, our government's plan to legislate economic action plan 2012, which will, undoubtedly, help to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.
Economic action plan 2012 contains numerous measures that would benefit Canadians, and I will highlight a few today. Today I will talk about something that is very imperative for any politician. As I stand here today and speak in the House of Commons, New Brunswick is in the midst of a municipal election. Members are probably wondering why I am raising this today. I have had the opportunity in the last weeks and months to speak to various organizations throughout my riding and, undoubtedly, the municipal election came up.
The comments that I provide with respect to the municipal election are that when people are approached by candidates looking for their support, they should ask what it is the candidates see as priorities for the communities and what they will focus on if they are elected. I believe that it is very important for governments to outline very clearly what it is they will focus on, what they see as priorities and that they listen to the people they represent and understand very clearly what the priorities of the people are.
I have had the benefit, pleasure and honour of serving at all three levels of government in this great country. I have been elected to municipal office, provincial office and now I serve in a federal capacity. I believe that when we ask for support, we should outline very clearly what it is we will focus on if we are elected. Our government has done that. It has been very clear. Members are probably wondering where I am going with this. We are very clear when we talk about the need to ensure federal transfers to the provinces. The provinces are the lifeblood of our country, the very fabric of our federation. We have had governments in the past that have broken that trust, tattered the fabric and have brought great concern to the general public.
I speak from experience when I talk about how important federal transfers are to the provinces. I speak from experience in the province of New Brunswick where its federal transfers will be in excess of $2.5 billion through this budget and economic action plan 2012. Why do I highlight this? It is because it is important that Canadians, New Brunswickers and the people of my riding of Saint John, New Brunswick know and understand that our government feels that this is a priority. Our government is committed to this priority because Canadians have told us that it is a priority. We will maintain that trust and certainly continue to grow the transfers. We have done that every year that we have been in office and in every budget that we have brought forward. This is not by chance or happenstance.
Many members in the chamber have had the same experiences I have. The Minister of Finance was a provincial politician before he came to this great House. The member for West Nova was the minister of finance for the Province of Nova Scotia and he understands. Many members in our caucus understand how important these transfers are to maintaining the services that our constituents in our provinces depend upon. It is very important that we maintain these transfers so that the Province of New Brunswick, in my case, is able to provide the health care and education programs that the people of New Brunswick desire, require, depend upon and have come to rely on our government and the provincial government for.
I did not come to this realization by just walking into this chamber. It comes from the experiences that I have had in my past life, whether in municipal or provincial politics. I served in a government that was very clear and focused provincially. I served with a premier who laid out priorities and strategies to the electorate and stayed very true to them. In my lifetime, he was the only premier in New Brunswick's history to deliver seven consecutive surpluses and the only premier in that province to ever pay down debt. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am 48 years old. That is a long time. That is a huge commitment. However, that shows that when a government is prepared to focus on the priorities, it can achieve what it set out to do.
We have had governments in the past. We have had Liberal governments provincially and federally that did not maintain that commitment, did not stay true to their priorities and were not focused. They did not have the same level of respect for the provinces that make this federation great. They tried to balance the books on the backs of the provinces. The results were that we had less health care services in the province of New Brunswick and less money for educational and social programs. Was the federal government of the day concerned about that? No. It was not concerned because it did not see the provinces as a true partner. It did not see the value in the relationship that the provinces and the federal government needed to maintain. We in New Brunswick suffered, Atlantic Canadians suffered and this great nation suffered.
That Liberal government made a choice and today it is paying the price. Canadians did not give the Liberals the trust that they thought they deserved. Canadians put them out of office and put our government into office because we demonstrated that we understood the priorities of Canadians. We understand that Canadians value the relationship between the provinces and the federal government. We respect that and we will maintain it.
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have been very clear in saying that we will not balance the books on the backs of the provinces. We see the provinces and the federal government in a true partnership. They have demonstrated that commitment over and over again.
Just recently the Minister of Finance announced that we will see health transfers continue to grow by 6% for the next five years and 3% at a minimum beyond that based on economic growth. That is an increase in health care transfers. That is quite the contrast to the days when the Liberal Party ruled this House. It did not understand how important it was for Canadians to see that partnership and its value.
I know my time is running short so I will talk about how important it is that we maintain this relationship. However, I also want to ensure that people know that this budget demonstrates very clearly that we value that relationship, that we understand the priorities of Canadians, that we are focused on those priorities and that we will deliver when it comes to jobs, growth and true prosperity. We will deliver for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on my hon. colleague's mention of transparency. I certainly appreciate his point. I appreciate governments that are transparent.
However, I will focus specifically on one of the many changes that will happen as a result of the budget implementation bill, and that is the changes to the Fisheries Act. I submit that these changes will be huge. The fact that nobody knows about these changes and that nobody was consulted on them poses the question about how transparent the government has been with respect to one aspect. I know that 70 amendments to legislation have been included in this budget, most of which are non-finance related, including changes to the Fisheries Act, without consultation.
Would my hon. colleague comment with respect to those changes, especially with regard to the lack of transparency around those changes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question, but I wonder if he listened to my speech at all, because I did not talk about transparency but about a focus on priorities. I spoke about how we as a government are very focused on the priorities of Canadians.
Canadians have told us very clearly that they want to see economic growth and long-term prosperity, and we are taking the steps that are necessary to ensure economic growth and long-term prosperity.
That is what I am trying to say here today: that we are focused and that we are committed to ensuring that Canadians get the government they want.
Mr. Speaker, our colleague for Saint John spoke about his service in the New Brunswick legislature, where he served in the cabinet of a friend of mine, Bernard Lord.
In light of his service in the provincial government, he would undoubtedly be aware of a very important institution in Kent County, the Hervé Michaud agricultural research station. It is an experimental farm operated by the Government of Canada that has, unfortunately, been slated to close.
World-class scientists, people like Dr. Jean-Pierre Privé, have come to New Brunswick and have done world-class research, particularly with respect to small fruits such as strawberries and berries. They have developed a working relationship with local producers; as an example, my colleague representing Saint John will know La Récolte de Chez Nous, which brings together local producers. Very small local producers have developed a partnership with this experimental farm. They are very concerned that the loss of that farm and that research will have very negative effects on their ability to compete as a local agricultural industry.
I wonder if my colleague for Saint John would cast his mind a little east of Saint John and think of these poor farmers in Kent County that his government appears to be abandoning.
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows full well, in my time in government in New Brunswick I was the minister of agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture, so I know full well what the member speaks of here today.
However, if the hon. member had been paying attention to my comments here today, he would know that we are talking about priorities. The member supported the previous government in New Brunswick, which had the ideology that we could be all things to all people. However, if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.
That is what we had. We had a government in New Brunswick that gave us the largest growth in the debt of the Province of New Brunswick in four short years. It was because they had no priorities, because they were not focused. In four short years we saw a $3 billion increase in the debt of the Province of New Brunswick. We will not repeat those mistakes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition of Bill C-38. As the Conservatives' first budget as a majority government, the budget implementation act serves as a road map to the government's priority for these four years. Let me say that the future does not look very green.
The biggest theme I drew from this budget is the government's focus on large industrial projects as the key to Canada's economic success. Behind the guise of such words as “streamlining” and “modernization”, the government is stripping away long-standing protections for our environment from short-sighted, unsustainable development projects such as, for instance, the Enbridge pipeline proposal.
One-third of the budget implementation act is dedicated to gutting environmental laws that protect Canada's fisheries, rivers, oceans and ecosystems. With the stroke of a pen, the government would eliminate decades of progress, condemning future generations to deal with its mess.
I would like to speak on the changes to the Fisheries Act the Conservative government is attempting to sneak through in this Trojan Horse budget implementation act. These changes are an undemocratic and egregious abuse of power that would do permanent harm to the ecosystem and to Canada's fisheries.
Let us make no mistake: these are radical and dangerous changes. Rather than prohibiting the harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of fish habitat, it would narrow habitat protection to apply to those activities that would harm “...fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery”. The Conservative government does not seem to understand the concept of an ecosystem or biodiversity. If the Conservatives did, they would know that they cannot protect only one species of fish and forsake the others.
The Conservatives would like Canadians to think that they care about creating jobs, yet Western Economic Diversification Canada would be cut by $16.3 million by 2015. Our economy in western Canada is still facing economic challenges, and we need Western Economic Diversification Canada to assist in the development of new industry and jobs. Downturns in commodity prices generally lead to volatility in western Canada, particularly in forestry, agriculture and manufacturing. Canada's New Democrats believe we should invest more in research and development, encourage more participation by aboriginal peoples and get people properly trained for jobs for the future.
For months I have heard from constituents who are furious with the government for raising the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67. Canadians understand that our demographics are changing, but these negative changes to OAS are motivated not by statistics but by ideology.
Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and the old age security program is sustainable in the long term. Seniors who would be hit hardest by these changes are those who have worked all their lives for modest incomes at jobs that often take a toll on their bodies. Instead of raising the age of retirement, Canada's New Democrats continue to put forward practical solutions that would strengthen Canadians' retirement security. We propose working with the provinces to increase CPP, with the goal of eventually doubling benefits. We also propose increasing the guaranteed income supplement. This measure alone would immediately lift every senior in Canada out of poverty.
I have also heard from constituents who believe that the government's move to eliminate all funding for Katimavik is short-sighted. Past participants have written to me to describe the multitude of economic and social benefits that this program brings to communities across Canada. The government's cuts to youth programming come at a time when the youth unemployment rate in Canada remains at over 14%. That is double the national average.
Budget 2012 also outlines millions of dollars in cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, including the elimination of 100 food inspection positions. Canada's New Democrats are calling for the reversal of these cuts so that Canadian consumers can be assured that their food is safe to eat.
Despite repeated election promises to maintain support for our public broadcaster, the Conservatives are cutting CBC's budget by almost 10%. These deep cuts will result in significant programming cuts and hundreds of jobs lost. More troubling is the government's move to weaken the public pillars of Canadian culture rather than to invest in a more vibrant, innovative and creative future.
In my riding, constituents remain concerned about chronic overcrowding in the ERs of Royal Columbian Hospital and Eagle Ridge Hospital, as well as long surgery wait times and expensive prescription costs. They look to their federal government to provide leadership by enforcing national health care standards and implementing long-awaited reforms. Instead, the government seems more concerned with downloading responsibilities to the provinces and territories, which will inevitably result in increasing disparities in the quality of health care among the provinces and territories.
Small businesses are also looking to the federal government for leadership. While I was pleased to see that budget 2012 extended the hiring credit for small businesses, more needs to be done to ensure small and medium-sized businesses continue to be the job-creating engine of our economy. I have been consulting with small businesses in my riding; they overwhelmingly support an overhaul to regulations governing credit card processing fees. It is time to make the system more fair and more transparent.
I have heard from constituents who continue to be frustrated by the lack of adequate public transportation infrastructure in our communities. While the federal government continues to ignore this vital issue, cities across our country lack a mechanism for sustainable, predictable and long-term funding. Canada's New Democrats propose a national public transit strategy as well as immediately allocating another cent of the existing gas tax to public transit funding for municipalities.
Let us focus on getting more cars off the road and reducing commuter-caused pollution by ensuring municipalities have the tools they need to build public transit systems that are forward-thinking and that contribute to building healthy, sustainable communities.
While our economy is said to be in recovery, many Canadians remain unemployed or underemployed. The majority of Canadians live paycheque to paycheque and work hard to make their monthly budgets balance. Those who are close to retirement are worried about the security of their pensions and are upset at the government for mandating them to spend two additional years of their lives working.
As managers of the public purse, the Conservatives have shrunk national revenues by slashing the corporate tax rate to 15% and subsidizing the heavily polluting and highly profitable oil and gas sector. On the other hand, in the past few weeks Canadians have learned more about the Conservative government's secretive plan to spend some $30 billion on F-35 fighter jets, as opposed to the $10 billion figure quoted by the Conservatives in the last election.
Canada's New Democrats believe the Conservatives' spending priorities are out of line with the priorities of Canadians, which include ensuring the viability of the public services Canadians rely on, such as universal public health care, a strong pension system, affordable advanced education and a healthy environment.
It is time to address the growing inequality we see in our schools, our neighbourhoods and our cities. It is time to stop sacrificing the long-term economic, environmental and social health of our country in order to achieve short-term economic gains.
Budget 2012 makes it clear that the majority Conservative government has no intention of addressing these pressing issues. I will be voting against the implementation of budget 2012, and in doing so, I believe I will be reflecting the majority views of my constituents.
Mr. Speaker, one of the parts of the budget is a program that will help small communities and small community centres. This program was particularly popular during the RInC program. Western Economic Diversification was key to delivering that program, so the moneys flowed through my department. The NDP voted against that program and has stayed firm on that. The member is saying today that he is going to vote against our budget.
The Department of Western Economic Diversification is again going to be delivering a program that would help small communities. Part of budget 2012 helps small businesses. Small businesses have not only asked for credit card regulations but have also asked that they be streamlined and made more efficient.
Is the member going to tell his constituents that he will be voting against some of the very programs and projects that his riding would benefit from?
Mr. Speaker, I will tell my constituents that I cannot support the budget and the priorities within it. While there may be some good things in it, it is overshadowed by the overwhelming things that are not good for Canadians. I point to 70 amendments to legislation that are not even related to the budget. That alone should be worth not supporting the budget.
However, in terms of western economic diversification, there will be a $16 million cut to that department by 2015. If we are looking at investing in western Canada, we can start by investing in western economic diversification, and that is not the kind of investment I support.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.
I would like to hear more about the consequences of abolishing the Katimavik program and, above all, environmental monitoring programs. We know very well that climate change is a serious concern for a majority of Canadians.
I imagine that my colleague could give us more details about the demise of Katimavik and all the benefits of this program for Canadian youth.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of constituents and others who have written to me about their experience with Katimavik. One person wrote a letter to the editor, which was very insightful in terms of the economic impacts as a result of the visit of the Katimavik program to Yukon and the economic spinoff from the people in the program who went there. They participated and helped not only the community, but they spent money in the shops and on services.
She did an interesting calculation that showed the economic spinoff of those participants in that one area in that short period of time, then calculated all the projects in all areas across Canada. It is a tremendous benefit to the country, just in economies alone, not to mention the social impacts of the cultural exchange across Canada, as well as the knowledge gained by young people at a time in life when they make transitions and important decisions.
I am sure I will run out of time to talk about the environmental changes in the bill. One-third of the 450 or so pages of the bill are dedicated to weakening or changing the environmental protections to the Fisheries Act, to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and to many other important legislation. That alone is why I cannot support the BIA.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act as this legislation is vital to the implementation of the economic action plan 2012.
Economic action plan 2012 is a positive plan that will ensure Canada's economy remains strong. It is already forecasted to be at the head of the pack for economic growth in the G7 in the years ahead by both the independent International Monetary Fund and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
In the words of former Liberal finance minister John Manley, current president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives:
Budget 2012 builds on our country’s reputation for fiscal responsibility, while at the same time establishing a more positive environment for private sector investment and growth.
In my time today I would like to focus on the necessary adjustments today's bill would make to the old age security program, or OAS, to ensure its long-term sustainability.
In 1952 the old age security program was launched, and I think we can all agree it was a very different world. At the time, life expectancy was significantly lower than it is today. Government policy-makers built the program around the understanding that seniors would be collecting OAS for only a few years after retirement. They also assumed there would always be a sufficient number of younger workers to finance OAS benefits through taxes. Because of these two assumptions, they were confident that the cost of the OAS system would continue to be manageable.
Those policy-makers could not have predicted 60 years ago the rise in longevity or the fall in our birth rates. They could not have anticipated how these two trends would threaten the sustainability of the OAS program. Let me be clear. This is not an issue of how much money will be saved, but rather whether the OAS program will be sustainable over the long term.
We want to ensure these benefits will be there for future generations when they need them. According to the World Health Organization, average life expectancy in Canada is one of the highest in the world. It is now almost 81 years, and it is increasing. Already one in seven Canadians is over the age of 65 and in 25 years nearly one in four Canadians will be a senior. The number of basic OAS pension beneficiaries is expected to grow from $4.7 million in 2010 to $9.3 million by 2030.
Canadians can be rightfully proud of our public pension system, which has been influential in dramatically reducing the incidence of poverty among seniors and enhancing their dignity and independence. As I said, the world has changed. When I say the world, I mean every country.
The demographic trends we are seeing in Canada are occurring all over the globe. Life expectancy is rising and birth rates are dropping. Population aging is happening more quickly in industrialized nations, which is why many of those countries have already moved to adapt their retirement support programs to account for this new reality.
In most cases, industrialized nations are raising the age of eligibility for retirement benefits, as this is the simplest and most effective way to ensure the sustainability of the program. Of the 34 nations in the OECD, 22 have made or will make the kinds of changes we have now proposed. Thankfully, because of the strong economic leadership of our Conservative government, Canada has the fiscal room to bring in these changes over a longer period of time.
Our government has pointed out that by 2030 there will only be two working age Canadians for every retired Canadian. If we do not adjust OAS, those two working age Canadians will support the tax burden that is currently shared by four working age Canadians.
Times change and government policies and programs must change with them. I would ask the NDP members to pay close attention to the words of Keith Ambachtsheer, director of the Rotman International Centre for Pension Management. He said:
You can't put your head in the sand...When you look at the underlying economics of what's going on...It's perfectly logical in a general sense to say, yes we're going to have to look at all social programs because of these demographics that are baked into the pie. There should be nothing surprising about that.
This is why we are making modern changes to OAS to strengthen it for the future.
We will gradually increase the age of eligibility for OAS and the guaranteed income supplement benefits from 65 to 67. This change will start in April 2023, with full implementation by January 2029, and will not affect anyone who is 54 years of age or older as of March 31 of this year. We owe it to future generations to leave them a solid OAS program and an affordable tax burden. We understand that we have to make these changes in a sensible way. That is why these changes do not apply to seniors or near seniors, and there will be no reduction in benefits to seniors.
We are also making other significant positive reforms to OAS through today's act. To improve flexibility and choice in the OAS program, starting on July 1, 2013, we will allow for the voluntary deferral of the OAS pension for up to five years, allowing Canadians the option of deferring take-up of their OAS pension to a later time and receiving a higher actuarially adjusted annual pension.
We are also putting in place a proactive enrollment regime for OAS and GIS to reduce the burden on seniors of completing application processes and reduce the government's administrative costs, a major positive change.
In the words of noted personal finance author, Gordon Pape, writing in the Toronto Star, it is:
—a welcome elimination of bureaucratic red tape that should have the effect of putting a lot more money into the hands of seniors....This means that many people will no longer have to apply for benefits when they turn 65 – the payments will come automatically.... The potential gain for seniors is huge....any change that simplifies the process and gets some of that foregone money into the hands of needy seniors has to be welcome.
Our government is proud of our record with respect to seniors. We have increased the GIS to help Canada's most vulnerable seniors and we increased the GIS earnings exemption. We have provided $2.3 billion annually in additional tax relief to seniors and pensioners. We have abolished the mandatory age of retirement in federally-regulated industries so older people have more choice as to when they retire.
We have increased funding for the new horizons for seniors program to support seniors who want to participate in community projects. We are supporting healthy and active aging through a number of initiatives and we are funding projects to combat elder abuse.
All of these policies and programs will be adapted to meet new needs and circumstances of seniors as they evolve. In the same way, old age security must also adapt to new needs and circumstances. That is why the provisions in today's bill are the right thing to do and why I call on all members to support it.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, what the member just told us does not make sense. The Conservatives want to increase the retirement age from 65 to 67 and are telling people who are 54 that they will be affected, but not those who are 55 to 65. In other words, those who are 63 today will not be affected and will not work until they are 67. We know that, at present, a large portion of the population is between 55 and 65. Most of the aging population is in that demographic.
Why should we punish future generations, 13 years from now, by forcing them to work two years longer when there will be fewer seniors and we will have the revenue to support them?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that it is the future generation on which the government has its eye. We want to ensure we have a sustainable old age security system for future Canadian seniors. At the same time, we recognize it is completely unsustainable to require two future taxpayers to pay for what four taxpayers pay for today.
Clearly, it does not take a masters in mathematics to realize that when the number of people receiving the benefit is doubled and the number of people who are actually paying into that system is halved, that system is simply not sustainable.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the math.
According to the OECD, Canada's old age security benefits represent 4.2% of GDP, whereas the average for OECD countries is 7%, and the figure is much higher in other countries.
Comparing Canada to countries in trouble only throws fuel on the fire and scares people for no reason, because this program is sustainable.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, what I will do is quote from a prominent economist in Canada, Patricia Croft, who says:
(Budget 2012's) initiatives in the job front and addressing the demographic challenge…in both regards I’d have to give the budget probably an 'A'…in a global context, I think Canada is in a fabulous position.
That stands in contrast to the hon. member's remarks. The hon. member suggests that we should going down a road and follow the same path some European countries are following, paths that have led some of those countries dealing with absolutely disastrous circumstances economically, circumstances that will take decades and decades to recover from.
Thankfully we live in Canada which leads the way economically and has a very bright future because of the measures the government has taken.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke of the ability for Canada to enact these changes for sustainability in our old age pension system over a longer period of time because of Canada's relative economic strength. Some of the measures our government has taken over the last six years, including the competitive corporate tax rate, have ensured that economic sustainability leads to this long-term planning ability.
Would my colleague explain some of the measures in budget 2012 that will ensure Canada's long-term prosperity?
Mr. Speaker, because of measures that we have taken over the past six years of government, Canada is the envy of the world economically. Organizations like the International Monetary Fund, the World Economic Forum and the OECD have commented that Canada is leading the way relative to other countries.
The corporate tax rate change the hon. member mentioned, reducing the corporate tax rate from 22% to 15%, is one of the things these commentators have pointed to as an absolutely critical step that has led to that result. We see on the other side suggestions to increase taxes across the board, corporate taxes, taxes on job creators and carbon taxes, a complete 180° from the measures we have taken to put Canada in this enviable position.
I hope that all members will take a really good look at the bill, and not just do what their leaders tell them to do when it comes to voting on the bill, but actually vote in favour of Canada continuing that positive momentum that we have made over the years.
Mr. Speaker, we keep unearthing all these little treasures hidden deep in the bowels of Bill C-38 that we did not even realize were being snuck into this omnibus bill. Now we know why they were put there and their significance.
Bill C-38 repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. This is the construction fair wages act for the federal jurisdiction. For 100 years, we have been fighting for fair wages and working conditions for the construction industry. It is an industry with a transient workforce. Contractors and the like can exploit desperate working people in the construction industry if we do not have regulations that prevent them from doing so. This legislation took wages out of competition so that contractors would win their jobs based on their merits, skills and productivity, not on their ability to find cheaper labour because, by virtue of the fair wages act, it was agreed that it does not benefit anyone.
We have a quaint expression where I come from that “fair wages benefit the whole community”. It is virtuous to have a well-paid, consuming, middle class. It is good for the economy. Driving down the wages of Canadian workers is in no one's best interest. Members would know that the federal government is one of the largest consumers of construction industry services in the country. This act applied to any construction project contracted by the federal government, including military bases, prisons, ports, banking and telecommunications. The Canada Labour Code, which is the federal labour code, applies to all of those including projects that go across provincial borders. What comes to mind when we think about large projects that might span interprovincial borders are pipelines. We have unearthed now that deep within Bill C-38 the federal government has eliminated the fair wages and working conditions that are found in this act. It has completely eradicated that.
The act also states that contractors, whether unionized or non-unionized, have to pay the prevailing wage. This is usually determined by the Minister of Labour by consulting in that area what a normal prevailing wage would be, not the union scale but somewhere in the same living-wage ballpark. As well, it sets the hours of work, including that no construction worker has to work more than 48 hours without time and a half overtime.
All of that has been eradicated. Now, a contractor can bid on one of these federal jobs and post a job notice saying “Wanted: Carpenters, $8 an hour, 84 hour work week, straight time”. No one will apply for that job, which opens the door to the other side of the coin, to mix a metaphor.
The other side of the coin is that the government has changed the laws for temporary foreign workers again by virtue of recent legislation to the point where a contractor can get temporary foreign workers within 10 days. Where do they come from? They are not some unemployed guys in Bangladesh who notice a job opportunity in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Rather, they come from international labour brokers who are peddling crews of temporary foreign workers all over the world for construction projects. We call them labour pimps. Unfortunately, many of the workers working for these international labour brokers are working in a form of bonded servitude for substandard wages with substandard living, health and safety conditions. Not only are they exploiting those temporary foreign workers, they are also driving down the wage and industry standards of Canadian workers by virtue of these contractors who will undoubtedly win every job.
I know construction. I am a journeyman carpenter. I spent my whole life in construction. I used to be a representative of the carpenters' union. I know the margins that construction contractors play with. There is only 2% or 3% between this bid and that bid. It is very competitive. Contractors who bid a job by pricing out labour at 20% and 30% and 40% lower than their competitors will win every job, every time. They will drive down the prevailing wage, because those other contractors will now have to start bidding lower if they are to ever win a job.
To whose benefit is it to drive down the fair wages of Canadian workers? Let me point out a secondary problem this raises. How are we going to attract bright, young men and women into the building trades if the normal wage is now going to be $8, $9 or $10 an hour instead of the $20 or $30 that it is now? Try feeding a family on $8, $9 or $10 an hour. Nobody in his or her right mind is going to go into that industry. We are going to have temporary foreign workers all over again. This is a recipe for undermining the integrity of the construction industry. I believe it is set up specifically to enable the construction of interprovincial pipelines, which used to be subject to these fair wage standards. It is going to create an open door for contractors to avoid paying fair wages to Canadians and these things are going to be built with temporary foreign workers.
Let me provide a recent example. Unfortunately, the pulp mill in Gold River, British Columbia closed down due to normal market forces. The pulp mill was sold to China. Instead of hiring locals to tear down the pulp mill, the 400 men and women who worked there all their lives and knew every nut and bolt in the place, the mill owner applied for temporary foreign workers. The permit was granted. I have a copy of the application. It asked if the mill tried to find Canadians to do the job. The answer was yes. It asked for the reason it did not hire those Canadians. The answer was that the price was too high. Therefore, it brought in crews of guys from India, who sleep six to a hotel room, to tear down the pulp mill while Canadian workers were outside the fence looking in, wishing they had another 12 weeks so they could get a pogey claim at least.
These temporary foreign worker permits are being given away like party favours at Conservative Party conventions to anybody who asks for them. Now the rules have been changed to make it a 10-day turnaround. A company posts an ad in the paper saying carpenters are wanted for $8 an hour, no overtime, no benefits. Nobody applies for the job. Within 10 days, that company has a crew from an international labour broker pimp who is going to provide all the manpower for that job.
Another example is the Winnipeg international airport. Winnipeg is very proud of its airport. Why is it that unemployed Canadian carpenters were outside the fence watching a crew of temporary foreign workers build that airport? It is simple. It asked the government for it. The crew consisted of 80 guys from Lebanon. The last job they came from was in Latvia, where they built another big concrete job. These guys are moved all over the world because it is cheaper than paying Canadians a fair wage. Companies would rather pay foreign nationals, not landed immigrants but foreign nationals, our wages. They are eating our lunches, and those jobs should be going to Canadians.
As if there were not enough to criticize in Bill C-38, the government has just repealed the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. It makes one wonder what kind of a government is opposed to fair wages for Canadian workers. How many trusting blue-collar workers look to their government for support, not to undermine their living conditions? In its zeal to smash the unions, the government is dragging down the standard of living for the largest-employing industry sector in the country: the construction industry.
I know who is behind it: the merit shop contractors. They are regular and frequent visitors in the PMO. They went to the PMO and said, “It would be really great if we could win all the jobs. We win some of the jobs now, but it would be great if we could win all the jobs”. The government asked, “How can we help you?” They said, “Just eliminate the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act and then we can offer whatever wages we want, with no restrictions and no controls”.
It used to be that companies had to pay employees time and a half after 48 hours when they should have been paying them time and a half after 40 hours, but that was not good enough. Now they do not have to pay time and a half at all. Minimum wage is the only prevailing wage now, and I mean the provincial minimum wage, on these projects. It is destructive and counterproductive.
It is in nobody's best interest to ratchet down the wages and working conditions of Canadian workers. It is bad for the economy. The government says it is doing these things because it is good for the economy. What is good for the economy are well-paid, consuming, middle-class workers who are buying cars, houses and jeans for their kids, not people who are driven into the poorhouse by their government.
Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the performance of my thespian friend from Winnipeg. I would like to make a connection to something his boss said, who is in favour of shutting down the oil sands. I would like to make the connection between the oil sands and the manufacturing industry in Ontario that he cares so much about, which I applaud, and the construction industry across the country.
Talking about cars and toys for kids, if his boss had his way and shut down the oil sands, there would be nobody in Alberta buying the cars that nobody in Ontario would be making. There would be no workers building, not just in Alberta but in other parts of the country. Could he make that connection for me?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is making stuff up. Nobody has ever said that he or she will shut down the oil sands. People have said that they would develop the oil sands in a responsible and environmentally sustainable way.
Here is a fact that maybe my colleague does not know. I will bet dollars to donuts that he does not know that Bill C-38 repeals the fair wages act. I also bet that he does know that fully 30% of all the jobs created in this country from 2007 to today have been filled by temporary foreign workers, not by Canadians, and not just in high-paying jobs but at Tim Hortons and as chambermaids in hotels. Canadians are not taking those jobs because of their lousy wage. Maybe if people paid a living wage, Canadians would apply for those jobs.
Temporary foreign workers is not a human resources strategy. It is the polar opposite of a human resources strategy. It is admitting defeat.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech, which focused on workers' quality of life. In speaking of workers' quality of life, the hon. member spoke a lot about contributing to the economy.
I would like him to say a few words about the fact that contributing to the economy can go hand in hand with sustainable development and respecting the environment and workers' health.
A study shows that in the United States, corporations have invested roughly $26 billion in green energies and technologies in order to adapt to climate change. They have earned up to $533 billion. For every dollar invested, they have earned $20, all while working toward preventing pollution-related respiratory disease.
What should the government do to improve the health of workers and contribute to the economy at the same time?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a compelling point.
When I was head of the carpenters union, I conducted a study that showed that job creation through energy conservation actually employed as much as seven times the number of people as the extraction of energy production. A unit of energy harvested from the existing system through the demand side management is indistinguishable from a unit of energy created at a generating station, except that it is available at about one-third the cost, creates seven times the person-years in employment, does not create greenhouse gases and it is available online immediately. In other words, as soon as one turns a light switch off, the unit of energy one saves is available to resell to someone else at the same moment instead of six, eight or ten years to build a new generating station.
The way of the future, the largest single source of energy in the country, is that energy wasted in the current system. Harvesting that energy out of the current system would put more people to work and would be more sustainable than the extraction option that we seem to be reliant on today.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House this afternoon and speak to the important investments and reforms our government is making in budget 2012. Economic action plan 2012 is squarely focused on what matters to Albertans and all Canadians: valuable new jobs and sustainable economic prosperity.
We are moving forward with a stable plan to encourage long-term economic growth and job creation by maintaining our focus on supporting entrepreneurs, business innovators and world-class researchers.
Alberta understands the importance of business innovation. Alberta's cities and rural communities are home to some of the world's most innovative companies and research institutions.
[Translation]
Our government is committed to fostering an economic climate that encourages business innovation. Business innovation is increasingly vital to maintaining our international competitiveness and our excellent standard of living.
Economic action plan 2012 contains over $1.1 billion in significant investments for research and development and $500 million for venture capital and for increased public and private research collaboration.
[English]
This direct investment will support private sector business projects that will develop new and innovative technologies demanded in the global market.
Our government will help increase the number of persons employed in high-paying research and development fields and will ensure long-term growth by enabling innovative Canadian companies to thrive in an increasingly competitive and global business environment.
In addition to strategic investments, our government is also committed to improving conditions for business investment. Our government will bring forward legislation to implement across the board changes to achieve the goal of one project, one review in a clearly defined time period.
This includes system-wide legislative improvements to the review process for major economic projects, which will establish clear timelines, reduce duplication and regulatory burdens and focus resources on large projects where the potential environmental impacts are the greatest.
In addition, Western Economic Diversification Canada will be launching the western innovation program, which is a new program that provides support to innovative small and medium-sized enterprises in western Canada.
[Translation]
This budget also places a renewed emphasis on cutting red tape and making it easier to do business in Alberta and the rest of Canada. Reducing red tape helps businesses to better compete; it represents a low-cost way to enable economic growth and to boost productivity as Canada emerges from the global recession.
[English]
That is why our government will propose new legislation to modernize and streamline its regulatory system.
In addition, economic action plan 2012 proposes $54 million over two years to continue to support effective project approvals through the major projects management office initiative, which has helped to transform and streamline the approval process for major natural resource projects.
Budget 2012's measures build on a strong foundation of investment and support for research and innovation in Edmonton, Alberta and all of Canada. For example, in May 2009, the Government of Canada committed $195 million to the Government of Alberta as part of Canada's economic action plan through the knowledge infrastructure program. These funds facilitated the enhancement of the science degree program at Grant MacEwan University with the building of new and renovated high quality science labs. They helped to build innovative facilities, like the Alternative Energy Centre at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, and helped to upgrade the fume-hood exhaust systems in the chemistry and biological sciences building at the University of Alberta. These upgrades will improve the use and utility of high quality research space, ensuring that students and researchers have the best possible space to learn and conduct their work.
Since 2006, we have provided nearly $8 billion in new funding for initiatives to support science, technology and the growth of innovative firms. With economic action plan 2012, our government would continue to invest in research and innovation in Canada.
Budget 2012 proposes to invest $400 million to help increase private sector investments in early stage risk capital and to support the creation of large scale venture capital funds. Facebook, Google and Research in Motion were all at one time start-up companies financed by venture capital, and we want to help launch the next Canadian business success story.
The western innovation program is another proposal from budget 2012. Western Economic Diversification will soon launch this program to provide financial support to innovative small and medium-sized enterprises in western Canada. Budget 2012 also proposes further supporting advanced research at universities and other leading institutions. Our government plans to invest $500 million over five years to the Canada Foundation for Innovation to support new competitions, including the college industry innovation fund which we will begin funding in 2014.
These commitments demonstrate in concrete ways our government's commitment to following a new approach to supporting advancements in research and innovation by pursuing active, business-led initiatives that focus resources on better addressing the needs of the private sector.
However, we must remember what the lifeblood of our economic engine is. In the Alberta economy, as well as in the rest of Canada, our natural resources have given us a tremendously high quality of life.
[Translation]
These resources have also given jobs to hundreds of thousands of Canadians, which, in the current economic climate, is an extremely important asset. The oil sands in Alberta are merely one of myriad examples of natural resources that have helped to drive the Canadian economy forward with benefits to all provinces and territories.
[English]
In this global economy, we need to make full use of all of the assets at our disposal and, in this great country of ours, our natural resources are certainly one of those. In 2010, the natural resources sectors of our economy employed more than 760,000 Canadians in communities across the country. In the next 10 years, there will be more than 500 new major economic projects totalling $500 million in new investments. The oil sands industry currently employs over 130,000 Canadians and generates wealth that benefits the entire country.
A recent study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute estimates that, over the next 25 years, growth of the oil sands industry will support approximately 480,000 jobs and will add $2.3 trillion to Canada's gross domestic product. In addition to all of this, the increasing global demand for resources, particularly from emerging economies, will create new economic and job opportunities from which all Canadians will benefit.
However, our economy and our people will only benefit from these demands if investments are made by the most important driver in our economy and that is the private sector. We need the private sector, with all of its drive and innovation, to bring these natural resources to market.
Recently, however, those wanting to invest in our resources have faced an increasingly large and tangled web of bureaucratic rules and reviews before being able to bring these resources to market. Such obstacles can add costly delays, deter investors and undermine the economic viability of major projects.
In order to achieve the greatest value possible from our natural resources, Canada needs a regulatory system that reviews projects in a timely and transparent manner while at the same time effectively protecting our environment. We will adopt a balanced and responsible approach to protecting our environment that makes a significant tangible difference but does not transfer Canadian jobs overseas.
That is why in economic action plan 2012 our government proposes to streamline and modernize the review process for major economic projects. As part of our plan, major projects will have fixed timelines, panel reviews will be limited to 24 months, National Energy Board hearings will be limited to 18 months and standard environmental assessments will be held to 12 months in length. This will create clear, certain and predictable timelines for businesses that will lead to quality, well-paying and skilled jobs for Canadians. These measures will reduce duplication and burdensome regulations while focusing resources instead on large projects where the potential environmental impacts are the greatest.
[Translation]
These improvements to the regulatory and approval process will benefit Alberta’s economy and, therefore, Canada’s and will position us competitively for long-term growth and future prosperity.
Canada is a great nation and we are in an excellent fiscal position. Budget 2012 keeps us on track to balance the budget, keep taxes low and create jobs and economic prosperity in the long term.
[English]
Many governments around the world would envy this budget and, if they were in the economic position of Canada, they might be content to rest on their laurels. Not us, not this government. We will not rest. We will continue to work hard to ensure that Canadian businesses, the industrial and educational sectors, are pushing the envelope in each of their respective domains. We will continue to ensure they have the resources and the environment they need to succeed and create jobs, deliver products to market, develop the next cutting edge technological innovation or make revolutionary scientific discoveries.
We will keep working hard as if it all depended on us, and, frankly, it does. Through all of our work, we will keep in mind the model of the Royal Canadian Air Force, which clearly sums up our goals as a government and the economic circumstances we have come through in the past four years: per aspera ad astra, which means “through adversity to the stars”, and if our history and emergence from past adversities is any indication of our future prosperity, Canada's future is very bright indeed.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, can my colleague opposite explain why the Employment Equity Act will no longer apply to federal contracts? I believe this is a direct attack on women, aboriginal people, persons with a disability and visible minorities. Why make this change?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to my colleague that I reject the premise of her question. We are working together in the interests of all Canadians, male, female, aboriginal, white, immigrant or whoever, to unlock the tremendous capacity that Canada has and that Canadian industry has in our scientific, educational, industrial and resource development areas.
We want to make the playing field as level as possible so that everyone from every part of the country can have an equal opportunity to share in the tremendous success that is Canada, and we will not pit one against the other. We want a level playing field for all.
Mr. Speaker, I will read a quote:
In the face of tough fiscal choices, the government showed leadership by continuing its investments in research, innovation, research infrastructure and university-private sector collaborations. These investments will build a stronger future for our society and economy.
This was said by Stephen Toope, the chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada as well as the president of the University of British Columbia.
I share this view. I have a past history working with research administration, and especially our investments in the Canada Foundation for Innovation. I would like to hear from my colleague how he feels that investments in CFI will continue to ensure the development of highly qualified personnel and the continued growth of our economy.
Mr. Speaker, the CFI has been one of the driving forces behind innovation in Canada. Universities are hotbeds of research and development. I am particularly proud of the University of Alberta, which has been leading the way in a lot of areas. The University of Calgary and other great institutions across the country have been a big part of that. Without that kind of innovation, intellectual drive, curiosity and perseverance, Canada would not be the great country it is today. Therefore, I totally agree with the quote that was just read.
I know, from my association with the University of Alberta and the leadership there and in other institutions across the country, they are extremely happy with what the country has done with the economy and the budgets in the last several years because it is unlocking their potential, which will to the benefit all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about the CFI program. It is, indeed, a good program, but the problem that we have had for many years now is that we need funds to operate the infrastructure that we buy. We need to train technical people. That is why there was a program called the MRS program at NSERC, but that was just frozen. It has ended. There is no new money allotted for places like the Brockhouse Institute. Neutron scattering groups will be losing their MRS funding so they will not have the money to use the infrastructure that we have. That is a problem.
Why did the government choose to cut that money?
Mr. Speaker, that is not true. There are various ways to fund things. CFI does have operational funding. In fact, we have given a record amount of money to the tri-granting council to operate those kinds of enterprises. I am hoping that my colleague across the way will see fit to vote in support of that.
Mr. Speaker, the Environment Commissioner reported the other day about hundreds of contaminated sites across this country, the results, in effect, of lax environmental assessment laws and protection.
I ask the member opposite if he is not concerned that the gutting the Conservatives are proposing of environmental laws and the Fisheries Act would lead to further environmental devastation across this country.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. We would put some common sense into some of those rules and regulations. We would stop worrying about, on the fisheries side, for example, killing fish in a flooded farmer's field, which is absurd.
We would put our efforts, our expertise and our dollars where they would make the most difference, so that we do make sure we clean up contaminated areas in the country and we do operate in the best interests of the actual fisheries industry, for example, and not things that are completely extraneous.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a few minutes to talk about this omnibus bill, this huge 400- to 500-page budget bill, which is going to change the face of Canada. The bill is full of bundled information. I am disappointed that, instead of dealing with something that is maybe 50 pages, we have to try to dissect something that is 400 or 500 pages and full of all kinds of changes to everything we could possibly think of.
I have been here now for 13 years. I have been in cabinet. I have been on the back bench and I have been on the front bench. I have been in opposition and in government. I have never seen such a lack of respect for democracy in this country and for the Parliament of Canada and parliamentarians as this attempt to put all of this into an omnibus bill that would change so much with so little input from Parliament. The bill is designed specifically in a way that undermines the essential and historic role Parliament plays in writing and passing good and sound laws.
Bill C-38 attacks old age security and would implement budget 2012, which the Liberal caucus clearly opposes.
The bill includes many other items, including the gutting of 50 years of environmental protection.
Bill C-38 should not be a single omnibus bill, and for these reasons and many more, I will be opposing this legislation quite happily.
Bill C-38 would make sweeping changes to 60 different acts of this Parliament. It would rewrite a generation's worth of environmental regulation and oversight and roll back assistance for low- and middle-income seniors.
Bill C-38 would change program rules such as the employment insurance rules that would affect claimants' ability to reject jobs that are not within the field associated with their expertise. Just imagine being on employment insurance. Never mind being told one must take a job 50 miles away, but one must take a job possibly all the way to the west or to the east. Imagine what that would do to a family. It is bad enough to be unemployed without being forced to relocate away from family and all of the struggles that are there. It is all just part of the meanness that is clearly evident in the government. A lack of concern and a lack of compassion for Canadians is what it is all about.
I have no concern with change. Frankly I welcome change. I would welcome an opportunity to truly debate the bill, as would all of us. Our role here is to make Canada better, not to support making Canada worse and treating its citizens with disrespect.
Parliament has a constitutional role that includes spending oversight. Even the Conservative government cannot sidestep that, even though it is not for lack of trying.
The government has already moved and passed closure on the bill, limiting debate within the House. Rest assured; that will come back and the government will pay a price for that--if not today, then tomorrow.
The Conservative government has pursued a policy of forcing committees into closed sessions at every opportunity, further locking Canadians out of the parliamentary process. The Conservatives have set up special rules for senators, rules that they are refusing to allow for elected members of the House. What are they so afraid of? Openness, public debate and discussion are allowed in the Senate but not allowed here in the House of Commons, where we are truly supposed to be having that kind of debate.
We did have some success in the Senate, though. The Liberals asked that the bill be split up so that the relevant Senate committees could study it, just exactly the kind of thing we asked for a couple of weeks ago here in the House. The Conservatives would not allow that, because we might actually debate important issues that they might disagree with. There was a time when the Prime Minister ralied against the other place, but today he seems prepared to give it every consideration as long as it does what he wants.
There was also a time when the Prime Minister ralied against heavy-handed and reckless governing, but now that he is in charge, he seems to enjoy it. These are not his first policy reversals, though, since becoming Prime Minister. Conveniently forgetting his election promises seems to be a speciality of the Prime Minister.
The bill attacks a variety of things, including our immigration laws. The bill would allow foreign workers who have come to Canada, be they seasonal or temporary, to be paid less than people working beside them.
Just imagine what that would do to the reputation of this country. We are looking to exploit people who are basically just looking for a day's pay, coming from another country for a short period of time, leaving their families and homes to fill a need we have. We would pay them less than anybody else who is doing that job.
The bill would also raise the age at which seniors can get a pension. It would take $30,000 out of the pocket of every Canadian, while the government members stand back and say they are reducing taxes, or doing this or that. They would take $30,000 out of the pocket of every Canadian who is 54 years of age and under.
The budget would rewrite the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, handing power to cabinet to be used behind closed doors. It would amend the Canadian Oil and Gas Operations Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, legislation that is all related, interestingly enough, to the northern gateway pipeline. One has to wonder what that is all about. It would not affect some areas, but specifically those areas, to get rid of what government members continue to see as roadblocks to their ultimate goal, which is to see that pipeline go through.
As I indicated before, the Prime Minister and the government are breaking a specific promise. The Prime Minister indicated two months before the election, in March 2011, that he would not change the health transfers. He would not cut health transfers or social payments or touch pensions. That was in March 2011.
Now what is the Prime Minister doing? He is ignoring the advice of the worldwide OECD, Canada's chief actuarial officer, his own Parliamentary Budget Officer and even the government's experts, who all agree this change is not necessary, as Canada's OAS program is already and will continue to be sustainable. Worse yet, he is betraying the trust of Canadians, as all the government members have done. None of them has stood up and opposed it. None of them has had the courage to do that. This change is going to hit Canada's most vulnerable people.
Some of these changes negatively alter federal protection of waterways and limit the list of protected species, without a scientific basis, which is always the way the government does it. Never mind evidence-based science that shows one should not do this or that; it is all about political expediency.
Some of those changes to immigration would affect 100,000 immigration applications made by people who want to come to Canada, which have been in the queue for years. What does the government do? It throws them all out. It does not care. Let people start all over again. They will never get to this country in their lifetimes. Some of those changes would fundamentally change the way we welcome new Canadians to this country.
We at least owe it to Canadians to fully vet and debate the changes. That is what democracy is all about. It does not work in secret. That is not the way it is supposed to happen in Canada.
Bill C-38 would radically shift power from publicly accessible oversight and regulatory mechanisms to the bloated autocracy found within the Prime Minister's office. Bill C-38 is essentially a document that wrests power from Parliament and Canadians and places it directly into the waiting hands of the Prime Minister.
I have to ask how long it will take before the Prime Minister will approve the northern gateway pipeline after environmental oversight is removed. I do not think it is going to take very long.
I ask what the next cuts are that are going to happen, whether to seniors or other Canadians. What are the other things that are considered by this government to be irrelevant, that it does not care about and has little respect for?
This is just the beginning of many, many changes that are going to come to this country of ours that we call Canada. Clearly, in 2015, with these changes coming through, Canada will not look the same.
I for one, as a parliamentarian, find it very sad that we are also being denied the chance to debate these issues. It is one thing to have a healthy debate on them in which we respect each other and something passes. That is the way it is. To have these changes made while muzzling everyone is truly a slap in the face for democracy in this country.
Mr. Speaker, one of the sleeper issues that we are only just finding, deep in the bowels of Bill C-38, is that the bill repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. This came as a shock to me. Any federally-regulated construction project now has no federal fair wage employment standards. That includes military bases, prisons, telecommunication projects, banking, ports or cross-border, interprovincial projects such as pipelines.
Is it not a happy coincidence that pipelines no longer have any minimum standards, where the prevailing rates have to be paid to tradespeople, or any limitation on the hours of work they can work without any overtime? The Conservatives know full well these companies will not get Canadian tradespeople at $10 an hour for a 60 hour work week with no overtime, but they open the door to temporary foreign workers. With only 10 days' notice now, companies can get as many temporary foreign workers as they want.
Why would the Government of Canada sell out Canadian construction workers, drive down the prevailing wages and open the door for temporary foreign workers to eat our lunch on one of the biggest construction projects in the history of North America?
Mr. Speaker, clearly the member and I know that the government does not give a darn about Canadians. It cares very little.
I believe repealing all of this is part of a master plan that has been in the works for a while. The government will repeal anything that will prevent it from facilitating fast action on whatever file it wants. Clearly, it will be able to bring all the foreign workers who are desperate for a day's pay. These workers will come in and will be the ones who will end up doing the pipeline and all the other kinds of projects, and all in the name of expediency.
It is just one more slap in the face to Canada and Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the member says she believes we have a plan and we do. We will help youth gain skills and experience. We will help older workers. We will invest in small public infrastructure. We will connect Canadians with available jobs. We will remove disincentives to work. We will support families and communities. We will support Canada's reservists in the workforce. We will enhance the victims' fund. We will promote more active lifestyles. We will improve the registered disability savings plan. We will have sustainable social programs, secure retirement, ensure OAS remains strong and that there is a future for generations. We will review government spending, as we have, and get rid of waste, and more.
What part does the member not agree with?
Mr. Speaker, that is just another sales job. Anybody can stand and talk about all the these great things that will be done.
When we look beneath the surface, most of the time the government is giving us a sales job and not telling us the truth about the things it is really going to be doing, like making all of the other changes. That is what it is not telling us.
I can stand and read off all the wonderful things I did yesterday. When will someone challenge me about whether I am telling the truth on these issues?
To what degree is the government making the changes? To what benefit are the changes being made to the country in the things that we all believe in, which is advancing opportunity for all at the same time as it is being fiscally responsible, also caring about Canadians and ensuring those Canadians are being protected as we move forward?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the truthfulness of her remarks.
The issue of OAS and changing the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 is particularly poignant. It was in Guelph that the Prime Minister made the unequivocal promise that he would not change the OAS, would not reduce it and in fact would make it more robust, as if to suggest that 10 years from now people would not need two years of help. The very people, the aging, those who are suffering the most and needing the most help are going to be deprived of that help.
It is not enough to just criticize. I know the hon. member has been involved and engaged very heavily in the creation of an alternative program, the supplementary Canada pension plan, that would be better than changing the OAS. Could she talk about that for a few moments?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has done an enormous amount of work on behalf of the citizens of Guelph and the citizens of our country.
When we talk about an aging population, I stood in the House and challenged the government to introduce pension legislation and make some changes to the Bankruptcy Act to protect seniors. The idea is to bring in changes to pension regulation that allows those people, those who can do it, to better prepare for their retirement by saving.
The supplementary Canada pension plan is an add-on to the current Canada pension plan. Everyone who has a SIN, social insurance number, can contribute, whether they are a homemaker, a farmer or self-employed. This is the kind of the thing we need to do to prepare for the future and the aging population.
Mr. Speaker, giving a speech on Bill C-38, the budget implementation act, is a true honour for me. We are dealing with one of the most substantial budgets in decades and it is extremely important to the future of the country.
Before I get into that, I am very surprised at what I have heard over these last days of debate on the bill. I have heard members say, “That is there, and that may be all right, but there is something hidden, and it is such a big document, we cannot study it”. They say that they do not have enough speaking time, yet the member for Burnaby—New Westminster took 11 hours in a filibuster, which deprived 44 members of a chance to speak to the bill.
What were we to do? Were we to let every member of the House filibuster for 11 hours? We could have been years on the bill. We have to deal with the bill. We hear a lot of nonsense from the members opposite, but quite frankly that nonsense does not cut it. What is in the bill is very significant and important to the future of our country, and it is extremely positive legislation.
I will talk about one part of the legislation, and that is the responsible development strategy. This part of the legislation is truly the most significant change that any government in our country has made in decades. It is extremely important, and I will give hon. members an idea of why I believe that in the 10 minutes I have.
First, we have heard from companies across the country that they want to invest about $500 billion in 500 major projects in the next 10 years. That is a lot of investment. That investment is not just in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. That investment is right across the country. There would be huge investments in Atlantic Canada and in Quebec. In Ontario the ring of fire is a mammoth project. It is almost unimaginable, judging from what we heard from witnesses at our natural resources committee.
This is extremely significant and important legislation, and the part on responsible development is pivotal in the future of the country. It will mean our children and our grandchildren, and even our great grandchildren, will have extremely good, top-notch, top-paying jobs, jobs that are fun to go to every day because they are exciting and people can really make things happen. This change in legislation will allow that to happen.
I chair the natural resources committee. We have been hearing from witnesses on various studies, most recently resource development in northern Canada. We did a major study on forestry in Canada. We did a study on the ring of fire in northern Ontario. We have done some fascinating studies and we have heard four main concerns from witnesses on development.
Almost all of them brought forward these concerns. This is not only from business owners and business managers. This is from union leaders who are concerned about future jobs for their members. It is from community leaders. It is from a wide range of people right across the country. They say that these things have to change in order to allow Canada to develop these incredibly good jobs for our children and grandchildren.
From almost all of the witnesses, we heard there was an infrastructure need. Much of that infrastructure the companies themselves are willing to put in place. It is that important to their projects. A lot of resource companies have some cash right now so they are willing to do that. For those who follow, they are willing to make an arrangement so that they pay for the development of infrastructure they put in place.
That includes the obvious things like roads, bridges and that kind of thing. It also includes something else, which is an even bigger problem for many of these natural resources developments, and that is a power supply. They need a relatively small power supply for running a mine, for example, but they need a much larger power supply if they are to add some value right at the site and if they are to refine the ore into one of the end products, or all of the end products. That takes a lot larger electricity supply, and getting that supply is a major infrastructure demand.
Many companies can do that, working with other companies. Some have suggested that maybe there might be some need for either provincial or federal government lending or some such thing, but infrastructure is an important thing.
The second thing almost every witness talked about, and this is not an exaggeration as anybody sitting on the committee would know, is the shortage of skilled workers.
A lot of people think the shortage is only in western Canada. However, that is not the case. The shortage exists in every province and territory in the country. Now it is not in every town. As we know, some communities have very high rates of unemployment. However, that shows another problem that we will start to deal with in the budget implementation act and in our budget. It makes that connection between the areas of relatively high unemployment and the desperate need for skilled workers. I will talk more about how we will do that a little later, but it is a connection that we have gone a long way to make in this budget. We have done some of that over the past few years, but there is more to be done.
As there is an incredible need for skilled workers, we have put more money into post-secondary education, universities, technical schools and community colleges so our kids can get their education closer to home. All of that is helping to solve this problem.
Also, this shortage has become a huge opportunity for first nations across the country. Almost every one of these resource development projects is near or involves a first nation community. We know that in many of these communities there is a high level of unemployment, so this opportunity is there.
Many of our companies across the country are taking advantage of that source of workers by offering not only training but teaching these people how to get into the workplace to get some of the top-notch jobs that are available. That is a benefit of the skilled worker shortage. We are getting first nation people much more involved, sometimes through their own companies and sometimes through working for someone else.
Third, if we are going to have these developments take place in Canada, we have to become more competitive.
Canadians simply are not very competitive. For example, we are not competitive compared to our American neighbours. Therefore, if we want to keep these high wage jobs and if we want to create more, then we have to become more competitive. We have to do that through new innovation, new technology, et cetera. We have a major focus in the budget on exactly that and we will move ahead with it. This third area is of great concern to all companies and we will deal with it along with them, because they often take the lead on that.
Fourth, we need a better regulatory system. These companies have made it very clear that they can either invest their $500 billion in Canada or they can take it anywhere else in the world, and they mean it. They are not married to our country; they can go anywhere. Therefore, we have to ensure we get these projects in Canada and that means improving our regulatory approval system. A lot of the budget is about that. We have to improve the process for not only for large projects, but for small projects as well.
I have heard from municipalities across the country about the difficulty they have when they put a larger culvert in to move water across the road. The cost of doing that is triple in many cases because the regulatory process runs interference.
For large and small projects, we need to have a streamlined regulatory process. Does that mean we will ignore the environment? It is exactly the opposite. Instead, we will have a focused environmental process that will bring together the federal, provincial and local governments, first nations and private business. Together they will go hand in hand sharing information and expertise. The end result will be a better environmental assessment process and there will be more certainly in that process. Therefore, these companies will be willing to invest their money if there is certainty. If they know the government part of the process for a major project will not take more than two years, they can live with that and go ahead with their investment.
I cannot overstate the importance of what is being done through the budget, particularly through the common sense approach to the regulatory process reform. I am proud to stand as a member of the Conservative caucus. I am proud to be a part of what will be the most significant government action taken for generations to come.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Motherhood
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to pay tribute to those who take on the most difficult, yet most rewarding, responsibility one can ever have: being a mother. These extraordinary women raise their children with love, care and devotion. A mother's wise words guide a child through life's most difficult challenges. A mother's kind heart fills her child's future with hope. Mothers sacrifice, inspire and encourage. They always put their children first.
My own mother, Eva Horvath, did just that. As a Hungarian immigrant, she learned English, established a successful family business and instilled in my brothers and me a deep respect for the importance of education, hard work and loyalty—but above all, family.
[Translation]
Now that I am also a mother, I am raising my son Jeffrey with the same values.
[English]
To my mom and all great moms across this amazing country, happy Mother's Day.
Nursing
Mr. Speaker, this is National Nursing Week. It is into the care of Canada's 266,000 nurses that we put ourselves and our families at our most critical and vulnerable moments, at birth and often at death.
My friend and constituent Jane MacIver won The Toronto Star Nightingale Award three years ago. She is tough, often irreverent, but also a deeply caring professional who does nothing short of saving lives. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is also a nurse. She serves her constituents like the rest of us, but also in ways that the rest of us cannot: as a nurse. She continues to maintain her skills because it is her calling not just to serve but to heal.
Nurses keep us healthy, heal us and take away pain, and this week we recognize the sacrifices they make for the health of others. Nursing is an emotionally and physically gruelling job. To my friend Jane, to my colleague and to nurses across Canada, this week we celebrate and thank them for their contributions year round.
[Translation]
Air Service Operations
Mr. Speaker, I would like to salute two great Canadian companies that are working together to spur Canada's economic growth and create jobs in this country.
[English]
Last week, WestJet Airlines announced that it has selected Montreal-based Bombardier Inc. to supply up to 45 of its Q400 turboprop planes for the launch of its new regional carrier late next year. This partnership is excellent news for Canada's manufacturing sector and economy as a whole. I would also like to congratulate WestJet, which will see the delivery of its 100th aircraft later this year and has just reported record growth.
The launch of WestJet's low-cost regional airline in 2013 will see not only the addition of these new Canadian-built aircraft to the WestJet fleet but also the addition of new destinations to WestJet's service grid.
[Translation]
I have no doubt that Canadian communities will welcome the new routes serviced by Canadian-built planes in the near future.
[English]
Two great Canadian companies are helping to build one great country.
[Translation]
Congratulations to WestJet and Bombardier.
[English]
Hunger Awareness Week
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I joined many parliamentarians and staff who fasted in solidarity with the millions of Canadians who wake up not knowing where their next meal is coming from. I want to congratulate everyone who participated.
This morning I certainly enjoyed a healthy meal. Regrettably, hundreds of thousands of children across Canada wake up hungry and have to count on food banks for their breakfasts. In my own community, the Greater Vancouver Food Bank Society deserves kudos for collecting and distributing food for over 25,000 people weekly through 16 food depots and over 100 community agencies.
Let us bring the plight of hungry Canadians into the open. Let us work to reduce the income inequality that shamefully continues to rise in Canada. Let us work to put food banks out of business.
In the meanwhile, I ask all Canadians to join me during Hunger Awareness Week and consider donating food, money or time to help reduce hunger in our communities.
Together, let us make food security a reality for all Canadians.
Orangeville Blues and Jazz Festival
Mr. Speaker, from June 1 to June 3 the Orangeville Blues and Jazz Festival will be celebrating its 10th anniversary. This outstanding and award-winning annual event, which takes place in my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, has been rated one of the top three festivals to attend in Ontario for the past two years running. It has significantly grown from its humble beginnings to a three-day open-air event involving local businesses, organizations and exceptional musicians from the U.S., Europe and Canada, including a wide variety of Juno Award winners.
On behalf of the residents of Dufferin—Caledon, I sincerely congratulate the festival's founder, Larry Kurtz, for bringing his vision of a free Saturday afternoon concert to the community, which is now a premier tourist attraction for Orangeville and surrounding areas. I also congratulate the 165 volunteers and many sponsors who enthusiastically support this event and ensure its success each year.
[Translation]
Hunger Awareness Week
Mr. Speaker, this is Hunger Awareness Week, and I would like to salute the tremendous and absolutely critical work done by organizations that help society's most vulnerable people get enough to eat.
I would like to thank Moisson Sud-Ouest and Moisson Rive-Sud for supplying 50 food banks in my riding, Beauharnois—Salaberry, including Service alimentaire communautaire, Café des deux pains, Bouffe additionnelle, Sourire sans faim, Un coin chez-nous and Coin du partage, to name but a few.
This past year alone, a total of 302,563 kilos of food worth $1.5 million was distributed to over 94,000 individuals. I urge people to continue to be generous with their gifts of money, food and especially time to these organizations all year long.
We, the NDP, will keep fighting for better living conditions for all Canadian households. We will continue to press for affordable housing for all, better pension plans and child tax benefits, and improved access to employment insurance benefits.
[English]
Suicide Prevention
Mr. Speaker, the federal framework for suicide prevention act received first reading last September. In the seven months since then, more than 2,000 Canadians have likely died by suicide. Suicide prevention is more than a mental health issue; it is a public health issue that costs our economy an estimated $2.4 billion each year.
The best way to combat suicidal behaviour is through open conversations. I recently participated in a bowlathon organized by the Waterloo Region Suicide Prevention Council, which raised $27,000 for suicide prevention efforts. What is more important than the funds raised, though, is that the 150 bowlers engaged many hundreds of donors in a vital conversation. For too long, we maintained a failed approach of not talking about suicide.
I ask all hon. members to join in a genuine solution and encourage conversations on these sensitive issues in their communities. The most important leadership this House can provide is by example.
Arts and Culture
Mr. Speaker, arts and culture play an important role in creating a healthy and strong society. They help bring us together as Canadians, preserve our heritage and create jobs and economic opportunities across Canada.
I am proud ot recognize two important investments in my riding of North Vancouver. Our government has invested $350,000 toward the construction of the Gordon Smith Gallery of Canadian Art.The gallery will showcase works done by some of Canada's finest artists, including Robert Bateman, Bill Reid and Ted Harrison. It will also house an art education facility that will help inspire young Canadian artists. Our government has also invested over $15 million toward the Nat and Flora Bosa Centre for Film and Animation studies at Capilano University in my riding. This state-of-the-art film and animation centre will help train the next generation of Canadian filmmakers.
Our government is committed to supporting Canadian artists from coast to coast to coast. We will continue to invest in projects that support arts and culture and create jobs and economic growth.
[Translation]
Mental Health Week
Mr. Speaker, during this National Mental Health Week, I would like to take the opportunity to remind the House of the contribution made by Dr. Camille Laurin to psychiatry in Quebec. He would have been 90 years old this week.
Dr. Laurin was a long-time activist and an outstanding psychiatrist. He was also a teacher with a desire to change the practice of education. He was responsible for major reforms in teaching and the practice of psychiatry in Quebec. By speaking out against the conditions in psychiatric hospitals, he managed to mobilize an entire generation of psychiatrists and change society's perception. This may have created some waves, but major changes were required to address pressing needs in this area.
He believed that patients with mental illnesses should be treated the same as any other patients. Nevertheless, stigmatization still exists and mental health care is still lacking. We need only think of our soldiers or of female inmates.
I invite my colleagues to think about Dr. Laurin's contribution and about the quality of care and of the systems in place in our country.
[English]
New Democratic Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the NDP shadow cabinet says a lot about its party and its true beliefs and motives.
The Leader of the Opposition appointed the member for Vancouver Kingsway as the critic for international trade. The member was previously critic of the immigration portfolio and served as a continual advocate for radical activist groups such as No One Is Illegal. This group is not just another noisy activist group; its members are hard-line anti-Canadian extremists who believe all violent criminals and foreign war criminals have the right to stay in Canada on our streets and in our communities.
The NDP's willingness to associate with such groups may explain why the NDP has strongly opposed our reasonable reforms to the Canadian immigration and refugee system. The leader of the NDP has chosen a team that demonstrates a disturbing willingness to put the interests of a narrow band of activists ahead of the interests of ordinary Canadian families. It is becoming clear that the NDP does not stand for the interests of everyday hard-working Canadian families.
Search and Rescue
Mr. Speaker, there is outrage today in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a long-simmering outrage that has reached the boiling point over the latest unbelievable example of how the federal Conservative government is failing our mariners.
News broke Tuesday that medical calls for help from ships off Newfoundland and Labrador, and only off Newfoundland and Labrador, were being routed 5,000 miles away to Italy. The calls were being directed to a Rome-based non-profit organization that has been described as “the soup kitchen of telehelp”.
It was bad enough that the Conservatives closed the marine rescue sub-centre in my riding, directing distress calls to Halifax and Trenton, Ontario, but mainlanders have a hard enough time understanding my people, let alone Italians.
Our search and rescue response times are among the worst in the world. Our mariners have died waiting for help that did not come, and so did 14-year-old Burton Winters of Makkovik, Labrador.
The Conservative government has written off our fishery and now our mariners. The resentment toward the government is turning to disdain.
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, our economic action plan 2012 is a commitment to a pro-trade plan that opens new markets for Canadians in the world's large, dynamic and fast-growing economies. Today our government announced Canada's fifth consecutive monthly trade surplus, despite challenging international economic difficulties.
Our efforts to increase Canada's trade and investment ties with the Asia-Pacific are yielding results, and our exports are reaching new records. This is great news for our forestry sector. Led by British Columbia, Canada is now the world's number one exporter of lumber to China. B.C. softwood lumber accounts for nearly 95% of all Canadian softwood shipments to China, making it China's largest global supplier.
It is just another example of how our government's pro-trade plan is bringing jobs, growth and long-term prosperity to British Columbians and Canadians all across the country.
Co-operatives
Mr. Speaker, during the hard days of the depression in Cape Breton, Reverend Moses Coady started the co-op movement. This effort helped rural communities across the Maritimes and improved their economic and social circumstances.
The influence of the movement Moses led spread across Canada and around the world. Today, these co-operatives are celebrating 75 years of success. The Coady International Institute at St. François Xavier University is teaching this to many around the world.
I was a proud member of Bras d'Or Farmers Co-op and the United Farmers Co-op. In Cape Breton, there are now 14 co-ops along with 9,000 across Canada.
Recently, the Conservative government decided to cut this $4 million co-operative development program. Ironically, 2012 was also the United Nations International Year of Cooperatives.
These co-operatives provide stable employment for hundreds of families. At a time when rural Canada is struggling, the co-operative movement should be given due recognition and deserves much more support from the government.
Television Broadcasting
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are sick and tired of having to reach for the remote control every time a commercial is aired on the TV. That is why I proposed legislation last year to regulate the loudness of television commercials.
While my bill did not come to a vote due the spring election, it did spur the CRTC into action with nationwide consultations. This week, final regulations will become effective on September 1, implementing the measures contained in my bill.
No longer will Canadians be tormented by loud commercials on their TVs. Now seniors, citizens with sensitive hearing and everyone else frustrated by loud commercials can rest easy, because the deadline for broadcasters to comply with the regulations is fast approaching. In a matter of months, advertisers will no longer be free to jack up the volume on commercials and we will all be able to watch TV in peace.
[Translation]
French Language
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière had the gall to say that “the orange wave is causing French to disappear from this House” and that “all the NDP MPs from Quebec...ask half their questions in English.”
What a grotesque, ridiculous and false statement. We know how much the Conservatives hate facts. This statement is another example of that.
Since the member for Outremont was elected as the leader of the NDP, Quebec members have asked only 17 of a total of 185 questions, or 6%, in English. However, 60% of the questions asked in French by our Quebec members have been answered in English. So much for a government that says it wants to protect the French fact.
When the Conservatives utter such nonsense, we can see why Quebeckers chose the NDP a year ago to represent them and defend their interests and to give every Quebecker a voice in Parliament.
[English]
New Democratic Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the leader of the NDP described measures to hold offenders accountable for their actions and to show respect to taxpayers as “stupid gestures”.
In the NDP's world, convicted murderers and rapists should have their own personal shoppers sent out to collect personal effects from the outside world, all at taxpayers' expense. We find that position absolutely ludicrous and offensive to law-abiding Canadians.
Our Conservative government will continue to take action to make offenders more accountable and to put victims first. I call on the NDP to finally start putting the rights of victims ahead of the rights of offenders.
ORAL QUESTIONS
[Oral Questions]
[English]
The Budget
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are slashing public services, gutting environmental protections and dismantling their own accountability act, all this thrown into a budget bill in the hope that Canadians will not notice. How can the Prime Minister justify trying to slip these policies past Canadians without a proper debate?
When he was sitting in opposition, the Prime Minister felt quite differently about that sort of thing. He said, “I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles”.
What happened to those principles?
Mr. Speaker, the government's economic action plan is indeed comprehensive. We are operating in a world with a very fragile global economy. The government is determined to take a range of actions necessary to create jobs and growth and to secure our prosperity in the long term.
We have set aside a record amount of time for debate. I would urge the NDP to actually debate the legislation rather than just trying to obstruct and delay.
[Translation]
Pensions
Mr. Speaker, the worst part is that the Prime Minister is asking hon. members to vote without having all the information. For example, we know they are going to cut old age security, forcing people to retire at 67. That is $12,000 less per person in retirement income. However, the Conservatives have not disclosed what the OAS cuts add up to. The Prime Minister told us we have had ample time to discuss this, but one number is still missing: how much money in total will the government save with these cuts?
Mr. Speaker, as far as old age security is concerned, there will be no reductions for the people who are currently receiving a pension. That was one of our promises. We have to safeguard pensioners' incomes. For the long-term stability and sustainability of this fund, we will make changes, but we will not start until 2023.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Speaker, they will never start because they will be replaced well before that.
That is the problem: the Prime Minister says he wants to save money, but he cannot even answer a single specific question.
He is making things up as he goes along. The budget will take $56 million away from the Food Inspection Agency. The Conservatives say that the cuts will not affect front-line services, but that is not true. There will be no more money to pay for inspecting meat imported from the United States.
Can the Prime Minister tell us which other food inspection services will be cut because of his budget?
Mr. Speaker, once again, as we have said many times before, those services will not be scaled back.
[English]
In this, as in so many cases, what the government has done is found modest administrative savings by eliminating duplication, and doing that over a significant period of time. Certainly, in the area of food inspection, we have no intention of cutting the inspection of our food.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, they are cutting food inspection of meat coming in from the U.S., a $56 million cut.
[Translation]
This is another example of the government's lack of transparency. The Conservatives go around tooting their own horn and saying how tough they are on crime, yet they have cut public safety funding: $143 million from border protection, $295 million from inmate supervision, $195 million from police services and $700 million from public safety.
Does being a law-and-order government mean slashing funding for public safety?
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the NDP leader criticize our public safety services even though the NDP is against our public safety measures. That party has opposed every one of our initiatives to protect our communities and our streets from criminals. That is one of our priorities, and that is not about to change.
[English]
Search and Rescue
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative cuts are putting the security of Canadians at risk, plainly and simply.
I have another example. Just days after the closure of the maritime search and rescue centre in St. John's, we find out that medical emergency calls made from waters off Newfoundland and Labrador are now being routed to a call centre in Italy. Callers report being connected to doctors who cannot even understand them. That is a net result of Conservative cuts. Public safety is being put at risk.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House how long the lives of people will be put in danger before the government corrects the situation?
Mr. Speaker, because the NDP decided to oppose and try to block the budget a few minutes after it was tabled, that party has not bothered to look into these matters.
In the case the hon. member mentions, there is no change to procedure here. The first response to these calls has always been to medical facilities in Halifax. There is backup in case those calls are backed up. That has been the case and that will continue to be the case.
Mr. Speaker, on that particular score, surely the Prime Minister is not denying the fact that Mr. Rideout, in calling about the health of his father, was routed to a doctor in Rome. The doctor in Rome did not know where the call was coming from and wanted to know what kind of fishing was going on. Mr. Rideout was so frustrated he hung up the phone, came back and phoned the CBC about the rerouting that had taken place.
Why would the Prime Minister stand in his place and give the House false information with respect to the situation of the--
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of National Defence have provided radio medical service to mariners in Atlantic Canada through service providers in Halifax for many years, and we continue to do so.
As in the past, an internationally recognized service provider has been used in the event that backup is required.
The Environment
Some backup, Mr. Speaker.
There is so much in the bill that would give additional powers to the cabinet, which effectively means giving additional powers to the Prime Minister, particularly with respect to the issues around environment, environmental assessment and environmental regulations. The Prime Minister's reaction in opposition was so completely different when all of these powers were being accumulated around the office and person of the prime minister.
What is the government going to do to resist the inevitable, dictatorial tendencies to give power to one person and one person only with respect to public policy issues?
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party should actually read the sections of the bill in question. They cannot be adequately categorized in that way whatsoever.
What is being done in the area of environmental assessment is to ensure we still have thorough environmental assessments but that there will be a defined timeline within which judgments and advice have to be rendered. That time can be up to two years, which is plenty of time. That is the kind of certainty that investors are looking for.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, yes, I did read the bill, and it is here and here and here. This bill gives extraordinary powers to cabinet.
Everyone knows what cabinet means. It is the power held by one man, in this case, the Prime Minister. This is a huge change that gives even more power to the Prime Minister and none to Parliament or to Canadians. That is the problem.
Why is the Prime Minister doing this?
Mr. Speaker, that is not true. What we are doing with environmental assessments is ensuring a clear timeline. That is vital to the certainty of our investments.
I completely reject the Liberal leader's analysis.
Government Spending
Mr. Speaker, as a result of the budget cuts, 12 different government agencies will lose their internal auditors. That is Conservative-style transparency.
The role of the auditors is to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent properly. The Conservatives are therefore in favour of allowing millions of dollars to be spent without any oversight. They are leaving the door wide open to abuse.
Why do the Conservatives think that government spending does not have to be supervised? Are they hoping to spend money however they want?
Mr. Speaker, funding agencies have reviewed some back office operations, and this is something they do internally to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
The Office of the Comptroller General of Canada already serves 47 government organizations and has all the necessary know-how to provide auditing services for all the regional development agencies.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen examples where the Conservatives' lack of transparency led to abuses. Look at the G8 slush fund. Indeed, there is cause for concern when the government announces its intention to cut the auditing powers of the Auditor General.
We have even seen the Conservatives refuse to allow the Auditor General to testify before the parliamentary committee. They want to silence the person responsible for ensuring that taxpayers' money is spent properly.
Why do the Conservatives want to take away the Auditor General's powers?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I believe in the particular case the hon. member is referencing, the Auditor General makes his own decisions on what audits he does. That is independent of the government and indeed, I would think, of this House. He is an independent agent who reports to this chamber. We have not had any impact on his decisions.
[Translation]
Parliamentary Budget Office
Mr. Speaker, the creation of the Parliamentary Budget Office and the 2006 Accountability Act were to mark the beginning of a new era of greater transparency. Six years later, though, the Conservatives are dismantling their own law.
When the Parliamentary Budget Officer tries to do his job, he is muzzled by the government and attacked by Conservative ministers. In fact, 75 of 83 departments have even refused to reply to him.
This government established the Parliamentary Budget Office, so why is the government preventing the Parliamentary Budget Officer from doing his job?
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to report to Parliament by the normal means, including the estimates, quarterly financial reports and the public accounts process.
[English]
Of course our budget 2012 is a plan that is focused on jobs and opportunity throughout our country, and part of that is reducing the deficit by a total of 2%. In terms of reductions, I think that is fair, modest and moderate.
Mr. Speaker, from name calling by the Minister of Finance to attacks by the Minister of National Defence for revealing the real cost of the F-35, make no mistake, the PBO is under attack by Conservatives who want to hide from oversight.
Out of 83 departments, 75 ignored his requests for basic information about planned cuts, and 90% of government departments even refused to answer him. When did Conservatives become so afraid of accountability? Will the government stop obstructing the PBO and let him do his job?
Mr. Speaker, as I have already said before, and the hon. member, I am sure, knows this, we have obligations to report to Parliament, which we take very seriously.
We will continue to report to Parliament through the normal means, including the estimates, the quarterly financial reports and the public accounts process of this chamber. We do have some obligations to our employees to inform them first if there are any changes in their status. We take that seriously as well.
[Translation]
Government Appointments
Mr. Speaker, the NDP always supported the creation of a public appointments commission, in spite of the tall tales told by certain Conservatives saying the opposite.
What we refused to support was the nomination of a controversial commissioner, Gwyn Morgan, who is no more nor less than the chairman of the board of SNC-Lavalin and who is also famous for his insulting comments about certain ethnic communities.
Why do the Conservatives want to rewrite history when the only controversy here is the one they created with that nomination?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we have instituted a very rigorous process for our appointments. Unfortunately, the Public Appointments Commission and the establishment of the chair were opposed by the opposition parties. Then they rose in this House frequently to decry the spending of any money on that commission. We responded to that by stopping the spending of the money on that commission to help us move toward balancing the budget.
At the same time we are pleased to report that our appointments process is rigorous. It is working and ensuring that all appointments are made based on merit. That is why we have had such outstanding people stepping forward to take part in public life.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to think that the only people who are qualified happen to be buddies of the Conservative Party.
Let us go through some of the more notorious ones. We have Leo Housakos' good buddy, Tom Pentefountas, who has zero qualifications, and the Conservatives gave him the vice-chair of the CRTC. We have Margaret F. Delisle, appointed to the National Battlefields Commission. Her qualification? Oh, right, she is the sister of Michael Fortier.
The Conservatives promised they were going to clean up Ottawa, but instead it is the same old pork barrel, rum bottle politics. Why are they trying to undermine the accountability act?
Mr. Speaker, we have been very pleased with the appointments process, in which has ensured that first-rate people step forward and offer to provide public service.
We have seen it made more rigorous in a number of ways. As a result, the appointments made by the government are second to none. We are very pleased with the calibre of the individuals put forward. It is a surprise that they are prepared to do that in the face of criticism from members of the opposition who stand up and attack the people who dare to put in their time and their effort to serve their country.
Mr. Speaker, what was that? That sounds like a political party that is circling the drain because people are getting tired of the pork barrel patronage that it is engaged in.
Let us go through a few more other stellar examples of those who come forward to help us and help themselves. There is Bruce Carson, a good buddy of the Prime Minister, appointed to the Canada School of Energy and Environment. How about Gary Valcour, riding president of the Minister of Finance, and now on the Oshawa Harbour Commission?
All of them are Conservative buddies. All of them are feeding at the trough. Why are they engaged in the same old tired politics that Canadians got fed up with when they kicked out the Liberals?
Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when people who step forward to serve their country are attacked by the opposition.
Let us take the example of Mr. Valcour. He is a highly qualified individual, a graduate of Dalhousie Law School, a distinguished criminal and civil lawyer for several decades, who served as chairperson of the Oshawa Harbour Commission, was a member of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and was reappointed on the basis that his outstanding performance merited reappointment.
Those is the kind of people who are attacked by the opposition. Every Canadian should be afraid of a party like that, that wishes to engage in personal attacks on individuals who want to serve the Canadian public.
[Translation]
Ethics
Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder who is at the controls now.
Donations to the Conservative Party from the directors of SNC-Lavalin flooded in between November and December 2009. During the same period, Pierre Duhaime, the ousted CEO of SNC, was lobbying the Conservatives about federal nuclear development policy.
By pure coincidence, surely, the federal government announced on December 18, 2009, that same year, that Atomic Energy Canada was going on the market. And guess who hit the jackpot? Yes indeed: SNC.
Is there a connection between the Conservative funding and the awarding of that contract?
Mr. Speaker, our government followed a fair, open and transparent process. An independent firm reviewed the process followed to reach an agreement and conclude the sale of AECL. In addition, we appointed two independent advisers to ensure the fairness and integrity of the process, from start to finish. We acted in accordance with their advice at all times.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party received $25,000 from SNC-Lavalin and then Atomic Energy of Canada was sold for peanuts. We are entitled to have questions about that.
On another subject, we learned this morning that well-known entrepreneur Tony Accurso has discovered a new trick for cheating the government.
According to La Presse, by buying a company on the edge of bankruptcy that had nothing to do with his construction business, he is going to be able to save $45 million in taxes.
While the Canada Revenue Agency is going after charitable organizations, Tony Accurso pulls a fast one on them.
When is the Conservative government actually going to do something about the problem of tax evasion?
Mr. Speaker, our government has acted ethically on all of these points.
The question is this: knowing that the Leader of the Opposition received $7,000 from a vice-president of SNC-Lavalin, why are New Democrat members attacking us now, when we accepted donations that were legal and ethical?
I also have another question. This member who has just asked me a question made donations directly to Québec solidaire, one of the most ultra-radical parties in Canada. Why did he make that kind of donation?
[English]
Aerospace Industry
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we found out that MDA was having to lay off some highly qualified people because there was no contract to build the strategically important RADARSAT constellation.
In response to my question, the minister stated, and I quote, “...we are committed to the RADARSAT project and we are working on delivering in a cost-effective way”.
The Prime Minister has had a very big photo op, and he has made all sorts of promises about ensuring better sovereignty for this country and saving lives. Now the question is, what is the government waiting for to start this project? Is this going to be another example of a project that gets delayed and mismanaged?
Mr. Speaker, the member was right in quoting me, because we are committed to this project and we will deliver it in a most cost-effective way.
We are taking action for the space sector. For the first time, we launched a review for the aerospace sector to make sure that we remain a leader in the world. This is real action.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, what does this kind of answer mean? They are working on delivering this project, but in the meantime there is no contract for the company and it is likely to lose some highly qualified employees.
The RADARSAT satellites are making Canada proud and we are waiting to build the three-satellite RADARSAT constellation. We cannot wait much longer. It is extremely important for security and sovereignty as well as for monitoring the changing environment in our far north.
Is this another example of a poorly managed project that will be slowed down by this government?
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we are committed to the RADARSAT project. We are taking it seriously and we are going to deliver this project in the most cost-effective way. It is a matter of sound cost management.
As I was saying, we are taking concrete measures. Instead of cutting in science and technology, as they did in the past, we have invested more. In fact, we are investing $1.1 billion over five years. I wonder how they are going to vote. It is time, in fact, to hold a meaningful vote on the budget implementation.
A review of the space and aerospace sector has also begun. This is a first in Canadian history.
[English]
Search and Rescue
Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the issue of search and rescue, based on what we have just heard in the House. This is a serious issue, especially for the Rideout family.
Mr. Speaker, picture yourself in the north Atlantic, 130 kilometres out, with no presence of the Government of Canada to help you out.
Here is an email that was discovered by the media. I would like to ask the minister to respond to this specifically. “Effective May 7, MCTS centres in Newfoundland and Labrador region shall use CIRM Roma for all radio medicals.” That is from the regional director of maritime services, Canadian Coast Guard.
What does the minister have to say to that? First of all, he should apologize to the Rideout family and second of all, reopen these centres in St. John's and Quebec City.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Coast Guard and DND have provided radio medical services to mariners in the Atlantic region for many years through the Halifax companies, and they continue to do so.
In the event that there are emergencies of sufficient consequences that would require that we have to go to a backup, we do in fact use an internationally recognized company to perform that task.
[Translation]
Radio-Canada International
Mr. Speaker, following the closure of Rights and Democracy and the ending of grants to the International Council for Canadian Studies, now it is Radio-Canada International’s turn to be squeezed dry.
Clearly, this government's aim is to control everything that goes out and everything that comes into Canada and everything about Canada.
When did the Conservatives receive a mandate to destroy our international reputation? When did they receive a mandate to destroy all the respected institutions that make it possible to understand the diversity of the information culture here and elsewhere? When?
Mr. Speaker, in my view, it is clear that we have made this type of commitment. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has the funds it needs to carry out its mandate and continue with the action plan until 2015.
We have made this kind of commitment in each of these fields: culture, language and cultural infrastructure. The CBC is part of that. It has the investments it needs to build these foundations throughout the country and to fulfill these commitments to our culture.
It is clear: we have the commitments, the investments and the policies, and they are ongoing.
[English]
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives may not like the CBC, but just about everyone, from Christopher Plummer to Russell Peters, has cut their teeth on Canadian radio drama. Artists are Canada's most well known exports. This is a big part of our economy. I know the heritage minister is going to get up and try to hide behind past Liberal cuts, but that is not going to cut it here today. It is his government that is responsible for the demise of CBC radio drama.
Why does the minister continue to attack Canadian culture and the Canadian economy?
Mr. Speaker, that is such utter nonsense if we look at our budget and all the investments that we have made with regard to culture.
It is a simple fact that this government is the only government in the G20 that made a precise decision not to cut, not to maintain, but to increase funding for arts and culture during the recession. We increased our support for the Canada Council for the Arts by 20%. We have created two new national museums. We have created the Canada media fund, which is a $100 million investment every year into Canadian television, the audio-video sector and films all across this country. We are providing funding at a record level, but in responsible ways, to arts and culture to make sure that it continues to contribute to our national identity and to our economy.
Search and Rescue
Mr. Speaker, closing down the marine rescue coordination centre in St. John's was not bad enough. An ailing fisherman off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador had his call for help routed to Italy. That is right: Italy, as in Europe. It speaks volumes about the Conservatives' lack of understanding or concern for the challenges faced by fishing crews and mariners on our coasts. It—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
It is funny, Mr. Speaker, but it speaks volumes about the Conservatives' lack of understanding or concern for the challenges faced by fishing crews and mariners off our coasts. We never imagined that medical emergency calls would be routed to Italy, all calls. Coast Guard emails confirm this new procedure for all medical calls will be in place effective May 7.
How can the government explain such an outrageous decision?
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated a couple of times now, the Canadian Coast Guard and the Department of National Defence provide radio medical services to our mariners in this important work they do, and their safety is of our utmost concern, in Atlantic Canada through centres in Halifax.
As in the past, and we continue to do so, we use an internationally renowned, recognized service provider in the case of—
Mr. Speaker, we cannot close the barn door. The horse has gotten out on this one, and I have lost count of how many times the government has taken wrong decisions on search and rescue. It is poor management and a lack of priority.
People who make a living working off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve far better than having their calls for help taken by a doctor sitting in an office in Rome, who did not even know where Newfoundland was. When will the government take search and rescue seriously for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and for all Canadians? Who signed off on this outrageous experiment and will the government open up the centres in St. John's—
Mr. Speaker, the service provider that was used as a backup, as I said, is internationally known and has provided backup service to our centres for many years. It is the same service centre that provided backup for the Swissair disaster. It is a renowned company, well known. We use it as a backup only and normally operate through channels in Halifax.
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the French just recently elected a new president of the Fifth Republic. Canada has a long-standing close relationship with France, and trade liberalization only serves to strengthen those ties.
I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can he give us an update on the most recent developments with regard to the ongoing relationship between Canada and France?
Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the president-elect of France, François Hollande, on Sunday evening to congratulate him and tell him that the Hon. Lawrence Cannon would be the next Canadian ambassador to France and that Mr. Cannon has my full confidence and the experience needed to represent our country.
This shows the importance we place on our relationship with France, a country with which we have economic, cultural, linguistic and historic ties. Clearly, we would like to thank the former ambassador, Marc Lortie, for his service.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, a number of groups throughout Quebec have submitted projects under the homelessness partnering strategy.
Funding was supposed to be renewed by April 1, 2012. However, only the projects in Quebec are still awaiting approval by the minister. The partnership agreement, duly signed with the Government of Quebec, has been in place for 12 years. Many groups depend on this funding, but there has been nothing but silence from the minister.
Since there is agreement on all the projects and the parliamentary secretary to the minister has confirmed that the funding was available, then why the delays?
Mr. Speaker, access to housing is a very important step toward gaining independence, and it helps at-risk Canadians contribute fully to society.
We are working with the provinces to help people find housing. That is why we invested in almost 700 projects in Quebec in 2011.
Mr. Speaker, the money is there; the minister simply has to sign off on it.
For the past 12 years, everything has gone like clockwork: there have been no problems with any HPS applications and all projects approved by Quebec received funding. Now HPS applications, including the one from RAPSIM, are facing closed doors and silence from the minister, yet these projects are supported by the community—and they work.
Why does the minister refuse to respect the HPS agreement with Quebec? Is this yet another way to muzzle those who dare stand up to the Conservatives?
Mr. Speaker, it was our government that invested in that program. It is a five-year program, for which we want to ensure a predetermined amount of nearly $2 billion invested in Canada. This program aims to help homeless people, in partnership with the provinces. Every decision is made in partnership with the provinces, but there is a fixed amount, and we want to invest that money in the best possible way.
Employment Insurance
Mr. Speaker, unemployed workers who need help are ill-served by this government. Soon, they will have to accept any job that the minister deems acceptable or risk losing their employment insurance benefits, yet the minister refuses to explain what the word “acceptable” means.
The Conservatives' Trojan Horse bill directly attacks unemployed workers by lowering their incomes. Why are the Conservatives so doggedly attacking unemployed workers?
Mr. Speaker, our government's priority is to create jobs , promote economic growth and get Canadians back to work in their communities.
This bill includes measures to help unemployed workers find jobs. This is the best way to help them because it is good for them, their families and the Canadian economy, particularly right now since there is a shortage of skilled workers.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that under the Conservative government, fewer Canadians have access to EI than ever before, and now the minister will be able to kick people off EI if they do not take a so-called suitable job. However, she refuses to say what suitable is.
To avoid accountability, the Conservatives chose to sneak these changes into their Trojan Horse budget bill.
The Conservatives are even cutting back on the ability of unemployed Canadians to appeal EI decisions. Can the minister tell Canadians how just 74 people are going to fairly adjudicate the over 31,000 cases each year?
Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to Canadians, and that was to respect the spending of their taxpayer dollars. That is why we are undergoing changes to ensure we do things both more efficiently and more effectively, while maintaining or increasing our services to Canadians.
Let us face it: across this country we have and will have growing shortages of both skills and labour, so we need to make sure that those people who are unfortunate enough to lose their job have every opportunity to become aware of jobs that are available in their area, to have the help they need to access those jobs and to get those jobs. That is the best for them and for their families and for the economy.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, the chickens are coming home to roost with the government's bad punishment policies.
In Canada's overcrowded jails, prison violence has already increased 37% over five years, and it will only get worse. That is not only dangerous for staff and guards but it is also dangerous for the Canadian public when these prisoners are released back into their communities.
When will the government pay attention to the overwhelming evidence that its crime agenda creates more victims and is doing more harm than good?
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the opposition has been continually criticizing us and saying that we will be building new prisons. We will not need to build new prisons because our legislation will not create new criminals; it just ends the revolving door.
We would ask the opposition to support our initiatives to make offenders more accountable, which, for example, as we announced yesterday, includes asking offenders to pay for some of their expenses. Canadians pay for their room and board. We are asking that offenders pay for some of their room and board. It is reasonable, and we ask the opposition to support these initiatives.
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, contaminated sites put the health, safety and economic interests of Canadians at risk for generations to come. Radioactive material may pose cancer risks, and one litre of gasoline can render one million litres of water undrinkable.
Does the minister understand that 13,000 sites may need to be cleaned up, that he should stop congratulating himself on a job half done and instead stand up for the environment, develop aggressive timelines and provide the necessary resources to protect Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague does not seem to understand the context of the federal contaminated sites program. Hundreds of these sites fall under the responsibility of 16 departments and agencies. The federal contaminated sites program, $3.5 billion announced by our government, is to address the largest, most serious of the federal contaminated sites. We are 50% of the way through those target sites and we will continue.
RCMP
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is in the news again today for the wrong reasons: the ongoing failure to act on sexual harassment against female officers.
The RCMP Public Complaints Commission is investigating. The RCMP commissioner is doing a gender audit of RCMP policies. However, for too long the government has failed to set any deadlines for concrete action on this crisis, in effect ignoring the stress this places on those officers who serve to make our communities safer.
Where is the government's sense of urgency? Where is the minister's commitment to getting a timely resolution to this unacceptable situation in the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House are concerned when we hear allegations of any individual, including any RCMP individual, having to deal with sexual harassment. We are very pleased that the new commissioner is taking this very seriously. He has taken a very tough stance on this. He is investigating and we are waiting for the reports and recommendations that come out of that.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is really time that the government started walking the walk.
The problem of sexual harassment within the RCMP is not new. We have known about it for years. What is the minister's solution? He has washed his hands of the issue and referred it to a commission.
Do the Conservatives think that RCMP officers, who risk their lives every day to protect Canadians, deserve only empty words, or will they finally give the RCMP the resources it needs to combat sexual harassment?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member opposite. All of us are concerned about these allegations. We are concerned with any prospect that any member of the RCMP would face harassment. That is why we have taken action. We are pleased that the commissioner has taken this seriously. He has made strong statements on this. He is taking action. There is pending litigation, so we will wait to see what the outcome is.
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, history has shown that in severe economic times and challenge, the global economy is revived through lowering trade barriers, not raising them.
However, concerns have been raised about an amendment to a buy America provision in the transportation bill before the U.S. Congress. Shamefully, the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster has called the buy America a perfectly logical policy.
Could the Minister of International Trade please share with the House how our government is defending a strong Canada-U.S. partnership and creating jobs for Canadian workers and their families?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yellowhead for his excellent work as chair of the committee. Canadians know that our government always has and always will defend their interests.
When buy America provisions were introduced in 2009, we negotiated an exemption for Canada. When they were reintroduced last year, we aggressively but respectfully engaged with the United States and the legislation died.
I am confident that our American cousins share the view that we must all do our part to ensure that the Canada-U.S. partnership, which is the envy of the world, grows even stronger as we go forward during these very difficult times.
Agriculture
Mr. Speaker, the 2011 Census of Agriculture shows a 10% decline in farms and farm operators. Young Canadians are not returning to the farm, with the average age of farmers now 58 years.
Making it worse, the government is removing the ability of local industry and farmers to identify innovative measures to improve competitiveness funded through the agricultural adaptation program. Now it will be a political decision of the minister.
Will the minister please listen to farmers and industry and return the delivery of federal funding to local agricultural councils in regions across Canada?
Mr. Speaker, this side is very proud of the work we have done on behalf of Canadian producers and processors. They are exporting record amounts throughout the world.
Yes, we have less farmers doing a far better job and producing more product than we have ever seen. Innovation and efficiency has taken over. They are no longer waiting for the Liberal cheques in the mailbox. They are out there in the world marketplace doing a great job for us.
[Translation]
Canada-U.S. Relations
Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, the Minister of Transport was visibly overwhelmed by a simple question about the Smugglers Hill Farm wind turbine project in Vermont, on the other side of the border from the town of Stanstead.
People are worried about their health and safety, and the minister knew very well what I was talking about. He was so confused, or paying so little attention, that he thought I was talking about a project in Quebec--and they claim to care about the interests of Quebeckers.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirm that he is now in contact with the mayor of Stanstead, Mr. Dutil, and that he is going to make sure that the concerns of the residents of his town are heard on the other side of the border?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work on this issue. We are aware of this matter and we have spoken with the mayor of Stanstead, the Government of Quebec and the State of Vermont.
The government will continue to make the best possible decisions for Canadian and to stand up for their interests. We will be monitoring the situation closely, and I will be pleased to work with the member on this very important matter.
[English]
The Budget
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the reckless NDP used tactics, which even the leader of the Liberal Party called absurd, to eliminate debate in the House of Commons on an important bill that would benefit Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Would the Minister of State for Finance please update the House on the status of Canada's economic action plan 2012, a plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government remains focused on jobs and growing the economy. That is why, in Canada's economic action plan 2012, we ensured that it was full of measures to promote job creation, including investments for training, infrastructure and new opportunities for young Canadians, first nations, newcomers and the unemployed.
It is frustrating when the opposition plays games with Canadians' future. Canadians want us to get this passed. They want this to happen. We need to focus on that and get it done for everyone.
Aboriginal Affairs
Mr. Speaker, this week, we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of northern Manitoba. Despite the progress of the last 100 years, there are still communities in northern Manitoba without all-weather roads and with third world conditions.
First nations lack basic safe drinking water and are even getting a special visit from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.
Liberal governments ignored first nations and the Conservative government has turned its back on them too. When will it partner with the provinces and first nations to put an end to the unacceptable living conditions aboriginal people face?
Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our record of collaborating with first nations, with our partners, in terms of improving economic opportunities and infrastructure on reserves. We are very proud of our nutrition north program, which has meant a reduction in the food basket costs for the average family in those 103 communities that it applies to. We think we are making major progress.
[Translation]
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, after the closing of the Quebec City rescue centre, which was able to respond to fishers and pleasure boaters in French, and after the removal of valuable artifacts from Quebec's history to be put on a shelf far from their place of origin, it is now the turn of the military in Quebec to bear the cost of the Conservative government’s cuts.
While members of the military were able to use French-language mediation services at CFB Valcartier and in Saint-Jean, now the Conservatives are eliminating 10 of the 25 mediator positions, including all the positions in Quebec.
Why does the government want to deprive members of the military in Quebec of easy access, in French, to this essential dispute resolution service?
Mr. Speaker, the member does not have enough information. The decision was made to expand our service, but it is sometimes necessary to review certain services, and that is what we are now doing.
[English]
We have taken the view that we are looking to provide direct services in many cases, particularly in areas of mental health services. We have made decisions to make those professionals closer to bases, closer to where the service is needed, and we do so in both official languages.
[Translation]
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the government does not want to listen to Canadians, does not respect parliamentary conventions and does not want to split Bill C-38, the Trojan Horse.
[English]
This bill will gut environmental protections, take money out of the hands of pensioners and further reduce the powers of the Auditor General.
I am wondering what else the government has in store for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, our government's priority is, of course, the economy. We are committed to job creation and economic growth.
As a result, this afternoon we will continue debate on Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. This bill implements the budget, Canada's economic action plan 2012, to ensure certainty for the economy.
For the benefit of Canadians and parliamentarians, when we introduced the bill, we said we would vote on it on May 14. The second reading vote on the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act will be on May 14.
After tomorrow, which will be the final day of debate on this bill, we will have had the longest second reading debate on a budget bill in at least the last two decades.
[Translation]
On Monday and Tuesday we will continue with another bill that will support the Canadian economy and job creation, especially in the digital and creative sectors.
We will have report stage and third reading debate on Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act.
This bill puts forth a balanced, common sense plan to modernize our copyright laws. Committees have met for over 60 hours and heard from almost 200 witnesses. All of this is in addition to the second reading debate on Bill C-11 of 10 sitting days.
After all that debate and study, it is time for the measures to be fully implemented so Canadians can take advantage of the updated rules and create new high-quality digital jobs.
[English]
Should the opposition agree that we have already had ample debate on Bill C-11, we will debate Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act; Bill C-23, the Canada–Jordan free trade act; and Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act in the remaining time on Monday and Tuesday.
Wednesday, May 16, will be the next allotted day.
On Thursday morning, May 17, we will debate the pooled registered pension plans act. This bill will help Canadians who are self-employed or who work for a small business to secure a stable retirement.
In the last election, we committed to Canadians that we would implement these plans as soon as possible. This is what Canadians voted for and this is what we will do.
If it has been reported back from committee, we will call Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, for report stage debate on Thursday afternoon.
Points of Order
[Points of Order]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to clarify an answer given last night in the committee of the whole.
In my enthusiasm to talk about the medical system, in particular the mental health system that we have in place in the Canadian Forces, I referenced the Canadian Forces health care budget as having “ongoing capital” of $439.6 million as opposed to saying “including capital”. Therefore, I am simply correcting the record.
To be clear, I should have said, “This brings the ongoing budget to $439.6 million for the Canadian Forces health care system.”
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention that prior to question period the member for Kootenay—Columbia used his Standing Order 31 statement to launch a personal attack on me, no less on a completely baseless and false matter.
This is the second time this has happened, and I raised a point of order two months ago on this very point.
You have repeatedly ruled that is an inappropriate use of Standing Order 31 for members to attack other members of this House.
Ironically, just today the government House leader stood up in question period and decried the use of personal attacks on those who want to serve the public, which I presume includes members of Parliament, yet the current government continues to do that very thing with Standing Order 31 statements every day.
I ask that you uphold your own ruling of this House and require the member for Kootenay—Columbia to withdraw his comments forthwith.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
[English]
Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Before statements by members, we were on questions and comments for the hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright. Questions and comments.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech that my colleague delivered just before question period. He was making some excellent points.
I would really appreciate it if the member would take a little more time to elaborate on some of the environmental implications of what he was saying. I think the House would appreciate hearing what they are.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question from my colleague.
One of the comments that I have heard most often from the opposition in response to our budget is that because the time government spends on the environmental process would be shortened, the process would somehow not be as thorough.
I mentioned in my comments that just the opposite is true. If the members opposite are really serious about doing their job of critiquing this legislation, they should probably read the legislation, tie the legislation in with other legislation that is in place and think about the consequences.
The opposition would find that we are proposing a streamlining that would allow the federal government to work with the provinces, to work with first nations, to work with municipalities, to work with the private sector and individuals who have an interest, and to work through a process side by side, together, whereby all of the information can be put together. We will end up with a better result.
This is just the opposite of what the opposition members are saying is true. I wish they would take a serious look at that and come to the realization that such is the case.
Mr. Speaker, the member needs to recognize that the government is actually using the budget debate, Bill C-38, as a back door for passing significant pieces of legislation, which is a precedent in itself.
Over 400 pages are in the budget bill, a bill that should have had 20 pages. There are well over 400 pages, of which 120 deal with the environment. This will have a profound impact on generations of Canadians during the years ahead. It should have been brought in as separate legislation. That approach would have afforded the House the opportunity to debate the legislation, take it to committee on its own, have experts from across Canada come and contribute to the debate, and then bring it back to the House for third reading. That would have been due diligence. That would have been the right way to do it.
Why has the government used a back door for so many piece of legislation that should have been brought in separately?
Mr. Speaker, the member must really have very little to complain about when it comes to this legislation, because he focuses on the process, as do so many others opposite.
Quite frankly, Canadians do not care about process; what they care about is what the end result will be. What they care about is having ample time for debate, and there has been a record amount of time for debate on a budget bill.
The member is quite correct in saying that this is a substantial budget. There are a lot of really important components of the budget, but the important thing is not how we arrive at scrutinizing it and ending up with a good product; it is that everyone is involved, and sincerely involved, instead of complaining about the amount of time they have had. It is a record amount, and one member from the official opposition took 11 hours to filibuster, which would have allowed 44 members to give speeches on the budget.
Instead of complaining about process, members should get engaged, do their homework, read the bill, tie it in with other legislation and give some constructive input. That would be a much more productive way to go.
Mr. Speaker, that last comment from my colleague across the way about Canadians not being concerned about process is a keeper. Democracy is all about process and the opportunity for the public to engage in their political process.
However, today I take great pleasure in rising to speak to Bill C-38, the Trojan Horse bill.
My riding of Beaches—East York is an urban riding, and it is through that lens of urban reality, not exclusively but primarily, that my constituents look at Bill C-38, which is before the House today.
This is not just true of my riding. In our mind's eye this is a country of great lakes, rocky mountains, craggy coastlines and broad expanses, but about 80% of Canadians live in urban centres. We are an urban nation. This is important to recognize, because it is this reality, not some romanticized mythical or historical place, that the Conservatives have been elected to govern. However, the urban fact of this country is something not at all recognized by the government, as evidenced by this and successive budgets and this budget implementation bill. Simply speaking, cities and the urban experience do not seem to form any part of the government's understanding of our country or its citizens. Cities have been left out of this budget and this bill, as have those who live in them.
We all know by now the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' estimate of the urban infrastructure deficit. It is about $120 billion. That is an old number now, and surely an underestimate, because so little has been done to address this deficit and so few investments have been made in our cities. Another year comes, another budget comes; another year goes and another budget goes, with nothing done that can be considered remotely meaningful to address the matter.
There is no commitment to urban transit, even though many studies by many credible organizations—including the OECD, the Toronto Board of Trade in my own city and Statistics Canada—tell us that at least in Toronto, our lives are wasting away in traffic jams and on inadequate public transit. Our economy is losing billions of dollars annually in lost productivity because of that.
There is no commitment to affordable housing, even though in Toronto 70,000 households—about 200,000 people in all—wait interminably on a waiting list for affordable housing. Last week a constituent of mine, Paul Dowling, took me on a tour of 40 Oaks, a new 87-unit affordable housing project in downtown Toronto. The project has been much celebrated in the media and the community, not just because of its architectural and design features, which are wonderful and spiritual, but also because new affordable housing is so very rare. It is so hard to get built and yet of such tremendous value. It took Paul and the Toronto Christian Resource Centre eight long years and countless hours of volunteer time and fundraising to build a home for people who needed a home and a community hub for people who needed a place to be with others. There could be, should be and need to be many such buildings in our cities, but of course the current government is not a government to respond to these needs, because it is a government that creates these needs.
Blame for the state of our cities cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the government. It is following a path set out by its predecessors of both Liberal and Conservative persuasion. It has all been quantified by the OECD. Canada has the seventh-greatest level of income disparity among 29 advanced countries. The richest 1% of Canadians saw their share of total income increase by 65% from 1980 to 2007, and the richest 0.1% of Canadians saw their total income more than double over the same period, as successive Liberal and Conservative federal governments took down the very barriers we had once erected to offset income disparity.
Toronto, my city, had for a long time been known as a city of neighbourhoods. It was an apt description, at one time, of a Toronto largely made up of mixed-income neighbourhoods. In 1970, two-thirds of Toronto's neighbourhoods were middle income. In just over a generation, our city of neighbourhoods has become, as David Hulchanski describes in his “The Three Cities Within Toronto” study, “a city of disparities”. The middle has been, and continues to be, hollowed out. If we continue down this path, less than 10% of our neighbourhoods will be middle income in just a decade or so.
A number of factors are responsible for what has become of Toronto. In large part, it is the result of a dramatic change in both the number and quality of jobs available to Torontonians.
Toronto has lost about 100,000 manufacturing jobs in less than a decade. The broader economic region of southern Ontario has lost about 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Many of these jobs have been lost as the result of a trade policy that establishes bilateral trade agreements with low-wage economies. The outcome, alongside the creation of a ballooning current account deficit, is the destruction of good manufacturing jobs and an expansive middle class that goes along with them. The government's commitment to pursue more vigorously such trade agreements will only hasten the decline of good jobs in Toronto and the demise of the middle class.
A recent study lays out about half of these job losses at the feet of so-called Dutch disease; that is the decline in the manufacturing sector caused by increased development of natural resources and corresponding currency escalation. This bill's savaging of environmental protections will only again hasten the demise of good jobs in Toronto and the demise of the middle class.
In place of good jobs are jobs that all too often leave workers in poverty. According to a recent Metcalf Foundation study, as of 2005, nearly one in ten workers in our city are living in poverty, but too many more cannot find work, especially Toronto's youth, with an unemployment rate creeping up on 20%.
Finally, and most offensively, it is into such a labour market the government proposes to force our seniors. With this budget, the government has at last decoded for us the Prime Minister's remarks in Switzerland in January about transforming our pension system. With Bill C-38, the government is about to implement these changes. Effective 2023, all Canadians not yet 65 years old can anticipate having to work longer before receiving their old age security and corresponding guaranteed income supplement.
As the federal budget and its implementation bill reveal, the government cannot imagine Canada as anything other than resource dependent. Most Canadians, certainly the 80% of us who live in cities, have been hoping for a different and more promising future for a long time. This lack of vision will be felt across urban Canada and in Toronto, most certainly.
There are ways to unwind the vicious spiral that has gripped our city, but our course will not change without adequate leadership from the federal government. In other G8 countries, governments have become major players in the financial, economic and cultural life of their cities. It is well past time for ours to do the same.
Canada's cities await the chance to be great. We await a federal government that finally understands that a city must be organized and its resources must be marshalled for the benefit of all of us who share the space. None of us succeed, much less thrive, as citizens of Canadian cities if we do not build cities that serve us all well. With this federal budget, we are forced to wait longer for cities and their citizens to fulfill their great potential.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen that the government does not really believe in facts and figures. The crime bill illustrates that. There has been much research that has indicated this is not the direction we should go.
We see it with this omnibus bill. The government is trying to take money away from seniors. The PBO's research and the government's own research indicate that these draconian measures are not needed for our OAS to be sustained.
The government is taking money away from seniors, yet it is putting it somewhere else. Could the hon. member highlight where the money is going?
Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. It is not entirely clear to me.
We certainly see a high level of hypocrisy on the issue of financial management and public administration.
I am very familiar with the F-35 file, where the government has disclosed a $15 billion life cycle cost for those planes and yet has books that claim the life cycle cost will be $20 billion. We still have not heard the actual life cycle cost, the cost of ownership.
What we find from the government is, frankly, an attack on accountability. We see attacks on the offices of auditors and on the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In fact, just about every independent agent of the House has been attacked. We have even heard attacks on the environment commissioner in recent days, since the release of his report.
Mr. Speaker, we had a late night yesterday and the member for Beaches—East York pulled the night shift. The Minister of National Defence and some of his cohorts were in the chamber in committee of the whole. As frustrating as that was, we now can appreciate what Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, goes through.
There is a lot of rhetoric on the other side. The comment has been made a couple of times that the government has allotted more time to this debate than ever before. Off the top of my head, I know the last Liberal budget we presented was only about 120 pages. This one is 450 pages or so. It was about a quarter of the size and the second reading of the last Liberal budget certainly went longer than this.
I am sure my colleague is feeling a sense of frustration coming out of last night's committee of the whole. Opposition members and journalists have known for a long time about frustration the Parliamentary Budget Officer has felt. He has been stifled. What did he experience last night with the stonewalling of the government on so many aspects of the F-35 contract?
Mr. Speaker, last night was interesting. It was clear from the get-go in committee of the whole on National Defence matters that it would not be a night where we would make much progress in getting facts and truth out of the government. Stonewalling, the word my friend used, is in fact a very apt description of what we were confronted with last night.
With respect to his comment on the amount of time that has been allotted, I have no independent verification of the House leader's suggestion that this is the longest debate in a couple of decades. All I can say is it is not nearly long enough. This is a 420-odd-page omnibus bill incorporating lots of issues that are not relevant to a budget and do not properly belong in a budget bill. They deal with environmental issues, changes to the authority of auditors, the accountability of CSIS, the repealing of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, all sorts of things that do not properly belong in a bill related to the implementation of a budget.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-38, the economic action plan for 2012.
I want to make a bit of a contrast between what our Conservative government is doing in our budget and what the Manitoba NDP is doing in its provincial budget.
One thing I am glad to see in the federal budget and economic action plan 2012 is the mention of further funding for Lake Winnipeg to support our initiatives for clean water, clean air and clean land.
Overall, we have been investing for the past four years, through the Lake Winnipeg Basin initiative, which included the Lake Winnipeg water stewardship fund and which really has helped community-based projects. It assisted with science and research that looked at reducing algae and nutrient loads in Lake Winnipeg, ensuring we would have less beach closures due to contamination as a result of municipal and agricultural runoff and natural nutrient loads in Lake Winnipeg and throughout the entire watershed.
This watershed carries on, not just immediately around Lake Winnipeg. It includes almost the entire province of Manitoba, almost all of North Dakota, half of Minnesota and a bit of South Dakota. All of the southern prairies, including Saskatchewan and Alberta as well as northwestern Ontario all flow into Lake Winnipeg. It was a $14 million project over four years that invested heavily through Environment Canada into the scientific community, working with academics at universities throughout the watershed.
Unfortunately the Manitoba NDP provincial budget is completely mute on any new initiatives to protect Lake Winnipeg, to reduce nutrient loads, to ensure we can move ahead for a healthy rural economy and have a good fishery in Lake Winnipeg.
One of the things we have been talking about throughout Bill C-38 is the changes to the Fisheries Act and how those focus on improving the approval of drainage projects through rural Canada, especially those around agricultural lands.
All too often municipalities and farmers, in dealing with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, had nothing but delay after delay to do things as simple as cleaning out a ditch, replacing a culvert, replacing a crossing on a provincial drain or ensuring a drain was expanded to handle the excess moisture that could be falling in agricultural areas from time to time. It was always classified as fish habitat.
We know it is not fish habitat. Most of the year those drains, ditches and culverts are dry. There is not a fish in them. The bill would remove that burden from the federal fisheries, allowing it to focus on actual fish habitat, being rivers, creeks and lakes. It would ensure that any project occurring in those natural habitats would done quicker and assessments would be done expediently, so those projects could be done in an environmentally sensitive manner and enhance and protect fish habitat. There will not be overly cumbersome processes on municipalities and farmers in conducting their drainage projects.
My area of Selkirk—Interlake has been hit extremely hard over the past five years by excess moisture. Therefore, we want to address this critical issue. We will do that through the federal budget.
In Manitoba, the province has enhanced permit processes happening through water stewardship and more delays happening for things like lagoons, grey water from farmyards and farmhouses, making it more difficult for people to live in rural Manitoba. That just does not fly very far. I represent a rural area and most people are getting quite perturbed by the attack on rural Manitoba, which the provincial NDP has done.
This all relates to flood protection. In economic action plan 2012 and Bill C-38, I am glad we are increasing funding for permanent flood mitigation efforts by $99 million over the next three years, which is available to the provinces and territories. We are particularly concentrating on ensuring we have flood mitigation in place to deal with the flooding we experienced in 2011.
Whether it was the flooding in the Richelieu Valley in Quebec, or the excess flooding in southern Manitoba and southern Saskatchewan or the excessive flooding we are still experiencing along Lake Manitoba in my riding, this will help the provinces and municipalities build those permanent dikes, put in place proper controls and infrastructure to protect farm land and property and to ensure cottage owners and people who live in those beautiful pristine areas along our lakes and rivers have the protection they deserve, the same type of protection they would get in urban centres, especially like the city of Winnipeg.
This is in addition to all the money that we are going to be pouring into Manitoba through disaster financial assistance arrangements. We are going to be paying eligible expenses based upon the size of the flooding and the cost of the flood. Over 90% of the funds will be coming from the federal treasury because the province of Manitoba has complained so much that it is being overburdened with the cost of the flooding. We provided a cash advance of $50 million to help it pay for upfront costs and to help homeowners, farmers, communities and municipalities deal with all the excess costs that they had in dealing with the flood last year.
Manitoba has essentially not given us any credit for doing that. It continues to complain, saying that its costs and its budget shortfall of $930 million is because of the flood. Its flooding costs have just been over $300 million to date, cash out of pocket.
The Manitoba budget this year was an admission of mismanagement. It had to hire more adjusters. It is a year after the fact and those adjusters have still not finalized claims. People are still waiting for their money. Municipalities have still not been paid for damage that was done, roads that were replaced and dikes that were built. It is just too little, too late from the Manitoba NDP government.
I am proud that over the years since we have been government we have been reducing the GST. We reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. That has been a huge help to taxpayers and consumers. It keeps the cost of everything lower, mitigating the increases that happen every time a tax is put in place. It just keeps snowballing out of control.
What did the provincial NDP do? Let us look at the example of gas. If gas is $1.25 a litre, reducing that gas by 2% creates a 2.5¢ per litre saving for Manitobans. But what did Stan Struthers do in the last provincial NDP government budget? He put in place a gas tax of 2.5¢ per litre. That is a tax grab. That takes away the savings that we had passed on to Manitobans and to all Canadians. That is highway robbery because everybody has to drive. In Manitoba, it is unfairly hurting seniors and those living on fixed incomes. It is a direct attack on rural Manitobans because they have to drive the farthest and the most often. They are carrying that burden.
The other thing I want to point out is the income tax difference. We have continued to introduce tax measures that reduce the amount of taxes Manitobans and Canadians are paying.
I want to look at an average income of $40,000. In 1999, the year that the provincial NDP came to power, the federal tax was 17% on the first $29,590 and 26% on the next $10,410. The total payable federal income tax at that time was $7,736. In Manitoba, the tax at that time was 48.5% of the federal tax. If the federal tax was $7,736, the provincial tax would have been $3,752. Premier Selinger, who was the minister of finance at the time, delinked the provincial tax from the federal tax.
In 2011, federal tax was reduced to 15% on personal income and the tax bracket was moved up, so it is 15% on the entire $40,000. An individual would owe $6,000 in federal income tax. The Manitoba tax, though, is 10.8% on the first $31,000 and 12.7% on the remaining $9,000 of the $40,000. That is a total provincial tax due of $4,495--
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I fail to see the relevance to Bill C-38. The member is speaking about things in the Manitoba legislature. That is not relevant to this legislation.
As the member and others are no doubt aware, members are routinely given latitude in terms of relevance. This is particularly true when the House is dealing with the throne speech and budget. There have been many references to the scope of the bill. I would encourage all hon. members to speak of things that are related to the bill, realizing how broad it is.
The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
Mr. Speaker, I know your ruling makes the member across the way uncomfortable. However, I want to talk about how Manitobans are feeling after the federal and provincial budgets came down and make a comparison so people understand, in Manitoba and right across Canada, the dangers of an NDP government.
As I said, in 2011, in the example, federal tax due is $6,000 at a 15% personal income tax rate. The Manitoba tax is just shy of $4,500. I am not talking about all the different tax credits introduced, such as tax reductions because of age, children, education or sports. I am talking about only the reduction in the bracket creep and in the personal income tax base. The taxpayers in Manitoba are enjoying a savings in federal income tax of $1,736, which is down 22.5%. However, they are paying $743 more in provincial income tax. That is up almost 20%. Instead of enjoying a tax savings of $2,578, thanks to the NDP in Manitoba, they are only enjoying a $993 reduction in personal income taxes. That is a personal tax grab of $1,585 by Stan Struthers and Premier Selinger.
We hear that Manitoba needs the money because it is not getting enough money from Ottawa. In this budget, we are maintaining our transfers to the provinces. Since we came to power, we have increased our overall contributions to the province of Manitoba by $648 million. That is a huge increase from the $2.7 billion from the federal Liberals to the $3.4 billion that the Conservatives are giving Manitoba. The problem is that Manitoba does not have a revenue problem. It has increased taxes and it gets more money from the federal government. It has a spending problem.
I wanted to talk about the dangers of what NDP policies present to us and what the NDP would do with a federal budget. What sums it up best is in a letter that Sean Hutton wrote to the Winnipeg Sun, “For anyone out there who’s crazy enough to envision a national NDP government take a look at the disaster they’ve created in Manitoba! Who’s crazy enough to want that?”
Mr. Speaker, I admire the vigour of the member across the aisle when it comes to making his political points. I wish he would use a closer lens to look at exactly what his party is doing when it comes to gutting the rural Manitoban economy especially and the economy in his own part of the region that he represents.
I would like him to talk about what this budget and his government are doing with respect to the elimination of the community pastures program and what it means for ranchers in his riding. I would like him to talk about what it means for the federal government to withdraw, a few months ago, $10 million in the cattle enhancement program that it had committed to. I would like him to talk about what it means to lose the Canadian Wheat Board and to have so many prairie farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta who do not know what next year is going to look like.
Those seem to me like some pretty severe measures when it comes to not only gutting the economy but putting at risk the livelihoods of the people he is supposed to be representing.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the speech I just gave hits her pretty closely and personally since her dad sits in the cabinet of a provincial NDP government. I have a lot of respect for him because he is reaching out and trying to work with his federal counterparts, unlike some of the other cabinet ministers who have constantly attacked us rather than try to work with us.
Unfortunately, it was while he was sitting at the cabinet table that the decision was made to intentionally raise the levels of Lake Manitoba and flood hundreds of thousands of operations, properties and communities around Lake Manitoba. Over 100,000 cattle had to be removed from the area because all the ranch land was flooded. Today, a year later, people are still living in communities outside their own areas, like Winnipeg and Pinawa, instead of living in their own reserves, municipalities and communities. Houses are still under water because the Manitoba government has failed to develop a natural outlet for Lake Manitoba or to provide dollars to allow individuals to fix their homes. This has carried on far too long.
As for agriculture, we are working for our agriculture producers. We are going to allow them to take control of their own PFRA pastures and set their own rates rather than having government dictate to them how much they are going to get charged for grazing in community pastures.
Mr. Speaker, the member points out the badness of what is being considered. He mentioned 2¢ or 2.5¢ a litre on gas and the effect that would have on the average consumer.
In 2008, the government promised to reduce diesel by 2¢. What happened to that?
Mr. Speaker, I thought reducing the cost of diesel fuel by 2¢ a litre was a great idea at first. Diesel fuel is the lifeline and lifeblood of rural Canada. All our goods and services, and our food, are produced using diesel. However, one of the fears that I had about this idea is that every time we vacate taxation levels, somebody else always backfills them.
That is what we have just experienced in Manitoba. We have decreased the GST, which reduced the costs of fuel in Manitoba by 2.5¢ a litre. What did the provincial NDP government do? It increased the price of fuel 2.5¢ a litre.
Mr. Speaker, I too have experienced some of the devastation of the current government in Manitoba.
It is interesting that the member for Churchill would raise the issue of support for rural communities and rural parts of Manitoba. We have gone to great lengths to improve the conditions in Churchill, particularly with the port, and to improve economic activities.
Would the member comment on that and perhaps even elaborate further as to why the member for Churchill would vote against such an opportunity for her own community?
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to learn today that OmniTRAX, the owner of the Hudson Bay rail line, had the dollars that we allocated in the budget to help offset the costs of moving grain into Churchill, to deal with the issue of moving grain up into the Churchill port.
I learned today that the entire program has been oversubscribed, meaning that over the next five years there will be more than enough grain moving up into Churchill, more than what was there in the past.
As well, OmniTRAX is pursuing the purchase of grain terminals and more marketing opportunities across the Prairies so that it can be another variable in the marketplace, allowing farmers a different place to sell and a different way to ship grain via the Churchill line.
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of my constituents of Toronto—Danforth and all Canadians who are deeply worried by the Conservative government's assault on democracy in the form of this omnibus budget implementation act.
[Translation]
A full one-third of Bill C-38 is dedicated to the gutting of environmental regulation and protection. In addition, the bill includes a series of previously unannounced measures that will contribute to a less transparent and more secretive environment.
These measures include a massive gutting of the powers of the Auditor General'. In addition to the content of the bill, we take issue with its undemocratic nature.
[English]
The Conservatives truly are trying to hide from oversight and avoid accountability with this bill, both in terms of how it is going through the House and its content. It is inappropriate to put so many sweeping changes to so many different areas in a single budget bill. This is purely inappropriate legislative behaviour.
I will touch on just some of the areas hammered by Bill C-38, starting with the environment. This week, 10 of the leading environmental organizations launched a protest campaign to raise awareness of the huge threat the Conservative budget represents to the environment. However, they equally wish us all to understand the onslaught against democracy itself represented by this bill. Parliamentary democracy is under assault by the wholesale regressive transformation of federal environmental law without serious opportunity to debate and scrutinize, and much of the change in the budget bill is transparently intended to cripple the elements of participatory democracy that are part of current environmental law.
The campaign of these 10 brave groups is called Black Out Speak Out or Silence, on parle! in French, and it asks Canadians to darken their websites on June 4 as a form of collective national protest. Why do I say that they are brave? It is because members of the Conservative government have already attacked them as being radical, extremists and money launderers, and the budget itself seeks to chill their participation in education and advocacy around the environment by encouraging Revenue Canada to go after its charitable status. They know they will be targeted by the government and its big-oil partners and front groups.
In fact, the government has earmarked $8 million at least to help the Canada Revenue Agency go after charities ostensibly engaging in political activity or being funded by so-called foreign sources. In the hands of a government at war with environmental and social justice organizations, this is a frightening new spending initiative.
Finally, on the theme of the environment, I will mention a matter close to the hearts of the people of Toronto—Danforth. There is no renewal of the ecoenergy home retrofit program that was very popular with Toronto residents, including those in my riding and, most important, very valuable as a sustainability measure.
I will now pick up on the theme of removing oversight and accountability. The budget implementation bill would create a much more secretive and non-transparent government through removal and closure of oversight powers and bodies. Bill C-38 would eliminate the mandatory Auditor General oversight of financial performance and reporting by no less than 12 agencies by removing provisions that require the Auditor General to audit accounts, financial statements and financial transactions. This includes the Canada Revenue Agency, ironically enough.
As if that were not enough, it would also eliminate the position of the Inspector General for the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, which would drastically reduce accountability at CSIS, especially since we know that the Inspector General's recent reports have been critical of CSIS and the government. I think it is fair to assume that this critical scrutiny is most probably the reason the Inspector General would be eliminated as an institution. Once again, this shows that the government is dealing another, not just hammer blow but sledgehammer blow to the core foundations of our democracy.
I will now briefly speak to old age security, OAS. I hope to speak later in the day on the private member's bill. I will simply say the obvious. The Conservatives did not campaign on cutting OAS. Davos was the context for the Prime Minister to spring this on us. Now we know that the age of eligibility will rise over time from 65 to 67.
“Rise over time” are the key words because that has allowed the government to spread the disingenuous message that it is not current seniors who need to worry about this budget, but those coming afterward who just have to plan their affairs. This is the ultimate in wedge politics.
Seniors who now know they are “safe”, in the government terms, however, are among the most outraged. I can attest to that by virtue of the most recent byelection campaign I was part of and talking to people since. They are thinking of those coming after them, unlike the government, and do not buy into the crass assumption that they will not care and, therefore, will vote for the Conservatives because they are shielded from the immediate effect.
On housing, the people of Toronto—Danforth are extremely disappointed that there is nothing for affordable nor social housing in the budget bill and this has been condemned by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which stated:
A healthy housing sector, able to meet a broad range of needs, is a vital part of the economic and social wellbeing of any community.
Local governments have been implementing an array of initiatives to increase and preserve the supply of rental and affordable housing. ...municipalities are doing their part; but they can’t do it alone.
Cities have clearly been left out on housing, on transit and on other fronts.
Furthermore, yesterday, the Mental Health Commission of Canada released its mental health strategy and stated the importance of affordable, secure and safe housing for people living with mental health problems and illnesses and yet there is nothing in this budget for them.
Other important cuts are buried in the bill and/or indirectly created by the bill, such as cuts to CBC Radio drama. As we know, all drama programming of Radio One has been eliminated. I have been receiving many complaints from my constituents. One wrote the following:
...cutting the CBC's budget is detrimental not only to the Canadian arts community and the listening public, but to political culture in Canada.
I could not agree more.
As demonstrated by an article in the The Globe and Mail on April 12 by Kelly Nestruck, drama programming nurtured numerous playwrights and actors and allowed them to gain national attention while furthering the public's understanding of politics and society.
Afghanada, for example, not only “was the source of employment of an astonishing number of young Canadian playwrights”, but it also was the only drama to further our understanding of the causes and the legacy of the Canadian Forces mission in Afghanistan until the very recent wave of stage plays have finally rolled out.
It is a shame that the government is cutting spending on areas like CBC Radio drama that have had a long and culturally valuable history of informing, stimulating and, yes indeed, entertaining Canadians.
[Translation]
To conclude, the Conservatives clearly do not understand the connections between healthy communities and the health of the economy.
So what are we doing about it? These sweeping changes are going through the wrong forum. They should not be hidden in a budget bill in this manner. Trojan Horse budget bills should not become the new normal.
If the government is not afraid of being held accountable, it should agree to work with us in order to split this bill up into several bills.
[English]
Unfortunately, it appears that the government has already rejected the possibility of splitting this bill into more manageable tranches for Parliament to study. I hope there is still time for it to reconsider.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech on this matter.
Since he arrived in the House relatively recently, I would like to ask him if he is disappointed at the level of democracy that is currently being practised in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I will hold off in my judgment for just a little bit longer. However, I do feel like we are on the cusp of perhaps the most anti-democratic era in the history of this country. There are too many signs for us to ignore and, if we keep ignoring them, we will be in deep trouble.
Mr. Speaker, would my hon. colleague give us his thoughts on the proposed changes to the OAS where the government has talked about this supposed crisis?
The government claims that the OAS will be unaffordable and yet it cannot really point to any expert opinion that says that. Its own government reports say that it is not in jeopardy and that there is no issue of affordability. The OECD says that there is no issue with affordability.
We know that 40% of the people who receive OAS have incomes of $20,000 or less each year and yet the government wants to make them wait two more years, which could cost them as much as $30,000 and cause real hardship as they are waiting to receive this assistance.
Would my hon. colleagues like to comment on this decision by the government?