2012-10-26

Government Orders
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie. He will speak for 10 minutes after I finish the eight minutes I have remaining from yesterday.
I started yesterday's speech by pointing out that this bill is completely undemocratic. We are debating more than 400 pages under a time allocation motion, so we will not have a chance to discuss the bill thoroughly. It is all well and good to say that we will have the chance to study the bill in committee, except we will not be able to make amendments. When I came to the House, I thought that we were supposed to debate ideas to find compromises that reflect the values, ideas and wishes of the Canadian public. But that is not the case and I am very disappointed.
The bill is called the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. This title is a bit misleading, since the bill does not propose any concrete measures to create the 1.4 million jobs needed in this country. As we know, the budget actually led to the loss of 43,000 jobs. It is not creating jobs; it is causing them to be lost.
The government tells us that the $500 million in cuts to research and development can help stimulate innovation, except that we have not yet been told how it will bridge that gap. We do not know the new criteria for research and development, and those would be very useful to know. It would stimulate our economy and motivate people to innovate.
This week I attended a conference that addressed the importance of innovation, particularly in the technology and computer industry. If the government does not invest and does not compensate for the $500 million shortfall in research and development, I do not understand how it will ensure economic growth.
The bill includes a $1,000 tax credit that will help create jobs in small- and medium-sized businesses. This is a measure that we support. We have always supported these types of measures. However, I would have liked to see a longer-term commitment, since $1,000 is great now, but if an employer is considering hiring workers in one or two years, he would probably like to know that this tax credit will still be available.
What is really crucial when it comes to economic growth is ensuring that we invest in our environment. We must create a green economy and invest in it. With all of the restrictions and the changes made to our environmental protection laws, I have a hard time imaging how my generation will see any economic growth in 20 years. The protection of natural resources and natural resources themselves are an incredible source of wealth for this country.
Instead of creating jobs, Bill C-45 completely destroys the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Thousands of waterways will no longer be protected. The changes are huge. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which will examine this, will not even be able to propose amendments. It is truly shameful.
Furthermore, the bill removes the notion of “water protection” and replaces it with “navigation protection”. There is a huge difference between the two definitions. Once again, this will not be examined. The bill also reduces the number of environmental assessments indicated in the Environmental Protection Act.
However, the bill does have one good measure for the environment, but the amount allocated is very small. The bill includes a tax credit for certain kinds of green energy equipment and products. It is a good measure and I congratulate the government on this, but $3 million to $5 million is peanuts; it is not enough. This does not demonstrate any real desire on the government's part to invest in the green economy, which would help create jobs. Everyone knows this; studies have proven it. I think this is really a missed opportunity.
The bill also eliminates the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and puts more powers in the hands of ministers. We saw the same thing with Bill C-38, which unfortunately also passed and was just as undemocratic as this one. That bill also eliminated several commissions and gave more powers to ministers.
What is the point of conducting studies and hearing from informed and educated people who are experts in their field, if the government does not want to listen to them? They betray their ignorance by saying that, because they are ministers, they know everything and there is no need for experts or their advice. Our country is vast and the population is growing. We have to take into consideration what the majority of people want, and this advice could help us do that. 
The plight of our young workers is of particular concern to me because, before I was elected, I was a labour relations officer with a union that represents young workers. Last year, in a discussion group, I spoke to young workers who said that they were very worried about the fact that a two-tiered pension system is being proposed.
Young workers are going to enter the workforce, and their pension benefits will be less than those of people who entered the workforce before them. That creates two categories of employees: those who were there first and young workers. Young workers begin their careers saddled with huge debt they have accumulated to finance their post-secondary studies. They have a hard time finding work, because the youth unemployment rate is very high. Furthermore, once they enter the workforce, the public service pension plan will change. They will be told that they are entering too late unfortunately. This will create two classes of workers, which is not good for our young people.
And this is all happening without any real debate. I support some of the measures in the bill, but because everything is lumped together, I cannot support this completely undemocratic bill.
Every time that the government asks why I ask a question when I will be voting against a measure, I will answer that I am proud to oppose it because the NDP will always oppose undemocratic measures. We will always be proud to support transparency and accountability. We will always defend environmental protection, retirement security and health care.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with much humour to the member's statement about the government being ignorant and the minister not understanding certain things that those members have to say about the bill. It is absolutely astounding that the member of that party can stand up and complain about not having enough time to study the bill when budget information has been out for several months now.
Since I have been in this House, and this is my 20th year in the House, the NDP has never voted in favour of a government bill. Those members have always given fair warning that they would be voting against government budget bills even before they were read in the House. I do not know how she can stand and say that NDP members do not have enough time when they have already said that they will be voting against the bill before it was even presented.
[Interjection]
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite knows we have voted for budgets in the past in minority situations. In his wisdom, he should know that. 
Regarding the lack of time for the budget, yes, we received the lovely budget document and indeed we read it, except that the budget tabled in March contained so little detail. We might see a sentence saying they were making changes to environmental protection and expediting the project assessment process, but it is just one sentence. 
Now, we have been landed with a document over 400 pages long. It is easy to understand that one sentence does not give us a lot of information.
The information is coming, certainly, with this bill, but it is in a 400-page brick. I think it is truly shameful to think this is acceptable.
Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member for Cariboo—Prince George said just now that the bill has been out for months. And also, the member has been here for 20 years. I do not know what he has done in those 20 years, but he does not realize that the bill came out last week. That is not months, that is a few days. 
Again, we are discussing the time allocated for the bill. The Conservatives like to get up and say how good and fine the bill is and that we should support it. If the bill is so good and so fine, and if we should pass it, why do the Conservatives not want to talk about it and why are they trying to cut off debate?
[Interjection]
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nickel Belt raises an excellent point. In fact, this omnibus bill probably has more pages than any other in 20 years. The member opposite who just asked me a question should understand that bills like this are unacceptable.
If the Conservatives are so proud of this budget and this omnibus bill, which is over 400 pages long, why can we not have some real debate? Why can we not make amendments that might improve this bill? Why not let the people of Canada and Quebec examine this legislation properly and listen to the advice of experts and academics from all across Canada? Because all they want is quick passage of these bills. There is too much to digest, even for the media. They have to pick the most important measure to discuss in the media. There is really too much to digest.
If they were so proud of their legislation, they would want to discuss it at length.
Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak about what is called Bill C-45 and about the fact that the government opposite has decided once again impose closure. How many times does this make? I think it is 33. In the early days, we were up in arms. It was unbelievable that closure would be imposed in the House of Commons. Democratic procedures are not the government's forte.
In terms of the budget, in March 2012, the economic action plan was released. We know it was; we saw it on television. There was a lot of publicity about it, and the Conservatives even spent more than they had set aside for it. I would like to congratulate them on putting money into something that was passed in March 2012 and exceeding their own budget, when this money could have been used to help those in need.
Families in my riding of Brossard—La Prairie now have to go to food banks to ask for food, even though they are employed. 
 With regard to the process, the budget was tabled in March 2012, and then we had to study that brick of a document. The Standing Committee on Finance had to study the repercussions of the first budget implementation act. It was also an omnibus bill that affected many pieces of legislation. The Conservatives were nice and they let a finance subcommittee study a little bit of the bill.
All this just to say that this process is quite impenetrable and there is a flagrant lack of transparency. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is even threatening to take the government to court because it is not giving him all the information about the financial implications of its own initiatives. 
Last week, Bill C-45 came along. This bill has some 400 pages. It contains amendments to some 40 pieces of legislation. The government has learned something at least. It knows these bills do not go down well with Canadians or with the opposition. It has agreed to split them to some extent in committee, but only for the purposes of study. Then the bill will be sent back to the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member. We are going to have to study it, because the government has not even agreed that amendments may be made in committee. 
The government has learned that omnibus bills are unacceptable. It agreed to separate it into 10 parts. This shows that the bill covers incredibly wide-ranging elements. Furthermore, not all these elements are necessarily related to the budget. We also know that the members on the other side complained about omnibus bills when they were in opposition. Now they have become experts in omnibus bills.
Also, I would like to put how the economy is doing into context. I know that my colleagues across the way know we are in a fragile economy. The IMF, OECD, and last week even the Conference Board of Canada said that a restorative budget would not help in terms of difficult times. Right now we are having difficult times and the government is not listening to what economists are saying.
Since the Conservatives took power, the gap between the rich and the poor has increased. Right now it is increasing more rapidly in Canada than the U.S. That is a problem. The Conservative government is not taking that issue seriously.
As well, household debt is at a record high since the government has taken power. That is a problem. What has the government done? Nothing. One of the reasons we have arrived here is because of the government's inaction. One of the problems we have is that the government is not listening to what Canadians are saying or looking at how they are living now. That is another huge problem.
My colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville also mentioned that the unemployment rate among young people is double the normal rate. This is a problem. What is the government doing? Nothing, once again.
To address all the problems, we want the government to invest in the future, to support green energy and the green economy.
The Conservatives have invested about $3 million in tax credits for the green economy. It is a start but it is not really very much considering the size of the budget.
With regard to the corporate tax cuts, the Governor of the Bank of Canada noted that one of the problems was that there is $500 billion in dead money sitting around.
Even the Minister of Finance has realized that money is not being reinvested in the economy. What was his solution? It was to tell the companies to reinvest that money. However, just telling them that does not work. We need to take action. We have seen that the actions taken by the government do not work.
I do not want to use unparliamentary language but, when the Minister of Finance rose to speak on Bill C-45, he was very disrespectful when he said that we did not do our job last summer and that we were supposed to have read his budget. We read his budget a long time ago. When it came out in March, we took notes. He said that everything that was in Bill C-45 was in the budget.
We had a briefing session with senior officials last Monday from 7 p.m. until 1 a.m. just to review Bill C-45 in its entirety. I asked those senior officials and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance where in the budget the changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act in Bill C-45 were mentioned. According to the government and even according to the Department of Transport, the purpose of that act is to protect the environment. 
She referred me to page 282. Here is an excerpt from this page where the transportation portfolio is mentioned. I asked for the exact reference because, of course, there is no reference to the environment or to navigable waters protection. She mentioned one line: “Transport Canada, 2012-13, $37 million.” According to the Minister of Finance, we should have understood that this was a direct reference to the protection of navigable waters, of all of Canada's lakes and rivers. He seemed to be saying that environmental protection is covered in one tiny little line that mentions $37 million. By the way, $37 million is the amount cut from the budget for transport. Go figure. 
The Minister of Finance said we had not done our homework. It is very difficult to do our homework when the minister himself hides what is happening. The other side is improvising. This is why we are faced with a bill which now includes things that were not originally in the budget, things that we need to ask questions about. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General both agree: the government lacks transparency. It is the least transparent government in the history of our country. This is no surprise, since the government was overturned for the way it was treating Parliament.
It is disappointing to see the government's attacks on democracy in an effort to ignore it completely. It is keeping parliamentarians in the dark. We ask questions, but they remain unanswered. Even the other side does not know the answers. 
The Conservatives are improvising. We asked senior officials questions to figure out what the cost would be. They replied they had not done any reviews and would just wait and see. The other side must realize how disturbing this is. At a time when our economy remains fragile, we need a clear vision, and such a vision is obviously missing from the other side. The government did not learn anything from public reaction to its last omnibus bill.
In my riding of Brossard—La Prairie, I had the chance to hear from people representing many organizations including Le Partage, the Mouvement Action-chômage, the Congress of Union Retirees of Canada and Humane Society International. They told Canadians what was in the last budget implementation bill and how it would impact them. We hope that this time, the government will pay attention to what the opposition has to say.
Mrs. Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Brossard—La Prairie for his excellent speech and his excellent analysis.
In a true democracy, legislators take the time to study the bills they introduce, to discuss them and, most importantly, to listen to expert testimony. Once again, the time we have to study Bill C-45 has been cut short by the Conservatives. I would like to know what my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie thinks of the message the government is sending Canadians by invoking closure for the thirtieth time, at least, to prevent us from having a real debate.
[Interjection]
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes for her question. She said we are experiencing problems in terms of democracy.
We want to do our job. The government, however, intentionally keeps information from us. As parliamentarians, we have a very hard time obtaining information. How can we make decisions when we do not know what consequences they might have? How can we vote on a bill when we have no idea if its effect will be negative or positive?
I think it is understood that we want this information and that we are trying to do our job. It is the government that is keeping information from us. We have asked senior officials and government members questions, but they do not even have the information. We are now calling for consultations and discussions to better understand the scope of this budget. I have to admit there are some good things in the bill, such as the provisions concerning transfer pricing.
Fine, it is one start.
What is missing is debate and discussion. For example, when parts of the budget amended the Indian Act, first nations were not consulted. The government came up with the changes and put them in place without talking to the people involved. This is why we need to do it now.
Unfortunately, the government is not listening to us, once again.
Mr. Costas Menegakis (Richmond Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that the budget was first introduced on March 29 of this year, roughly six months ago. We are already halfway through the year. There was plenty of time to read the budget. I have heard repeatedly from the member and others in the opposition, particularly the NDP party, about the length of the bill. There are many high school and university students across this country who have textbooks that are longer than this bill. Members in the House have had more than six months to study the bill.
My question is this. There is time allotted for each member to speak about the budget, and the opposition is continually referring to the fact that there is not enough time for debate. Let me remind the member that the leader of his party, just two day ago, spent 45 minutes in the House talking about the budget. In addition, and I will close with this, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster spoke for 13 hours on this budget. Who are they kidding? Canadians from across the country have had enough of this nonsense. We need to get the work done.
[Interjection]
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague was listening to my debate. If he heard what I was saying, budget 2012, which we saw ads on TV for and we paid a lot for, was submitted in March 2012. There is a line for Transport Canada that says there will be $37 million, and from that we are supposed to understand that the Navigable Waters Protection Act will be amended and will have an effect on all the lakes and rivers in Canada. What are we supposed to learn from that?
Now we see the government improvising on that front, by changing websites and taking “environment” out of it. The idea was to protect the environment. It is clear the government has not done its homework, and that is only one example. There are tons of examples of things that were not in the budget or that were made reference to with no explanation. It was only last week that we got Bill C-45. I know how to read a lot of legislation, but this is overdoing it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before we resume debate, I want to inform all hon. members that we have passed the five hours of debate and, as such, all speeches from this point on will be 10 minutes.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to talk about in this budget but I will have to say it all in 10 minutes rather than 20 minutes. My colleague for Ottawa—Vanier suggests this might be bad news for me but good news for him. I always appreciate his thoughtful commentary on such matters.
I want to start by picking up on the point that my hon. colleague was making a moment ago in his response to a question. I have to say that I disagree with him somewhat. He complained that the budget bill is very large, as he was waving a copy of the budget, which is also very large. It is reasonable to expect that a meaty budget would produce a meaty and detailed piece of legislation.
Although I suspect a few of my constituents sit down and read most legislation cover to cover, I think that sometimes there is a tendency to expect that Canadians will not actually read the budget implementation act and that they will take it on faith that a very large bill is somehow inappropriate.
 I want to point out that the nature of the many small detailed adjustments that are being made to government spending require a certain amount of space. To make this point, I will turn to Bill C-45 on page 228, which deals with pay for judges under the Judges Act. It deals with the salaries for every federally appointed and paid judge in the country, starting with the Chief Justice of Canada. It includes a series of amendments to the Judges Act because these salaries are legislated. Members would understand why we would not want to have judges salaries be discretionary, which is in order to preserve the independence of the judiciary. I will just read a bit of this to give a sense of why there is so much volume in this act. 
 210. Sections 9 to 22 of the Judges Act are replaced by the following: 
 9. The yearly salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are as follows: 
 (a) the Chief Justice of Canada, $370,300; and 
 (b) the eight puisne judges, $342,800 each. 
Puisne judges here are what we call associate justices. By the way, what has changed from the current Judges Act is that the actual numbers are changed because of salary increases from the current level.
It goes on:
 10. The yearly salaries of the judges of the Federal Courts are as follows: 
 (a) the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal, $315,900; 
 (b) the other judges of the Federal Court of Appeal, $288,100 each; 
 (c) the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, $315,900; and 
 (d) the other judges of the Federal Court, $288,100 each. 
 11. The yearly salaries of the judges of the Tax Court of Canada are as follows: 
 (a) the Chief Justice, $315,900; 
 (b) the Associate Chief Justice, $315,900; and 
 (c) the other judges, $288,100 each. 
It then goes on for every single provincial court, starting with Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and finally getting to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, which is the very last one several pages on.
They all have different salary levels currently and we want to have them go up proportionately. There is no other way of doing this than by laying the text out in this manner and it takes a certain amount of space, which is typical of the kind of content we find in this budget implementation act. It is detailed, thoughtful, methodical and, by necessity, takes up space. 
This is not, as some members of the opposition have suggested, the budget version of Marcel Proust's In Search of Lost Time. This is actually a very reasonable, methodical, practical way of dealing with the very complex business of managing a country's national government's expenditures.
The main theme of the bill is bringing practical restraint after years of expanding government budgets. Of course, these were the expansions in the government's budget that took place in the wake of the financial meltdown of 2008. 
At that time, the argument was made very forcefully by the opposition that the government must spend more money on stimulus. Indeed, in early 2009, the government was told that it must spend more money on stimulus and go into deficit, since there was no way of spending more money when revenues were at the levels they were at then.
We were told we must do that as a condition of them not defeating us and replacing us as the government without an intervening election. That was the deal. While the budgets passed by our government in its minority period were not supported by the opposition, the opposition's criticism at the time was based on us not spending enough. We should be clear about that. 
Now we are downsizing, or one might say re-sizing, from that expenditure. I am not a Keynesian. I do not think that is the appropriate way of dealing with a financial downturn. However, if one does believe in Keynesianism, as the opposition does and indeed many colleagues on this side do as well, then this is what Keynesians do when an economy is not contracting but expanding. They cut spending, do not increase taxes and try to build up the financial work chest that may be needed for some future financial crisis. It is at times of financial crisis when the economy is contracting that a government engages in stimulus spending. This is part of that cycle. 
As I said, I am not a Keynesian, but I do believe in the part about trying to keep government spending reasonable and under control. I also believe in the general approach the government has adopted, which is making small adjustments here and there across that vast scale of government expenditures, rather than simply making radical, dramatic cuts. 
That approach has been tried. Indeed, it was tried by the Chrétien government and by Paul Martin when he was finance minister back in the mid 1990s. I remember the budget of 1995 very well. I was a staffer on Parliament Hill at the time. Canada had a very substantial deficit at the time. We were heading into a situation where we could potentially face a lenders' strike. The government's response was to cut spending, which I applaud. 
The way it cut spending was not approved of by the former Reform Party and PCs, and that was to cut transfers to provinces radically. It left all federal spending on direct expenditures intact, which was politically sensitive, but it cut radically on the transfers to the provinces. This had the effect of nailing the provinces on their primary expenditures: health care and education. These are the two areas that Canadians consistently indicate are the most important areas of spending to them. That had a very serious negative impact on the provinces. 
Our government has tried to avoid harming transfers to the provinces. A very stable foundation of funding, both for equalization and for direct health care transfers has now been secured several years into the future. The adjustments that are being made are to direct federal expenditures. These are, naturally, very many because there are so many different areas in which our government engages in spending. There is everything from soup to nuts, from national defence to protecting the environment. It covers a lot of ground.
Much of that spending is non-discretionary. It is put in place by statute, which means the statutes must be adjusted. The example I just gave of the Judges Act is a typical example of the kinds of adjustments that are made to a statutory expenditure requirement. We have to go through and deal with it in detail. It takes up space and inevitably creates a substantial bill. 
Frankly, that is why we needed to have more than one budget implementation bill. We had one in the spring and as promised one in the autumn to deal with that very substantial amount of work and to give the time in the intervening period for the kind of work that requires detailed thought on the part of ministers to achieve the goal of having reasonable expenditure adjustments that do not cause harm to the interests of Canadians. 
I have just one last example. It involves my own constituency. As all good MPs do, I want to wrap things up by talking about my own constituency. 
One area of cuts that we faced was an adjustment to the canals budget of Parks Canada, which is administered through the ministry of the environment. It had an overall adjustment to its budget downwards of $29 million, of which $2 million would affect the Rideau Canal system. It is Ontario's only world heritage site and an area of considerable cultural and recreational importance. 
The initial approach adopted by Parks Canada was to try to achieve at least part of that cut by reducing the season. When that met with concerns, the minister intervened personally. A number of MPs drew this concern to his attention. That included MPs from more than one party because the canal flows through both Conservative and Liberal-held ridings, and I think even an NDP-held riding. 
The result was that reasonable changes were made to ensure the season could remain its full length. The part of the budget that was most important to local Canadians was respected. The result is a change that saves money and at the same time allows for a reasonable and intelligent expenditure of those funds. 
Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the hon. member who just concluded his speech is as frustrated as we are to see his time limited to 10 minutes, as he would have liked to say even more good things about this budget. Our position is the complete opposite. We are concerned because we believe that the Conservatives will be saddling future generations with the greatest economic, social and ecological debt ever. 
I would like my colleague to answer this question: how can a government that wants to create jobs and prosperity reach these goals by bringing forward an austerity budget? Great Britain tried that approach, and analysts now find that the recession is continuing. 
Can he demonstrate, in just a few seconds, that this austerity budget will really get us out of the recession?
[Interjection]
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, if we go into the future and continue to build up a very substantial national debt, we must remember that every year's deficit gets added to the national debt. We cannot keep doing that year after year, as we did during the first years of the recession. From a purely economic point of view, the recession is actually over in Canada. It continues to exist elsewhere.
If we had gone on and continued to build the national debt, which I think would be the inevitable result if the NDP were actually carrying out what they proposed, the result would be a massive debt faced in the future by people like myself when we retire and by our children when they enter the workforce. That, when it is put in combination with the very substantial obligations that we face paying old age security, Canada pension plan and the very substantial health benefits that will go to seniors, would have the effect of creating an unsustainable burden on taxpayers.
 In the end, services including life-saving services such as health care would inevitably be cut. Pensions might very well be cut in practice, if not nominally, through the government inflating its way out. I think that is the solution many European countries will adopt and it is a very unwise solution.
Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I certainly give accolades to my colleague. It should be noted that I am very familiar with my colleague as we are in adjoining ridings. I not only see his contribution nationally and internationally through all of his good work, but I consistently see the results he delivers for his riding. I am honoured to have him as a colleague and to work with him for the benefit of our communities.
The member made one particular comment that I wonder if could expand on. He mentioned Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics, as we all know, is very simple. It is called “spend, spend, spend”. It is about how fast people can spend themselves out of a problem. In reality we all know it does not and has not worked. For the official opposition, I suppose that would be in the top ranks of its philosophy, tax and spend, tax and spend. The leader of the third party was with a government that adopted that in Ontario to the highest degree.
Perhaps the hon. member could give us some history on the effects of Keynesian economics and tell us how dastardly that would unfold for Canada?
[Interjection]
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the current leader of the Liberal Party did indeed try practising this kind of economics with disastrous results in Ontario. The father of the future leader of the Liberal Party did the same thing federally. We had to suffer years of deficits as a result of that.
Theoretical Keynesian economics, as written by Lord Keynes, was a system in which governments would spend substantially, run deficits in hard times, and then would run substantial surpluses and collect the funds necessary for the next crisis in good times.
That is not the way it works in reality. The incentive for politicians to spend more and not raise taxes, at all times, results in impractical Keynesian economics. It results in the kind of stagflation that has large deficits that are dealt with through inflation, which destroys growth prospects as we saw in the 1970s.
 I would very much like to say that, as a rule, it should be avoided and we should simply try to practice good housekeeping at all times.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, Canada has to create a climate that encourages investment and innovation, a stable, predictable economic climate that inspires confidence in entrepreneurs and will enable us to stimulate innovation. We have to create good, high value-added jobs and develop our vast natural resources responsibly to create a more prosperous, greener and more just society. To do that, we have to provide competent management of the economy and government.
Whether the issue is the criteria that guide the review of takeovers of our natural resources or the budget implementation act, the government is sowing uncertainty and doubt where predictability should prevail. The private sector is now used to receiving an annual budget in March that does not even bother to announce the actual initiatives the government intends to bring in. For the rest of the year, we get three omnibus bills that are unrelated to the budget document, into which the government tosses all its dirty laundry and the bills it does not have the courage to defend in the House of Commons, let alone before parliamentary committees. This is not a climate that inspires confidence.
In this monstrosity of a bill, which is even bigger than the budget was, the opposition is particularly concerned about the nearly $500 million cut to support for research and development in the private sector. Cuts to scientific research and experimental development tax credits are of particular concern to the private sector. These arbitrary cuts exacerbate the problems our manufacturing sector is already suffering, fragile as it is as a result of our high dollar. They threaten the climate of certainty that encourages investment and good job creation in Canada, in Quebec and in my riding, LaSalle—Émard, where manufacturing is an important economic activity.
The budget reduces the 20% general R and D tax credit to 15% for the big corporations that do most of the R and D in Canada.
In a letter to the Minister of Finance, the Canadian Manufacturers &amp; Exporters wrote:
 The reduction of the ITC rate will impact the ability of Canadian divisions of multinational corporations to attract global R and D mandates in Canada and will require Canadian headquartered companies to examine outsourcing R and D as a more cost-effective way of driving innovation and productivity....Unfortunately, the signal that the proposed SR&amp;ED changes send are two-fold: (1) Canada does not value or welcome large R and D mandates; and, (2) companies with large R and D projects should look elsewhere in the future. Large R and D projects, affiliated with existing manufacturing operations, are the prime driver of innovation and commercialization in Canada. While it is true that many enterprises will continue to invest in R and D, the proposed changes to the SR&amp;ED program mean that those investments are much less likely to be placed in Canada. 
The government has also cut the payroll expenses that companies can claim instead of making detailed claims by 10%. But what is of greater concern is that the government has decided to reduce the tax credit for eligible capital expenditures.
On this last point, the Canadian Manufacturers &amp; Exporters told the Minister of Finance:
 Eliminating capital expenditures from eligible expenses will significantly and negatively impact the largest users of SR&amp;ED – Canada's manufacturing sector – which is much more capital intensive than other sectors...it will have a much broader impact on the ability to retain and attract investment in Canada. Some manufacturers may continue to invest in R and D and carry additional costs, other companies will simply move the R and D to other jurisdictions where overall R and D costs are lower, providing a greater return on these investments. This will further undermine Canada’s innovation and commercialization performance. 
This is extremely alarming, coming from the association representing a sector that employees nearly two million Canadians and generates $166 billion or 14% of our GDP. The manufacturing sector also does 45% of R&amp;D in Canada and employs nearly 6,000 people in my riding, La Salle—Émard.
The artificially high value of our dollar is hurting our exports and our manufacturing sector. Quebec lost 70,000 jobs in the first three months of 2012, 8,000 of which were in the manufacturing sector. 
Over the last decade, the share that the Canadian manufacturing sector contributes to our country's GDP has fallen by 2%. That decline has been felt especially in the lumber and pulp and paper processing industry, but also in the fishing industry. Between 2002 and 2011, the value of Canadian exports produced by the manufacturing sector fell by $20 billion. We are paying the price for a dollar that is too high.
The ill-conceived cuts to R&amp;D tax credits will also be a drain on the profitability and competitiveness of the aerospace industry, an industry that is of vital importance to metropolitan Montreal and to Quebec. R&amp;D cycles in that industry are counted not in months and years, but in decades. 
The costs are astronomical, the financial risk is high, competition is fierce, and the margin of error is zero. This sector must be able to rely on financial certainty and long-term federal assistance. Federal tax credits for research and development are the only federal instrument that can provide this long-term certainty.
I spent the last few weeks of the summer visiting aerospace facilities in the Montreal area. In Quebec alone, the aerospace industry employs over 70,000 workers and provides economic spinoffs worth nearly $20 billion. This is no reason to rest on our laurels. The aerospace sector is rapidly developing in emerging economies. In Canada, in Quebec, our industry has reached a crossroads and needs leadership.
We must be able to provide financial certainty through government programs that support research and development in order to create greener, quieter devices. We need to introduce tools that help businesses put their ideas to the test before they reach the marketing stage, so that we can finally bridge the “valley of death”.
We must ensure that businesses operating in Canada enjoy the same opportunities as their foreign competitors in terms of federal procurement programs and calls for tenders.
While I may have jumped ahead of the release of the Emerson report on the future of the aerospace industry and begun a direct dialogue with businesses in that sector, I did so because the NDP is an engaged partner, one that listens. Once again, what we are hearing is that the industry is looking for partners, certainty and a long-term vision for our economy. 
The Conservatives have reinvested only part of the savings from the scientific research and experimental development program in direct support programs. Entrepreneurs are being shortchanged $400 million. This is bad for innovation and bad for the economy.
Canadian manufacturers are saying that the government underestimated the cost to businesses by $250 million. The scientific research and experimental development program, or SR&amp;ED, is an important tool in the planning of major sectors of our economy. Once again, the Conservatives are not fostering a predictable climate for R&amp;D investments. This is bad for our economy. 
The NDP supports sustainable economic development that is built on the creation of skilled, value-added jobs and the responsible development of our natural resources. Together, we can create a more prosperous, greener and more just society for all Canadians.
Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I am deeply disappointed that we are being muzzled. This shows, unfortunately, how spineless the government is. I congratulate my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her speech and for her endless dedication to hounding the Minister of Industry for all his shortcomings and inadequacies.
I used to sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade, where I witnessed how incredibly naive the government can be when it comes to fostering Canada's competitiveness and its ability to achieve its rightful place in international trade.
I would like to talk about research and development. Could my colleague tell us about the ridiculous waste of funding, from public funds and other sources? Could she tell us about the results Canada's research and development community is expected to deliver? According to some studies, results in that area are truly dismal.
[Interjection]
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
We see that expectations related to research and development are complex and ongoing. It is important to realize that we should not stop investing in research and development when the economy is fragile. But that is exactly what the government is doing now. It takes pride in talking about innovation, but it is withdrawing from research and development. I find that very unfortunate.

Statements By Members
Johanne MorinMr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to honour Johanne Morin, a teacher from Breakeyville, in my riding, who was awarded a Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence.
Ms. Morin is a teacher at École l'Étincelle de Sainte-Marguerite, where her students benefit from her innovative and captivating projects. She sparks the curiosity of her students to allow them to develop critical thinking skills. She is known for her visionary approach focused on the needs of children. Parents of Ms. Morin's students all give her rave reviews. Nobody is left behind in her class. It is impossible to get bored. In fact, it is even impossible to not make progress in any subject or skill, be it academic or personal.
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate Johanne Morin for her compassion and remind members just how big a role teachers play in our children's lives.
Workforce Integration OrganizationMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to commemorate the 30th anniversary of La Relance Outaouais, a dynamic social economy enterprise in my riding. Founded in 1982, La Relance Outaouais now has 180 employees. It provides training and workforce preparation programs to the public and offers services to promote workforce integration.
La Relance Outaouais helps a wide range of clients, from students to people with functional limitations or retirees who wish to return to the workforce. 
La Relance Outaouais has dozens of personalized programs and tools to offer job seekers high-quality services and advice so that they are well equipped and supported in their efforts.
On behalf of myself and my colleagues in the Outaouais region, I want to congratulate La Relance Outaouais for its 30 years of service to our community. 
Congratulations to the entire team.
TelecommunicationsMr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, electronic networking and messaging sites are incredibly powerful communication advances that have in so many ways changed how we as Canadians are communicating with each other. Sadly, though, like so many incredible technologies, these very powerful platforms can be abused.
Yesterday, I read the comments of hundreds of anonymous posters online and was frankly shocked and saddened by the level of vitriolic hatred and personal attacks that were freely posted.
While I believe firmly that the right to free speech must be strongly defended and protected, I also believe it should be backed up by the common decency to stand by one's words as opposed to hiding behind online anonymity. Anonymous online attacks are, in my view, cowardly but they are no less hurtful and represent a caustic scourge that is harming too many in our society.
I am deeply concerned by what I have witnessed online and saddened by the impact it is having on the lives of too many Canadians. I believe that this is an issue this place must consider.
Girls SoccerMr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the achievements of a group of amazing athletes in my riding. The Saint-Léonard Lions under 12 AA girls soccer team has had a phenomenal year.
During this past season, the team has won tournaments in Brossard and Boucherville but its most impressive victory came at the prestigious Granby International Soccer Tournament where it won gold by winning all six games against a field of over 30 teams. It won the Concordia league by scoring an impressive 149 goals with only 1 against while securing its league cup and the A cup against other championship teams.
Many girls play in higher age brackets and have earned recognition at the provincial level. This level of excellence is something special to behold and the best is yet to come.
I congratulate all the players, coaches and volunteers for their achievements and, in particular, coach Fernando Posca for his commitment to youth soccer in Saint-Léonard. Having coached against Freddie, I can tell members from first-hand experience that his intensity and determination have prepared his teams well to play and perform at a high level.
I cannot wait to see what the Lions have in store for us next season.
Boys and Girls ClubMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand before the House to share some of the fantastic work that is being done in the Niagara peninsula.
This week, I had the pleasure of meeting with JoAnne Turner, executive director, and Barbara Greenwood, a board member of the Boys and Girls Club of Niagara. The staff and volunteers at the Boys and Girls Club of Niagara are devoted to bettering the lives of underprivileged youth.
I am proud to say that over 9,883 youth are helped each year through the Niagara region in 14 locations across 8 municipalities.
Each week, during the school year, 667 rides are provided to school children, more than 1,039 meals are delivered to schools and 1,869 sport and recreation opportunities are promoted. Also, 256 at-risk youth are supported annually to turn their lives around.
The Boys and Girls Club of Niagara is helping underprivileged youth achieve their true potential and be successful contributors to our society. I commend the Boys and Girls Club of Niagara and those across this country for their continued commitment to bettering our community.
Brain Tumour Awareness MonthMr. Malcolm Allen (Welland, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring awareness to a very important issue. October is Brain Tumour Awareness Month. Every day, 27 Canadians are diagnosed with a brain tumour. It is estimated that 55,000 Canadians are surviving with this illness. Alarmingly, the number of diagnoses is increasing but the reasoning is unknown.
The current Canadian medical system does not track statistics on primary brain tumours. Complete and accurate data is needed to facilitate the research that will lead to a better understanding of this disease and improved diagnosis and treatment.
Enhancing the quality of life for people with brain tumours requires access to quality specialty care, clinical trials, follow-up care and rehabilitative services.
Canadians are invested in the future of health care in this country. As we prepare for the renegotiation of the Canadian health accord in 2014, we have the opportunity to re-imagine how our public health care system delivers quality care. We can make brain tumour research a priority and improve the lives of those affected. 
The New Democrats call on the government to ensure that crucial research and funding in this field be supported through its health care initiatives. We seek help from the Minister of Health to ensure that those who have brain tumours will indeed--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.
Queen's Diamond Jubilee MedalMs. Kellie Leitch (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize a select group of individuals in my riding of Simcoe—Grey, individuals who have demonstrated a true commitment to service and volunteerism, recipients of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal.
This commemorative medal is a tangible way for Canada to honour Her Majesty's 60 years of service to this country and, at the same time, it serves to honour significant contributions and achievements by Canadians.
Commander Terry Goddard from Tottenham, a World War Il veteran, who served for 27 years as an aviator in the Royal Navy, participated in the historic “swordfish attack” on the German battleship Bismarck.
Leonard Gibson, a local business leader, runs Gibson Transport in Alliston and has donated countless hours volunteering and providing needed funds throughout the New Tecumseth area.
Sandra Bednarek, a woman who epitomizes the true spirit of community volunteerism, is a prominent figure in the New Lowell's community, volunteering at local libraries, schools and churches.
Those individuals are a true testament to the service and dedication that is represented by Her Majesty. They have given so much to their communities and country and, in the form of this commemorative medal, we are giving back to them.
I thank them and congratulate them for their great service.
The EconomyMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are now 205,000 people employed in the Niagara region. This is an all-time record for our local job numbers and a sign of a resilient local economy that has created over 21,000 net new jobs since 2008. The last three months have been our best three months ever for local jobs in Niagara.
After years of neglect by previous governments, the economic action plan has built a stronger, more prosperous Niagara with lower taxes on families and small businesses, investments in a new Burgoyne Bridge, the Cairns Health and Bioscience Centre at Brock University, a widened QEW highway and a parking garage and performing arts centre in downtown St. Catharines.
The opposition talks about negativity in this House but it would be nice for more parliamentarians to acknowledge that Canada has managed the recession better than anyone else in the world.
In Niagara, it has meant 205,000 total jobs, 21,000 net new jobs and a more diverse economy. In St. Catharines we are firing on all cylinders and poised for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.
Fundraiser for Developmentally Delayed ChildrenMs. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the cyclists, volunteers and sponsors who took part in Expédition Pinocchios, a bike tour around Quebec, from Val-d'Or to Mascouche.
This event is sponsored by the Mascouche police force and raises money to help children living with brain damage. At a ceremony in Mascouche last Wednesday evening, it was announced that participants had raised over $40,000 for the Fondation Pinocchios. 
This non-profit organization helps parents of children with developmental delays, whether or not they are diagnosed. The Fondation Pinocchios provides sensory, motor and intellectual stimulation activities for children.
Congratulations to the Mascouche police force for the wonderful fundraising initiative they have been organizing for 14 years. I hope they will continue to cycle around Quebec and raise funds for and awareness of this cause for years to come. This is a remarkable event that helps and supports people, and one that we should be proud of.
Youth Criminal JusticeMr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned about crime, especially crime committed by serious repeat and violent offenders. Canadians in Ottawa are particularly concerned about the release of a repeat young offender who abducted and sexually assaulted an 11-year-old girl.
This is precisely why our government has introduced and passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act. I am happy to say that our government's improvements to the Canada's youth criminal justice system came into effect this week.
The coming into force of the violent and repeat young offenders provision represents an important step forward in strengthening our youth criminal justice system. Through balanced and responsible changes, we are helping to ensure that Canadians will be protected from violent and repeat young offenders.
We remain committed to ensuring that young offenders will be held fully accountable for their actions and the safety and security of law-abiding Canadians will be given full consideration at sentencing.
Our government will continue standing up for victims by putting their rights first.
Foreign InvestmentMs. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Vale's announcement last week that it was reviewing the operation of the Birchtree Mine and delaying a decision on the 1-D project in Thompson, Manitoba, my hometown, means more instability and uncertainty.
Only two years ago, when Vale announced that it was closing the smelter and refinery in Thompson, it indicated that it would be investing in the 1-D project and that Birchtree was planned to continue operation until 2020 at least. It is ironic that this occurred the same week as the federal government rejected the foreign takeover of Progress Energy Resources because it did not provide sufficient net benefit to Canada. Where is the net benefit for Thompson and northern Manitoba from the Vale takeover that it approved in 2006?
The federal government has to be part of any and all discussions related to Vale. Not only did it approve the takeover of Vale, it provided a $1 billion low interest loan to move the jobs out of Thompson.
 It is clear that Canada does not have a strategy for resource development that is working for resourced-based communities. Resource-based communities deserve better. Canadians deserve better.
AfghanistanMs. Lois Brown (Newmarket—Aurora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was horrified to learn today of reports of a suicide bomb in northern Afghanistan, which happened as people were leaving the Eid Gah mosque in Maimana. More than 50 people were wounded in the attack and officials have said that 14 civilians and 6 children were among the dead. Our government condemns in the strongest terms this brutal and cowardly attack that blatantly targeted those worshipping to mark Eid al-Adha. This type of violent attack only strengthens the resolve of all who work for peace and security throughout this region. 
Our sincere thoughts and prayers go out to those killed in this senseless attack and we wish a speedy recovery to those injured. We stand with them during this difficult time.
Honorary CitizenshipHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a landmark ceremony, the City of Montreal bestowed honorary citizenship on Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish non-Jew who saved more Hungarian Jews in four months in 1944 than any single government, and whom the United Nations has called the greatest humanitarian of the 20th century.
The incredible heroism of Canada's first honorary citizen, recognized also at the inauguration of the Montreal Holocaust Memorial Centre's Education Week, included: issuing Schutzpasses, diplomatic passes conferring immunity on their recipients and which saved some 20,000 Jews alone; establishing protected safe houses, which saved 30,000; and, in his most memorable rescue, causing Nazi generals to desist from blowing up the Budapest ghetto, saving 70,000 Jews in this act of heroism alone, showing that one person can make a difference and that one person can confront radical evil, can prevail and can transform history.
It was an honour to join Mayor Tremblay, city councillors and Holocaust survivors, such as Agnes Kent, herself saved by Wallenberg, as we note another important moment in Hungarian history, the 56th anniversary of the uprising against Soviet totalitarianism.
Raoul Wallenberg combined the courage to care with the commitment to act, inspiring us all in the struggle for justice, peace and human rights. May we honour his humanitarian legacy.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP needs to come clean with Canadians. On page 4 of his party's election platform it states in black and white that the NDP has a $21 billion carbon tax plan. This new tax will raise the price of everything. 
The NDP leader said, on page 3 of his policy backgrounder, that his new carbon tax would “raise billions in new revenue”. Especially hard hit because of the NDP leader's new carbon tax would be Canadian seniors.
While our government has consistently stood up for Canada's seniors, the NDP leader needs to come clean with the seniors he is meeting with today and all seniors across Canada on his plan to raise the price of everything with his new $21 billion carbon tax.
Member for New Brunswick SouthwestMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in his only statement since this fall session began, did my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest talk about the negative impact the Conservative changes to EI will have on the many workers in his riding? No.
Did he mention how proud he is of Ronald Rees, one of his constituents whose most recent book about New Brunswick's early roads offers a fascinating and unique look at the history of that beautiful province? Apparently, that is not good enough for the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest. Instead, he chose to act like a parrot, reciting the nonsense concocted by the lackeys holed up in the Prime Minister's Office who have nothing better to do.
There is nothing forcing my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest to continue his gradual transformation into a docile puppet. Instead of making up stories about the NDP, he could be his own man and talk to us about his constituents and what they are doing. If his constituents do not deserve his recognition, why is he even sitting in this House?
In 2015, the people of New Brunswick Southwest can put their faith in the NDP.
Leader of the New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last night many members of the House headed back to their ridings. They made their trips via planes, trains and automobiles. What those three modes of transportation have in common is that their costs will skyrocket under the NDP leader's $21 billion carbon tax. Canadians would not be paying more just for their own travel but also for the travel costs of MPs.
On this side of the House, we will not let that happen. We will stand up and fight back against the NDP leader's $21 billion job-killing carbon tax.

Oral Questions
The EnvironmentMs. Megan Leslie (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport erased all references to the environment from his website. And now, the word “environment” has returned, but all the government is saying is that protecting the environment is a responsibility shared by several federal departments and agencies.
Can the Minister of Transport tell us whether his department is responsible for protecting the environment?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of the Minister of Transport under the Navigable Waters Protection Act is to protect navigation. The act is about navigation. It only refers to navigation and has only referred to navigation for over a century.
The people who are interested in hiding things are not us, but the NDP. It is the NDP members who have been standing in the House trying to suggest that our drawing attention to their proposed carbon tax is not accurate. Yet here it is in black and white in their own platform at the costing on page 4: $21.5 billion authorized by the registered agent.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, while references to the environment have been deleted from the frequently asked questions section of the minister's website, those same references still exist in black and white in the application guide section of the same site. It reads: “This process usually takes less time to complete, but might still require...an environmental assessment”.
It is 2012, not 1984. When will the minister finally admit that his website was correct and that navigable waters is about protecting the environment?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, what I find remarkable about the NDP members is that they continue to come to the House and demonstrate that they are simply not ready for prime time. Yesterday, we heard about their failure to understand procedure. Today, we are hearing about their failure to actually read the statutes that are the law of this land, in this case, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which refers to and protects navigation in this country. The member thinks it is about something else. She obviously has not read the act. The only thing she will find referenced in there is the protection of navigation in the law, in black and white. 
Take a look. It will be very educative for the member.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, with the Navigable Waters Protection Act this has gone from comedy to farce. We know what the minister is saying in the House is just not true and the words are there in black and white on his own website. The examples are piling up so fast that the minister's own minions cannot remove them as quickly as we can find them. 
When will the minister finally admit that he has overreached and put an end to this attack on environmental protection?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the attack we are concerned about is the attack on Canadians by a $21.5 billion carbon tax proposed by the NDP in the last election, and the examples do keep piling up in black and white. Here it is in the NDP leader's leadership platform where he talked about using a tax like that to generate billions of dollars of new revenue, more than the $21.5 billion in their election platform. Now we have the latest, the report this month from the NDP think tank, the Broadbent Institute, calling not just for a carbon tax but for an across the board 10% increase in taxes on Canadians. That is an attack on Canadians.
Foreign InvestmentHélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have not reassured the markets and Canadians about takeovers of Canadian businesses. The Wall Street Journal is now asking for a clear explanation of the criteria for making decisions about foreign ownership. The Conservatives' bungled process in the case of Progress Energy is seriously hampering investment in Canada.
To avoid another fiasco with Nexen, will the Conservatives finally clarify the criteria for accepting or refusing a takeover bid?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after an extensive review, the minister was not convinced that the proposed investment would be of net benefit to Canada, and he decided to reject the bid. However, under the law, Petronas has up to 30 days to make representations and additional commitments. We will continue to follow the process set out in the act.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we know that the Minister of Industry is not quite capable of abiding by his government's code of ethics, and so we are skeptical when he asks us to trust him to make the right decision. The Nexen decision will have a major impact on the Canadian economy and the development of our natural resources.
Why is the minister still refusing to disclose the criteria on which he will base his decision?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the NDP has a decision to make. Only a few months ago, its leader said that the natural resource sector was a disease, that it was too large and did not benefit the Canadian economy. Now, for the purposes of foreign investment, the NDP thinks it is the most important industry the world has ever seen.
If the NDP members believe the latter, why are they proposing a $21.5 billion carbon tax that would not only raise gas prices for Canadian consumer, but would also devastate the resource sectors that have driven economic success in so many provinces across this country?
Food SafetyHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under new management, XL Foods is trying to get back into business, but it is still not clear if its products are safe.
The CFIA is supervising, but the Guelph Food Technology Centre says that CFIA standards are the bare minimum, and most retailers require something better, that is, certification by the global food safety initiative. XL lost that certification last week and cannot get it back until next year.
 Why are CFIA standards lower than global standards? Will XL be allowed to sell anything before it meets global requirements?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, Canadian consumers are our first priority when it comes to food safety.
The CFIA has notified the Minister of Agriculture that it will be reissuing the licence to this facility. Our government will continue to provide the CFIA with the resources it needs to ensure that safe food comes out of that plant.
The safe food for Canadians act is an important tool to strengthen our food safety system. I encourage this member and his colleagues to vote in favour of the bill when it comes back to the House.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture says that the CFIA was just too nice to XL Foods. Hence, the CFIA had the power to call that delinquent firm to account but did not do so.
Food contamination persisted for more than a month. Over 2,000 products had to be recalled. Sixteen people got sick. Cattle producers and others absorbed big losses.
Since the minister himself knew of the problem by September 5, why was he also too nice in doing nothing to fix it? How can he and CFIA now lead a review when they are clearly part of the problem?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member and the House that the CFIA acted immediately to contain the products beginning on September 4, and has been acting ever since.
The CFIA notified the minister that it will be reissuing a licence to this facility once the minister is assured that all product leaving this facility will be safe.
As a last comment, every time we have attempted to give the CFIA more resources, like new inspectors or additional funding, this member and his party have voted against these measures.
Massimo Pacetti: Mr. Speaker, from the start of the XL Foods crisis, the Minister of Agriculture  has claimed that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency does not have the authority to force XL Foods to provide the information needed to prevent and manage the crisis. Yesterday, though, the minister said that the agency should have been more forceful and demanded information from XL Foods and that it would have gotten what it needed. 
Why this about-face? What has changed?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the CFIA acted appropriately and responsibly with respect to XL. What is also clear is that the member is not conversant with what is in Bill S-11.
We have a superior food safety system. This has been recognized in a report on OECD countries. 
Bill S-11 takes our superior system and makes it better. The member is asking about the authorities that the CFIA has. If he would only read Bill S-11, he would see where we are headed.
Foreign InvestmentMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, critics of the Conservatives are coming out of the woodwork. The Wall Street Journal has criticized the Conservatives' strange actions regarding foreign investment. It has pointed out that there is no basis for the government's decisions. There is still uncertainty over the meaning of net benefit, while the November 9 deadline for a decision on the Nexen deal is fast approaching.
Enough is enough. Can they tell us whether changes will be made before the decision is made, by midnight on November 9, at the latest?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the government will follow the Investment Canada Act and all of its provisions in determining the net benefit to Canada of proposed reviewable acquisitions.
We will ensure that whatever decision is made, it will be done in the national interest of Canada.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, nowhere in the Investment Canada Act is there reference to flipping a coin at midnight on a Friday night, after leading a company to believe it is going to be accepted. After promising a new net benefit test for two years, Conservatives may or may not actually do their work, creating total uncertainty. Markets want certainty. Canadians want to have a say. 
The Calgary Chamber of Commerce says the NDP is right. The Globe and Mail and The Wall Street Journal say the NDP is right. The Conservatives are keeping Canadians in the dark with this irresponsible way of decision-making.
Will there be changes to the net benefit test before the Nexen deadline on November 9?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentions the flipping of coins. Canadians will not have any coins left to flip after that $21.5 billion NDP carbon tax. They are asking for change, but the reality is that Canadians will not have any change left in their pockets when the NDP carbon tax is through with them. Our energy sector, our workers, our consumers all agree. The NDP carbon tax would bankrupt this economy and turn back the clock. We will not let it happen.
Food SafetyMalcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, when challenged about what he would have done differently in handling the XL Foods recall, the agriculture minister replied, “CFIA would have been a lot harder-nosed”. Finally, we have an admission of complacency, yet still nothing to take responsibility, nothing to reverse food safety cuts, nothing to reassure Canadians that our inspectors are protecting our food.
Now Canadians have learned that unregulated in-house tenderizing processes could also be making them sick.
What is the minister going to do to ensure that the CFIA addresses the problem of the contamination from meat tenderizing?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Health Canada is always reviewing new science and new information to ensure that the safety of Canadians is protected. That is why the department has started a review of the science around mechanical tenderization. Any new information will be communicated to Canadians.
While this review is ongoing, we will continue to recommend that Canadians take steps to protect against food-borne illnesses, such as cooking their food and washing their hands.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMalcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, from axing the Canadian Wheat Board to cutting AgriStability payments, the Conservatives have made it clear they are not interested in helping farmers. Changes to the Canadian Grain Commission tucked away in this monster budget would undermine the integrity of Canada's internationally renowned grain system. Discarding the present bonding requirements would hurt farmers and the industry.
Would the minister explain why these half-baked changes are being forced through this budget?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the member does not understand the challenges facing farmers.
Our government was elected by farmers on a platform to modernize the grain sector in Canada and to keep our economy strong. We have brought in marketing freedom. The next step is to renew the Grain Commission, something that has not been done in 40 years. These changes would eliminate about $20 million in unnecessary costs in the grain handling system, costs that are ultimately borne by the farmers.
The member must stand up for farmers.
Ms. Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this monster budget also repeals the grain appeal tribunals. The changes are throwing up roadblocks for farmers who disagree with decisions made regarding the weight or quality of the grain they bring to market. The farmers are the ones who will suffer from these poorly thought-out reforms.
Instead of abandoning farmers, does the minister have another solution to propose in cases of conflict? 
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, our government was elected by farmers on a platform to modernize the grain sector in Canada and to keep our economy strong. These changes will eliminate about $20 million in unnecessary costs in the grain handling system, costs that are ultimately borne by the farmers.
I will read a quote from Doug Robertson, the president of the Western Barley Growers Association. He said, “This announcement is a very positive one in the evolution of our grain system in Canada.”
Food SafetyRuth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives claim that Bill S-11 is crucial to preventing other problems related to E. coli. Yesterday, however, the minister admitted that his department did not impose strict rules when it comes to food safety. If the inspectors are not doing their jobs and do not have the resources they need, new legislation will not change anything.
The minister has admitted that his system does not work. Will he now allow the external review of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that the NDP has been calling for?
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I was at that same meeting. I do not know whether this member was paying attention, but what the minister was saying is that Canada's food safety system is a superior food safety system, not as rated by us. This is the conclusion of a report on OECD countries. The minister spoke about additional resources that he gave the CFIA: 700 net new inspectors; hundreds of millions of dollars in new funding for the CFIA, all of which this member and her party have voted against.
Public SafetyMr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has provided Canadians with more details on the Conservatives' dismal failure on cyber security. Out of the $980 million of approved spending that was supposed to go to cyber security, the Auditor General was able to identify only $20.9 million that was actually used for cyber security. No wonder the Auditor General found that progress has been slow at protecting our national infrastructure against cyber threats.
Can the minister explain to this House why the money allocated for cyber security is not being used for that purpose?
Ms. Candice Bergen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has acknowledged the positive steps that our government has taken to defend against electronic threats, hacking and cyber espionage through our cyber security strategy. We are taking action on the Auditor General's recommendations and we will continue to enhance cyber security in Canada. In fact, just last week our government announced significant additional funding to strengthen Canada's cyber security system.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder what planet the Conservatives are living on. In their world, cyberpirates will hopefully wait and launch their attacks only during office hours, because the centre is not even open 24/7. Unbelievable. And now we have to ask them to be patient, because the money was not managed properly.
How can the Conservatives explain that only 2% of the money set aside for cybersecurity was actually used for that purpose?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is clearly confused. At all times experts from the Canadian Cyber Incident Response Centre are available to deal with emergency situations. In fact, the Auditor General said, “[T]he government has made progress in securing its systems against cyber threats, in improving communications, and in building partnerships with owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”
We just ask that the opposition get behind our endeavours to crack down on criminals, including those who are trying to hack and interfere with our cyber security.
Democratic ReformAlexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, in response to yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Prime Minister suggested that changes should be made to the electoral process.
One of the most important reforms was to have been made seven months ago. The Conservatives promised to give the Chief Electoral Officer more power to examine in detail the financial statements of parties. The Conservatives promised to take action within six months. That deadline passed several weeks ago.
They have introduced nothing and so the NDP is doing their job instead. Will they support our bill?
Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, voters made this decision, and that is the way democracy is supposed to work. We have already promised to look at some reforms to our election laws, and a proposal will be coming in due course. As for the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, it states of the Liberal candidate: “[W]e reject the candidate’s...attempt to disenfranchise entitled voters and so undermine public confidence in the electoral process”.
Budget Implementation LegislationHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is tokenism to divide the budget bill for study but not for voting. It is like a thimbleful of respect for Parliament in a sea of contempt. If it is possible for the Conservatives to divide the budget bill for study, why is it not possible to divide the budget bill for voting? Why can we not apply the same principle, if in fact the Conservatives have any principles when it comes to respect for Parliament?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, here we have the Liberal Party asking for yet again more delays when Canadians are impatiently waiting for measures that will in fact help them. 
We have had measures in our economic action plan over several years that have helped create 820,000 net new job since July 2009. There are measures in this bill that would extend the job creating hiring credit for small business, expand tax relief for investment in clean energy and improve registered disability savings plans. 
We will not listen to the Liberals as they attempt to delay for the sake of delay. We will get this through so that Canadians can benefit.
International TradeHon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister went to great lengths to claim that tabling the Canada-China agreement meets new standards of transparency. However, the government's promise was not about tabling such agreements in the House. In fact, the 2006 Conservative platform stated that they would place “international treaties before Parliament for ratification”.
The term “ratification” means that there will be debate and a vote. Therefore, let us debate and vote.
Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this treaty provides greater protection for Canadians against discriminatory and arbitrary practices. Despite the misinformed rhetoric of the opposition parties, the obligations of the parties are fully reciprocal. 
The hypocrisy of the Liberals is astounding. Not only did they not have a policy for tabling treaties in this House, but when they chose to table treaties, it was years after they were ratified and already in force. So much for transparency.
On this side of the House, we are delivering real benefits for Canadian businesses.
National DefenceHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in July 2011, General Leslie presented a thoughtful and reasoned report on military transformation. The Minister of National Defence has yet to respond. 
In an unprecedented display of public impatience, the Prime Minister sent a letter to the minister questioning his ability to achieve the government's preferences and objectives. General Leslie has set out the path; the Prime Minister has expressed his frustrations.
Is it time for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to take over DND's budget-making process in addition to her procurement responsibilities?
Mr. Chris Alexander (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the budget of the Department of National Defence has grown substantially every year since this government took office. That said, this government and this department are committed to finding new efficiencies to work more effectively to deliver the Canadian Forces mission at home and abroad. 
To that end, we have done our part under deficit reduction, and we are going to continue to do our best to ensure that taxpayers get the best value for their money when they invest in the men and women in uniform and the equipment they need to do their jobs.
Science and TechnologyMs. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in their last budget, the Conservatives made cuts to business research by revamping the innovation tax credit. Now, more than 90 researchers at the National Research Council are being laid off. This halts all of the council's research on neuroscientific medical devices.
The Conservatives are crippling scientific research in this country. Why is it not focusing on the economic spinoffs of research?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the problem with the NDP members' attitude is that they measure success by the high costs associated with it.
We measure our success in science, research and other fields by results. We have managed the system by investing resources to produce results, and our policies are producing results. The private sector plays a big role and we must support its efforts to create jobs and prosperity for all Canadians.
Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, weak excuses and political spin are one thing, but hard facts are another, and facts are not like Conservatives. Facts do not lie, and that is why we rely on empirical research and invest in R and D. However, Conservatives reject facts, reject science and they are recklessly firing over 90 of Canada's top researchers.
Conservative cuts are hurting the economy. Why are they firing researchers and killing economic spin-offs?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the NDP judges success by how expensive we can be. We judge success by the results that are delivered. That is why we are ensuring that our resources move toward the production of said results, so that our scientists, researchers and academics produce the development that our businesses can transform into job creation and prosperity for all Canadians. It is a low-tax, low-cost, low-debt plan for jobs and growth, and that is exactly why we are succeeding.
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, our country is desperately behind in terms of Internet access, and that is one reason why some experts are calling Canada the digital third world.
One of the main problems is that the bandwidth limits set by Internet service providers are so low that many new services like Netflix and cloud computing are simply not marketable in Canada.
What will the government do to offer Canadians better Internet access?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should at least examine our digital economy strategy, which we have put in place for exactly the purpose of making Canada more technologically advanced, to create jobs and increase accessibly by all Canadians to the information technology revolution. We have invested to expand Internet access to remote communities that otherwise would not benefit from it. We will continue to make those wise investments in order to grow our economy and move forward into the future.
Charmaine Borg: Mr. Speaker, if members do not understand what happens when caps slow down Internet service, it is kind of like playing a 75 rpm record at 45 rpm. 
The U.K., U.S. and Mexico have raised or eliminated caps. Meanwhile, Canada has the most restrictive caps in the world. It is an international embarrassment and bad for the economy.
Raising the caps would give Canadian businesses and consumers better access to services and markets like Netflix.
Will the Conservatives put away their old record and finally help Canadians jump into the digital age?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats are still listening to record players and it is appropriate that they do that because all of their economic policies come from the big government era of the 1970s. They believe that the only way to run an economy is through central planning. They sound like a broken record over there.
We on this side of the House are focusing on the jobs of today and tomorrow by expanding broadband access and lowering taxes for high-tech entrepreneurs to modernize our economy and create jobs. That is where the future stands.
TaxationMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while our government is focused on a low tax plan to create jobs, the NDP is pushing a high tax scheme to kill jobs like the NDP's massive carbon tax that will take over $21 billion out of the pockets of regular Canadians and kill jobs.
Our Conservative government will not let that happen. We will fight the NDP's big tax plans and stay focused on our pro-economic growth action plan 2012. 
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please inform the House as to what the international leaders are saying about Canada's economic leadership?
Shelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, in fact I can. As the House knows, our Conservative government is focused on the economy, and we are getting results. Since July 2009, Canada has seen over 820,000 net new jobs created. This is the best job growth record in the entire G7.
It is little wonder that international leaders are pointing to Canada as a model to follow. Last night Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF, stated:
 —Canada, a country with one of the strongest financial sectors in the world...can teach the rest of the world about how to build a stronger, safer financial system. 

Correctional Service CanadaNiki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the correctional investigator confirmed this week that half of the women in federal prison were harming themselves. In the Prairies alone incidents of self-injury involving aboriginal women went from 8 cases in 2006 to 214 last year. This is a crisis and responding with more failed policies will not help.
What is the minister doing to ensure that this epidemic of self-injury is taken seriously as the mental health crisis it is?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, our government is continuing to take concrete steps on the issue of mental health in prisons. Both access to treatment services for inmates and training for staff have improved under the result of our strong leadership.
It was our government that provided additional resources, such as requiring a mental health assessment for all inmates within the first 90 days of their sentence. That includes a correctional plan and mental health treatment.
Niki Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the number of cases is increasing.
It is not an option to respond to this crisis by doing nothing, other than attacking those who are concerned about aboriginal women. Overpopulation and limited access to basic programs in our prisons only makes the problem worse.
In prison, aboriginal women are self-injuring, are being pepper sprayed and put into solitary confinement, when what they need is mental health treatment.
The correctional investigator made some strong recommendations. Will they act on those recommendations?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, the problems identified by the correctional investigator continue to show the need for mental health care issues to be addressed by the provinces. Mental health issues need to be addressed before individuals come into contact with the correctional system.
Once again, our government has shown strong leadership. CSC has shown strong leadership. In fact, it has been recognized internationally for the work it does on mental health.
We will continue to work with the provinces to ensure that mental health issues are addressed before individuals come into contact with the correctional system.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' incompetence is endangering the lives and the safety of all Canadians. Three months after the minister's ill-advised decision to stop providing refugees with health care, the worst is staring to happen. Clinics and hospitals are refusing to treat even the few cases that are still covered, because there is so much confusion.
Instead of trying to divide Canadians, will the minister cancel his irresponsible and dangerous cuts?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been extremely clear on this issue. They do not want illegal immigrants and bogus refugee claimants receiving gold-plated health care benefits that are better than those that Canadian taxpayers and seniors receive.
We have acted and we have listened. We have taken steps to ensure that protected persons and asylum seekers from non-safe countries receive health care coverage that is on the same level as Canadian taxpayers receive through their provincial health care coverage. We care and we want to ensure their health is secure, but it should be no better than what Canadians receive in our country.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, the minister can put his head in the sand, but the facts remain: to score political points, he is putting lives in danger, and that is unacceptable. At least six pregnant women were denied basic, essential care. Children who need vaccines have been turned away.
How many tragedies need to occur before we can convince the Conservatives that they must not play with refugees' lives, the lives of human beings?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, when Canadians speak, we listen, we act and then we implement.
The purpose of our strategy with respect to interim federal health has been to ensure that we no longer pay for eyeglasses or dental work. We pay and ensure the safety of those who are here, but it will not be better and it will not to be superior. It will be equal to that which all Canadians receive.
Employment InsuranceHon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has become obvious to Canadians that the Minister of Human Resources does not know her files and, more blatantly, does not care about her files.
Yesterday she said that she cancelled the extra five weeks pilot project because the unemployment rate had gone down, when in fact 8 of the 19 regions saw increases in unemployment, 3 stayed the same and 7 saw decreases of less than 1%. It is bizarre that the minister does not know what is going on, but what is truly embarrassing is that she does not know that she does not know.
Will the minister commit to one day, if not today, learning her files?
Kellie Leitch:  Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on job creation and economic growth. This pilot project was a temporary measure put in place during a downturn of the recession in 2008 and 2010, in the economic action plan, to aid those people who needed to have jobs.
We have a job creation plan. We have numerous initiatives, whether that be the targeted initiative for older workers or apprenticeship programs, all of which help Canadians find employment. The Liberals vote against all of them again and again, let alone the NDP.
Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, not long ago, the Minister of Human Resources  assured, publicly, the parents of Corporal Ricketts they would get their EI while they cared for their son who lay critically injured. They never got it and had to turn to charity instead. Then the minister denied changing the rules around GIS benefits and registered retirement funds. It took three weeks of questioning for the minister to finally confess and admit to taking money from seniors. Then she made a less than stellar backtrack on the working while on claim provisions of EI, showing her lack of command of the files. 
Will the Prime Minister admit to what Canadian seniors, the unemployed and the military already know, that she just does not get it?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The government is focused on job creation and economic growth. The minister has done everything to help facilitate that. Whether that be ensuring we lower taxes to ensure we create jobs, or increasing the GIS to ensure those low-income seniors are provided for, or changing EI to ensure Canadians have opportunities for jobs, the minister is focused on the thing that Canadians want, job creation.
The EnvironmentSana Hassainia: Mr. Speaker, the many lakes and rivers on the south shore are the pride of our region. Thousands of Quebeckers who go boating every year, or fish for the makings of an excellent meal, or who simply take in the peace and quiet while walking along the shore enjoy these waterways. 
However, the minister has eliminated protection for many lakes and rivers afforded by the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Why is he not protecting our waterways?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I encourage the NDP to read the Navigable Waters Protection Act. If they read the act, they would understand that its purpose is to protect navigation. It ensures that boats and bridges can co-exist on shared waterways. That is the reason for the act, and we are going to improve it.
TransportMr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives will not have to rewrite history on this question because it is about navigation. 
On Monday, the premier of the Northwest Territories stated that his government was not consulted before the Minister of Transport removed the protections from most of the waterways in the north. If the minister had been consulted, he would have been told that removing the protection from Hay River would also have meant removing protection from the largest port facility in Canada's north.
 Since the minister could not be bothered to consult with other Canadian governments, just who did he consult with before acting in such a ham-fisted manner?
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the navigable waterways act is about navigation. It has always been about navigation. 
Let me share with the member what other people have had to say. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities said:
 The changes announced today will allow local governments to spend less time processing paperwork for small, low-risk public works projects by removing redundancies, red tape and project delays that result in higher costs for property tax payers. 
The Construction Association commented on this. If had time, I could read them. The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities had a fantastic quote. The former premier of B.C., Gordon Campbell, is really thrilled about—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook. 
Regional DevelopmentDean Allison: Mr. Speaker, the Arctic Council is the leading intergovernmental forum in which Canada advances its Arctic foreign policy and promotes national interests. In May 2013, Canada will take over chairmanship of the Arctic Council. Because the Arctic is fundamental to Canada's national identity, it will be important for northerners to have a voice in studying our Arctic Council priorities. 
Could the minister please update the House on how our Conservative government is engaging northerners on this key initiative?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, as a proud northerner, I am happy to be part of a government that is committed to helping the north reach its true and prosperous potential. Starting tomorrow, in my home territory of Nunavut, I will be hosting a series of meetings with key northern stakeholders to get their views on Canada's upcoming Arctic Council chairmanship.
Our government will continue to work with northerners to bring a strong, united voice for Canada to the international scene. 
Status of WomenHon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the World Economic Forum reports that Canada dropped seven points and out of the top 20 nations in gender equality. Women are under-represented in the House and on corporate boards, and too many still make less than their male counterparts for work of equal value.
It does not help when the minister responsible for gender equality votes to reopen the abortion debate. Is the minister not ashamed that Canada's position has dropped under her watch to the point where we are behind Nicaragua when it comes to gender equality?
Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would bring to the hon. member's attention another recent report by TrustLaw ranking Canada as the best G20 country in the world in which to be a woman.
What the member opposite fails to recognize is that Canada's overall score in the World Economic Forum report has gone up since our government took office. I call on the member opposite to join us in celebrating our successes and working hard to promote women's equality in Canada and around the world.
Canada Revenue AgencyMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have more bad news that has the Conservative government written all over it.
At the CRA tax centre in Shawinigan, 33 people will lose their jobs and another 22 will lose their jobs at the Jonquière centre. Clearly, this will be a major blow to the local economies of both cities. And to add insult to injury, the targeted positions have to do with archiving personal and corporate income tax returns. This news does not bode well for the privacy of Canadians.
Do the Conservatives plan to entrust the archiving of Canadians' tax returns to private industry?
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government's top priority is the economy, and that includes making sure that we spend our Canadian taxpayer dollars wisely.
This change will ensure the privacy and the security of taxpayers' records, and will do so at a lower cost. We must ensure taxpayers' money is spent where it will do the most good as more Canadians move to our electronic services.
Our government is committed to supporting CRA and offering Canadians a high-level of service while ensuring the integrity of the tax system.
Citizenship and ImmigrationCostas Menegakis: Mr. Speaker, I have heard many heartbreaking stories from Canadians across the country who have been the victims of marriage fraud. They have told me that they clearly want us to put a stop to those who lie and cheat just to jump the immigration queue. This is not only emotional. The financial consequences faced by the victims can be very devastating.
Can the hard-working Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please update the House on the actions our government is taking to put a stop to these scams?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Richmond Hill for his tremendous contribution to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Starting today, newly sponsored spouses will have to live with their sponsor for two years or they could lose their status in Canada. This will put a stop to fraudsters leaving their Canadian spouse the moment they receive permanent residence status, leaving them heartbroken and many times in severe financial debt.
One does not just have to ask this side of the House. This has been praised by Canadians Against Immigration Fraud and the Canadian Marriage Fraud Victims' Society.
Regional DevelopmentClaude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, we are all glad the federal government is recognizing the importance of infrastructure investment for snowmobilers in Quebec.
I am sure the minister knows that over 168,000 Ontarians are members of a snowmobile club, generating an estimated $1.2 billion. Snowmobiling is important to northern Ontario.
Will the Conservatives ensure the good people of northern Ontario receive their fair share of snowmobile funding?
Mr. Greg Rickford (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from northern Ontario for talking about just one of a number of passions that we have in northern Ontario.
I know one thing we do not have a passion for, and that is to have a $21.5 billion carbon tax that will increase our cost of living, stifle small business and put major projects, whether it is snowmobile trails or the Ring of Fire, simply out of reach.
Foreign InvestmentMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, back in 2010, the Prime Minister said this:
 —in future, should provincial actions cause significant legal obligations for [Canada], the government of Canada will create a mechanism so that it can reclaim monies lost through international trade processes. 
Now that Canada is opening up a whole new area of potential claims against Canada from the Canada-China investment treaty, I would like to be updated on what the Prime Minister plans to do to claim millions back lost in arbitrations with China?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the Green Party for her question on this issue. It is good to see recognition that the opportunity provided by this agreement is to protect Canadian investors. 
Interestingly, Liberal Party members have been asking questions about this after not having done anything to protect investors and businesses in China for some 13 years. In contrast to their record, we now have an agreement in place that will protect Canadian investors, protecting their efforts to do business in China to create success, economic growth, prosperity and jobs back here at home.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. House leader missed the point of my question. I accept that Canadian businesses operating in China are largely better off, but the public interest in Canada, indeed decisions at the municipal level, provincial level and federal level can be challenged by China if China finds them arbitrary. 
That is why the city of Port Alberni today wrote the Prime Minister to ask if the agreement could be stopped. The Prime Minister plans to go after the provinces to claw back millions that should never be open to claims by the state-owned enterprises of China.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Green Party, in quoting the Prime Minister, is referring to comments that arise out of World Trade Organization matters, not out of this foreign investment protection agreement. Chinese investors in Canada for years have been able to rely on the Canadian rule of law. Now, finally, Canadians will be able to rely on this agreement to protect their investments, and that is the reason we moved forward with this, to protect Canadians and their investments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): That concludes question period for today.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.
Points of OrderElizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the hon. House leader misspoke. I think the record should be corrected.
The matter on which the Prime Minister spoke was a chapter 11 NAFTA suit, nothing whatsoever to do with the World Trade Organization, exactly like this agreement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order, please. I believe this is a point of debate rather than a point of order.
[Interjection]
Malcolm Allen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: that notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, clauses 351 to 410 related to changes to the Canada Grain Act be removed from Bill C-45, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled an act to amend the Canada Grain Act; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted, as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.
I am proposing this particular motion so that we can not only study an act to change the Grain Act but we will vote on it as a separate entity, unlike what the government did with the Canadian Wheat Board Act, where it denied farmers the ability to vote on whether they wished to keep it or not. We would indeed be then voting on behalf of farmers on the Grain Act and the Grain Act alone, so they would know what we were doing, who opposed them and who actually stood for them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Does the hon. member from Welland have unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.

Routine Proceedings
PetitionsDick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have several hundred names from central British Columbia, including my riding, where the petitioners call on 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 21st century medical evidence.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. Two of them call upon the House to confirm that every human being is recognized in Canadian law as human by amending section 223 of our Criminal Code.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on the Government of Canada to reconsider its decision to cancel the community access program. These are from constituents, primarily, of the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions signed by 34 constituents of mine from towns in Alberta, including Chestermere, Langdon, Calgary and Rocky View.
The petitioners call on Parliament to look into the definition of a human being. According to 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 to be a human being by Canadian law.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition today with respect to the prairie shelterbelt program and the federal tree farm located at Indian Head. 
These petitioners are from across Saskatchewan: Gull Lake, Hazlet, Neudorf, Killaly, Lemberg and many other places in the province. The petitioners are calling on the federal government to change its position with respect to the tree farm and to maintain federal funding for the shelterbelt program and the farm at Indian Head.
Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I have been tasked once again with presenting petitions from the residents of Timmins, Ontario and Kirkland, Quebec on the topic of the Experimental Lakes Area, now well over 25,000 petitioners.
In the 2012 budget, the government made the ill-advised decision to close the ELA, one of the world's leading freshwater research stations, depriving Canadians of the groundbreaking scientific advancements that it provided. These petitioners call on parliamentarians to reverse the decision to close the ELA as well as to continue to provide staff and financial support for this important Canadian institution.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.
The first one is from residents of Burnaby, Vancouver and other areas of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia calling on the House to take action to put forward legislation to ensure that the coastline of British Columbia is never subjected to supertankers carrying bitumen crude or other forms of crude oil.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is very timely. It is from residents of Nanaimo, Vancouver and Toronto. 
In this regard, I stand here today a mere seven days before the Prime Minister is entitled, by himself, in a closed room somewhere, to ratify the Canada-China investment treaty. 
The petitioners call on the House to take very step possible to stop ratification.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to present two petitions today.
The first petition is about environmental sensitivities. The petitioners point out that this is a chronic condition that affects multiple body systems. It can develop in people of all ages. They also note that there is very limited awareness of and education about this medical condition in Canada. Therefore, they are asking the House of Commons to declare May as the month of awareness and education on environmental sensitivities in Canada and to declare May 12 as environmental sensitivities day in Canada, and join the ranks of other countries that are providing health and social services to their citizens who suffer from this medical condition. The petitioners and I look forward to the minister's response.
Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is about saving the Experimental Lakes Area. The petitioners note that since 1968 the ELA has been a global leader in conducting whole ecosystem experiments, which have been critical in shaping environmental policy and understanding human impacts on lakes and fish. They are asking the government to reverse the decision to close ELA research stations and to continue to staff and provide financial resources to the ELA at current or higher levels of commitment. The petitioners and I look forward to the minister's response.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on the Experimental Lakes Area, a Canadian jewel whose international reputation is founded on research spanning several years. Halting this research, which belongs to all Canadians, would be disastrous. This public research allows us to conserve and to better understand Canada's most important resource: our lakes, rivers and streams.
Mr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from my constituents of Okanagan—Shuswap calling upon Parliament to confirm that every human being is recognized in Canadian law as a human in section 223 of the Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 839, 866 and 868.
Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan: With regard to new jobs created in Scarborough—Rouge River from January 2009 to June 2012: (a) what is the total number of new jobs created by (i) sector, (ii) regional location; (b) how many of the total number of new jobs created are classified as (i) full-time status; (ii) part-time status, (iii) contract status, (iv) student status, (v) seasonal status; (c) how many of the total number of new jobs created are filled by (i) women, (ii) youth, (iii) visible minorities, (iv) Aboriginals, (v) people with a disability; and (d) what are the pay ranges of these jobs? 
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada cannot fully complete the request because the labour force survey, LFS, does not measure the number of jobs created, as has been requested, but measures employment or the number of people employed in a given period. 
To obtain employment numbers, a geocoding exercise would be required to produce data for a specific federal electoral district, such as Scarborough—Rouge River, as this level of geography is not readily available. Also, the labour statistics division, LSD, would recommend using a 12 month average for these data because the sample size is not large enough to produce reliable monthly estimates for smaller geographical divisions. Even with a 12 month average, there might not be enough samples for some of the breakdowns required. 
Hélène LeBlanc:  With regard to the government’s decision to prevent the acquisition of the firm Macdonald, Dettwiler and Associates by Alliant Techsystems Inc. under the Investment Canada Act: (a) which factors persuaded the government that the acquisition was not of “net benefit” to Canada; (b) which senior officials or outside consultants made recommendations regarding this transaction, including (i) their names, (ii) their duties; (c) what were the specific criteria used to determine whether the transaction was of “net benefit” to Canada; and (d) what was contained in the reports or memos written on the issue as to whether the transaction under consideration was of “net benefit” to Canada, including (i) the report title, (ii) the name of the author (or authors), (iii) the title and duties of the author (or authors), (iv) the report’s status, namely whether it is public or not, (v) the date of the report or memo, (vi) the intended audience of the report or memo?
Christian Paradis: With regard to the government’s decision regarding the acquisition of the firm Macdonald, Detwiller and Associates by Alliant Techsystems Inc. under the Investment Canada Act, and in response to (a), (b), (c) and (d), the confidentiality provisions of the act do not permit the minister to discuss specifics of the case. As referenced in section 36 of the act, all information obtained in the course of the administration of the act is privileged. 
In response to (a), in general terms, to approve an application, the minister must be satisfied that the proposed investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada. In making his decision, the minister carefully considers the information submitted by the investor in light of the six net benefit factors listed in section 20 of the act. The six factors listed in section 20 are, first, the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the effect on employment, on resource processing, and on the utilization of parts, components and services produced in Canada and on exports from Canada; second, the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or new Canadian business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the Canadian business or new Canadian business forms or would form a part; third, the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada; fourth, the effect of the investment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada; fifth, the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural policies, taking into consideration industrial, economic and cultural policy objectives enunciated by the government or legislature of any province likely to be significantly affected by the investment; and sixth, the contribution of the investment to Canada’s ability to compete in world markets. 
In response (b), as is standard practice, the minister consults federal departments as appropriate, affected provinces or territories and the Competition Bureau. The act, section 19, also requires that the director of investments provide the minister with specific information to assist in the net benefit determination. This includes the information contained in the investor’s application for review, written undertakings and other information, and representations from affected provinces and territories. At Industry Canada, the director of investments is supported by a deputy director and the personnel of the investment review division. The list of personnel in the investment review division is available online at: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ica-lic.nsf/eng/h_lk00058.html. 
The response to (c) is the same as the response to part (a). 
In response to (d), in general terms, the act, section 19, requires that the director of investments provide the minister with specific information to assist in the net benefit determination. This includes the information contained in the investor’s application for review, written undertakings and other information, and representations from affected provinces and territories. 
Niki Ashton:  With regard to Canada’s Muskoka Initiative: (a) which percentage of the amount allocated to the Muskoka Initiative is devoted to family planning; (b) what is the breakdown of family planning funding that has been disbursed so far; and (c) how much family planning funding will be spent?
Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the Canadian International Development Agency’s Muskoka initiative balances the need to address the immediate health challenges facing women and children in developing countries while also supporting countries’ efforts to build sustainable health systems for the future. CIDA includes family planning as part of an integrated package of health services. 
CIDA’s approach consists of three paths: strengthening health systems to improve service delivery to maternal, newborn, and child health at the local level by training more health workers and increasing access to adequately equipped local health centres; reducing the burden of diseases to prevent and treat the prevalent diseases and illnesses that are the main causes of maternal and child mortality; and improving nutrition by increasing access to healthful and nutritious food and essential micronutrient supplements that improve and save lives. From the total commitment of $1.1 billion, over $935 million worth of Muskoka initiative projects are currently operational, of which approximately 9% is allocated to family planning. 
Canadian taxpayer investments are achieving results for child health. For example, in Bolivia 53% fewer children under the age 5 are dying from malnutrition, and 205,000 women and newborns are benefiting from improved health services in Burkina Faso. In Haiti, Canada is supporting the reconstruction of Haiti’s National School of Midwifery and the construction of 10 maternity clinics, which will provide a range of reproductive and maternal health services. In Bangladesh, 1.4 million children have been treated for infections and diarrhea. In Afghanistan, more than 2,000 health workers, including doctors, nurses, midwives, and community health workers, have been trained in order to improve the quality and accessibility of the Afghan health care system.
Canada will continue to deliver on its commitment to the Muskoka initiative on maternal, newborn and child health. 
With regard to (b), CIDA is also partnering to improve the quality and availability of sexual and reproductive health services including antenatal care, the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, and the provision of information and resources in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Sudan and Tanzania, five countries facing high burdens of maternal and under-five child mortality.
Canada's pledge of $1.1 billion in new funding to the Muskoka initiative on maternal, newborn, and child health, MNCH, is in addition to the $1.75 billion of existing MNCH funding, for a total of $2.85 billion between 2010-11 to 2014-15. Out of the $1.1 billion new funding pledge, in fiscal year 2011-12, CIDA disbursed $825 million towards MNCH objectives, and over $26M for family planning has been disbursed in fiscal years 2010-11 and 2011-12, broken down as follows: $10.90 million in 2010-11, and $15.97 million in 2011-12. 
With regard to (c), CIDA will continue to deliver on child survival, including maternal, newborn and child health by: working to improve access to maternal health care in an effort to reduce maternal and newborn deaths; investing more in child-specific, integrated health interventions, which include immunization, nutritional supplements, and clean water; investing more in the prevention of diseases such as HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, and in water and sanitation, all of which directly affect mothers and children; strengthening sustainable health systems that can provide quality health care to mothers and children; and helping train health care workers to address the needs of mothers and children under the age of five. 
As of September 26, 2012, out of the $1.1 billion new funding pledge, approximately $84 million of programming has been committed for family planning purposes. To date, more than $26 million has been disbursed and another $58 million will be disbursed from 2012 to 2015. This figure may change as new projects are approved or due to operational requirements.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 822, 848 and 860 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Mr. Peter Stoffer:  With regard to government expenditures in Nova Scotia: (a) what is the total amount of all government grants provided to the following Nova Scotia ridings from 2006 to 2012, broken down by year, (i) Halifax West, (ii) Halifax, (iii) Sackville-Eastern Shore, (iv) West Nova, (v) Kings—Hants, (vi) Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, (vii) Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, (viii) Sydney—Victoria, (ix) Central Nova, (x) Cape Breton—Canso, (xi) South Shore—St. Margaret's; and (b) what is the total amount of government loans provided to the Nova Scotia ridings listed in (a)? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Matthew Kellway: With regard to the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS): (a) has a statement of operational requirements been established, (i) if yes, when was this done and what are the criteria that will be used to determine what ships will be built, (ii) if no, when will it be done, (iii) if it will not be done, what criteria will be used to determine what ships will be built; (b) will there be an open competition for contracts associated with the strategy; (c) what is a current breakdown of the $35 billion contract value that was assessed, specifically, what is the value of each individual component included in this assessed value; (d) where will the technology being used to build the ships come from; (e) what components will be included in each ship (i.e., hull, weapons systems, propulsion, etc.); (f) will the ships have all components necessary for deployment, (i) if not, why not and which components will need to be procured at a future date, (ii) if yes, what contracts have been signed that to account for this answer; (g) how will the contracts be awarded, specifying (i) how many ships will be built, (ii) which shipyards will be used for construction, (iii) what will be the dollar value of contracts awarded to each of the shipyards; (h) what are the details of any changes the government has made to the strategy and associated contracts as a result of delays in delivery (for example, in the case of the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS)) and what are the impacts of the delays in delivery on the overall cost of the project, identifying in particular whether and how delays have impacted the estimated $3.1 billion cost of the AOPS; (i) has there been an evaluation of how many jobs will be created by this strategy, if yes, (i) how many jobs are expected to be created and for what duration, (ii) who conducted this evaluation, (iii) have the job creation projections been independently verified, and, if yes, by whom; (j) for what reasons has the NSPS been in the “definition” phase for over a year; (k) when does the government expect the NSPS will move to the effective project approval and implementation phase; (l) what are the steps of the procurement process that is being used to coordinate the NSPS, including (i) the dates of each step or phase, (ii) for each step or phase where there has been a delay, what are the reasons for the delay and what steps were taken to address the delay, (iii) what delays are expected to occur in future steps or phases of the process? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Romeo Saganash:  With regard to the expenditures of the Canadian International Development Agency: (a) what was the actual spending in fiscal year 2011-2012 in the areas of (i) delivery of vaccines and immunization, (ii) nutrition and food security, (iii) basic education, (iv) sanitation and hygiene, (v) child health; (b) what were the planned pre-Budget 2012 expenditures for each of the fiscal years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015, broken down by fiscal year and by recipient country and by project, including bilateral, multilateral and geographic/partnership branch, in the areas of (i) delivery of vaccines and immunization, (ii) nutrition and food security, (iii) basic education, (iv) sanitation and hygiene, (v) child health; and (c) what is the planned spending post-Budget 2012 for each of the fiscal years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015, broken down by fiscal year and by recipient country and by project, including bilateral, multilateral and geographic/partnership branch, in the areas of (i) delivery of vaccines and immunization, (ii) nutrition and food security, (iii) basic education, (iv) sanitation and hygiene, (v) child health? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
PrivilegeThe Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): At this point, I would like to return to the question of privilege raised yesterday after question period by the member for Vancouver Kingsway regarding actions taken by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, and to which a number of other members also intervened.
The member for Vancouver Kingsway stated the fact that thousands of emails had been transferred to his personal account instead of his public account by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, freezing his account and preventing him from carrying out his duties as member of Parliament.
Later that afternoon, the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex rose in the House to indicate that it was an error on the part of his office to have directed the emails in question to the member's personal account instead of his public account; that it had been accidental and not intentional; and he apologized to the member for Vancouver Kingsway. 
I would like to thank the member for having done so and, in light of his intervention, I consider the matter closed.

Government Orders
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-45, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and privilege for me to rise in the House and speak about jobs and growth as they relate to our budget 2012. Bill C-45 is a continuation of our road map for economic success.
 Canada leads the way as a stable financial leader, one of the strongest among the G7. Canada is a better place to do business. In fact, it is outperforming the United States and most countries around the world. Our lower taxes make it possible for businesses to create jobs, especially in these difficult times.
Speaking of creating jobs, the budget measures being debated this week do just that. Our government intends to renew the hiring credit through the act for yet another year. As I heard from business owners in my riding, the hiring credit is very important for job creation. However, the opposition does not support our budget and would therefore vote against this important hiring credit, which has helped local businesses in my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and a total of 534,000 employers across Canada last year.
Budget 2012 and the hiring credit rewards those who create jobs. That is particularly important in a rural riding such as mine. If we want people to move their families into rural areas and to remain in rural areas, we must ensure that there are existing jobs and, of course, many new jobs.
Often, people forget that farms are important businesses in the rural areas. In my rural riding, we have a high volume of agricultural businesses. I have heard from the farming community that the hiring credit is particularly good news for farm operations that are looking to expand.
Everyone knows how essential stable businesses are to the prosperity of both urban and rural communities. Not only are they a source of income for Canadian workers, they also deliver indispensable products and services which, in turn, fuel economic growth. What is more, they ensure workers can feed their families.
With budget 2012, the Conservative government continues to support families and small businesses. The extension of the hiring credit is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, our budget contains several more measures to help taxpayers save money. I sincerely hope opposition members will acknowledge the benefits our budget has in store for ordinary Canadians.
One important measure in Bill C-45 that will help Canadians save for retirement is the implementation of a tax framework for pooled registered pension plans.
 Conservatives are committed to helping Canadians save for their retirement, especially Canadians who do not have access to pension plans. Our framework provides a viable retirement savings option for those Canadians who currently do not have access to a workplace pension plan.
Pension plans are an important investment for Canadians to have, and they deserve quality options like the pooled registered pension plan when it comes to saving for the future. This is one of the many reasons the opposition should be supporting Bill C-45.
We also want to support Canadians with severe disabilities and their families by improving the registered disability savings plan. The RDSP is widely regarded as a major policy innovation and positive development in helping to ensure the long-term financial security of children with severe disabilities. It is an initiative delivered by our Conservative government.
The improvements in our budget are the result of extensive consultation with Canadians. Consultations were held with representatives of disability groups, financial institutions, and provincial and territorial governments, including public guardians and trustees. Based on their feedback, a number of positive changes are being proposed that would improve the current system for families with members with disabilities.
Many of us know the great physical, emotional and financial toll that living with a disability can have on families, as they struggle to make their homes and their environment safer and more accessible and to build a better future for themselves. Financial assistance is crucial to them. Our support reflects the government's understanding of the needs of Canadians living with disabilities.
Tax reductions reward Canadians for realizing their full potential and give individuals and families the flexibility to make the choices that are right for them. I must point out that this has been a strong trend within our Conservative government. 
In total, our government has introduced more than 140 tax relief measures since 2006. As a result, the average family of four in Canada is saving more than $3,100 per year in taxes. Seniors and pensioners are receiving about $2.5 billion in targeted tax relief for 2012-13 fiscal year. Due to the measures taken since 2006, more than one million low-income Canadians, including about 380,000 seniors, have been removed from the tax rolls as of 2012. The federal tax burden for all Canadians is now the lowest it has been in 50 years.
 It is through the implementation of further measures included in our jobs and growth act that we would keep taxes low for families and individuals. I would simply must point out here that in the House we are the only party that advocates for low taxes for Canadians.
As the parliamentary secretary for agriculture, I regularly sit down with farmers from across Canada.
Since 2006, the Conservative government has been working hard on behalf of farmers. Thanks to the hard work and diligent efforts of the Minister of Agriculture, the Canadian agricultural sector is now much stronger, which has greatly benefited farmers.
As parliamentary secretary and as a member of Parliament representing a riding that has many farmers, I have seen with my own two eyes the results of Conservative agricultural programs over the past six years. In our 2012 budget, we will certainly continue to support farmers.
Our government was elected by farmers on a platform to modernize the grain sector in Canada and to keep our economy strong. We have brought in marketing freedom. The next step is to renew the Grain Commission. This has not been done in 40 years. Now, it is definitely time to remove the red tape and unnecessary expenses for our farmers. The changes in the act would eliminate about $20 million in unnecessary costs from the grain handling system, costs that are ultimately passed down to farmers. 
Our Conservative government is doing everything it can to reduce costs for all Canadians. For instance, although it was supposed to be debated this week, along with all the other great measures in our jobs and growth act, the changes that we proposed to our MP pension plan have already passed with the support of all parties.
I will take this opportunity to highlight the importance of the approved changes for the Canadian taxpayer, as these are part of our 2012 budget.
It is worth noting that Canadians know the importance of living within their means and that they expect the government MPs and public servants to do the same. That is why the government is committed to managing public finances in a sustainable and responsible way and why we are willing to set an example.
In this five-year period, the portion of premiums paid by the members will go from 14% to 50%, on a 50:50 cost-sharing basis. This means that, come 2017, the premiums paid by members into their pension plans will rise to over $38,000, from $11,000.
This will result in significant savings for taxpayers. What is more, as we all know, the age at which plan members can begin to collect a full pension will also be raised, from age 55 to age 65, beginning in 2016.
This is good news for taxpayers, as we have all agreed.
In addition, public service employees will go from paying 37% of their pensions to 50% by 2017. The age of retirement for new federal workers will also increase, from 60 to 65 years of age. These important changes will not only ensure that the public sector and MPs are paying their fair share, but will also result in billions of dollars in savings. By 2017, the changes to MP pensions and the 420,000 strong public sector pension regime will bring total cumulative savings of $2.6 billion in taxpayer dollars.
I urge the opposition to view the other budget measures that we have drafted with as much energy and support as they did for the changes to the pension plans.
We need to keep our country on the right track of full economic recovery, and that is what our budget would do.
In summary, the budget is great news for my constituents. It is great news for all Canadians. It is a clear road map for economic success. Making decisions during challenging economic times involves making tough choices. I can assure members that our decisions are carefully considered and carefully made, with the priorities and the well-being of Canadians at the forefront.
I urge the opposition to stop playing games with Canadians and the economy and to support the swift passage of this legislation.
Mr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the member for the riding neighbouring mine talked about businesses and farmers. He will know that when budgets are tabled in the House, businesses look eagerly at them to see an economy's direction.
 Earlier today, my NDP colleague mentioned about $500 billion in debt money that was not being invested. The October 6 issue of The Economist said that the government's focus on one sector of natural resources, oil and gas in particular, had caused investors to invest in storage and transport rather than machinery and equipment, which could lead to productivity gains.
Growth is slowing. We are 152nd. We in the NDP proposed that small businesses have a 9% tax rate. The Conservatives have not gone far enough. They have only lowered it to 11% for small businesses. The uncertainty being proposed by the Conservatives is causing investors not to know where to put their money. It is causing oil and gas companies to have problems promoting their projects because we have reduced regulatory burden.
 As the member will know, the number nine pipeline passes across his territory. With uncertainty in this market, how will the member's citizens know that the government is overseeing this project properly and how will investors know where to invest their money with this sort of convoluted budget that has been created?
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question because it ignores the fact that right now Canada has one of the strongest economies in the world. This is recognized by countries around the world.
 The member is asking for lower tax rates. That is exactly what we did in previous budgets. We lowered the business tax rate for small, medium and large businesses. The member and his party voted against all of that. They also voted against tax savings for Canadians, seniors, children involved in sports and the list could go on.
Our businesses are contributing to the healthy economy in Canada and although the economy is strong, it can be affected by external forces. I will conclude with some proof of how our businesses are helping our economy. Over 800,000 net new jobs have been created in Canada since 2009 and that is attribute to our economic policies and to the businesses that hire Canadians.
Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech and I have read the budget and the budget implementation act. What seems to be missing is a promise from the 2008 Conservative platform. On page 23 of this platform, it says, “A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will prevent any company from exporting raw bitumen”.
Could the member tell us if we might be—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Before I go to the parliamentary secretary, I just remind all hon. members not to use the names of other members in the chamber, even if they are quoting.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
[Interjection]
Pierre Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, once again, I remind the House and Canadians that the member and his party voted against that budget. That budget passed with no thanks to the opposition.
 That budget played a key role in the economic strength Canada enjoys today, and I think Canadians see that. Although they are optimistic about Canada's economy and its strength, they know we can be affected by what goes on in other countries. The budget bill in front of the House right now would be another step in the right direction toward fortifying our economy in Canada. I just wish the member and his colleagues would vote in favour of these economic policies that would make Canada even stronger.
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, to win without risk is to triumph without glory. I am beginning with this saying as it will be the theme for my speech about the budget implementation bill.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly said that this bill would be a step backwards in terms of employment: 43,000 jobs would be lost. Imagine. We are applying the brakes again to our economy, making it more fragile and endangering it. This is very important, because the 43,000 jobs that are being lost are primarily in the area of direct services to Canadians. 
 As members of this House—and it is certainly the case of my colleagues in the government—we see every day in our offices an absence of and a reduction in access to services to the public. It has come to the point where someone who does not have Internet access and who ultimately does not have much tax-related expertise, for instance, is literally being abandoned and held hostage by the incredible restrictions imposed on our public servants. These restrictions mean that someone who wants to understand what will happen when he tries to file his income tax return will probably never have an answer, unless he calls on a professional whose services he must pay for or, in a best-case scenario, a close relative. In both cases, that person will give an opinion, but mistakes may be made because it is always difficult to keep up to date when it comes to taxes. Therefore, it is always best to check the source, but the source has dried up: the tap has been turned off by the government.
 We are talking about high-quality jobs. We are talking about jobs serving the public. I find it absolutely shocking to see the government taking these sorts of workforce reductions so lightly. 
 I would like to point out that in Beauport—Limoilou, we have had a disaster. A large pulp and paper mill that had 1,600 employees in 2003 has allowed a foreign investor, through Canada's lax legislation and regulations, to liquidate most of its expertise and production capacity for its own benefit. There are currently fewer than 300 employees in the mill. Retirees are losing some of the funds they contributed over 30 or 35 years. How can this abandonment be explained? What does this mean? It is just one of many signs that our economy is living on borrowed time, that things are going wrong, and that problems are piling up. 
 My esteemed colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges spoke just now of the $500 billion accumulated by our businesses. This cannot be blamed on our entrepreneurs; it is a sign that they are proceeding with caution because they are worried about the future.
 There have been so many gratuitous attacks that we might even call it a disease. This $500 billion is a very clear sign of this government's poor decision-making. The government is just aimlessly stumbling along. Moreover, the government is shutting its eyes and is wilfully blind to anything other than its own ideas, which it implements without verification or validation.
 Another aspect of Bill C-45 is quite shocking. I only have a little part of it, by the way, because it was impossible to staple all the pages together. When you take a look at the summaries, you see that a number of sections of the bill have absolutely nothing to do with a budget or with the budget put forward by the Minister of Finance.
 We might wonder what division 9 of part 4 is doing in this bill, since it amends the Judges Act. We might also talk about division 13 of part 4, which amends the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act to transfer it to the Department of Health. Division 16 of part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This is unbelievable. A lot has also been said about the provisions of division 18 of part 4, which amends the Navigable Waters Protection Act, given that it has environmental repercussions, which the government denies, of course. Government members are not content to fling gratuitous insults at us; now they want to alter reality and are refusing to face facts.
 I will use an image to illustrate the extent of the government’s bad faith and desire to drag Canadian society down into mediocrity. Bill C-45 looks a little bit like this situation. I will play the role of a rather outrageous husband who, in a single fiscal year, demands that his wife agree to a new marriage contract, a will, a contract for cable, telephone and Internet, and terms requiring that she take out the garbage and empty the cat litter. Then I tell her not to complain. All she has to do is say whether she agrees to the contract, yes or no. If she says no, she is really acting in bad faith. It is truly appalling, because she is against emptying the cat litter. She wants to leave the cat in its feces. How horrible.
 That is exactly what this government is imposing on all of the legitimate representatives in the House: a fool’s bargain, something made up out of whole cloth to try to get the upper hand. It is really a hugely mediocre thing to do. It is a terribly easy victory that this government is going after. I do not know what part of the public it will be able to look to for admiration for this scheme. I find it truly appalling.
 Some speakers on the other side have praised the merits of the budget. What is very interesting is that on our side, we could easily support several aspects of it or agree to look at them seriously in co-operation with the government. But when it comes to the question of seriousness, do not get me started. Seeing the Conservatives laugh every time they are asked serious questions about our constituents’ futures, we realize that the only thing they take seriously is their own behinds. Impenetrable darkness is the refuge of the weak.
 My first election campaign was in 2006, in the greater Quebec City region, specifically on the south shore of Quebec City. From that first campaign, I remember five visits by the Prime Minister. He presented himself in a very favourable light, playing the good, responsible father. There was absolutely nothing threatening about him, and he made promises. He sang the same tune on all of these occasions, and one of the things he called for was transparency and accountability. He did not blush as he shamelessly sang his own praises on that score. I really do not understand why, because if we look at the track record of this government, which has been in power for almost seven years, we see that it is truly mediocre.
 What is interesting is that if the government continues to carry on this way, showing contempt for most of the public, it will be leaving future generations with a state of affairs that will be very hard to fix. It is absolutely not too late to extend a hand to the opposition and agree to what it has courteously offered: to split this bill and engage in a truly democratic process that is transparent, open, and most importantly courageous. 
 I call on all government members to do this and I ask that at long last, they show some courage.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition pointed out that “[the Conservatives] are saddling future generations with the biggest environmental, economic and social debt in our history“. 
Bill C-45 is a glaring example. As my colleague mentioned, this budget slashes services to Canadians. We are creating a society where the gap between rich and poor keeps growing, a society where many will be left behind. 
I would like my colleague to elaborate further on that issue. I would appreciate hearing his comments on my humble thoughts.
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her question.
I am going to give a lesson in economics and another in morals while I am at it. When I hear this nonsense about John Maynard Keynes, I realize that many people just accept what they are told without learning the facts. 
In economics, it is very important to consider all costs when we want to understand the consequences of certain actions. We can choose to internalize the costs and thus to take into account the economic, social and other costs.
Take, for example, the case of the Stadacona plant. When we let a supposed investor devastate an industry such as this, there are tremendous consequences. The local community loses a great deal of money while, in this case, a New York multi-billionaire rakes in the cash while watching his horses in a polo match.
We have a magnificent caucus with a great number of young members who have their future ahead of them. If we blindly and wilfully refuse to internalize environmental costs, these young people will be footing a very expensive bill. That is very troubling for them.
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, I took great interest in the member's response. I find it ironic that somebody from the NDP would use the words “morale”, “consequence” and “business” in the same response. Two words: carbon tax. Let us apply it to those three words.
What does the member have to say about the morale of Canadians, wanting them to reach into their pockets and take $21.5 billion? What is the consequence going to be on Canadians and their bottom line? What does he think the world of business thinks about this $21.5 billion carbon tax being applied in Canada?
[Interjection]
Raymond Côté: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for asking the question, and because I am a Catholic and a believer, I will take a Judeo-Christian approach and continue to give a lesson in morals. 
Canada does not operate in a vacuum. It is but one country in a world of nations. While my colleague chooses to remain completely blind, refuses to consider the reality of climate change and accuses us of being so evil—when all we want is to set a price for carbon, which the Prime Minister has considered—and while the Conservatives stick their heads in the sand, Canada is marginalizing itself and becoming a bum, while possibly racking up a bill that will go way over the $21 billion, which seem so high.
I have a question for my hon. colleague. When our entrepreneurs go to Europe, Asia, Africa and the rest of the Americas and start having doors slammed in their faces, what is he going to say to those entrepreneurs and all the workers who will lose their jobs because of this government's laissez-faire approach? It is appalling.
Mr. Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the good and wise people of Ottawa—Orléans, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-45, the jobs and growth act, 2012. 
Since our election 2,469 days ago, this government has made job creation, growth and economic prosperity its top priorities. This is increasingly true in this 41st Parliament. Despite a weak and uncertain global economy and a sluggish recovery, 820,000 new jobs have been created in Canada since July 2009.
While the government has produced excellent results in terms of job creation and the economy, there is still much work to be done.
Bill C-45 will help us to continue the success and enable Canada to remain a global economic leader. While the government focuses on a plan to promote job creation through competitive taxes, the opposition is dreaming up schemes for higher taxation, as I mentioned in this House nine days ago. For instance, there is a carbon tax on everything, and taking $21 billion out of the pockets of hard-working Canadian taxpayers.
Speaking of lower taxes from this side, this government has offered tax relief in 140 instances since 2006, and has reduced rates for people in the lowest tax brackets in particular.
That is how you help an entire country come out of a recession. The jobs and growth act, 2012, would stimulate the Canadian economy and create even more jobs. How? By extending the hiring credit for small business for another year. Small businesses are economic drivers for Canada and also for Ottawa–Orléans. Last year, this credit helped some 534,000 Canadians.
In Orléans, businesses, such as the very meticulous Sure Print can receive a hiring credit of up to $1,000. Other measures will foster a healthy climate for job creation. They include promoting interprovincial trade, improving the legislative framework for Canada's financial institutions, facilitating cross-border travel, removing red tape and reducing fees for Canada's grain farmers and supporting the country's commercial aviation sector.
In recent months, shortly before the government released its economic action plan 2012, scaremongers tried to stir up public fears about the government’s proposed changes to Canada's pension plans. 
Earlier this year, on January 9, I wrote to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board, stating the following:
 In my view, it would be fair to change the benefits offered to our public servants yet to be hired. On the other hand, it would be wrong to change the conditions of employment retroactively. It certainly would be wrong to reduce the benefits of people who are already retired. 
In his reply, which is available at my constituency office, the Prime Minister made it very clear, when he wrote in his own hand:
 [First name of member for Ottawa-Orléans], I agree with you. No changes can be made retroactively. 
That reply shows the wisdom and statesmanship of this Prime Minister. He has kept his word. In fact, the only person who will be subject to retroactive reductions to his pension is the Prime Minister himself. This is yet another demonstration of his selflessness in the service of Canadians.
The government has taken landmark action to ensure that the pension plans for members of this House and of the other place and federal public servants are sustainable and financially responsible. These plans will be consistent with the pension products offered by other jurisdictions and will be fair relative to plans offered in the private sector.
Bill C-45 would amend the Public Service Superannuation Act so that contributors would pay no more than 50% of the current service costs of the pension plan, by 2017. In addition, as of 2015, people entering the public service and future parliamentarians would be eligible for their pension at age 65 rather than the current age of 55.
Through changes to the pension plans for federal public servants and parliamentarians, the Government of Canada estimates it will save $2.6 billion over five years. That is a significant amount.
Let us remember, like the old age security program, there will be no retroactive changes to the Public Service Superannuation Act. None.
 I personally intervened and the government has listened.
The members of this House are leading by example. It is our duty to do so.
On another subject, the government is focused on the needs of families. 
Bill C-45 would improve the registered disability savings plan and help some of the most vulnerable people in society. As of January 1, 2014, the income from a registered education savings plan for a child with a disability could be rolled over to a registered disability savings plan if the child has a severe and prolonged mental impairment and would likely be unable to pursue post-secondary studies. This initiative would offer more flexibility and options to families with a disabled child. 
As I am sure members know, children’s health is a subject close to my heart. On September 19, I introduced Motion M-319, which the House unanimously approved. The motion encouraged the government to continue promoting healthy food choices among children as a way to address the serious issue of childhood obesity.
The economic action plan 2012 proposes measures that support M-319. 
It promotes a more active lifestyle for young people by continuing to support ParticipACTION. This valuable organization works with provincial partners to provide community-based health and fitness programs.
This is just one of the many initiatives the government has introduced since 2006, such as the children's fitness tax credit and the children's arts tax credit, which I had promoted. 
Seniors play an important role in the lives of families and the Orléans community. A visit to places such as the Regroupement des aînés francophones d’Orléans, the Roy G. Hobbs Seniors Centre or Royal Garden will show how much seniors have to offer.
Since 2006, the government has provided solid support to seniors through $2.5 billion in tax relief. In addition, 380,000 seniors no longer pay federal income tax. The government has also introduced pension income splitting. I worked closely with my colleagues on this issue. 
The economic action plan 2012 also supports seniors through the third quarter project, an initiative program that lets employers benefit from the experience of workers aged 50 and over who want to apply their skills in the labour market. With Ottawa's relatively no unemployment rate, employers can have a tough time finding employees with the right skills. Third quarter, which has received $6 million in funding, can help companies here and across Canada find the people they need. 
I see the signal that my time is running out. However, there is so much that this budget document is presenting. There are no surprises there. These are the issues that we fought the last election on. These are the issues that we voted on, hours upon hours, last June. We are getting the job done. 
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite say there was so much in the budget that is good. Why are the Conservatives cutting debate on the budget, if it is so good? I think they are cutting debate on the budget because there is so much that is not very good in the budget that they are afraid to talk about it. 
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member is wasting his time making things up. What he should explain is his plan to impose a $21.5 billion carbon tax.
It is right there, on page 4 of their program, the program they fought on. That is why they are stuck there in the opposition. The program we fought on actually resulted in the budget that was approved in the House last June. That is where we are marching on.
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear from the member for Ottawa—Orléans, in both his speech and the response he just gave in respect to the $21.5 billion carbon tax that the NDP would like to implement. 
I found his speech rather interesting, in the way he intertwined the importance of the national perspective that this economic plan, this strategy, will have on the rest of the country. He intertwined how the benefits were going to impact Ottawa-Orléans. I would like to ask him further how the benefits in the budget are going to impact the people of his community that he represents? 
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, Ottawa—Orléans is a pretty fortunate riding. We have one of the highest levels of income and education in Canada. People in Ottawa—Orléans like to do their part and get involved. My riding also has one of the highest rates of volunteerism.
In fact, I remember that a municipality in Alberta came to study how volunteering worked in my riding. In a few weeks, I will have the opportunity to present the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medals. We received 487 applications and they were all valid. This shows just how involved everyone is.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I have discovered a measure in Bill C-45 that I cannot figure out with respect to how it would help jobs, growth and the economy, so perhaps the hon. member can help me.
It would create a whole new barrier to tourism in Canada. It would require an electronic verification of anyone coming from a country that does not require a visa from the Government of Canada before he or she can come for a visit. It does not include people who are claiming refugee status, nor those wanting permanent residency. Any traveller wanting to visit Canada, such as a British doctor who has always dreamed of crossing Canada by rail, would first have to clear an online questioning system and find out from the Minister of Immigration if he or she is admissible.
How does this help tourism, which includes jobs?
[Interjection]
Royal Galipeau: Mr. Speaker, job creation is very important to this country. The fact is that the proof is in the pudding. Since the depth of the recession we have created over 820,000 new jobs.
Quite frankly, with respect to security measures, when people cross the border into Canada, I would approve any measure that brings more safety to our country and our citizens.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Order. The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Randall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 
I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 264 to 268, related to changes to the Customs Act, be removed from Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 be entitled “An Act to amend the Customs Act”; that Bill C-47 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security; that Bill C-45 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-45 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.
We are proposing the motion in order to make sure that the government's proposal to implement electronic travel authorization gets the full consideration it should have. The government has proposed that parts of the bill go to committee but not be amended or voted upon separately. Therefore, this motion aims to correct that gap to allow for full debate and full consideration by providing a separate bill on this important matter.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  There is no unanimous consent.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kings—Hants.
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-45, the second budget implementation act. This is yet another massive omnibus budget bill, which is 414 pages in length with 516 separate clauses amending more than 60 different laws. It is simply too big for Parliament to consider properly in just a short period of time. The Conservatives are counting on us rushing this through at record speed and they are trying to avoid real scrutiny in this Parliament.
The Conservatives are continuing their reckless abuse of power by using these huge omnibus bills and underhanded procedural manoeuvres to force unpopular policies through. They are doing this despite public outcry from coast to coast to coast. They are using this so-called budget bill to gut the Navigable Waters Protection Act, redefine aboriginal fisheries and amend the Indian Act without consulting first nation communities, despite the government's constitutional responsibility and duty to consult. They are using this so-called budget act to shield the government from lawsuits by creating loopholes in Canada's environmental laws and retroactively changing the Customs Act. They are eliminating the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and implementing an overhaul of the Canadian Grain Commission.
These are just a few examples of elements of the bill that are significant and have nothing to do with the fiscal policy of the government, which is actually what a budget and a budget implementation act ought to be focused on. The Conservatives are rushing through these changes so that Canadians will not realize what has happened until it is too late. They have established a pattern of overwhelming our democratic system with overloaded budget bills that have nothing or little to do with the actual budgets themselves.
Buried in these massive bills are a number of mistakes. In fact, the Conservatives are already using Bill C-45 to correct mistakes they made in Bill C-38 last spring. The mistakes range from poorly written transition provisions in the new environmental assessment law to reinserting protections in the Fisheries Act that were mistakenly or inadvertently erased, to clarifying rules for approving foreign investments in our banks. These were mistakes in Bill C-38 in the spring. They slipped through the cracks because they were in a huge omnibus bill that denied Parliament the opportunity to thoroughly study and more importantly, not just to study but ultimately to vote on these changes individually.
Now the Conservatives want to fix some of these mistakes with measures in yet another omnibus budget bill that they want to rush into law. In this budget implementation bill the Conservatives are breaking promises made in budget 2012. The Conservatives want to use Bill C-45 to take public policy decisions that are contrary to what was in the budget in 2012. It is a farce when the Conservatives say that everything in Bill C-45 can be found in the budget. The reality is that some of what is in the legislation is completely opposite to what was promised in the budget of 2012.
Page 146 of the budget states that “[O]ver the next few years, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board...will continue to set the rate” for EI premiums. However, Bill C-45 explicitly gets rid of the board's authority to set EI rates.
Here is another example. Page 268 of the budget keeps the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, but Bill C-45 actually eliminates the commission altogether. We all remember how earlier this year the Conservatives broke their promise not to cut old age security.
It is also important to realize what is not in Bill C-45. Despite the size and breadth of this omnibus budget bill and the promises it breaks, Bill C-45 is remarkable as well for what it does not address. There is nothing in the bill to address some of the most serious challenges facing Canada. Canadians have identified growing income inequality as one of the biggest challenges facing the country, but there is nothing in Bill C-45 to address growing income gaps. There is nothing in Bill C-45 to address growing gaps between the provinces.
Canada's resource-driven recovery has increased, in fact, inequality among the regions in many ways. While it is positive that we have all of these natural resources, they are largely concentrated in a couple of provinces and the gap between those provinces in a resource-driven recovery and the other provinces is growing. I will give an example. 
A province like Alberta is increasing education spending dramatically and I commend it for doing that. Investing in education is a good thing. At the same time, Nova Scotia's provincial government is cutting funding for public education by 30%. Therefore, it is not just a question of income inequality, it is a question of equality of opportunity. This is where we need a robust federal government that is working with the provinces, meeting with the provinces and ensuring that we do not see today's income inequality become tomorrow's inequality of opportunity.
This growing divide between the provinces is a major issue in Canada. In the last 12 months, over 40% of Canada's new full-time jobs were in just three provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. These are the provinces with the greatest wealth of natural resources. It is where we can find 40% of the new jobs, but only 15% of the population. Provinces without resources are losing workers and being forced to slash funding for social programs. These are the programs that ensure equality of opportunity for the next generation.
There was a time when the Prime Minister said he would meet regularly with the premiers to discuss these types of issues. There was a time that ministers of intergovernmental affairs were senior members of the cabinet. People like the right hon. Joe Clark served as an intergovernmental affairs minister in the Mulroney government. Lucienne Robillard was a former minister in the provincial government in Quebec. The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, a very senior expert on intergovernmental and constitutional affairs, was a minister of intergovernmental affairs.
Under the Conservatives, the minister of intergovernmental affairs is, effectively, a minister without portfolio. The minister of intergovernmental affairs does not have any standing in the Conservative government. That is not purely a reflection of the current minister, it is a reflection of an attitude toward the provinces that pervades the government. 
The Prime Minister's refusal to meet with the premiers, his my way or the highway approach, has created a vacuum of federal leadership on these issues. Now we have a budget bill with no serious plan to work with the provinces on programs that would deal with issues such as income inequality and the growing inequality of opportunity, programs like a national early learning strategy or a national lifelong skills development strategy or federal leadership in working with the provinces to restore the honour of skilled trades, which is something that is incredibly important in Canada at a time when we have people without jobs and jobs without people.
Despite the uncertainty of the economy and the enormity of the challenges we face as a nation, there is precious little in Bill C-45 to help create jobs for today and jobs for the future. In fact, the spring budget bill actually made income inequality worse with cuts to OAS and EI. Bill C-45 would actually cut the very programs that encourage job creation and help our economy grow. It would cut SR&amp;ED tax credits. 
We have heard from industry, the science community, the biotech community and the manufacturers that the SR&amp;ED program is important. The government would actually cut it. It would kill the corporate mineral exploration and development tax credits, which is dangerously short-sighted at a time when it is difficult for the mining and junior mining industries to raise money.
It also would kill the Atlantic investment tax credit for oil, gas and mining at a time when the Atlantic Canadian economy is still facing significant challenges. It would do nothing to address Canada's dangerously high levels of household debt. The fact is that for every $1 of annual income, Canadian families have $1.63 of household debt. 
There is nothing to address these major and important issues that are actually related to the fiscal priorities of Canadians in the budget bill. Instead, the Conservatives are addressing a lot of other issues that have nothing to do with the fiscal reality of the country or the fiscal priorities of the government.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I know he has been following the budget file very closely. I would like him to tell us about the long-term consequences of the bill. The government often speaks of short-term consequences. Indeed, short-sightedness is often politics' great weakness.
I would like the member to tell us about the long-term consequences of the budget, beyond 2015.
[Interjection]
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. I fear the Conservative budget and policies will exacerbate inequality among Canadians in the long term. Family income is not the only issue. It is vital to acknowledge the growing inequality of opportunities among provinces and between urban and rural areas.
But the Conservatives do not believe that to be important. I agree with Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of Canada, who said inequality is a very important issue in Canada. We ought to deal with it because, in the future, it will be increasingly difficult for people to live with such inequality. We ought to act now, but the Conservative government is completely ignoring the problem.
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, I am always caught up in a discussion between the Liberals and the NDP on the whole idea of revenue from taxpayers. Could the member perhaps give some advice to the NDP?
In a previous session Canadians got a serious case of election indigestion with the proposed $15 billion carbon tax. Now the official opposition has changed it and has proposed a $21 billion carbon tax. I am sure the member kept that out of his speech because that is not included in our low-tax plan.
 What is his advice or post-mortem going to be since he could not move any further to the left physically in the House of Commons after the carbon tax proposal in the last election? What advice does he have for the opposition? I will let them talk among themselves.
[Interjection]
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sought my advice and so I will give it to him.
My advice would be that the hon. member go to the website of the Department of the Environment and go back to 2008 where the Conservative government promised to do exactly what the New Democrat platform promised to do, which was to bring in a cap and trade system to Canada.
My advice for those Conservative members is to realize that before the NDP ever put a cap and trade system in its platform, Conservative government policy was to have a cap and trade system. However, the Conservatives did not call it “a carbon tax on everything”; they called it a “cap and trade system”.
I say it is on their website, but there is probably some 19-year-old pimply-faced fellow in the basement of Conservative Party headquarters working on taking that off right now. Some guy who just put down his Hayek books is rushing to the computer to try to eliminate the fact that the Conservatives had a big fat carbon tax on everything. That was Conservative policy. That is where the NDP picked it up.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, other nations have defined themselves by race and ethnicity. Not us. As former prime minister Laurier said, “Canada is free and freedom is its [only] nationality”. Over a century that freedom has allowed us to build the best place in the world in which to live, work and raise a family.
 My purpose in this place has been to help make Canada the freest country in the world, where people are free to succeed and free to take responsibility for their own lives. Toward that goal, government should only do the things that people cannot do for themselves. It should do those things well and it should leave the rest to free people to do on their own.
This budget moves toward that principle and the best example of how is the changes it would make to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The purpose of that act was to protect navigation. That purpose includes allowing boats and bridges to coexist on shared waters. It ensures that if I build a bridge, it does not obstruct other people's ability to run their boats down the river. That is a role that citizens cannot govern on their own and therefore government has a legitimate role to play in doing it.
 This act was written over 130 years ago, at a time when people actually travelled to work by canoe. Someone reminded me recently that the last Canadian to travel to work by canoe was Pierre Trudeau. However, now we live in a different time and over the course of time, this act's tentacles have extended beyond its usefulness. It now applies to hundreds of tiny building projects that could never obstruct a boat, often on waterways where boats never travel in the first place. It literally extends to all waters in Canada that can float a canoe, including some brooks and streams that are only full for a few weeks during spring run-off.
 For example, the city of Moncton applied to build a culvert under the highway in Fox Creek, which is so small as to be practically unusable. This act and the approvals it requires delayed that construction for eight months and resulted in extra costs to Moncton taxpayers.
 In Alberta, 80 cottagers on Lake Wabamum waited for as long as a year and a half for Transport Canada to approve small docks along the water's edge. We are talking about simple docks, the kind that every Canadian kid has run 10 steps off and jumped into the lake.
 In these cases, the delays had nothing to do with environmental precautions. The act does not even mention the word “environment” once. These delays were designed to ensure that the little cottage docks in Alberta and the tiny culvert in Moncton would not block shipping vessels from travelling down a waterway. 
Such delays are not only unnecessary, they take time from citizens, money from taxpayers and public servants away from doing their real jobs. Focusing the act on its real purpose will liberate entrepreneurs, property owners and taxpayers from mindless red tape, while other acts that actually deal with the environment will continue to protect nature. It will help create a system of governance in our country that is lean and smart, not fat and dumb.
It is in instances like this that I am reminded of the example set for us by some of our ancestors in this part of the country, one of them being D. Aubrey Moodie who just recently passed away at age 99. The founder of the township of Nepean and its former reeve, he set the gold standard for common-sense government that maximized the freedom of its local citizenry.
I am reminded of the story of Jack May who started an auto dealership on Highway 16 in Nepean in 1965. The reason he started it there was because he had spent six months fighting delays and red tape on the other side of the river in Gloucester. After his frustration had reached a boiling point, he crossed the river and he showed up on the reeve's doorstep Sunday morning. He got Aubrey Moodie out of bed while the reeve was still wearing his pyjamas. They sat down and over coffee and breakfast he told the reeve he wanted to start an auto dealership in the community.
The next night, a few officials from the city and one or two lawyers from Jack May's business sat down over dinner and worked out the plans. Tuesday morning, 48 hours after he had first met with the reeve, the shovel was in the ground and the dealership was under construction. Forty-seven years later, that same dealership is creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity right in the heart of my community.
I share this story because it demonstrates that the obstacles of government can block our ability to achieve our full potential and that a common-sense, lean-focused government can allow that potential to be unleashed once more.
In this place, because it is a place of politics and government, we often forget the necessity to remain humble in recognition that it is in fact the individual and the industry of Canada that creates the wealth of the land. 
Anyone who doubts the power of the individual in a free society need only reflect upon the story of the airplane.
If we had asked anyone, at the beginning of the 20th century, who would invent the first heavier than air manpowered aircraft, we would have heard one name, Samuel Pierpont Langley. He was a senior secretary at the Smithsonian Institution, a brilliant scientist, a regular at the White House, best friends with Alexander Graham Bell, who had invented the telephone and the recipient of the largest research grant in the history of the U.S. War Department, at the time $50,000 or $1.3 million in today's terms.
 However, best of all for him his only competition were a couple of middle-class brothers from Ohio, the Wright brothers. They had no contacts in government and therefore no government funds. They raised all their money through their bicycle repair shop. They had no post-secondary education. All their higher learning came from their father's modest home library. They had no expectation of success. This was really a case of the Wrights versus might.
What happened? Langley spent his considerable sums on staff, advisers, travelling the world, meeting with important people, giving speeches and developing theories.
The Wrights, by contrast, developed their theories by watching birds, particularly gulls, in flight. They took these lessons and tested them in their homemade wind tunnel, which they built out of a wooden box with a gas-powered fan because they did not have electricity in their shed. They tested tiny airplanes to develop their theories, which they then ran in their life-sized gliders. One brother would be in the glider and the other would run alongside.
In December 1903, Langley launched his aircraft of the Potomac River near Washington, the capital of government. It shot straight up in the air and back down into the water, where it sunk to the bottom and lodged in mud. He gave up and declared his life a failure.
A week later the Wright brothers launched their aircraft. It, too, crashed, but they did not give up. In the next 48 hours, they rebuilt and launched the first ever manpowered aircraft in the history of humankind. 
This is the story of the individual over the institution, of citizen over state, of practicality over pontification, of the Wrights over might. 
Since the birth of humankind, we have gazed up at the birds in a spirit of envy.
In this magical story of entrepreneurship, these brothers of modest means did what the mighty state could not: give man wings and make him fly.
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech, even though I am still trying to understand some things about the bill.
The finance minister said that everything in Bill C-45 can be found in the budget.
When we received the information on this bill—and there has been a lot of publicity on this issue—we asked where in the budget the references to navigable waters could be found. We were told to refer to page 282 of the budget, which indicates that $37 million in savings have been planned at Transport Canada. 
From this, we were supposed to understand what our colleague was explaining to us about all the advantages and effects of this bill. But, on the contrary, what we are seeing are the negative effects it will have on environmental protection.
Can the hon. member tell me where in the budget we can find an explanation for everything he has said about our waterways?
[Interjection]
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, this is an act concerning jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. When we have an act in place that prevents municipalities from carrying out basic local infrastructure construction in order to determine whether a shipping vessel can travel down a tiny ditch, then we obstruct the creation of jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We are removing unnecessary bureaucratic red tape that prevents entrepreneurs, like the one I mentioned, from creating the prosperity of the land. 
That is the difference between us and the other side. We understand that every dollar the government spends must come out of the pockets of the person who earned it. We can lower those costs. We can leave the dollars in the pockets of the entrepreneurs of our country and they will create the jobs, the growth and the prosperity that we seek.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): It being 1:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Correctional and Conditional Release ActMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC):  moved that Bill C-350, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accountability of offenders), be read the third time and passed. 
Mr. Speaker, finally we are at third reading of Bill C-350. My private member's bill would encourage accountability and responsibility in our federal offenders. The bill would help ensure that offenders are held accountable for the monetary debts they owe. I think we can all agree this should be done.
As we have heard in committee, Bill C-350 raises important issues about the way in which offenders are held accountable for outstanding debts. 
The evidence is clear. The cost of crime is immense in our society, to the tune of $99.6 billion a year in both tangible and intangible costs. That is not $99.6 million, but $99.6 billion in tangible and intangible costs.
We have heard, loud and clear, from victims of crime, victims' families and victims advocacy groups that offenders must be held accountable. We have heard these calls and are responding to them with several legislative measures.
We have supported legislation to address vexatious complaints by offenders have overburdened the complaints and grievance system with frivolous complaints. 
We have also introduced legislation to double the victim surcharge owed by offenders and to make the payment mandatory in every case and without exception. While making the victim surcharge mandatory fulfills another of our commitments, we have the proper structure in place to ensure that it is paid.
This is where Bill C-350 comes into play. It would ensure that in cases where an offender is awarded money by a final decision by a court or tribunal, it must first be distributed in priority order to fulfill outstanding debts to child and spousal support, restitution orders and victim surcharges and any other amount owed as a result of a court judgment before the remainder goes to the offender. 
We have seen strong support for this legislation from committee witnesses, including the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. The ombudsman clearly illustrated what this legislation would mean for victims of crime. She said:
 For victims of crime who have already experienced loss and trauma, the additional legal and financial burden of having to track down moneys owed to them as a result of a crime committed against them can simply be overwhelming. This cannot and should not be the reality. Victims do not deserve to be revictimized. It is for this reason that measures that encourage the enforcement of the payment of restitution by offenders to victims are a necessary and welcome step forward. 
This then is really the aim of Bill C-350, to reduce the financial burden on victims of crime. Bill C-350 puts in place a structure that would ensure that a monetary award from the Crown is first directed toward the offender's financial obligations outside the penitentiary walls. In particular, it would ensure that offenders are fulfilling their family responsibilities by continuing to pay court-ordered spousal or child support, or by paying restitution orders and victim surcharges. 
I would like to take a moment to recognize the great work done in committee. Its members carried out a thoughtful and thorough study of the legislation in a non-partisan way, and I am grateful for that. The amendments put forward and subsequently passed in committee have served to strengthen and clarify the original bill. The amendment made at report stage further strengthened the bill's mandate, as it adjusted the wording to ensure that common law spouses will be eligible to receive payments under the legislation.
The proposed bill addresses a very specific section of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, section 78, which addresses payments to offenders. We are proposing changes to the law to ensure that money owed to the offender is distributed to meet his or her financial obligations. Here it is important to clarify that we are not talking about all moneys. This legislation deals only with those specific cases in which an offender has successfully won a monetary award as a result of a final decision by a court or tribunal.
This could include a case against the Correctional Service of Canada or another federal department. When this happens today, the CSC or other federal department would pay out the reward directly to the offender. 
Of course, offenders are already obligated to pay their debts while in prison. Under the recently passed Safe Streets and Communities Act, they must participate fully in a comprehensive correctional plan, which among things includes addressing their court-ordered obligations. 
However, there is no law specifically ensuring that they honour these obligations. This legislation does just that and prioritizes child and spousal support. Sometimes the offenders' families are also victims. In many cases the children or spouses of the offender face the strain of having lost the income of their partner and perhaps even lack the basic necessities.
To promote accountability among the offender population and ensure that victims and families of offenders are not further burdened, Bill C-350 will set out in law a means of ensuring that offenders honour their obligations according to the set priorities for repayment.
In this case the award must be paid out in the following order of priority: first, any amount the offender owes as a result of a spousal or child support order; second, any amount the offender owes as a result of a restitution order; third, any amount owed as a result of a victim surcharge; and fourth, any other amount owed by the offender as a result of a court judgment.
At committee concerns were raised regarding how this system of repayment might work in practice. These were realistic concerns. Amended wording now clarifies and addresses these concerns.
First, as I mentioned earlier, it is now clear that this bill only applies to awards made as a result of a final decision of a court or a tribunal. It is also specifically noted that legal costs should be respected before the award is distributed. Next, the bill now specifically ensures that any moneys owing to the offender under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement is exempt from repayment under Bill C-350.
We have also addressed concerns that the debt repayment priorities under Bill C-350 would override debts owed to the offender under the Income Tax Act or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. A provision now exists in the bill that will ensure that it will not conflict with these or other similar federal statutes.
Another key concern brought forward by witnesses at committee was that the bill was not entirely clear with respect to the role of the Correctional Service of Canada in the administration of this scheme. In other words, what is the CSC's role in collecting, maintaining and sharing information on offenders and their debt obligations?
Furthermore, the bill was silent on issues of privacy and the sharing of the offenders' information among other departments as needed. As now stated, the CSC will act as a repository of this information. In other words, the onus is on the creditor to provide the CSC with written notice of any debts owed by the offender as a result of judgments or orders, such as on child support payments.
In the event the offender successfully sues and wins a monetary award from another federal department or agency, the latter would need to consult with CSC to determine if the person were a federal offender. The CSC can then provide that department with information on any outstanding obligations of the offender.
Bill C-350 represents an important step forward in our progress to make offenders accountable and responsible to society. Is that not what going to jail is all about? It is about rehabilitating the offender. This Bill C-350 sends an important message to families, children and, most importantly, victims of crime that we have not forgotten about them.
I hope that all members of this House can see the value of and give me their support for my private member's bill, Bill C-350.
Greg Rickford: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his great work.
Listening to the member's speech, it seems to me that the bill has a dual purpose. It is not just to do what our government has been doing, and that is making victims a top priority, but perhaps also for the offender to develop a sense of caring, compassion and understanding in the rehabilitation process for redressing the harm he or she may have caused. 
Can the member tell us whether that was something he was thinking about when drafting the bill?
[Interjection]
Guy Lauzon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, and I appreciate the input he had into the drafting and improvement of the bill. I want to thank members on the other side of the aisle for doing the same. 
The member is right. Our government's priority in the justice system is victims, and we want to maintain that as a priority. However, just as important is the hope of eliminating victims. The way we can eliminate victims is by rehabilitating offenders. By having offenders accept their responsibility, that is part of the rehabilitation. Everyone in the public has to meet their obligations. Too often when people go to prison, they are obligation free. Bill C-350 would ensure that the offender, while he is incarcerated, will accept his responsibilities. 
Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member from northeastern Ontario if he thinks it is proper for MPs to award Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medals to criminals?
[Interjection]
Guy Lauzon: Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased with my Bill C-350. I get a chance to not only speak to it for 15 minutes but to reply to questions for 5 minutes. The previous question talked about victims but also about rehabilitation. I had more to say about rehabilitation, and this question allows me the chance to do that. 
Every offender is subject to rehabilitation. Every offender can be rehabilitated. We have to give them every opportunity to become rehabilitated. Part of the way we do that is to get them to accept their responsibility. Having people live up to their financial obligations, if they get an award, is of course part of living up to their responsibilities. I thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to reiterate that. 
Randall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on third reading of Bill C-350, and I am pleased to reaffirm that the NDP will be supporting this bill in the final vote.
This is a bill which has the worthy objective of supporting offenders and taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions. However, before I give the wrong impression to the public, let me stress that this is a very narrow bill, which will affect only a very small group of offenders. It applies only to that small group who receive funds as a result of a court-ordered settlement against the Crown. During the course of the debate on this bill, no one has been able to provide an accurate number of those offenders who receive such settlements. However, the sponsor of the bill, the witnesses before committee and the parliamentary secretary have all assured us that this number is very low.
From the beginning, on this side of the House we have said the bill sets out an order of priorities for disbursing such funds. Limited as they might be, it is an order that we can support. The first priority is spousal and child support. I was very pleased to hear the hon. member acknowledge that there are, in addition to the direct victims of crime, often other indirect victims, who are the families and children of those who commit criminal acts. They often lose their main source of income and then end up losing their homes and all kinds of other things, through no fault of their own. The second is payments to victims as a result of restitution orders. Of course, on this side of the House we have always supported offenders having to fulfill their duties under restitution orders. The third is the payment of any victim surcharges that are owing. Finally, fourth is the payment of any civil judgments against offenders. New Democrats can support this order of priorities, and for that reason we can support this bill.
Obviously, getting additional resources to victims and families of offenders, who both often find themselves in dire straits as a result of criminal acts, is a good thing to do. Yet, we still have some doubts about the constitutionality of this bill with respect to federal-provincial jurisdiction. We are supporting the bill based on the assurances from the government as to the legal advice it has received on this point, but we expect to hear further from the provinces, perhaps in debate in the Senate.
We in the NDP would not be supporting this bill had the government not agreed to bring forth one very important amendment. That amendment, which we originally proposed in committee, was to exempt payments from the Crown made under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. We felt it was very important to recognize that aboriginal people who might receive payments as a result of abuse suffered in residential schools would be revictimized, if such payments were taken from one victim and transferred to another. We must recognize that the experience of physical, psychological and sexual abuse in the residential schools was very often the source of the involvement of those offenders with the legal system in the first place.
We are supporting this bill, recognizing its good intentions. We are cognizant of its very limited scope in providing assistance to victims, and while we appreciate the government's support for this private member's bill, we would call on the government to turn its attention now to the full recommendations of the victims ombudsman from last February. That is, not just the increase to the victim surcharge before the House now, and not just this bill, but the full range of recommendations from the victims ombudsman.
Let me conclude today by saying that we will be voting for this bill with the full knowledge that, at best, it will make only a small contribution to repairing the damage resulting from criminal acts. We do so while continuing to look forward to seeing further initiatives from the government to provide more extensive and effective assistance to victims of crime.
Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the debate on Bill C-350, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accountability of offenders).
This is a particularly timely debate, as the justice and human rights committee, upon which I sit, continues its deliberation on the matter of Bill C-37, increasing offenders' accountability for victims act.
I will organize my remarks today around two themes. First, I will address where the bill fits within the government's overall approach to crime and justice. Second, I will address the specific critiques I have on this legislation, particularly from a law and poverty perspective.
May I state, parenthetically, that I began my law teaching career some 42 years ago in the area of law and poverty. One of the first books I co-edited was one that was precisely entitled Law and poverty.
The common thread of both Bill C-37 and Bill C-350, legislation proposed by government members, is that they both seek to address the accountability of offenders through financial obligations on or after sentencing.
Bill C-37 proposes to double the victim surcharge and make it mandatory. Bill C-350 proposes to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that any monetary amount awarded to an offender pursuant to a legal action or proceeding against the Crown must be paid to victims and other designated beneficiaries. 
It bears repeating that all parties agree on the objectives of these two pieces of legislation, namely that offenders must be held accountable for their acts and that restitution must be made. It is an objective of the sentencing process outlined in the Criminal Code itself. 
However, the Criminal Code provides other purposes in sentencing. I believe section 718 of the code bears repeating, for the benefit of colleagues and those hearing these debates. It states:
 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions.... 
I pause here in my reading of this section to note that the Criminal Code places sentencing efforts alongside crime prevention initiatives. Indeed, the two are given equal footing. 
Regrettably, while we have a steady stream of legislation from the government with respect to increasing and enhancing sentencing, particularly in regard to imposing mandatory minimum penalties and the like, we have seen very little with respect to crime prevention. Indeed, both Bill C-37 and Bill C-350 can hardly be said to be preventative measures, an issue that I will address shortly.
I will excerpt further from the Criminal Code, which speaks of the purpose of sanctions, and I quote:
 ...just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. 
I realize that it is not the preferred practice for members to read excerpts from statutory text. However, it may well be necessary in this case to illustrate that the objective here, in the bill's own words, “increasing accountability of offenders”, or in the language of the Criminal Code, “promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done”, is the sixth and final objective in sentencing.
This is not to say that this objective is not worthwhile or that it ought not to be pursued. Rather, it is simply to note that it ought to be pursued alongside or together with the other objectives expressly mentioned in the code. 
Again, while we have seen many pieces of government legislation that address accountability, we do not see any, for example, with respect to the objective of the rehabilitation of offenders. Despite the fact that the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry characterizes the legislation as dealing with rehabilitation, in fact it ignores the whole issue of rehabilitation. 
This is where I believe the government's approach to criminal policy is particularly problematic. Conservatives propose, often in a piecemeal fashion, provisions pertaining solely to one objective, thereby missing an opportunity to develop a holistic and integrated approach to criminal law policy. That is, one that addresses not only what to do after the fact, after the offences occur, but no less important, why people commit crimes, and particularly how they can be prevented from committing those crimes—the whole with a view to protecting public safety and preventing the victimization to begin with.
We are all in favour of concern for and protecting the rights of victims but our objective must be to prevent the victimization and the crime to begin with.
In debates over Bill C-37 and Bill C-350, government speakers spoke of the deterrent objectives of these pieces of legislation. As I have noted in the House before, it is difficult to imagine that an offender who would otherwise commit an offence would somehow desist from doing so upon being informed of either a victim surcharge or a priority system of extinguishing debts once incarcerated. Addressing offenders after the fact ignores crime prevention as a necessary element of any criminal law policy. Moreover, doing so by financial measures alone does not assist with rehabilitation, an essential element of any criminal justice agenda.
Turning now to the specifics of the bill before us, Bill C-350 establishes that before an inmate can make use of any financial compensation gained as a result of a court proceeding against the Crown, certain groups must receive payment first. It thereby establishes a priority of debt repayment program. The first is paid to outstanding spousal or child support, followed by outstanding debt or restitution owed to the victim, such as for therapy or medical bills. Third is the debt owed to third parties who acted in good faith, followed by any victim surcharge imposed during sentencing. Subsequently, the priority is to debts owed by the offender as a result of any other court case, whether civil or criminal, and only after these conditions are satisfied may the offender receive the monetary award for use at his or her discretion.
The government has framed this legislation in terms of supporting victims, noting the need to fund restitution orders that courts may impose to address, for example, damage to, or loss or destruction of, a person's property or bodily or physiological harm to any person. Again, it must be reaffirmed that this is something that all parties support and stand behind, and was a central theme of my own tenure as minister of justice. 
The problem here is that when it comes to the impecunious offender, courts have noted this concern in relation to restitution, such as the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Scherer wherein the court found that:
 It may be that in some cases it would be inappropriate and undesirable to make a compensation order in an amount that it is unrealistic to think the accused could ever discharge. 
 The reason for this is in part what the Manitoba Court of Appeal found in R. v. Siemens and again I quote: 
 The impact of a restitution order upon the chances of rehabilitation of the accused, either pro or con, is a factor to be considered.... 
 A compensation order which would ruin the accused financially, thus impairing his chances of rehabilitation, should not be imposed.... 
As such, I am particularly concerned about the impact of the legislation on those who may be of limited financial means. Directing funds from an award may impact upon the rehabilitation of an offender. In this regard, discretion should have been built into the legislation before us. Moreover, in the cases of those with no means, it is unclear how this legislation would serve the purposes of offender accountability. Simply put, if someone cannot afford any of the fines levied, the legislation would not achieve its objectives.
Here and also in respect of Bill C-37, it is important to recall the words of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Wu:
 [I]t is irrational to imprison an offender who does not have the capacity to pay on the basis that imprisonment will force him or her to pay.... 
 For the impecunious offenders...imprisonment in default of payment of a fine is not an alternative punishment—he or she does not have any real choice in the matter. 
Again, as I noted in my generic critique of the government's justice agenda, not enough focus is being placed on prevention and tackling the underlying causes of crimes, chief among them being poverty.
In my limited time remaining I will briefly outline additional concerns with the legislation, many of which were raised in committee and might be raised in the other place. First is whether or not the bill is constitutional from a federalism perspective, and reference has been made to this by my NDP colleagues so I will refrain from enlarging on this point. Second, the bill does not address what happens to these payments in cases of wrongful conviction, an issue with which I was preoccupied as minister of justice and appreciate this concern. Third and finally, there is a concern that this legislation may deter inmates from taking action against the Crown when there are legitimate grounds to do so, such as in cases of prisoner abuse, because they would not be able to use the award as they see fit.
While the Liberal Party supports the intent of the bill, we feel that the bill and these concerns must be addressed further so as to achieve the objectives of the bill.
Guy Lauzon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to summarize our debate on Bill C-350.
When I first introduced Bill C-350, I said it was common sense. I still maintain that the more we study it, as it has gone to committee, et cetera, the more I believe that it is just good, honest, old-fashioned common sense.
My NDP colleague mentioned something about the good intentions in the bill. It is a bill of good intentions because we on this side have the intention to look after victims.
I was once a victim of a crime. I understand the pain and anguish people and their families go through when they become victims of crime.
In some cases, the victim is also the offender for a variety of reasons. Maybe the offender ended up being an offender to start with. Many offenders have gone through their whole lives without ever having to face responsibility. If that is the case, under Bill C-350, when they are incarcerated and they do happen to come into a few dollars, they will finally have the opportunity to live up to their responsibility and be able to accept it.
I sense that we have the support of the House for Bill C-350. I am encouraged by this because I think it is a win-win for the victims, the offenders and for society.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin): The time provided for debate has expired. 
 Accordingly, the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen:  
 Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 31, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
 (The House adjourned at 2:01 p.m.)