Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 142 (Official Version)

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-8, An Act respecting the safety of drinking water on First Nation lands, to which the concurrence of the House is desired.

[For continuation of proceedings see Part B]

* * *

[Continuation of proceedings from part A]

* * *

(2015)

[English]

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House and speak to Bill C-38, a bill that fundamentally attacks the Canada of yesterday, today and tomorrow. It is an attack on who we are and what we have built together.

As a result of the bill, the government is turning the clock back on Canada's reputation, holding back our country in terms of research and innovation while lowering not only the standard of living that Canadians face today but that Canadians will face tomorrow.

The budget also speaks to the two-faced approach the government has taken. At election time, the Conservatives said one thing and now in government they do another.

I will go through the budget and see who is not a priority and who is not spoken for.

Who is not a priority in the government's budget? It is northern and aboriginal people. Many northern and aboriginal people who I represent have spoken to me about the real concerns they have vis-à-vis Bill C-38. In fact, I had the opportunity to hear from people participating at the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs gathering and there is united opposition to Bill C-38. Why is there t opposition? I am sad to say that there are many reasons.

First, cuts to employment insurance will have a disproportionate impact on northern and aboriginal Canadians, particularly seasonal workers, fishers, forest firefighters, construction workers and people who work in tourism. It will impact the people who make the economies in some of the poorest communities in our country operate. For example, people may simply leave and abandon critical services like forest firefighting, something that we all depend on for public safety, as they will have no ability to look at other options. In fact, due to these cuts, people may need to turn in a much greater way to welfare. We will see increased social turmoil and a continuation of government neglect for first nations. There will be a lack of options for people to become re-educated and skilled in other areas to have the ability to move on. It is simply not be a reality in northern and aboriginal communities.

When it comes to the changes in EI, many people are worried because they simply do not know what will happen. They have been told to trust the minister, but the reality is that the employment insurance money is the money of these very workers and of all Canadian workers. They must be seen as the priority and not be influenced by the ideological slant of a certain minister.

Another area the bill would have a disproportionate impact is on the changes to the EI tribunals. The elimination of a specific workers' representative would have a disproportionate impact on working people. For those who live in remote and rural Canada, the ability to connect in person to these tribunals is critical. With this streamlining, the option of using the phone or travelling to the tribunal is simply not an option for so many Canadians.

The change to the OAS would also have a disproportionate impact on northern and aboriginal people. Many already live in higher conditions of poverty than in other parts of Canada.

We have the loss of environmental assessments and environmental reviews. Many first nations, including the AFN national chief, have spoken out clearly against the rolling back of environmental legislation. They have spoken of the importance of the fiduciary obligation that the federal government has to first nations and of the importance that the federal government must place on the duty to consult, which is something that did not happen in the formulation of Bill C-38 but something that will continue to not happen in the case of environmental development that will have a direct impact on first nations and their lands.

There is the loss of the National Aboriginal Health Organization that did critical work across the country both in terms of research and advocacy when it comes to aboriginal people. As well as the loss of the First Nation Statistical Institute which provides information that we need when it comes to first nations and aboriginal peoples, some of the most marginalized people in the country. This information would no longer be at their fingertips.

(2020)

There are cuts to Aboriginal and Northern Affairs and the continued inaction to deal with the shocking housing crises, the need for repairs and the building of new schools, the need to support infrastructure in the northern and first nation communities that I represent and in so many aboriginal and northern communities across the country.

This is also the further attitude by the contempt that the government showed when just a few short weeks ago the UN special rapporteur spoke of the extreme poverty that aboriginal people face and the fact that so many of them are unable to access healthy foods, something that there is no action on in this budget.

There are cuts to VIA Rail that connects northern aboriginal and remote communities across this country. Without the support that is needed for our national rail service and without a vision in this area, many people will be left out in the cold.

Another set of people and communities left out of this budget are rural and agricultural people and communities.

In addition to the loss of the Canadian Wheat Board, the government has compounded the insecurity faced by rural people, particularly on the Prairies, through the loss of the Shelterbelt Centre in Saskatchewan, the loss of the community pastures program and the withdrawal of commitment to the cattle enhancement program in Manitoba leaving many cattle ranchers in the lurch who were counting on a federal partnership when it came to such an important program.

There are the amendments to the Seeds Act that potentially allowed private contractors to perform something as critical to our public safety again as food inspection.

There is the closure of the Cereal Research Centre in Winnipeg, an institution that performed world-class research.

Now we see that the government is even failing to truly stand up for supply management and continuing to not be transparent in terms of its trade negotiations on an international level.

I would also add that in my province of Manitoba there has been a particular blow in terms of immigration to the successful provincial nominee program that has built my province over the last number of years. Unfortunately, the federal government is unwilling to see a success story and support it.

Who else would be left behind through this budget? Canada's women, the 51%.

The changes to employment insurance would have a disproportionate impact on Canadian women. The changes to OAS will also have a disproportionate impact upon Canadian women because about 38% of women get more than half of their income from OAS or GIS. Then there is the loss of public service jobs. Many of these jobs are held by women. As we lose these good-paying jobs, so many women and so many families will be made even more vulnerable in today's economic situation.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives stated, “In total, federal spending cuts could lead to the elimination of over 70,000 full-time equivalent positions”.

While others have said more.

We have the loss of the Women's Health Network, the loss of the National Council of Welfare and the amendments to the Employment Equity Act that will leave women, aboriginal people, people with disabilities and visible minorities in the lurch.

Who else does this budget leave out? It leaves out young people.

It lowers our standard of living through the changes to OAS. It destroys the environment through the loss of the Experimental Lakes Area which conducts such critical research on the well-being of our ecosystems and the future of our economic development. We have loss of the Kyoto agreement, the gutting of the environmental assessment regime and fish habitat protection and the loss of research by removing, privatizing, muzzling and silencing those who tell us who we are and where we are going.

Perhaps the most insidious are the changes that would be made to our history and our identity.

Whether it is the cuts to Parks Canada that lead to the de-funding of Louis Riel House or the lack of leadership shown in making a commitment to La Liberté, the francophone newspaper in my home province, trying to rewrite history by the current government also means trying to change our future for the worse.

However, in this devastation, there is hope, hope in the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have spoken out and hope in the outcry we have seen in and out of this House.

I am proud to be part a strong NDP team that is presenting a vision of a country where we are all part of it, where we are all better off and where we can be a model on the world stage in terms of the environment, equality and dignity, a vision we hope Canadians will choose to make reality in 2015.

(2025)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lynne Yelich (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC):

Mr. Speaker, part of our budget and our implementation bill would help the mining sector. People have asked us to make changes so the overlap of the assessments will be less cumbersome.

Our mineral production was $45.3 million and 21% of it was accounted for by Saskatchewan. That is a significant figure. Canada is a world leader in the production of potash and uranium. We rank fifth in the world for the production of aluminum, cobalt, sulphur, nickel and platinum and third in the world with respect to diamond production. All of these rely on good policies and lots of emphasis on efficiency and to ensure there are no barriers to the production of sustainable development in gas, oil and minerals.

The member does not seem to understand how important the budget is for aboriginal people in the north. We have invested in schools and in the University College of the North. Does she not appreciate the fact that we have put education high on the agenda—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):

Order, please. I do not wish to interrupt the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification, but time is limited.

The hon. member for Churchill.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Niki Ashton:

Mr. Speaker, if the government is so convinced that it stands up for mining communities, then I would ask it to act on behalf of my home community of Thompson, a community that was bought out by a multinational corporation. All of the value-added jobs will be lost because of the agreement that the government signed with a multinational corporation. The government is selling our jobs down the river and eventually outside our country. I would like to see the government act on that because it has not. All we have heard is silence.

The member talked about the government's commitment to education. The Conservative government has not committed to the University College of the North. It was Jack Layton's amendment before the Conservatives came into power that ensured the only federal money that went to building new infrastructure of our institution.

I would like to see the government invest in education not only at the post-secondary level but also at the primary level for first nations that I represent, something we also do not see from the government.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member on her speech.

She said that at least a third of Bill C-38 is devoted to environmental deregulation, while the Conservatives have the worst track record of all recent Canadian governments in terms of environmental protection and action on climate change. Not giving consideration to sustainable development on the environment is making our current situation worse and is threatening the future of our next generations.

Could the hon. member comment on that?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Niki Ashton:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for pointing out a major issue in this awful budget, and that is the attack on the environment, which is essentially an attack on the future of Canada and Canadians.

As Canadians, we have been proud to be world leaders. Now, countries around the world are talking about us in quite a different manner. It is clear as day for everyone that Canada is no longer a leader and that we have completely lost our way. We are going to create a future that is much worse and that is also extremely dangerous since we are making cuts to research, statistics and information. We will not even know where we are. When we do not know where we are, we certainly do not know where we are going.

That is why we have introduced amendments, that is why we are against this budget and that is why we have a vision for all of Canada that includes a sustainable environment.

(2030)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand today. I have not spoken as much as I used to. I remember a time, a couple of years ago, and I can always count on my own colleagues to applaud that. However, I do remember just over a year ago that we had an opportunity to speak up for constituents across the country. I heard the NDP member across the way talk about standing up for infrastructure. I do not remember any NDP members standing up for infrastructure when we brought in Canada's economic action plan.

In fact, I remember the exact opposite. Opposition members sat for that and did not vote. They did not vote for the bridges, the tunnels, all the road work that we brought in for the country. They did not vote for the jobs, the infrastructure investment and multiplexes and other measures we voted for at that time. Although they talked a lot about the need for infrastructure, when it came time to vote for it, they even voted against the water and waste water projects across the country.

I know in my constituency in northern Alberta that waste water and water projects are very necessary because of the expanding growth, but also because some of these projects were put in 30 or 40 years ago and are wasting away, which, as is the case with all infrastructure, actually depletes its purpose.

I heard the member say that she and the NDP spoke up for infrastructure, but I could not help to bring forward the fact that when it came time for the infrastructure investment to combat the economic decline in our great country, as well as that which the rest of the world had seen, and still sees, it took this Conservative government to stand up for Canadians and those infrastructure investments. I will never apologize for that because they were some of the best initiatives we could have taken for our country. It also was the best action taken in probably a 50-year period by any government.

Being from western Canada and northern Alberta, I have seen some things happen with which I am not very happy. One is that we have run out of people to take the jobs in western Canada, jobs that have been available for many years. I am proud to be from the constituency of Fort McMurray—Athabasca, which I consider to be one of the most beautiful places on the planet.

During the period of time I have been there, I have been a business owner, a lawyer and owned and operated some 10 different family businesses for some 45 years. For the last 20 years, I have been active in my own businesses there. I can assure members that we have had real problems employing Canadians. We have had to resort to outside agencies so to speak. We have had to resort to temporary foreign workers. In some parts of the country that is a dirty word, but in my area it is a necessary word. Without temporary foreign workers and the programs of the federal government in co-operation with the provinces that have been brought into play, we would have nobody manning any of restaurants or hotels.

In fact, I can tell stories of hotels having to close down in my constituency and even further abreast than that in Alberta, and now in Saskatchewan. Some hotels have to close entire floors because they do not have staff to clean rooms. It sounds like a trivial matter until one sees that those people who work in those jobs, like in my area of northern Alberta and Fort McMurray, work 12 to 14 hour days, 20 or 25 days straight. That might sound absolutely atrocious, and I believe it is because the quality of life of my constituencies is affected, but the truth is our economy is such that these people not only work because they need to but also because they come from many different places in Canada.

Economic action plan 2012 focuses somewhat on employment issues. I am proud to say that I think the government has addressed these issues very well.

These employment insurance initiatives will encourage people to take long-term employment, to come from other parts of Canada and to be employed not only in northern Alberta, hopefully, but also in Newfoundland. I do not know if members are aware, but I hear clearly from my constituents, and I have about 30,000 to 35,000 constituents who are from Newfoundland, that they and many of their relatives think the growth in unemployment is such in Newfoundland that they will return there.

I see from my notes that I also missed a very important part, but I was passionate about the issue of infrastructure and the vote that this Conservative government took on it. I forgot to mention that I would be splitting my time with the member for Don Valley West. I apologize for forgetting that. However, I would like to continue on with some of the employment insurance initiatives that this budget would put in place.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that you may have a problem with me splitting my time, but clearly as many—

(2035)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):

Order, please. I do not mean to interject. I advise the hon. member that in fact we are past the five-hour mark, so there really is no need to split one's time.

I do not know if the hon. member is asking for unanimous consent to split the time that he has in front of him right now. I do not think perhaps that was his intention.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Jean:

Mr. Speaker, everybody likes that.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):

The hon. member will then take the 10 minutes and five minutes that one would normally take for this time slot. Is that correct?

Mr. Brian Jean: Yes.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Jean:

Mr. Speaker, like all things in life, we follow instructions, and that is what I did.

I am very happy with what this government has brought in as far as employment insurance program initiatives, and I will leave it for the general public to understand that. People can visit the website of the federal government to understand specifically what is happening. There are some great initiatives, and I hope to see more in the future.

Because I do not have a lot of time left, I want to talk specifically about what took place when we passed this budget through committee. Many people have talked about how we are ramrodding it through and how we have done many things that have not been done before. The truth is that omnibus bills are nothing new. They have been done by many previous governments, and I am sure they will continue to be done by many governments in the future, notwithstanding what political stripe they may be.

I want to talk about public consultation. I sat on the finance committee and I even sat on the subcommittee for finance sometimes when I was still awake, and I say that with no jest. Many times we sat into the night, eight o'clock, nine o'clock, and with the subcommittee up until midnight and 1:30 in the morning one particular day.

We heard from many witnesses. In fact, during the period of time we studied this, we heard 70 hours of testimony. That may not seem very important when we consider the work week, but when we consider all the other things MPs do, 70 hours of study, especially considering that most hours of study for me, when I go into an hour of committee time, I take an hour or two hours outside of committee to study and prepare for that period of time, the 70 hours can easily be 150 to 200 hours for any member of Parliament.

We did that in particular in relation to Bill C-38 to ensure that Canada's economy was strong, but we also listened to opposition parties and heard testimony from many individuals across the regime, including government officials. These government officials have been working, contrary to what the opposition says, on these files, these issues and these items for many years. In fact, as a parliamentary secretary involved in some aspects of it, these people were more up-to-date in relation to policy of governments than I will ever be and certainly provided a lot of opportunity. Therefore, I can assure members that they dealt with and understood those issues long before any of us came to this place.

We also heard from industry associations. I know we heard from them, because I heard from many of them. They called for the same things. They said, “Let us have some changes”.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, of which I have been a member through my businesses in the past, do a great job. I continue to get the surveys and the input from their members and write those members back to confirm what we do as a government. It said, “With respect to employment insurance, 22% of our members told us they feel they're competing against EI for workers”. They are competing against an insurance program for jobs. It does not really make a lot of sense. It goes on to say, “and 16% of our members said they have been asked by employees to lay them off so they can collect employment insurance. The need for change is very clear”.

Those were not my words. Those were the words of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the voice of business for Canada, had this to say. I would consider it to be a very good voice because it petitions the people who create jobs in our country and pay the most taxes as far as percentage to gross income and personal income. It said:

For decades we've understood that the EI system can be a double-edged sword, protecting workers who lose their jobs, yes, but also creating enduring dependencies and marginalizing thousands of workers....Canada can’t continue to pay the cost of an underutilized workforce.

Those are not my words. That is the business community of Canada coming forward and saying we need change.

There are labour inefficiencies from coast to coast. I am clearly in support of this budget. It would do great things for Canada. It would do great things for Canadian families. More important, it would do great things for Canadian families in the future. A budget today is what affects us in years and years to come.

* * *

(2040)

Business of the House

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order, or usual practice of the House, when the proceedings are interrupted later this day, pursuant to the order made Tuesday, June 12, 2012, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures:

(a) all questions necessary to dispose of third reading stage of the said bill shall be deemed put and a recorded division shall be deemed requested;

(b) the bells to call in the members shall ring for not longer than 30 minutes;

(c) following the disposal of Bill C-38, the House shall then proceed immediately to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions respecting the third reading stage of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, and the motion to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; and

(d) after the taking of the recorded divisions provided for in this order, the House shall stand adjourned to the next sitting day.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):

Does the Chief Government Whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

* * *

[Translation]

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party organized extensive consultations on Bill C-38. I heard a lot of concerns about this legislation. I myself just used the term “heard” when I should have said “listened”.

The member said he heard a number of witnesses, but did he really listen to them?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, did I really listen to them? That is a bit insulting.

I am trained to listen and to speak, but clearly I am not trained to speak as the NDP member opposite is. I heard those members speak for years about infrastructure investments and when they had the opportunity to vote for them, they voted against them. They voted against the bridges in Quebec and the bridges and roads across the country. They voted against water and sewer infrastructure. I assure the member that I listened to the committee members and to the witnesses who came forward, and not just the witnesses whom this member heard from. We heard from hundreds, including witnesses from aboriginal bands and environmental consultations.

I have been here for eight years now. It is not a very long time, but I have been on the environment committee. I have been the parliamentary secretary for infrastructure and transportation when that member's party voted against all those infrastructure investments. I have heard clearly from many witnesses over the years and I assure that member that all the proposed changes in Bill C-38 would be excellent for the country, today and tomorrow.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, following up on my colleague's question, with all the committee hearings and all the debate in this place, could the member tell us why there was not one good idea they heard, not one single amendment that the government put forward in terms of how this bill would affect those people who came before you to testify? And why, including the Speaker's riding, were members of your caucus not listened to in terms of the devastating changes to the ridings bordering on the Trent-Severn and what a shortened year and shortened day would mean in each of those towns that only has one economic development? That is their lock.

You think you consulted, but consulting is sending—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):

Order, please. I would remind hon. members to direct questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Jean:

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that many good ideas were taken. I know that because I received feedback from the Department of Finance that it received some of my ideas and implemented them in the budget. So what could be better than that for me? Clearly, they had some great ideas.

However, I assure the member that we heard, loud and clear, from the Liberal Party in Alberta. I mentioned the national energy program which shut down every business in Fort McMurray, except for probably two. We listened, loud and clear, and that is why we will never vote for a Liberal government again. That is why it is in third place and that is where it is going to remain for a long time if it is able to hold onto that particular place.

(2045)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member from beautiful Fort McMurray to expand on some of the changes that have happened in the oil sands that are largely because our government committed to a cleaner, more environmentally friendly development of our natural resources. Could he enlighten us on what has been happening over the last four or five years? Have there been any dramatic changes in the oil sands?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Jean:

Mr. Speaker, that is a bit outside of the topic, but I assure the member that I am proud to say there have been some tremendous changes.

I talked to an aboriginal chief from northern Alberta two days ago about some of the changes that have taken place in northern Alberta, including more air and water monitoring and initiatives by the federal government in co-operation with the provincial government.

One thing that I am proud of is this. In 1967 when I moved to Fort McMurray it had what was called tailings pond number one. Many people over the last 35 to 40 years said that could not be cleaned up. Well it is cleaned up today. Suncor Energy has done a tremendous job in environmental performance. It has done a tremendous job with the community. In fact, I would suggest the oil sands companies that are currently in Alberta and northern Alberta spend more money per capita for environmental integrity than anywhere else on the planet. That is the truth and I stick with that.

As far as what is happening in the oil sands regarding employment insurance, though, we clearly need more workers. We need more people to take those great jobs With the highest household income in the country of $185,000, I am proud to say that Canada's economy is created in Fort McMurray, Alberta.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca for sharing his time with me today. I look forward to visiting his riding this summer, and seeing the resource development of the oil sands and the great things that are happening in Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak at third reading in favour of Bill C-38, jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, and the many economic action plan 2012 initiatives that it enacts.

In particular I want to highlight how today's bill reduces pointless bureaucratic red tape to help jump-start Canada's economy. I should note that the measures I will speak to today flow from the work of the Red Tape Reduction Commission.

For over five decades, the Food and Drugs Act has served to protect the health and safety of Canadians by providing them with one of the safest and most rigorous food and drug regulation systems in the world. It has served us well, and continues to serve us well. However, it is reasonable that in over 50 years certain aspects of that act may need to be updated from time to time, especially those that do nothing but harm Canada's economy.

Before I begin, let me clearly state that the changes to the Food and Drugs Act proposed in Bill C-38 do not change the scientific assessment process in any way. I repeat, we are maintaining the current high standards of the act.

What we are targeting is the pointless, antiquated and often times bizarre red tape that presented itself after the scientific assessments were completed, red tape that increased the regulatory burden and creating lengthy delays for businesses to get approved food and drug products to consumers.

At present, once a scientific assessment is completed and a food safety decision is made by the experts at Health Canada, be it concerning the safety of a new food additive, setting the limit for a chemical contaminant or approving a new health claim for food, it can take years to circumvent the red tape required to implement that decision. These delays, between decision and implementation, can impede the entry of safe new food products to the marketplace. This disadvantages Canadian businesses and workers by harming the food and consumer manufacturing sector of the Canadian economy that employs 300,000 Canadians, the largest employer in the manufacturing sector in every region of our country.

It can also limit Health Canada's ability to protect the health and safety of Canadians. For example, under the current system, Health Canada determined that a food additive used to combat harmful bacteria in certain processed meats was safe, but it took 36 months for the required regulatory change to enable the use of this product in Canada.

The targeted amendments to the Food and Drugs Act would eliminate these types of delays. They would improve Health Canada's ability to protect the health and safety of Canadians while cutting red tape. More specifically, these amendments include new authorities that would shorten the time it takes for safe food products to be put on the Canadian market.

Streamlining the regulatory process would significantly reduce the approval time for food additives. These new regulatory tools are marketing authorizations and incorporation by reference. I should note that these amendments have received widespread support.

Food and Consumer Products of Canada has voiced its strong support, saying:

This legislation will give Canadians access to the new and innovative products they are demanding, protect product safety and help our manufacturing sector grow.... We strongly support the federal government's move to address these regulatory delays. [This] will bring Canadians more of the products they have been asking for, support innovation and jobs in our sector, and uphold Canada's exemplary safety standards.

(2050)

The Retail Council of Canada has also added its voice of support, saying:

These amendments will reduce delays and red tape while maintaining the highest level of food safety in Canada...

...in the past, Health Canada would have to seek a regulatory amendment each time a new use was requested for a food additive that the department had already deemed to be safe; this process could take years. Now, the same process will take a matter of just a few months allowing industry to keep pace with growing and changing demands from consumers...

They also demonstrate the government's ongoing commitment to do away with red tape.

The Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association has also noted that the changes “support efforts to reduce regulation and simplify the process by which new products can come to market”.

Bill C-38 also proposes amendments to reduce the regulatory burden associated with managing Canadians' access to safe, approved drugs. These changes would give Canadians a more responsive drug safety system. As the Red Tape Reduction Commission reported, the current process is burdensome.

Let me take a minute to illustrate exactly what these amendments would and would not do. Currently, for instance, once Health Canada scientists make a decision, the process used to make a simple regulatory change to remove a drug from Schedule F of the Food and Drug Regulations can take years. Implementing a decision to change a drug status from prescription to over-the-counter can be delayed by as much as 24 months after the scientific review. What does this delay between decision and implementation mean? It means a great deal to Canadians and their health care system. Delaying timely access to effective and affordable treatments costs the health care system money. It also costs Canadians.

Under the current system, they must continue to take time off work, go see their doctors, get written prescriptions and then fill them at the pharmacy long after Health Canada's scientists have determined that a particular drug is safe and effective for over-the-counter use. I should note that the science used to assign prescription status would not change at all. As is the case today, the scientific criteria, together with the new process for making changes to the web-based list, would continue to be regulated.

Without a doubt, this portion of Bill C-38 would help replace costly and outdated red tape around drug prescription status. In the words of Consumer Health Products Canada:

Without changing the scientific review process, this measure will eliminate the 12-18 month regulatory delay that currently holds up access to new over-the-counter medicines after Health Canada approval. These consumer health products reduce consumer costs and have been shown to save provincial health care systems money...and this measure will quicken access to those savings.

In conclusion, I would like to encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-38 and its measures to reduce red tape and grow the economy while advantaging Canadian consumers.

(2055)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I will advise my hon. colleague that I will not be supporting Bill C-38. Liberals have a great concern about what is taking place. For example, Bill C-38 would tear the EI program to pieces. A lot of people would have to work for 70% of their salaries. It would make changes to the Fisheries Act. Over the years, when there were changes to the Fisheries Act, it was always felt that members had to go from coast to coast to talk to fisheries groups in order to find out what they felt should be changed in the Fisheries Act.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on why there was no consultation on the east coast or the west coast of people who are involved with the fishery and the EI program. Why did the government unilaterally decide on what was going to take place? Does my hon. colleague realize the enormous hardship that it is going to create among people?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Carmichael:

Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2012 is geared to jobs, economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians. With regard to consultation, the finance committee and subcommittee that were formed spent over 70 hours in consultation with Canadians from industry and consumer groups right across the spectrum. They spent more time than any consultation process in the past 20 years for any economic bill of this nature. Quite frankly, the consultation process has been thorough and extremely fair.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech about expediting the approval of medicines or pharmaceutical drugs in the country. I have a friend who just received her Ph.D. at Dalhousie University, lauded as the best Ph.D. of the year. Her analysis was the input of the public into the review of drugs for breast cancer and the difference in the end analysis when organizations were given the opportunity to have input or not. We need merely refer to the issue of Oxycontin and the disaster that resulted when there was no proper review of what its implications might be given the form in which that medicine was allowed to be released.

I am giving the member the opportunity to rethink whether or not it makes sense to always short-circuit and fast-track the approval of drugs.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Carmichael:

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. There has to be serious consultation and consideration in every one of these cases. Short-circuiting for the sake of short-circuiting is not the answer.

The Red Tape Reduction Commission reviewed a number of avenues by which redundancy occurred and impeded the development or the sale of products over the counter in the health care system. My understanding is that the commission achieved a reduction in redundant costs and redundant steps in processes that keep the appropriate medications from getting to market on time and on budget.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I heard the government member talk about the scope of the consultations that took place. It is not the first time I hear this. They talk about 70 hours in committee. That is 50 hours at the Standing Committee on Finance and 20 hours at the subcommittee.

However, we have to keep in mind that some 70 acts were either added, abolished or amended. If we had followed the usual process and spent about five hours in committee to review each piece of legislation—usually, it is much more than five hours—the various committees would have spent 350 hours reviewing the scope of these changes.

I wonder if the member for Don Valley West could elaborate on this. Does he not agree that 70 hours to review this bill is much less than the minimum of 350 hours that would have been required to review these changes in an appropriate fashion?

(2100)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Carmichael:

Mr. Speaker, this government did its job in recruiting consultation and input on the bill, whether it was through the Red Tape Reduction Commission or the hours of study that went into the consultation process. Finance committee and a special subcommittee studied this bill for nearly 70 hours. That is the longest consideration of budget legislation in committee in decades and likely ever.

It is one thing to try to extrapolate an arbitrary number. The reality is that 70 hours of consultation went into the bill. There were 70 hours of solid input. This government has done an exceptional job in bringing the right bill to the House.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP):

Madam Speaker, my question is regarding the changes to OAS. This is an area which will affect all seniors across Canada when the time comes. Seniors and soon-to-be seniors from across our country, as well as organizations such as CARP and others have spoken out.

How does my colleague respond to the concerns of his own constituents? How can he stand up for what his government is doing when it comes to cutting back on the dignity of seniors across Canada?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. John Carmichael:

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to hold quite a number of sessions with seniors in my riding to discuss this issue. Seniors hear our news. They talk to their friends. They hear the information that is coming from the other side and they become terrified that their economic security is going to go away. That is not the case. That is not what--

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has elapsed.

[Translation]

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP):

Madam Speaker, when I found out I was going to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-38, I re-read an almost endless number of emails and letters I received at my office in which people spoke out against the bill.

Obviously, as a member of Parliament, delivering a speech before the House is the best way to represent the support or criticism—in this case the criticism—of the people of Chambly—Borduas. Unfortunately, with all the dissatisfaction of my constituents over this bill and all the measures in this Trojan Horse bill, I have decided to take a different approach to describing how it will affect my riding.

Madam Speaker, if I may, I will relay an anecdote. On the weekend, on Saturday, I took part in an activity that gave me the opportunity to travel down the Richelieu River, which splits my riding in two. It is the heart of my riding. In travelling down the river, I truly saw to what extent Bill C-38 would harm my community. The point of departure was Chambly. Our canoes had not even touched the water and I could already see that my riding would be adversely affected in a number of ways.

I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance a question last week, but unfortunately she did not give a satisfactory answer in her speech.

This bill will initially affect the tourism sector. As I have said many times in this House, I was pleased to learn in committee that Fort Chambly is one of the most popular Parks Canada sites in Quebec. Unfortunately, its operations will be reduced because of the cuts to Parks Canada. That is interesting because it is a very important site that commemorates the War of 1812. Colonel Salaberry, one of the greatest heroes of the wars, was from Chambly, Quebec. A statue of Colonel Salaberry is located in front of the town hall and a street has been named after him. And yet, the hours of operation at this heritage site will be reduced.

I am just at the beginning of my story, and I have already pointed out very significant repercussions. Obviously, this will have a negative effect on all businesses in the region, such as restaurants and local organizations. All these places, all these people and the services they provide to the community will be adversely affected by these cuts.

We could talk about the Festival Bières et Saveurs, which is held at Fort Chambly, and which allows people to visit the fort at the same time. Parks Canada officials have told me that these cuts will first affect events held in the fall. That is a very significant repercussion.

We then got into our canoes and passed by two very large signs that said “Caution: pipeline”—the Montreal-Portland pipeline to be exact. My predecessor said that there will be a number of problems with this pipeline because the flow of oil is going to be reversed. The infrastructure is 60 years old, and the integrity of the structure could be affected, which would cause a disaster. This pipeline runs under the river; we canoed over it. When we think about the heritage value of this river and its economic and environmental value, we come to realize just how devastating the repercussions could be.

You will surely ask me what the connection is between a 60-year-old pipeline and Bill C-38. It is not complicated: it shows how important it is to have operational, adequate, in-depth environmental assessment structures to ensure that we will never have such a situation again, where the infrastructure is unable to contain an oil spill under a river. We all agree that environmental regulations are not the same as they were 60 years ago. The reason regulations were improved was to ensure that these problems would not occur again.

Representing a community that faces such a problem, I realize the importance of these procedures and I realize that destroying and removing all these measures in order to expedite a process would have negative repercussions. We cannot hurry environmental protection, because it will have repercussions for many generations. We have seen this at home in my riding for 60 years. This is not a new pipeline, like that proposed by Enbridge; this is a 60-year-old pipeline. That is almost a lifetime.

(2105)

We continued our canoe trip and stopped to attend a first nations ceremony. I should mention that this Festival des voitures d'eau was organized to celebrate the Iroquois's journey with Samuel de Champlain from Lake Champlain to Quebec City. In making this journey to celebrate this heritage, we participated in prayers with the first nations peoples, people from the Maison amérindienne in Mont-Saint-Hilaire in my riding.

During these prayers, as my colleague from Churchill and a number of other colleagues pointed out, I realized the negative impact that this will have on our aboriginal communities because of the lax environmental procedures that will result from the proposed changes in Bill C-38, or because of various funding shortfalls and cuts to social services and health services. My colleague next to me is our health critic for aboriginal communities. Services will be affected, but that is not all.

When other cuts are made, it puts more pressure on the provincial governments that might want to help their aboriginal communities, but will be less and less able to do so. In praying with these communities, I realized more and more the impact this will have on the communities.

Let us continue on our journey and pay a visit to the Résidences Richeloises in the municipality of McMasterville in my riding. Last August, I had the pleasure of celebrating the sun festival with the residents there, who are seniors. I could not help but think of how this will affect them. They told me how proud they were of us, and of our new leader, the member for Outremont, but also of Mr. Layton. Why were they so proud of him? Because he talked about our seniors' dignity, which was improved by this celebration and this residence. Unfortunately, their dignity is not being improved at all by the cuts and measures proposed in Bill C-38.

I thought of these people and of the fact that they asked us to fiercely protect their dignity and their rights. As a little aside, that is why it does not bother me in the least when members opposite, the government members, talk about how we tried to stop this bill, to prevent this undemocratic act, and to allow real debate by separating this bill into the various pieces of legislation that it should have been in the first place. Clearly, these measures should have been introduced in several bills, rather than a single budget implementation bill.

Last week, when we rose almost 160 times in this House, I was not at all uncomfortable that we had launched this process and that we were fighting in this manner. Indeed, I knew that the people I met last summer would be pleased, because this is how we defend their dignity.

So we continue our canoe trip on the river. We finally arrive at our destination. I thought once again about the environment as we reached Pointe-Valaine, which is a woodlot in the town of Otterburn Park that people are fighting for. We could raise the same issues that I already raised regarding the protection of our environment.

On my way back home, I also went by several businesses that provide seasonal work. The workers and owners of these businesses came to see us in our office to explain the impact of all that. I find it very interesting and I will conclude on that note. Obviously I would not have had time to go through all the emails I received, since I do not even have time to finish my story.

These people came to see us, which proves, contrary to what the government claims, that it is not just citizens and workers who are affected. It is also employers, people who help, through team work with employees, to improve our economy, our heritage and our environment. They work to create beauty in the region that I am so proud to represent.

That is why I oppose Bill C-38, why we will continue to do so, and why I am proud of the actions that we have taken so far as the official opposition.

(2110)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I am sure I speak for all of my colleagues and certainly should for all of those in the House. I want to thank the hon. member for putting a human face on the bill.

This is precisely the reason why we have fought so hard to have the bill split and broken up, so that Canadians can come in and speak to members of Parliament about their views on all the measures in the bill.

I think about the people I have worked with for 40 years in aboriginal communities and small communities across the Prairies, across Canada, who simply want to be able to come to a hearing and have their voice heard, so they can tell the tribunal what the impact would be on them, so they can have input to the terms of an environmental impact assessment to make sure there are measures that would protect their communities.

I would like to give the hon. member the opportunity to perhaps tell a little bit more about his canoe trip, and I really want to profoundly thank him for his speech today.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Matthew Dubé:

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

As she explained so eloquently, her work also brought her into close contact with the community. Anyone working with the community and talking to people knows that this will have a serious impact. That is why I thought the story was so important to tell. As she said, we have to put a human face on the work we do here. Bill C-38 does not have a human face.

We often think of those who feel disconnected from the political process because of what the government has done. It is important to talk with people.

Earlier, my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher asked a member opposite a question about whether he not only heard, but also listened. The member opposite seemed to find the question insulting, but that is how things are. People learn that lesson when they are very young. We cannot just hear people.The point of consultations is not—

(2115)

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I was also very impressed with the hon. member's speech—and he didn't even use notes. It was excellent. I just wanted to say that it will also have an impact on Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, the riding I represent.

As we know, there are many lakes in my riding. There is a lot of concern about the impact of these changes on tourism, especially because new mines may be opening soon, and because of the effect on environmental protection.

We need only think of the Grassy Narrows First Nation and the fact that the mercury poisoning that occurred years ago still has an impact today. The environmental laws have been tightened up a great deal since that happened. Still, they are all being dismantled and the impact of new projects on the environment will, I think, be bad for our health and for everyone's health. Perhaps my colleague would care to comment on that.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Matthew Dubé:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I am happy to hear questions like this because it shows the passion we have for our work in our communities and our ridings.

The hon. member talked about health. It is extremely important, because, as I said in my speech, we have already had to deal with the consequences of our errors. We have already seen what can happen when there is no adequate, in-depth process in place.

Once again, we do understand the importance of proceeding rapidly. No one is against that, but when the environment is at issue, we must be aware of projects that might, if poorly designed and constructed, have a devastating impact on the communities where they are built. That is especially true in first nations communities, as my colleague mentioned. When the impact is considerable, it is important not to rush things, because we are not just talking about short-term benefits, but about long-term reality. We are talking about long-term impact. That is not true just for the environment and health; it applies to everything. It applies to old age security. When we talk about people my age who want to retire, we have to know what the long-term impact will be.

The government likes to talk about responsibility and making choices. Making choices and taking responsibility mean more than considering the impact for just the next year or two and saying it is no big deal, because people who are retiring in two years will not be affected. They need to think 10, 20 or even 30 years into the future.

When we think of it that way, this is definitely a mistake. It is important to think outside the box. That is the real duty of governance. An NDP government would take on that duty.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, NDP):

Madam Speaker, what are we about to sacrifice in the name of this so-called economic prosperity?

It is important to point out that this omnibus bill is more than a budget implementation bill. The Conservatives are trying to impose measures that were never previously announced, without allowing Canadians and their MPs an opportunity to study them carefully.

First of all, let me just say that, after one year, we are beginning to see the Conservatives' true colours. Bill C-38 clearly demonstrates the arrogance and irresponsibility of this government, which seems to think anything goes.

The Conservatives pass themselves off as experts at good governance, but in fact, they are going to make workers, families and seniors pay the price.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for Canadians to believe the Conservatives when they talk about economic prosperity, because so far, only the Conservatives' friends and cronies seem to be benefiting from their measures.

When the Parliamentary Budget Officer worries about the lack of transparency and the culture of secrecy, I worry about the interests of ordinary Canadians. This omnibus bill needs to be studied carefully and presented to Canadians for what it is: a partisan bill that defies common sense.

I was always under the impression that the government should build and improve society for the common good and for the general public, but with Bill C-38, the exact opposite is happening. The Conservatives are destroying, degrading and vandalizing what Canadian parliamentarians have spent years building. The rights of workers, environmental protection and Canadians' health are simply not enough for them.

Why is one-third of Bill C-38 devoted to environmental deregulation?

Is it so hard to add ecology to a Conservative budget? It is simply irresponsible and undemocratic.

Is this really what Canadians voted for? I do not think so.

Unfortunately, to the Conservatives, a majority mandate means they can do whatever they want, even if it is illogical or harmful. This is a very clear attempt to quickly pass new legislation without having a parliamentary debate.

This budget will cause some very tangible harm. For example, as far as old age security is concerned, increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67 is unacceptable and does not make any sense. Just because life expectancy is increasing significantly does not mean that working conditions will get easier. Even though a number of experts, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer, have confirmed that the old age security program is viable, the Conservatives insist on balancing their budget at the expense of our seniors. It is shameful.

Bill C-38 also changes the Employment Equity Act so that it no longer applies to federal contracts. That is a direct attack on women, aboriginal people and visible minorities. In fact, it was recommended 10 years ago that the employment equity provisions for the federal contractors program be strengthened. This government is weakening those provisions and, as usual, it makes no sense.

In the Conservatives' world, logic no longer applies. They are in an ideological world, where they are becoming increasingly out of touch with Canadians.

When he appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on April 26, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the Conservatives' austerity budget would lead to the loss of 43,000 jobs and slow down Canada's economic recovery. He confirmed that the combination of this budget and the previous cuts would result in the loss of more than 100,000 jobs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's figures show that this budget will cause the Canadian economy to backslide.

It is important to speak out against the changes made to unemployment insurance. We must remember that the federal government has not contributed a single penny to the fund since 1990.

Its reforms are based on prejudice against the unemployed, and those mainly affected, the workers, were not consulted even though employees and employers fund the program.

One of the most fundamental changes will hit workers with precarious employment very hard. The government is again targeting “frequent” claimants, people who have made three claims and collected more than 60 weeks of benefits in the past five years. It will require these people to accept any job starting in the seventh week of unemployment, with a salary equal to 70% of the salary of their previous job. This measure targets seasonal workers who rely on EI year after year.

The Conservatives are also planning to make other changes that will penalize claimants in remote areas in particular, while making legal procedures for challenging an unfavourable decision more cumbersome. Unions believe that abolishing boards of referees, umpires and appeal mechanisms restricts access to justice.

The changes proposed by the Conservatives threaten regional economies, especially where there is a lot of seasonal work and people make their living from the fishery, forestry, tourism and agriculture.

(2120)

Moreover, there is no question that these changes will put downward pressure on salaries. What a nice way to bring prosperity to our economy and our country!

The Conservatives' approach is counterproductive. Instead of focusing on creating wealth by providing better support for quality jobs, including in the manufacturing sector, the Conservatives are going after the unemployed and society as a whole by forcing them to accept jobs where their skills will not be put to contribution.

Bill C-38 even repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which was created in the 1930s to set minimum standards for wages and hours of labour for construction workers engaged in projects funded by the federal government. In practice, removing these minimum standards will allow employers to undercut wage rates set by unions. This shows the scope of the legislation.

Last fall, we brought forward a motion calling on the government to take immediate action to create economic growth and jobs. The Conservatives supported our motion, but the budget does just the opposite. It cuts essential services and it weakens environmental regulations.

As regards old age security, the government has once again surpassed itself, although not in the positive sense of the word. The Conservatives never mentioned that they were going to cut old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, and certainly not during the election campaign. We have known for a long time that costs would increase. Therefore, the Conservatives cannot claim that this was not expected during the 2011 election campaign.

In 2010, the Standing Committee on Finance examined the Canadian retirement security system. None of the recommendations—not even those of the Conservatives—suggested that old age security and the guaranteed income supplement were not sustainable, or that the age of eligibility should be increased.

During the 2011 election campaign, the Conservatives even said they would not reduce transfer payments to individuals or provinces for basic needs such as health, education and pensions. This is some lack of respect for democracy! Not only did the Conservatives hide their agenda, they also misled Canadians by saying repeatedly that they would not cut pensions.

Then they came along with irresponsible and ideological choices that do not reflect the values of most Canadians: major cuts to environmental protection, food safety, old age security and employment insurance, among other things.

The Conservatives have no problem with their ministers spending thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to take limousine and helicopter rides, but they have no scruples about cutting measures that keep Canadians safe and protect our most vulnerable citizens.

There is so much secrecy in Bill C-38 that it is unacceptable for it to be passed as is in the House. The government should come clean and redo its homework to protect the best interests of Canadians.

I would like to come back to old age pensions. I used to work in a factory where we were familiar with occupational illnesses. It is true that great strides have been made in factories, but the work is still extremely hard. People back home are known for suffering from bladder cancer, lung cancer, industrial deafness and all kinds of things. So how can the government force factory or mine workers to return to work at the age of 60, 62 or 63? What will the Conservatives do with these people?

I would like to talk more about seasonal workers. Here is a solution for the Conservatives. In Tadoussac, when the whale-watching season is over and tourism is done, they could shut down the town and transfer workers to La Romaine to work on the hydro dams. That makes no sense. These are seasonal workers. They make their living off of fishing, tourism and whale-watching. There is no work for them in the winter. The Conservative government did not take that into account.

The employment insurance situation is even worse. The government is creating three classes of unemployed workers, three kinds of people to justify that approach. There will be short-term recipients who collect employment insurance occasionally; others, less fortunate, who find themselves out of a job more often; and yet others who collect employment insurance regularly and will have no choice but to accept lower-paying jobs. Moreover, these people will not be working in their chosen field. It will not be fulfilling for them.

People can accuse the NDP of anything they want, of wrecking one thing or standing up for another, but there are some things we do not understand. Yes, the Conservatives have to make changes; yes, there will have to be cuts. Cuts must be made, but the Conservative government is not cutting in the right places. Cutting health care and seniors' benefits and forcing people to take lower-paying jobs will not contribute to the nation's progress.

Anyway, I have been here for a year now. I have always believed that we should be working for the good of communities, workers and Canadians, but that is not the sense I get here. I get the sense that the government holds workers in contempt. As I have said here in the House, workers pay taxes, and they are the reason that we are here to participate in these debates and get to the bottom of things.

(2125)

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's comments. He really knows the issues facing people who work in the industrial sector and truly cares about employment insurance.

With the changes being made by this government, people will lose their benefits in no time at all. Perhaps we need to remind the Conservatives who really pays for EI benefits. I find it truly disturbing that people can lose all the money that would really make a difference to their families when they lose their jobs.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the government's cuts to employment insurance.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Patry:

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

My concern is that when we think of employment insurance, it is supposed to be a safety net. Now the government is going to force people to accept 70% of the wages they were previously earning. If people are truly unfortunate and are let go after three months, they are gong to be offered 70% less in wages. Where will this ultimately lead? Are we headed for cheap labour? That is our concern. That is what many workers are worried about. People do not make a decision to be seasonal workers. People who live on the North Shore live off the fishery. There is no fishing in the winter. Everyone could transfer to La Romaine, I guess. This makes no sense. It is completely absurd.

(2130)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP):

Madam Speaker, I also want to congratulate my colleague from Jonquière—Alma on his presentation.

He has identified a serious problem with Bill C-38. In the House of Commons, we have employees who are unemployed almost all summer. They are long-standing employees who have worked here for 10 or 11 years. For instance, there is the group of servers in the restaurants or the House of Commons bus drivers. In the summer, they are not paid, but in September they get their jobs back. That is how the House of Commons system works. The same applies to people in the tourist regions, the fisheries and forestry.

I will ask my question in English.

[English]

I know what happens to people who are in the seasonal industries. If we tell them they have to find another job somewhere for two months, three months, four months, it is unfair to the employers who hire them. Are employers going to hire and train people, knowing they will be gone in two months for the job that is waiting for them back here at the House of Commons?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Patry:

Madam Speaker, that is a concern I have seen among employers. Often, when things start up again, when the organization resumes its activities and the tourists come back, people come to the ticket office and board the boats to go fishing. It is almost always the same people who come back to work for the same employer. The employers fear that they are going to lose some employees with expertise who might go work elsewhere. If the difference in pay is $1 or $2 an hour and they are given a regular schedule instead of having to work seasonally, there is no problem. The thing that concerns the employers is that their employees are not going to come back when the fishing or tourism season opens.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma, a question.

One of the least discussed items in the budget is the weaker foreign ownership regulations, especially those concerning telecommunications. I would like the member for Alma, a community that has its own challenges as a result of the weaker regulations, to talk to us about what the government needs to do to support our communities.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Patry:

Madam Speaker, I will give a short answer.

I would like to mention that there are large multinationals in my riding, but it is the small and medium-sized businesses that create employment. When a big multinational catches a cold, the SMEs cough. We want to create something, keep our people working and have good, well-paid jobs so that people can live decently. We are not asking for MPs' wages. We are asking for decent wages that people can live on.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Michelle Rempel (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Madam Speaker, on Sunday we celebrated Father's Day in Canada and other parts of the world. It gave me an opportunity to reflect on some of the teachings I was raised on. I really thank my dad, my stepdad and other people who have acted as father figures, someone who is sitting in the Senate gallery today, for their wisdom.

I was talking on the phone with someone about the principle of balancing the books in a household. Something that was instilled in me at a young age was that the principle of balancing books means that one can either spend less money or make more money. This is a challenge that Canadians face every day, how to balance their books. It was an interesting conversation, because we were speaking about how this affects my life as a legislator. Bill C-38 has this embedded in it as a fundamental principle.

Government has a role in managing programs, laws, services and public goods that underpin the competitive advantage our country enjoys internationally, programs such as employment insurance, our health care system, ensuring our streets are safe. Government has a role in all of these things. We provide them to Canadians. These programs also ensure that we have a healthy, productive and vibrant population and subsequent workforce. Those who are able can contribute to our society, and those who are not able are cared for and whenever possible are assisted in finding opportunities to succeed.

These practices are valued by Canadians, and yet, as in anything that has a value, they come with a cost. Programs are funded by taxes, royalties and levies on Canadians, be it individuals or job-creating companies. This means these individuals and entities lose access to these funds and subsequently will change their spending habits, be it for the consumption of goods, saving funds, hiring of employees, investment endeavours, and the list goes on.

Therein lies the rub. Government programs and services play an integral role in our society, and yet they come at a cost. I would hope that all of my colleagues would agree that achieving a balance in this regard is part of the responsibility we are charged with as legislators.

Embedded in this duty is the duty to review the efficacy and delivery of the programs and services, laws and regulations that we manage to ensure they are doing what they are intended to do, to improve on them whenever possible, and to ensure we are being wise stewards of taxpayer dollars.

These are important principles to remember as we watch what is happening in parts of the eurozone. In Greece, we see a country that has borrowed to the brink. Its economy is stalled, and the sustainability of the social programs it provides and which I talked about earlier is in question.

That is why our government has introduced Bill C-38. It is to ensure the long-term prosperity of our country in light of global economic fragility. It is the message that our country is taking to the G20 summit that is happening this week, the need to work toward balanced budgets around the globe while putting forward policies that encourage economic growth, so that populations can ensure they see that prosperity and sustainability of programming which underpins the fabric of our societies.

I talked about the need to ensure there is balance in spending and program delivery.

Since 2006, our government has reduced the tax burden on families. The average family of four pays $3,000 less in taxes. I know that $3,000 makes a lot of difference to the average Canadian family of four, and Canadians have recognized that.

We ensure that job creators operate in a competitive tax regime. People want to invest in our country. We are seeing job creation here. Over 760,000 net new jobs have been created since the economic downturn in 2009. It is also why we have introduced the responsible resource development aspects of Bill C-38, which I want to speak to tonight.

I was speaking with my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. He gave a speech recently in which he noted that two of the biggest shareholders in Canadian Natural Resources Limited, the country's largest independent oil producer, are the Quebec pension plan and the Canada pension plan, with $576 million and $165 million invested respectively. There is clearly an interplay between the companies that are undertaking natural resource development projects and energy projects with other fabrics of our society.

(2135)

In fact, I believe $2.1 trillion is what the oil sands is expected to drive for economic growth in our country over the next 25 years. We talk about long-term sustainability for funding our social programs. The sum of $766 billion is what the oil sands industry alone is estimated will pay in provincial and federal taxes and provincial royalties over the next 25 years. There is no denying that we need to ensure that for the long-term prosperity and growth of our country we recognize that the resource sector is important to Canada's economy.

The measures that are included in part 3 of Bill C-38 are not designed to weaken environmental protection. We still have robust environmental assessments embedded in the country's laws and regulations. We have recognized the fundamental principle of window to market, the concept by which we assess whether or not a project is viable is recognized in our regulatory process. That is why we have inserted predictability and timeliness in the review process.

I was at the subcommittee that reviewed Bill C-38, as well as the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, where we reviewed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Absolutely, the need to protect Canada's environment came up over and over again. Certainly, I do not think there is anyone on the government side who would refute that point. However, we need to ensure that we have predictability and timeliness so that when projects are environmentally sustainable according to our laws and they meet those criteria, they can go forward. We as regulators are achieving that balance. We are talking about creating more revenue for the funding of our social programs, creating more jobs for people to enjoy the good standard of living that we have in Canada.

We have heard a lot about the environmental components of the bill and it behooves the House to listen to some of the measures that actually strengthen environmental protection in the bill. At the subcommittee, the environment commissioner noted that something like 99.4% of the environmental assessments that are currently undertaken by our government through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, have “little to no environmental impact”. One of the examples that was given was a park bench being added in a national park.

We also asked him if he felt that if the resources that were being allocated to the review of these projects were allocated to larger projects with significant environmental impact would be a better use of taxpayer funds. He said yes. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency agrees with this as well. That is a component we are using to strengthen environmental protection.

Another thing is that for the first time people who break the terms of their environmental assessment would be faced with stiff monetary penalties. Penalties could range from $100,000 to $400,000. This is a new measure in Bill C-38.

We require follow-up programs after all environmental assessments to verify the accuracy of predictions regarding potential environmental effects and to determine if mitigation measures are working as intended. Again, this is strengthening environmental protection. For the first time, we would provide federal inspectors with authority to examine whether or not conditions set out in environmental assessment decisions are met. I could go on and on.

The opposition is not talking about these things. We are trying to create balance between environmental stewardship and economic growth.

A lot has been said about the consultation process around the bill. As a member of the subcommittee that reviewed part 3, I would like to read a list of those who participated in the consultation process through the subcommittee: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Environment, Department of Transport, Building and Construction Trades Department, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canadian Construction Association, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Canadian Nuclear Association, Federation of Ontario Cottagers Association, Mining Association of Canada, Ontario Commercial Fisheries Association, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, Assembly of First Nations, British Columbia Coast Pilots Ltd., Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Ecojustice, First Nations Tax Commission, Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada, Canadian Hydropower Association, and as an individual, Tom Siddon.

(2140)

I am getting the signal that my time is expiring.

The point to be made is that we have talked to Canadians. Canadians understand that we need long-term growth and prosperity in this country, and that is what Bill C-38 seeks to deliver.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak with Ducks Unlimited in the last two weeks. Its concerns around this legislation were quite strong.

We have lost 70% of the wetlands in Canada. The Conservative side has made much about drainage in farmers' fields. Ducks Unlimited said to me in my office that drainage in farmers' fields is an issue. The wetlands in this country that have been lost are important. So when we talk about drainage on any large piece of land, there has to be some understanding of the impact that draining that land would have on the environment. Installing a culvert is not a simple matter.

I would like to ask my colleague from the Prairies, where the wetlands are in so much danger, what she thinks we should do to promote wetlands in this country. How does she think we should move ahead with that, considering the great problem we have?

(2145)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Michelle Rempel:

Madam Speaker, as a young girl I spent time going to Oak Hammock Marsh in the summer.

I am very familiar with the programs and services Ducks Unlimited offers, and it does a great job. Our government has invested millions of dollars into its programs. It has actually leveraged our government's dollars on what I think is a three-to-one basis in the protection of wetlands.

The member asked about the long-term protection of wetlands. If we talk to Ducks Unlimited and the people who work on a working landscape, they understand the need to talk to local folks who use the land and engage them in these conservation efforts. That is where Ducks Unlimited functions well as an organization.

From our government's perspective, we have invested millions of dollars in conservancy efforts across this country and those efforts are paying off.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Lise St-Denis (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Lib.):

Madam Speaker, I would like an explanation. My colleague opposite said that the Conservatives were ensuring the long-term sustainability of social problems. I have no idea what that means.

Could she explain the main social problems that she sees? What does she mean by ensuring the long-term sustainability of said problems?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Michelle Rempel:

Madam Speaker, herein lies the inescapable paradox for those who believe in the welfare state. They believe they can create jobs by taxing those who hire, that we can borrow our way out of debt or protect pensions by taxing the companies to pay into them.

Bill C-38 proposes to create the conditions for long-term growth in the economy of our country by allowing companies to invest, by protecting our environment, while at the same time saying that some of our social programs are going to cost more in the future, like OAS. How do we ensure the long-term sustainability of that? We do that by making changes now and by also ensuring that we continue to have that stream of revenue that is created by companies.

I really appreciate the question my colleague asked, because it speaks to fundamental economics. There is an opportunity cost to delivering programs through government, but we achieve that balance by investing in growth, by creating terms and conditions for growth and also by ensuring the government's books are balanced.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC):

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her good work and her commitment to improving the environmental assessment process.

I just want to ask my colleague about the opposition's inconsistencies by voting against our budgets and our funding for environmental improvement, yet lambasting the government. Is there a problem with the consistency of what it is saying and doing?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Michelle Rempel:

Madam Speaker, the World Health Organization just ranked Canada's air quality as third best in the world. Our government has put in programs like the air quality management system. We have invested millions of dollars to protect lakes and waterways across this country. The chemical management plan that we established lists harmful chemicals. Our sector-by-sector regulatory approach on greenhouse gas emission is working. We are the first country to Gazette regulations for coal-fired electricity. We are protecting more parkland than any other government in history.

Our government is working when it comes to the environment.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I am not certain that I am happy to rise to speak to this bill, because, seriously, there are so many errors in it that it makes no sense at all.

People have to understand that Bill C-38 is the act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. I would say that the key phrase in the bill is “and other measures”, because it seems that it has everything in it but the budget. It has a little of anything and everything under the sun.

And yet, listening to the hon. members opposite, one would think that this bill is the greatest thing since sliced bread. People are asking why the opposition is so fired up about this 421-page document, of which 192 pages talk about the environment without really saying anything—that is quite an art—and 29 pages discuss fiscal measures. It is a bill with 753 clauses, and only 51 of those deal with fiscal measures. And these people call themselves great managers. Saying that Conservative members are great managers may be one of the country's greatest myths. Every day, more people are figuring that out.

We receive tons of email, without exaggeration. I invite everyone to look at the messages. My Conservative friends who have access to my Facebook page can see that I am not lying; it is full of comments.

If the Conservative members do not listen, they will have some surprises one day, we hope.

While doing a comparative analysis of various budget implementation bills—for such is the task of a parliamentarian—I was amazed to realize that from 1994 to 2005, such bills had an average of 77 pages.

However, since this wonderful Conservative government, this almighty public administrator, came to power in 2006, these bills have had 309 pages on average. The Conservatives try to shove this down our throats. Then they turn around and insult us. For the next year, they will probably be telling us that we voted against this and that, until the next bill, which could be even longer still.

Some members have surely said so, but we perhaps have not said it enough, because the members opposite do not seem to be actively listening. The problem with this kind of bill is that it may contain some excellent measures that the opposition could have supported, but that is unfortunately not true of the vast majority of the measures. However, since the government decided to introduce this omnibus bill, this mammoth bill, this Trojan Horse—whatever you want to call it—the fact remains that this bill is hiding a lot of things. This bill gives us a clear picture of the government and what it is trying to do. That is what is unfortunate.

I once had high hopes. In 2006, when I lost my first election, I told myself that the incoming government believed in democracy and transparency. I told myself that it would do everything in its power to do things differently. I told myself that was a small price to pay to see democracy in action. Wow. It did not take long for me to wake up and see that the Conservatives were not going to make that happen. That might be part of their long-ago history and the legends they tell themselves when they party it up and engage in mutual admiration, but it has nothing to do with reality.

On the contrary, they have adopted some good old Liberal habits, such as introducing huge omnibus bills that they can hide all sorts of things in.

Here is what I do not understand: they have a majority. They can do what they want because they have the seats. We can do math as well as they can, thank you very much. We know full well that at the end of the day, it will be time to vote. So what is the problem? Why not study these issues thoroughly? I am not asking them to do it for our benefit but for the people we are all supposed to represent.

From everything we have been hearing for the past few weeks, you would think this is all-out war between the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party.

(2150)

That is absolutely not the case. It is our duty to represent our constituents. At times, our Conservative colleagues have stood up—not in the House because they do not have permission to do so from the great Prime Minister—when they were in their ridings. They forgot that these days there are cameras everywhere and images are easy to get. We have more opportunity to see their true colours.

I have been a government backbencher, and I know that can be frustrating at times, because sometimes we are the last to know. However, at the time, in 2004, we had a system whereby for some bills we literally had the right to vote how the people of our riding wanted us to vote, as the Conservative member just explained to us.

As a newly arrived member of Parliament in 2004, this was probably the part I liked best, because we had an opportunity to have some influence on what was happening in Parliament. Unfortunately, we soon realized that these attempts were quickly crushed, which is rather sad.

I defy anybody—and I am tempted to challenge backbenchers—to know all the subtleties included in so many pages and measures. I studied law and I read and reread the bill. This is not necessarily the easiest and most exciting reading. At that level, the devil is often in the details, and there are many details in this bill.

What we do know is that it will change the face of our country. Perhaps that is what the government wanted to do, and it is certainly its prerogative as a majority government. I am not challenging this right, but there is a proper way to do things, and this is certainly not the case with Bill C-38.

The government often says that is creates jobs. That is its new hobby horse. That is what it claims, what it keeps repeating, what is written on its cards and what is in the black binder of answers for parliamentary secretaries and ministers. It is the government that creates jobs. There was a time when it talked about 600,000 jobs. Now, the number is 760,000. Sometimes, government members forget 60,000 jobs and talk about 700,000 jobs. These are nicely prepared answers, but they do not say much.

How polite and gracious is the government? Not only does it have a majority to impose a 421-page budget bill in which 69 acts are amended or repealed, and which contains 751 clauses on tax measures, but it does not even let the opposition express its views without saying silly things through and through. So much for that government.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that job creation is a totally erroneous notion. He estimates that, in fact, this budget will result in the loss of 43,000 jobs in Canada. When this figure is combined with the previous cuts made by this government, the number rises to 102,000 lost jobs. That is not what we call job creation.

The government is eliminating programs and changing measures in order to conduct fewer assessments. This will definitely not create any jobs. At a time when the global economy remains shaky, to say the least, this is not necessarily the easiest time to create tons of jobs. If the Conservative government is counting on the private sector to create jobs, I have some news for it.

In my region, in my riding of Gatineau, which is located right across the river, there is a great deal of unease. This government is cutting jobs in the public service and taking services away from people who need them. This hurts, and it is definitely not the right way to do things.

This bill warranted a lot more thorough examination so we could tell our constituents “mission accomplished”. We certainly would not have agreed with the policies, but we would have had the chance to express our opinions on this.

I would have liked to dissect this so-called budget bill quite a bit further, but unfortunately, I am out of time.

(2155)

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas for a very brief question.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP):

Madam Speaker, I would like to give my colleague a chance to speak some more about the unease felt by the people of Gatineau, where many people work for the public service. Considering what is happening in my riding, I can just imagine what is happening in hers. I wonder if she could talk about that.

(2200)

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The hon. member for Gatineau has one minute.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Françoise Boivin:

Madam Speaker, I will try to reply quickly. It is unfortunate for the people of Gatineau that I have so little time to talk about this.

What has our public service and the workers here who provide such precious and countless services so worried is the way it is being done. They receive letters saying that their jobs may be affected. Then they hear that it might happen in their own units, but it is not yet clear who will have to go.

How hard it must be to work under such conditions. Worse yet, I hear that the details will not likely be released before the House has adjourned. Wow, what a lot of transparency. So, we can expect to hear the news about June 27, because the government likes to make its announcements on Fridays, when we are not here or not sitting.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

It being 8:02 p.m., pursuant to an order made Tuesday, June 12, 2012, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.

[English]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-38, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested.

Call in the members.

* * *

(2240)

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

(Division No. 444)

YEAS

Members

Allen (Welland)
Andrews
Angus
Ashton
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Bélanger
Bennett
Benskin
Bevington
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Boivin
Borg
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Brison
Brosseau
Byrne
Caron
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Choquette
Christopherson
Cleary
Coderre
Comartin
Côté
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dewar
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dubé
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Easter
Eyking
Foote
Fortin
Freeman
Garneau
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Godin
Goodale
Gravelle
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Hassainia
Hsu
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
Julian
Karygiannis
Kellway
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Laverdière
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leslie
Liu
MacAulay
Mai
Marston
Masse
Mathyssen
May
McCallum
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Michaud
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Mourani
Mulcair
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Pacetti
Papillon
Patry
Péclet
Perreault
Pilon
Plamondon
Quach
Rae
Rafferty
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Savoie
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Sgro
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
St-Denis
Stewart
Stoffer
Sullivan
Thibeault
Toone
Tremblay
Trudeau
Turmel
Valeriote

Total: -- 135

NAYS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Armstrong
Ashfield
Aspin
Baird
Bateman
Benoit
Bernier
Bezan
Blaney
Block
Boughen
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Carrie
Chisu
Chong
Clarke
Clement
Daniel
Davidson
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dreeshen
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Dykstra
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Gill
Glover
Goguen
Goldring
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Grewal
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Hoback
Hoeppner
Holder
James
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lebel
Leef
Leitch
Lemieux
Leung
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Mayes
McColeman
McLeod
Menegakis
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Norlock
O'Connor
O'Neill Gordon
Obhrai
Oda
Oliver
Opitz
Paradis
Payne
Penashue
Poilievre
Preston
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Saxton
Schellenberger
Seeback
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
Stanton
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Tilson
Toet
Toews
Trost
Trottier
Truppe
Tweed
Uppal
Valcourt
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer

Total: -- 158

PAIRED

Nil

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

* * *

(2250)

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 445)

YEAS

Members

Total: -- 158

NAYS

Members

Total: -- 135

PAIRED

Nil

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

* * *

Copyright Modernization Act

The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-11.

* * *

(2255)

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 446)

YEAS

Members

Total: -- 158

NAYS

Members

Total: -- 135

PAIRED

Nil

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Routine Proceedings

[Routine Proceedings]

* * *

[English]

Committees of the House

Government Operations and Estimates

The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the third report of Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor:

Mr. Speaker, if you seek, I believe you would find agreement to apply the result from the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.

(2300)

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Nycole Turmel:

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote. The NDP will vote yes.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Foote:

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party will be voting yes.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Louis Plamondon:

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote yes.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bruce Hyer:

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Elizabeth May:

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes yes.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Goldring:

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.

* * *

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 447)

YEAS

Members

Ablonczy
Adams
Adler
Aglukkaq
Albas
Albrecht
Alexander
Allen (Welland)
Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac)
Allison
Ambler
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Andrews
Angus
Armstrong
Ashfield
Ashton
Aspin
Atamanenko
Aubin
Ayala
Baird
Bateman
Bélanger
Bennett
Benoit
Benskin
Bernier
Bevington
Bezan
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Blaney
Block
Boivin
Borg
Boughen
Boulerice
Boutin-Sweet
Brahmi
Braid
Breitkreuz
Brison
Brosseau
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Newmarket—Aurora)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Butt
Byrne
Calandra
Calkins
Cannan
Carmichael
Caron
Carrie
Casey
Cash
Charlton
Chicoine
Chisholm
Chisu
Chong
Choquette
Christopherson
Clarke
Cleary
Clement
Coderre
Comartin
Côté
Crowder
Cullen
Cuzner
Daniel
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Vancouver East)
Day
Dechert
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dewar
Dionne Labelle
Donnelly
Doré Lefebvre
Dreeshen
Dubé
Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Duncan (Etobicoke North)
Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona)
Dusseault
Dykstra
Easter
Eyking
Findlay (Delta—Richmond East)
Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Fletcher
Foote
Fortin
Freeman
Galipeau
Gallant
Garneau
Garrison
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Giguère
Gill
Glover
Godin
Goguen
Goldring
Goodale
Goodyear
Gosal
Gourde
Gravelle
Grewal
Groguhé
Harris (Scarborough Southwest)
Harris (St. John's East)
Harris (Cariboo—Prince George)
Hassainia
Hawn
Hayes
Hiebert
Hillyer
Hoback
Hoeppner
Holder
Hsu
Hughes
Hyer
Jacob
James
Jean
Julian
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karygiannis
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kellway
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Kerr
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larose
Latendresse
Lauzon
Laverdière
Lebel
LeBlanc (Beauséjour)
LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard)
Leef
Leitch
Lemieux
Leslie
Leung
Liu
Lizon
Lobb
Lukiwski
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Mai
Marston
Masse
Mathyssen
May
Mayes
McCallum
McColeman
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McLeod
Menegakis
Menzies
Merrifield
Michaud
Miller
Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue)
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord)
Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine)
Morin (Laurentides—Labelle)
Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot)
Mourani
Mulcair
Murray
Nantel
Nash
Nicholls
Norlock
Nunez-Melo
O'Connor
O'Neill Gordon
Obhrai
Oda
Oliver
Opitz
Pacetti
Papillon
Paradis
Patry
Payne
Péclet
Penashue
Perreault
Pilon
Plamondon
Poilievre
Preston
Quach
Rae
Rafferty
Raitt
Rajotte
Rathgeber
Ravignat
Raynault
Regan
Reid
Rempel
Richards
Rickford
Ritz
Rousseau
Saganash
Sandhu
Savoie
Saxton
Scarpaleggia
Schellenberger
Scott
Seeback
Sgro
Shea
Shipley
Shory
Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor)
Sims (Newton—North Delta)
Sitsabaiesan
Smith
Sopuck
Sorenson
St-Denis
Stanton
Stewart
Stoffer
Storseth
Strahl
Sullivan
Sweet
Thibeault
Tilson
Toet
Toews
Toone
Tremblay
Trost
Trottier
Trudeau
Truppe
Turmel
Tweed
Uppal
Valcourt
Valeriote
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country)
Weston (Saint John)
Wilks
Williamson
Wong
Woodworth
Yelich
Young (Oakville)
Young (Vancouver South)
Zimmer

Total: -- 293

NAYS

Nil

PAIRED

Nil

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

I declare the motion carried.

It being 11 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11 p.m.)