OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 028 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, December 2, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES December 2, 2013 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 028 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 028 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 028 (Version officielle) 147 028 02 12 2013 2013/12/02 11:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayers

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business (1105) [ English ] Criminal Code Bill C-489. Report Stage The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-489,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders) , as reported (with amendment) from the committee. The Speaker : There being no motions at report stage on the bill, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage. Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) Motion for concurrence moved that the bill be concurred in. The Speaker : Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed (Motion agreed to) The Speaker : When shall the bill be read a third time?

By leave now. Some hon. members: Agreed. Mr. Mark Warawa Bill C-489. Third reading moved that the bill be read a third time and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the House today, on this side and the other side. I was quite impressed with the way that the justice committee seriously considered the benefits of Bill C-489 , the safe at home bill. I started from the beginning with a willingness to have amendments to strengthen the bill. The committee participated in that, and there were some important amendments that were installed into the bill. Therefore, I want to thank everyone.

Initially, this came to my attention, as I shared with the House, from the story of a mother who came to my office saying her daughter had been sexually assaulted by the neighbour across the street. After six months in jail, the neighbour was able to serve the rest of his sentence at home. It was horrific to hear from witnesses, particularly the family of the victim, of the horrific experience of having an offender live right across the street from them. They eventually had to move out of that neighbourhood. They just could not take it anymore.

The bill is an important step to deal with this issue of the needs of victims to be able to heal. The courts would retain the important discretion to decide on an appropriate distance. The bill asks for two kilometres, or what the courts would deem as an appropriate distance. The other big improvement with Bill C-489 in our Criminal Code would be with the administrative bodies, Corrections Canada and the National Parole Board.

They would then have to carry through with making sure that if the courts deemed a distance was needed, then the distance would need to be maintained throughout the sentence, including after sentencing, through

section 810 of the Criminal Code if necessary. We need to protect the victims and give them a chance to heal. That is what Bill C-489 does. The witnesses we heard at committee unanimously said it is a very good step. Again, I want to thank the House. I would like to keep my comments short so that debate can collapse in this hour and we can move on to a vote as soon as possible. The Deputy Speaker : We do have a period of five minutes for questions and comments. Questions and comments, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île . [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, it is a good thing I was not too late this morning, for I would have missed my chance to ask my colleague a question. I would first like to congratulate him on his bill and on all his efforts. It is always quite the achievement for any member to get the support of the House for his or her bill. My question for the member is quite simple. It is important to give victims a voice in our justice system. However, this new bill would bring in additional changes, particularly concerning parole and courts of law.

Can my colleague tell us if the government fully understands what is needed in terms of justice and support for victims? Can we expect the government to commit to investing so that the justice system is more accessible to victims, particularly regarding delays? [ English ] Mr. Mark Warawa : Mr. Speaker, as the member pointed to, it is important to make sure that victim services are being provided, and ensuring that falls under provincial jurisdiction. Our government is committed to a system that works to protect the rights of victims.

All too often, we have heard in testimony that it is the offender who has court-appointed representation. Then, there is the prosecution. However, the victims are left in the lurch with nobody to help them through the process. They often see themselves as observers to the process. Therefore, this is a big first step in the right direction to providing protection for the victims. Victims need rights too. Hopefully, we can work as a Parliament to make sure that victims have rights provided to them and that they are no longer observers but participating in the system.

Hopefully, the courts will hear their input, and that the impacts of sentencing on them would be considered. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is great to see a higher sense of co-operation and recognition of value and effort, as we saw the bill go through a certain proceeding that normally would have taken a bit longer. I do have a question. When we talk about victims, all members of Parliament are concerned about the victims. However, as a general rule there is an area of restorative justice that government could move more toward wherever it can.

I sat on a youth justice committee, and we found that when victims and perpetrators of a crime sit together there is a higher rate of resolving issues. Although that would not have been possible in the crime cited by the member that precipitated the legislation, if he would not mind sharing it, I am interested in knowing the member's thoughts on the whole idea of restorative justice.

(1110) Mr. Mark Warawa : Mr. Speaker, restorative justice is very important, when used appropriately. Both parties, the victim and the offender, have to be willing to participate. Also, the offender has to take full responsibility for his or her actions and be willing to be accountable for what he or she did. In this case, when an offender has sexually assaulted a young girl for over two years and is then allowed to serve his sentence at home right across from the victim, it was a revictimization of that victim over and over again.

Could members imagine what it would be like to be the parent of a child who had been sexually assaulted and watching that child go through depression and all kinds of emotional anguish? Could they then imagine realizing that he or she had been sexually assaulted by the neighbour across the street and that the courts had allowed that sentencing to happen? Restorative justice does not work in that case. [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill today. I will be using the full 10 minutes that I have.

It is not that I do not want to proceed to the vote, but I do believe that it is important to highlight my colleague's hard work. This proves to victims that we are here to listen to them and that all we want is to be able to help them get through those extremely difficult times. All too often, a bill's shortcomings emerge only after a family finds itself in a certain situation.

In the case of Bill C-489 introduced by my colleague, the shortcomings and problems related to the role of victims in the justice system will become known only after a particular case that will unfortunately reveal the work that still needs to be done and the steps that need to be taken to improve the legislation and enhance the role of victims in our justice system. If I am not mistaken, the member who introduced Bill C-489 had the idea after meeting with families and people in his riding who went through extremely difficult situations. I commend him for wanting to change things.

I also commend him for listening to these families and making their voices heard in Parliament, because that is why we are here. Parliament is here to give a voice to the people who are too often silenced, people who are not necessarily heard or who feel no one is listening to them. I want to tell them they were very lucky to have elected a member who could speak up for them here. We are very pleased to be able to support his bill. I would like to give a brief overview of the bill's provisions and the amendments that have been proposed. I think the amendments made the bill even better.

There were a few gaps that we were able to address in committee. That is why we are here today and will support Bill C-489 . The bill amends both the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I will refer to sections and subsections, but since I do not have their precise wording, I apologize in advance for speaking in vague terms. For example,

section 161 deals with the prohibition order and conditions that may be imposed by a judge when someone is convicted. Subsection 732.1(2) addresses probation and

section 742.3 concerns the conditional sentence order, commonly called house arrest. This can be thought of as an offender serving his or her sentence in the community. Finally, we have subsection 810.1(3.02), which deals with conditions of recognizance. Since Parliament has not passed the bill yet, it is currently at the discretion of courts to issue one of these four orders. They have complete discretion as to whether to impose or not impose conditions. Once Bill C-489 is passed and enacted, it will be mandatory to issue one of these orders, except in certain circumstances.

Therefore we are still leaving some discretion to the courts and judges, but they will have the obligation to pay closer attention to this aspect and to issue one of these orders.

(1115) This provides the courts with some leeway to not impose this condition in exceptional circumstances. Nonetheless, it is important to show that we want to fill the legislative gaps in order to protect victims and defend their rights without encroaching on the discretion of the courts. This is a good bill because it gives judges the room to justify their decisions. As legislators, we are telling them to take certain conditions into account, except in exceptional circumstances.

Bill C-489 amends the Criminal Code to that effect, and the second part of the bill amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in exactly the same way. It tells the courts to impose one of these conditions except in exceptional circumstances. This bill amends the law and gives the courts and judges the discretion to impose certain conditions or not to do so in exceptional circumstances. It is very important to mention that this bill came out of a number of situations, but one in particular, which received a lot of media attention.

In that situation, a family had to live across the street from the person who assaulted their young daughter. They had to deal with this nightmare day after day. Implementing a mandatory distance measure is what this bill is all about. When an offender is found guilty of a sexual offence involving a minor, the courts will be required to make an order prohibiting the offender from being within two kilometres of his victim. They will have the discretion to decide whether there are exceptional circumstances making it inappropriate to impose the condition. I think this is a very important measure.

That is why we are passing a bill that defends victims and prevents them from having to deal with extremely difficult situations. We are allowing them to cope with their ordeal in their community without any added stress on their daily lives. I cannot speak from experience, but I can appreciate how stressful it must be for families who have to live so close their child's attacker. I do not have any children, but I can imagine how I would feel if I did. This bill helps victims, defends their interests and gives them their rightful place in the justice system, all without unduly restricting the courts.

That is what makes this such an excellent bill. I would like to thank my colleague for bringing the voice of his constituents here to Parliament. However, there is a caveat. It is important that the government invest in our justice system so that victims are given their rightful place. For that to happen, we need funding, we need to lessen the burden and we need to respond to provincial requests. (1120) [ English ] Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-489 .

I would think that all members would support the intent of the legislation in principle, the necessity for those who have been victimized to be assured of some degree of security that the offender will maintain a certain distance from them. The question that was often raised during discussions of the legislation at committee was whether the legislation, as drafted, was necessary and would withstand a constitutional challenge.

We have increasingly seen that the courts are beginning to respond negatively to the blank mandatory minimum sentences that the government has been imposing on virtaully any and all offenses. No one argues that in some cases mandatory minimums are not required. No intelligent person argues, given the current government's use of this practice, that a full review of those sentences should not be conducted.

When the sponsor of the bill was asked in the House during second reading about his consultations prior to the bill's introduction as to whether the amendments proposed in the bill would meet a court challenge related to the charter, the member indicated that he had consulted, but he provided no evidence as to whom he had consulted. That I did find troubling. Changes to public policy, and especially changes to the Criminal Code, should be done to meet a specific and widely held need. This is national legislation that would impact all Canadians.

It is not a bylaw in a community or one that might apply to a specific part of a small community. It is the Criminal Code of Canada, and amendments to it should be based on evidence and due diligence. In that regard, I would put on the record the following exchange. It does not minimize the impact of criminal activity on any individual but places in context the wider concern, which may not exist, according to the member who proposed this legislation.

On November 5, 2013, the following question was posed to the member: Do you have any numbers on how many people who would be impacted by this bill specifically have found themselves in a situation of having the offender within two miles of their residence? The answer from the member for Langley was “no”. Again, the intent of the bill is worthy of support, but what remains troubling is that no evidence as to the extent of the problem is apparently available, and it should be.

Extending from these issues is that the bill itself was subject to a number of amendments in key areas that were of concern to members and witnesses. As a case in point, the bill in its original form mandated that an offender could not reside within two kilometres of the victim and that there would be a requirement that the offender be obligated to have knowledge of the residency of the victim or where the victim could be present.

When asked how the two kilometres was reached, the member indicated that his intent had originally been to set it at five kilometres, and it was reduced to two kilometres to take into account smaller community situations. However, the two kilometres appears now to have been arbitrarily set, the same way five kilometres was. The bill has now been amended in regard to both provisions.

On strict adherence to the two kilometres, government members, on behalf of the government, eliminated the mandatory two-kilometre restriction, allowing judges the discretion, which they currently have under the Criminal Code, to allow, and I will quote the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe at committee, who moved the amendment, “the courts to impose greater or lesser geographic restriction where it is reasonable to do so”.

(1130) Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on private member's Bill C-489 ,

an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with regard to restrictions on offenders. On the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Malpeque , I am pleased to say that in the House, perfection is never the enemy of the good. This bill has received the unanimous support of all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I would like to thank the committee for its thorough review and for reporting back so quickly to the House.

Before I get into the amendments adopted by the committee, I would like to congratulate the member for Langley , British Columbia. I note his important work in promoting the interests of victims, of which this bill is a direct result. I would also note how the member for Langley worked with all parties to gain support for this bill and was open to a number of suggestions to improve the bill, all of which, I believe, makes this bill worthy of the unanimous support of the House.

The government indicated its support for the objectives of this bill, given its consistency with the government's commitment to the rights of victims of crime. In previous Parliaments, this government has taken bold and decisive action in this area, including the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which, among other things, established a new and higher mandatory minimum sentence for sexual offences against children, eliminated conditional sentences for serious and violent crimes, and eliminated record suspensions, formerly known as pardons, for serious offences.

As indicated in the Speech from the Throne on October 16, 2013, this government has committed to introduce and support new legislation that follows through on our belief that victims come before criminals. The Minister of Justice has already fulfilled one important government commitment to crack down on cyberbullying with the introduction of Bill C-13 , the protecting Canadians from online crime act, on November 20, 2013. Bill C-489 is completely consistent with the government's commitment to strengthen the rights of victims at every stage of the criminal justice process.

This bill would require judges to either impose or fully consider specific conditions prohibiting contact between offenders and their victims, witnesses, or other individuals to protect them against contact from offenders. The bill proposes to amend provisions of the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that would allow courts and the Parole Board of Canada to impose conditions on offenders released into the community.

These include prohibitions for child sexual offenders orders, probation orders, conditional sentences, peace bonds for child sexual offences, and federal penitentiary conditional release orders. It is estimated that about 110,000 offenders each year would be subject to this new requirement proposed by Bill C-489 . The source for this figure is the 2012 Juristat, Statistics Canada, and the Parole Board of Canada's annual report on conditional releases. Turning to the report of the justice committee, I note that a number of amendments to the bill were adopted by the committee.

I would like to briefly summarize these amendments. The bill proposes to amend

section 161 of the Criminal Code. This is a prohibition order that currently requires a judge sentencing a child sexual offender to consider imposing specific prohibitions on the offender that come into effect once the offender is released into the community. These can include prohibitions to stay away from specific places where children might be present and/or not to work or volunteer with children.

The bill proposes to also require the court to consider prohibiting the offender from being within two kilometres of any dwelling house in which the victim can reasonably be expected to be present without a parent or guardian. In considering this proposal, the justice committee expressed concern that it was too rigid, as the court would only have two choices: either impose a two-kilometre restriction or impose no restrictions at all.

While a two-kilometre restriction might well be appropriate in many cases, the committee expressed concern that in many instances it might be too big or possibly not even a big enough distance to achieve the objectives of preventing contact between the victim and the offender. As a result, the committee adopted a motion to require judges to consider conditions of two kilometres or any other distance. I believe this change in the bill makes sense and I will fully support it.

The justice committee also adopted a motion to require the court to consider imposing a condition prohibiting an offender from being in a private vehicle with a child. In adopting this change, the committee recognized that the recent Safe Streets and Communities Act had already enacted a new condition against any unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 16.

(1135) Bill C-489 would also require a court to impose mandatory non-contact conditions for all prohibition and conditional sentences under the Criminal Cod”, although there is some discretion retained by the court not to impose such a condition if it finds there are “exceptional circumstances”. In addition, the condition can be waived by the victim if they consent to the contact. The provision would also require a court to provide its reasons in writing if it does find that “exceptional circumstances” exist. The justice committee also adopted a small number of amendments to these proposals.

First, the bill was amended to change the requirement that the judge give written reasons to require the judge to provide reasons in the record. The committee felt this change was important, as the requirement to provide reasons in writing would have a potentially significant impact on court resources. The new formulation of requiring reasons to be stated in the record would still achieve the desired results of the original clause.

Second, the committee amended these proposals in cases where the identified victim consents to the contact by the offender to require that the victim's consent be in writing or in some other form specified by the court. This would ensure certainty in subsequent proceedings regarding whether or not there was in fact consent. Again, I believe these amendments make sense, and I support them as well. Bill C-489 proposes to include similar non-contact conditions for

section 810.1, peace bonds that are imposed on suspected child sexual offenders. This provision in the Criminal Code allows a recognizance with conditions to be imposed on any individual by a court if there is a reasonable fear that the defendant will commit a sexual offence against a child under the age of 16, unless there are exceptional circumstances. To maintain consistency and to avoid any confusion in the courts, Bill C-489 has been amended to remove the reference to “exceptional circumstances” in this provision, given the fact that the judge has full discretion to impose any of the listed conditions under

section 810.1. The bill has also been amended to remove the requirement of the court to provide written reasons for the peace bond condition, given that all peace bonds are already required to be provided in writing and filed with the court. As introduced, the bill also proposed to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that the releasing authority has the ability to impose non-contact conditions on offenders as well as geographic restrictions.

While the Corrections and Conditional Release Act currently authorizes conditions to be imposed upon an offender when granted conditional release, there is no specific obligation to consider the input of victims in determining appropriate conditions.

The committee adopted an amendment to require the releasing authority, either the Parole Board of Canada or the head of the institution, to impose reasonable and necessary conditions on offenders, including non-communication or geographic restrictions if a victim or other person has provided a statement regarding the harm done to them, the continuing impact of the offence, or their safety. Finally, the committee amended the bill to come into force three months after receiving royal assent to provide adequate opportunity for courts and correctional institutions to prepare for these reforms.

I fully support the efforts of the sponsor of the bill to enhance the level of protection afforded to victims when offenders are released into the community. Bill C-489 , as amended by the justice committee, goes a long way to address concerns that all too often offenders are able to come into close proximity to their victims. I agree that Bill C-489 will help to ensure that victims, their families, witnesses, and other individuals will feel safe in their homes and in their communities when offenders are released.

I hope all hon. members will join me in passing the bill. (1140) [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker : Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

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

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

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

Some hon. members: Yea.

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

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, November 26, 2013, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 4, 2013, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions. Division on motion deferred

[ English ] Suspension of Sitting The Deputy Speaker : Seeing no more business before the House, the House will now stand suspended until noon. (The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:42)

Sitting Resumed (The House resumed at 12 noon) GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 Bill C-4. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures , as reported (without amendment) from the committee. (1200) [ English ] Speaker's Ruling The Deputy Speaker : There are 284 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-4 .

Motions Nos. 1 to 284 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. [ Translation ] I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 284 to the House.

(1205) [ English ] Motions in Amendment Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) Motion No. 1 moved: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) Motion No. 2 , seconded by the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour , moved: Motion No. 2 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) Motions Nos. 3 to 8 moved: Motion No. 3 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 14. Motion No. 4 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 59. Motion No. 5 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 73. Motion No. 6 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 80. Motion No. 7 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 81. Motion No. 8 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

[ Translation ] Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) Motions Nos. 9 to 13 , seconded by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands , moved: Motion No. 9 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 10 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 11 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 12 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 13 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

[ English ] Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) Motion No. 14 moved: Motion No. 14 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) Motions Nos. 15 to 17 , seconded by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands , moved: Motion No. 15 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 16 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 17 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) Motions Nos. 18 to 94 moved: Motion No. 18 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 19 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Motion No. 20 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 21 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Motion No. 22 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 23 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Motion No. 24 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 25 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 26 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 27 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motion No. 28 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Motion No. 29 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 178.

Motion No. 30 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 179.

Motion No. 31 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Motion No. 32 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Motion No. 33 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Motion No. 34 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 183.

Motion No. 35 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 36 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Motion No. 37 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

Motion No. 38 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 187.

Motion No. 39 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 188.

Motion No. 40 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 189.

Motion No. 41 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 190.

Motion No. 42 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 191.

Motion No. 43 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 192.

Motion No. 44 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 193.

Motion No. 45 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 194.

Motion No. 46 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 195.

Motion No. 47 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 196.

Motion No. 48 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 197.

Motion No. 49 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 198.

Motion No. 50 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 199.

Motion No. 51 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 200.

Motion No. 52 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 201.

Motion No. 53 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 202.

Motion No. 54 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 203.

Motion No. 55 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 204.

Motion No. 56 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 205.

Motion No. 57 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Motion No. 58 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Motion No. 59 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Motion No. 60 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

Motion No. 61 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 210.

Motion No. 62 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 215.

Motion No. 63 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 216.

Motion No. 64 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 217.

Motion No. 65 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 219.

Motion No. 66 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 220.

Motion No. 67 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 221.

Motion No. 68 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 222.

Motion No. 69 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 223.

Motion No. 70 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 224.

Motion No. 71 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 225.

Motion No. 72 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 226.

Motion No. 73 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 227.

Motion No. 74 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 228.

Motion No. 75 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 229.

Motion No. 76 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 230.

Motion No. 77 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 231.

Motion No. 78 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 232.

Motion No. 79 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 233.

Motion No. 80 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 234.

Motion No. 81 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 235.

Motion No. 82 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 236.

Motion No. 83 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 237.

Motion No. 84 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 238.

Motion No. 85 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 239.

Motion No. 86 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 240.

Motion No. 87 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 241.

Motion No. 88 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 242.

Motion No. 89 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 243.

Motion No. 90 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 244.

Motion No. 91 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 245.

Motion No. 92 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 246.

Motion No. 93 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 247.

Motion No. 94 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 248.

(1220) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) Motion No. 95 , seconded by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour , moved: Motion No. 95 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 256. [ Translation ] Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) Motions Nos. 96 to 284 moved: Motion No. 96 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 272. Motion No. 97 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 276. Motion No. 98 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 282. Motion No. 99 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 283. Motion No. 100 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 284.

Motion No. 101 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 285. Motion No. 102 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 286. Motion No. 103 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 287. Motion No. 104 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 288. Motion No. 105 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 289. Motion No. 106 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 294. Motion No. 107 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 295. Motion No. 108 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 296. Motion No. 109 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 297.

Motion No. 110 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 298. Motion No. 111 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 299. Motion No. 112 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 300. Motion No. 113 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 301. Motion No. 114 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 302. Motion No. 115 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 303. Motion No. 116 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 304. Motion No. 117 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 305. Motion No. 118 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 306.

Motion No. 119 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 307. Motion No. 120 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 308. Motion No. 121 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 309. Motion No. 122 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 310. Motion No. 123 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 311. Motion No. 124 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 312. Motion No. 125 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 313. Motion No. 126 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 314. Motion No. 127 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 315.

Motion No. 128 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 316. Motion No. 129 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 317. Motion No. 130 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 318. Motion No. 131 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 319. Motion No. 132 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 320. Motion No. 133 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 321. Motion No. 134 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 322. Motion No. 135 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 323. Motion No. 136 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 324.

Motion No. 137 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 325. Motion No. 138 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 326. Motion No. 139 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 327. Motion No. 140 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 328. Motion No. 141 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 329. Motion No. 142 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 330. Motion No. 143 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 331. Motion No. 144 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 332. Motion No. 145 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 333.

Motion No. 146 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 334. Motion No. 147 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 335. Motion No. 148 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 336. Motion No. 149 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 337. Motion No. 150 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 338. Motion No. 151 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 339. Motion No. 152 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 340. Motion No. 153 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 341. Motion No. 154 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 342.

Motion No. 155 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 343. Motion No. 156 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 344. Motion No. 157 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 345. Motion No. 158 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 346. Motion No. 159 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 347. Motion No. 160 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 348. Motion No. 161 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 349. Motion No. 162 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 350. Motion No. 163 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 351.

Motion No. 164 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 352. Motion No. 165 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 353. Motion No. 166 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 354. Motion No. 167 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 355. Motion No. 168 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 356. Motion No. 169 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 357. Motion No. 170 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 358. Motion No. 171 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 359. Motion No. 172 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 360.

Motion No. 173 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 361. Motion No. 174 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 362. Motion No. 175 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 363. Motion No. 176 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 364. Motion No. 177 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 365. Motion No. 178 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 366. Motion No. 179 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 367. Motion No. 180 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 368. Motion No. 181 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 369.

Motion No. 182 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 370. Motion No. 183 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 371. Motion No. 184 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 372. Motion No. 185 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 373. Motion No. 186 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 374. Motion No. 187 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 375. Motion No. 188 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 376. Motion No. 189 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 377. Motion No. 190 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 378.

Motion No. 191 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 379. Motion No. 192 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 380. Motion No. 193 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 381. Motion No. 194 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 382. Motion No. 195 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 383. Motion No. 196 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 384. Motion No. 197 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 385. Motion No. 198 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 386. Motion No. 199 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 387.

Motion No. 200 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 388. Motion No. 201 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 389. Motion No. 202 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 390. Motion No. 203 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 391. Motion No. 204 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 392. Motion No. 205 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 393. Motion No. 206 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 394. Motion No. 207 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 395. Motion No. 208 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 396.

Motion No. 209 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 397. Motion No. 210 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 398. Motion No. 211 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 399. Motion No. 212 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 400. Motion No. 213 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 401. Motion No. 214 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 402. Motion No. 215 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 403. Motion No. 216 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 404. Motion No. 217 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 405.

Motion No. 218 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 406. Motion No. 219 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 407. Motion No. 220 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 408. Motion No. 221 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 409. Motion No. 222 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 410. Motion No. 223 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 411. Motion No. 224 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 412. Motion No. 225 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 413. Motion No. 226 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 414.

Motion No. 227 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 415. Motion No. 228 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 416. Motion No. 229 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 417. Motion No. 230 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 418. Motion No. 231 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 419. Motion No. 232 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 420. Motion No. 233 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 421. Motion No. 234 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 422. Motion No. 235 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 423.

Motion No. 236 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 424. Motion No. 237 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 425. Motion No. 238 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 426. Motion No. 239 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 427. Motion No. 240 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 428. Motion No. 241 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 429. Motion No. 242 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 430. Motion No. 243 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 431. Motion No. 244 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 432.

Motion No. 245 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 433. Motion No. 246 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 434. Motion No. 247 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 435. Motion No. 248 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 436. Motion No. 249 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 437. Motion No. 250 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 438. Motion No. 251 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 439. Motion No. 252 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 440. Motion No. 253 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 441.

Motion No. 254 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 442. Motion No. 255 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 443. Motion No. 256 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 444. Motion No. 257 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 445. Motion No. 258 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 446. Motion No. 259 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 447. Motion No. 260 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 448. Motion No. 261 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 449. Motion No. 262 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 450.

Motion No. 263 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 451. Motion No. 264 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 452. Motion No. 265 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 453. Motion No. 266 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 454. Motion No. 267 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 455. Motion No. 268 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 456. Motion No. 269 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 457. Motion No. 270 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 458. Motion No. 271 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 459.

Motion No. 272 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 460. Motion No. 273 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 461. Motion No. 274 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 462. Motion No. 275 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 463. Motion No. 276 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 464. Motion No. 277 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 465. Motion No. 278 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 466. Motion No. 279 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 467. Motion No. 280 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 468.

Motion No. 281 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 469. Motion No. 282 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 470. Motion No. 283 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 471. Motion No. 284 That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 472. (1245) [ English ] Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for seconding all of these changes. Let us let Canadians know what all these amendments are in aid of.

We are now debating Bill C-4 , a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget, except that we are dealing with another attempt by the Conservatives to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians. We want to slow the process down so that Canadians are not blindsided again with this omnibus legislation. This is the fourth omnibus budget bill the government has brought in. Bill C-4 amends over 70 different pieces of legislation in over 300 pages. It follows on the heels of previous omnibus budget Bills C-38 , C-45 , and C-60 .

The bill contains entirely new laws: the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act and the public service labour relations and employment board act. There are brand new acts within the bill. Like its predecessor omnibus budget bills, this bill contains a wide variety of measures, many of which are not even in the budget and do not have any relationship to the budget.

They are changes such as gutting health and safety protections for federal jurisdiction workers; cuts to reductions at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board; repealing the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board; and changes to how we select Supreme Court judges. These are not budget items, yet they are crammed into an omnibus bill, within a very short timeframe, to evade the scrutiny of Parliament. Canadians will not really have a full appreciation of the changes being made.

It negates the opportunity of parliamentarians to hear a full range of witnesses, to engage in thorough examination, discussion, and debate about a bill, and to then propose reasoned amendments for improvements that would help make these laws better. As we have seen in the past, because of the short timeframe, bills have been rushed through Parliament and passed, and then the government has had to go back and correct them after the fact because of mistakes it had made. With this bill, as with all the other omnibus bills, Conservatives accepted not one amendment. They would not change even one comma.

No one else has any good ideas. They would change nothing. In our discussions at committee, there were several amendments proposed. The NDP proposed 24. Other opposition parties proposed amendments. Not one change was accepted, as in the previous omnibus budget bills. There was a time limit imposed on our study at committee. We had only two days of witnesses, including an hour with the minister, and there was a deadline of midnight. Everything we had not voted on in the bill was deemed passed, and if it was an amendment, it was deemed rejected.

That certainly did not allow us much latitude for making changes or even for trying to slow down the parliamentary process and review. Canadians are offended by this. We have heard from many Canadians who are getting the message about the lack of democracy in these omnibus budget bills. However, we also heard expert testimony. The Canadian Bar Association testified at our committee during the two days of study. It said that “eschewing consultation and employing omnibus bills diminish the quality of our laws and the democratic process. We urge you to reconsider these practices”. We completely agree.

(1250) We heard a variety of witnesses oppose the process of omnibus budget bills. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation agreed with us that this is a bad way to bring in legislation. What it does is attach unpopular measures to popular measures and does not allow the separation of issues so that there can be good and thorough debate. It prevents separate votes on issues by lumping them all together. Obviously, it is less transparent and fundamentally less democratic. We believe that this evasion of parliamentary scrutiny is not worthy of the House.

Let me deal with the notion that this bill is in any way aiding the priorities of Canadians in terms of creating jobs and a stronger economy. In this bill, the Conservatives have failed to put forward significant job creation measures at a time when we are seeing stagnating incomes, stagnating wages, insecurity in the workplace, job insecurity, and all-time high household debt. This is at a time when we have a current account trade deficit of over $60 billion, which is a record for our country. We believe that what the Conservative government ought to do is deal with the real challenges the economy is facing.

Let me quote a couple of sources. The Conservatives may feel that they know better, but let us hear what the International Monetary Fund had to say: ...the IMF no longer views Canada as the growth engine of the G7 economies. While bettering the European members, Canadian growth is projected to play second fiddle to the U.S. in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Growth in “other advanced countries” not in the G7 club, such as the Scandinavian nations and Australia and New Zealand, are also projected to outperform Canada.

Going forward, it predicts the Canadian economy will continue to be held back by high household debt levels and a cooling housing market. That is the International Monetary Fund. Business columnist David Olive wrote: We know from the recent American and British experience with austerity chic that you cannot cut your way to prosperity. Indeed, sucking demand, or cash, out of an economy with cutbacks to government spending—including essential services and infrastructure upgrading—merely adds to the jobless lines and cuts household incomes.

That, in turn, drives up social-spending costs related to mounting unemployment. Clearly, the Conservative government is failing on the economy. Let us hear from Paul Wells, from Maclean's , in his recent article, “Stephen Harper and the knowledge economy: perfect strangers”. He wrote: ...by the broadest measure of expenditure on research and development, Canada has fallen from 16th out of 41 comparable countries [since] the year Stephen Harper became prime minister...

The Conservative government is failing on so many counts to do the job on the economy, yet it has an omnibus budget bill that would cram in over 60 amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Anyone working anywhere in the federal jurisdiction, not just for the federal government but perhaps in the transportation sector, banking, telecommunications, interprovincial trucking, rail, ships, trains, or airlines, would be affected by this. It would strip the powers of health and safety inspectors. They could inspect a workplace with a phone call.

However, it would not be a qualified inspector; it would just be someone the minister appointed, who would not even have to be qualified. There are so many regressive changes in this bill that attack the basic rights of people in the workplace. It is a colossal step backward. All Canadian workers should be very concerned about this legislation. It is a colossal step backward for Canadians. New Democrats will not support the Conservatives' attempt to evade scrutiny by Parliament and Canadians.

We oppose this budget and its implementation bills, unless it is revised to reflect the real priorities of Canadian families: creating quality, well-paid jobs; ensuring retirement security; fostering opportunities for young people; and making life for families more affordable. I see that my time is up. I thank the House for the opportunity, and I welcome questions from my parliamentary colleagues.

(1255) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, as the member has pointed out, it is important for us to recognize what the Prime Minister has done with previous bills. It is also important for us to recognize that never in the history of Canada have we seen so much incorporated into budget legislation. What is happening is that the government is using the back door of budget debate to pass massive amounts of legislation that should be stand-alone legislation.

Could the member comment on the fact that when stand-alone legislation is incorporated into what should be a budget debate, it takes away the opportunity for parliamentarians in this House to contribute fully to a debate on an entirely separate piece of legislation that should have come before the House? We are supposed to be doing this on behalf of all Canadians.

(1300) Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of debate recently about the rights of parliamentarians and what kind of autonomy and power we do or should have. I understand that there may even be some rumblings growing in the government caucus. I would urge my colleagues on the other side that if they want to assert their independence and truly represent the constituents who elected them to this place, then regardless of the content of this bill, they should stand in this place and vote against the process of these omnibus budget bills.

They are fundamentally undermining our rights as parliamentarians and undermining the democratic right of Canadians to have adequate scrutiny of their legislation. I urge my colleagues on the other side to stand in their places and vote against this bill. Hon. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the leader of the Green Party that the rumblings she is hearing are from my tummy. There are no other rumblings coming from the Conservative Party. We fully support this budget and what it does for Canadians.

Given all the great things this budget does for aboriginal people, homeless people, the environment, and the economy as a whole, why would the Green Party vote against all of these wonderful initiatives? Can the member answer that? Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker— The Deputy Speaker : The member for Parkdale—High Park has the floor, not the leader of the Green Party. Therefore, I will recognize the member for Parkdale—High Park. Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, maybe the Green Party will answer that question at some point. Let me just provide another example of what the government is doing.

It created the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board in order to take the politics out of financing employment insurance. That was at a time when Liberal and Conservative governments had plundered $57 billion from the premiums paid by working people and employers across this country into the EI fund. The government created an independent fund to get away from those politics. It put the fund at zero, so there was no money. It was immediately in deficit, and ultimately, the premiums had to be raised.

Now it wants to get rid of this board, this outside agency it created, and go back to being able to play politics with EI funding. It is shameful. It is a disgrace. It opens up the premiums paid into this fund, which ought to be going to unemployed workers and ought to be the best adjustment program Canada has during a time of insecurity and high unemployment. Instead, it uses them to play political points by having bigger surpluses or lower deficits than it would otherwise have. It is shameful. That is another measure included in this bill. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr.

Speaker, I was not sure if my hon. colleague had given the member for Parkdale—High Park a promotion or demotion by making her leader of the Green Party. However, on this particular debate, the Green Party and the NDP are on the same page. We completely lament the fact that this is an omnibus bill once again, with multiple sections that were very much deserving of a full parliamentary review and full and proper hearings in committee.

I want to begin my analysis of Bill C-4 in presenting the various amendments I have made for deletions with two fairly brief points to the substance of the abuse of Parliament that omnibus budget bills represent. We have heard it said by Conservative members in their talking points that this is nothing new. In every debate we have on budget omnibus bills, we are told this is normal. However, although I have only been a member of Parliament since 2011, I have been around a long time, and I know that we have never had budget omnibus bills of the staggering length of these bills until the current administration.

It is only under the current Prime Minister that we have seen an omnibus budget bill top 200 pages. Between 1994 and 2005, there were occasions of omnibus budget bills, and they were averaging 73 pages. The first big whopper of an omnibus budget bill occurred under the current Prime Minister in 2009. The 2010 budget omnibus bill was almost 900 pages. Then, by 2012, the Conservatives started a new process. Ironically, my very first question in the House once I was elected was on the 2011 budget. I asked the Minister of Finance if he was planning the abuse of process constituted by an omnibus budget bill.

He said he was not. Well, 2011 was indeed the last year in which we did not see omnibus budget bills. By 2012, the Conservative administration had started this new practice of putting forward two omnibus budget bills. It now refers to it as a tradition, almost like having Easter in the spring and Christmas in December. It is a tradition, apparently, that we are now going to see a 300- to 400-page spring omnibus budget bill, followed by 200-, 300-, or 400-page fall omnibus budget bill. The government has done this now for 2012 and 2013. What this does is make a mockery of Parliament.

I cannot put it more strongly than that. The idea that we would have disparate, unconnected bills, many of them never mentioned in the budget, that do substantial damage—this one in particular to labour relations, previous ones to environmental concerns—is an offence to Parliament. There is no excuse for it. Second, I know there has been a lot of public interest in the fate of members of Parliament like myself and my party. I quite clearly represent a party with fewer than 12 MPs; I represent a party with one MP. However, I am a party in the House.

So are my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, and so are four independent members of Parliament. We were treated differently, since there were multiple motions carried through multiple committees to require that substantive amendments be submitted at committee, where we are not members and do not have equal and full rights of participation. I will set that aside for now. That is why all of my amendments presented today are deletions. I did have substantive amendments I would have liked to present at report stage.

I had 26 substantive amendments that I did present to the finance committee, and they went through a very quick ritual slaughter. I would have liked for the people of Canada to know about those amendments. I would have liked to have brought them forward at report stage. Before I move to the specific parts of the bill that Canadians need to know about, I want to make an overarching comment.

As the only member of Parliament for the Green Party, one of the great advantages of having to watch everything while also doing due diligence on behalf of my constituents is that I am able to see everything in a comprehensive overview, not just in silos. There are themes here. There are disparate bills, but the manoeuvres are the same. The manoeuvres go in the direction of increasing ministerial discretion, reducing objective criteria, removing boards and agencies that have independent expertise, and putting bills forward instead to systems of political whim.

That certainly was the case in budget omnibus Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 . They reduced criteria, letting the minister of environment or the minister of natural resources make decisions without guidance.

(1305) In this particular omnibus budget bill, we see it happening quite a lot again. I will mention just a few of the areas. Under the Canada Labour Code changes, which my friend from the official opposition already referred to, the changes go in the direction of removing health and safety officers and leaving decisions about health and safety up to the minister. The same kinds of changes have happened in immigration. In Bill C-4 , we see substantial changes in

part 3, division 16, to the expression of interest system, basically for immigrants who are coming by way of economic advantage. The decision-making would now increasingly be by ministerial discretion. Another area where we see ministerial discretion replacing an objective system is in division 14, in which we would repeal the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act and replace it with a very similar Mackenzie gas project impacts funds act.

In this change the one big difference between the two acts would be to replace an objective corporation, a regional organization that would make decisions about where the funds go, entirely with ministerial discretion. My friend and colleague from the NDP, the member for Western Arctic , had this to say about it, because he has a lot of expertise in this area. He said: There was an independent body set up by the Conservative government through

an act of Parliament to manage this money and ensure that it was managed in a correct and careful fashion, following the procedures that had been set up and the planning that had taken place in these communities over a period of two years, from 2006 to 2008. Then I have another excerpt from his quote: What we have now is a move to a system that would have a Conservative minister handing out cheques for particular projects as he or she deems appropriate.

Before diving into the specifics of Bill C-4 , I wanted to raise into higher profile a consistent ideological theme: moving more and more decision-making in our system of government, which is a parliamentary democracy, away from Parliament, and at the same time moving decision-making of ministers into more and more discretion with less and less guidance. Those of us who have practised law at any time know that administrative law provides a certain amount of accountability whereby a minister has to follow certain prescribed considerations or in fact delegates authority to expert boards.

Less and less will we see this. More and more will we see ministerial discretion. As well, we know that ministers do not really exercise discretion, not in this administration. They do what they are told by the people at PMO, who I think one Conservative described brilliantly as a series of Stepford wives who insist on certain decisions being made a certain way. To raise my concerns in brief, this bill would do serious damage to the health and safety provisions of the Canada Labour Code. It would change the definition of danger and the ability to refuse dangerous work.

It would remove the health and safety officers. As well, a different

section of this bill would change the Public Service Labour Relations Act, again for more ministerial discretion about which aspects of public service work would be considered to be essential and therefore not open to the usual recourse that trade unions have in negotiations. We see changes to the Immigration Act to increase ministerial discretion. I would like to cite concerns from the Canadian Bar Association on the immigration law section. They wrote to the committee: The CBA

Section has concerns about the limited consultation on this important change to Canadian immigration law and policy. Bill C-4 would substantially change the way in which economic immigrants are selected to come to Canada. The Bill would remove these changes from Parliamentary scrutiny and approval and give what appears to be unilateral authority to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to change selection rules and procedures. Another

section of the bill that has gotten very limited public attention is the

section that appears in

part 3, division 7, which is in aid of getting rid of our deficit by selling off assets. This is the sale of 20,000 hectares described as the Dominion Coal Blocks land. My amendments at committee, had they been approved, would have provided some conservation protection. These lands are among the most ecologically significant in Canada. They are the blocks in the Flathead Valley and Elk Valley. They are an integral part of what is called the Crown of the Continent, right near the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, which is an international peace park on both sides of the border.

(1310) The Flathead has been protected by the strange reality of its ownership by the federal government over these years, but it is now to be sold for coal mining. We need to ensure that careful concern is applied to the conveyance of these lands and to ensure that we do not contaminate adjacent park areas. This is a concern already expressed by the United Nations.

(1315) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have to again try to emphasize, as the member has done, the importance of the immigration and other legislation that has been incorporated in this bill. I have argued in the past and will continue to argue in the future that this is the wrong way to bring in legislation. By doing it this way, we are not allowing for proper procedures on substantial pieces of legislation.

For example, when the leader for the Green Party makes reference to immigration changes, that should have been stand-alone legislation that would have had a second reading at a committee of its own. The committee on immigration would have dealt with it. We would have had stakeholders and witnesses come to committee to provide comment on it, and then it would ultimately come back there. There would have been a more wholesome debate on the whole issue of that specific change.

I wonder if the member could highlight for people who might be watching what has been lost as a result of not having that separate stand-alone legislation for the immigration component and for other pieces. Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, it is going to be very hard to know what was lost. We do know that in previous omnibus budget bills, even drafting errors were not corrected.

We have seen this rush to pass legislation in a hurry, and if the disparate parts do not get reviewed by committees that have developed expertise in this area, they come back to the government's attention, even within six months, as mistakes. At the simplest level, haste makes waste, and they end up coming back with amendments to fix things. This bill includes amendments to fix mistakes the government made last time in the employment insurance system for fisheries, fisheries families, and their income.

What is important to drive home is that at a more fundamental level we see a systematic, transformative change in Canadian legislation, away from well-considered and well-developed legislation operating under criteria and controls to a system that could very easily become completely manipulated through the Prime Minister 's Office, a system in which ministers have nothing to do but follow through with their directions while the people who actually understand the system are precluded from the decision-making. Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, one of the over 70 changes through this legislation would be to public sector collective bargaining rights. Unlike in the private sector, the government wants to give itself the unfettered right to deem certain workers as essential workers in the federal public sector. This could have the impact of their deeming the majority of workers in a bargaining unit to be essential workers, thereby essentially denying them normal collective bargaining rights and the normal right to strike. Coca-Cola cannot do that with its bargaining, but it is what the minister is proposing to do.

Does the member have any comments about the impact this would have on public sector collective bargaining? Ms. Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as with other pieces of legislation we have seen in this Parliament, would strike directly at the heart of collective bargaining. I will admit a bias, because part of my past work history included working for a union side labour firm and working for labour unions and in collective bargaining. The principles of collective bargaining are important.

If the tools that a labour union and an employer have at their disposal are roughly equal, the employer has the right to lock out and the trade union has the right to strike. If that aspect of collective bargaining is removed, essentially it becomes a system of the employer dictating terms. The employees have no recourse. In healthy democracies and healthy economies and in places where civil society is healthy and there is less of a gap between the wealthiest and the poorest, the strengths of the trade union movement are one of the clearest indicators of a healthy society and a robust middle class.

Striking at the heart of collective bargaining for federal employees, as this bill does, is not in Canada's interest. (1320) [ Translation ] Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ) : Mr. Speaker, today, we are talking about deleting provisions of Bill C-4 at report stage. The Conservative government wants to hastily pass this bill without conducting any real impact studies. The Conservatives claim that this bill focuses exclusively on the economy, but that is far from true. Bill C-4 will affect a host of different areas.

Some of the changes set out in the bill will mainly affect Quebec, its regions, its entrepreneurs and its businesses. For example, Bill C-4 will eliminate the federal tax credit on labour-sponsored venture capital corporations, which are more commonly referred to as workers' funds. Over 80% of these funds are found in Quebec. The main ones are the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and the Fondaction CSN. This will therefore have a direct impact on Quebec's economy and particularly that of its regions.

These funds are quite prevalent in Quebec and they have helped to create and maintain tens of thousands of jobs, strengthen communities and breathe life into the economy where regular instruments, such as bank loans, were unable to play that role. It is therefore extremely important that the federal government reconsider this decision. Another point of contention is that this mammoth bill affects the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Recently, a judge was appointed who was not on the list submitted by the Government of Quebec. What is more, he did not even meet the criteria set out in legislation.

The Supreme Court has to include three justices from Quebec for a reason. Quebec's civil law is quite different from Canadian law, and the justices who sit on the highest court must be able to rely on sufficient expertise so that they can rule on complex civil law issues. In addition, in the many existing legal cases between Ottawa and Quebec, it is only natural that Quebec should be able to rely on three justices who are attuned to the province's unique characteristics. Justice Nadon decided to step aside temporarily because his appointment is being challenged.

The federal government decided to refer Justice Nadon's case to the Supreme Court. Now, the Supreme Court will be both judge and judged in this case. Not wanting to be defeated in this dispute, the federal government is trying to use Bill C-4 to amend the Supreme Court Act to make Justice Nadon's appointment legal, after the fact. For the Bloc Québécois, the amendments in Bill C-4 pertaining to the amount of time the person nominated must have spent as a member of the Quebec bar are nothing less than an admission of the problems that tainted the appointment of Justice Nadon.

His appointment, we should point out, was unfortunately endorsed by the Conservatives as well as the Liberals and the NDP, who included Justice Nadon on their list of top three candidates. Once again, the Bloc Québécois was the only party to oppose this appointment. Instead of changing the legislation to try to save face, the federal government must acknowledge that it must choose Supreme Court justices who represent Quebec from the list submitted by the Quebec government, as has always been the case. Another point of contention is that this bill will eliminate the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

It has become clear that the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, have no problem using employment insurance for political purposes and taking the employment insurance fund surpluses. The board was established to ensure that employment insurance premiums are used only for the employment insurance program. When we read this description, we can better understand why the Conservatives want to abolish a body that was opposed to their helping themselves to the surplus, as they are currently doing. This year alone, $2 billion will be taken from the employment insurance account.

That is, of course, a hidden tax. We also do not agree on the major changes to labour laws included in the bill.

(1325) During the recent labour disputes at Air Canada and CP, the Conservatives showed that they were allergic to any form of job action taken by employees. The mere possibility of a strike worries them so much that they have to pass special legislation to prevent them. What is more, Air Canada is now very quietly transferring specialized, well-paid jobs to Toronto without the federal government lifting a finger to intervene.

What is truly shocking is that all the federalist parties in the House are just sitting back and letting Air Canada get away with skirting the law and transforming its offices in Montreal into post office boxes. I keep bringing up this issue, because in the Air Canada privatization contract it was agreed that any jobs in maintenance and at headquarters would remain in Montreal. However, jobs are currently slipping away to Toronto and every member in the House of Commons is remaining silent, except for the Bloc members. I am calling on all NDP, Conservative and Liberal members in Quebec.

We should stand together to prevent the injustice that is the transfer of high-paying jobs to Ontario. Furthermore, this transfer is completely at odds with the contract Air Canada signed when it was privatized. I am making an appeal. I hope that all members from Quebec break their silence about this. With Bill C-4 , the Conservatives are now making major changes to the way in which services are deemed essential because they want to pre-empt any possibility of job action by employees.

From now on, the Conservatives are giving the employer the exclusive right to determine whether a service is essential and to set the number of positions needed to provide that service. Previously, the essential services designation was agreed upon by the union and the employer. This provided for a level playing field. These are major changes because they affect the fundamental balance that must be in place between employers and employees. Even worse is the fact that Bill C-4 politicizes the occupational health and safety process.

Indeed, Bill C-4 gives the minister the power to issue directives to employers and to make certain decisions that were previously made by health and safety officers. It goes even further by changing the concept of “danger” in the Canada Labour Code and, as a consequence, exposing employees to higher levels of risk. As I just explained, the Bloc Québécois has proposed the removal of the clauses pertaining to labour-sponsored funds, employment insurance—including the Employment Insurance Commission—the Canada Labour Code and the Supreme Court.

These issues should be addressed in separate bills and not in an omnibus bill. That is why we proposed that these clauses be removed. [ English ] Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with much interest, and I would like to acknowledge that he is our longest serving member of Parliament. I know he has the interest of his home province at heart. However, the tone of the hon. member's speech was very negative.

He pointed out a lot of complaints and faults in his speech, but I am wondering whether he would support the hiring tax credit for small business that is in Bill C-4 and that would be important for small businesses in the province of Quebec. How about electronic applications for students, access to Canada student loans for the students in Quebec who access this program? It would speed that process up for them and help them to get loans to advance their education. What about the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturers? The manufacturing sector is important in Quebec.

Does the hon. member support these measures that are in Bill C-4 ? With regard to our move to balance the budget, does he agree that it is an important ideal to move Canada towards balanced budgets? (1330) [ Translation ] Mr. Louis Plamondon : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. I did not mention the hiring tax credit because we support this measure, but it will not have the kind of impact the member thinks it will. These measures are insignificant and will not have the desired effect, especially for SMEs.

Electronic applications for students, as with anything that has to do with education, loans and grants, fall under provincial jurisdiction, so Quebec is responsible for them. The existing systems work very well for students. We have no complaints. The accelerated tax credits could be a positive, but the member must acknowledge that they generally favour large corporations, as is the case in the automotive and oil sectors. When an oil company has $1 billion to spend and can get a deduction in the form of tax credits for purchases over three years, that can make a huge difference compared to 10 years.

However, if an SME is spending $50,000, that will not have a huge impact whether it is three years or 10 years. This credit therefore favours big companies, and small businesses are once again shut out of this budget. Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I could not help but think it was odd when he mentioned that the NDP was complicit in Justice Nadon's appointment process, since that meeting was held in camera.

The details of the process were confidential, so we do not know what kind of debate was going on or what our representative, the member for Gatineau , said. On October 31, the member for Gatineau once again asked for the unanimous consent of the House to respect Quebec's place at the Supreme Court and in the Supreme Court Act. In light of what I just said, it is clear that we took this lack of respect for Quebec in our constitutional structure very seriously, and we have frequently spoken out in defence of this.

I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to step back and to acknowledge the work that the NDP has done on this issue. Mr. Louis Plamondon : Mr. Speaker, what I said was that the parties met in private—the member himself said it—and the outcome was that this judge was chosen. The three parties were complicit. That was also the case with the unilingual English judge, when the NDP approved the appointment and then criticized it, realizing that it had made a mistake. That was the context surrounding my comments about the NDP.

The party did not speak up right away and say that this gentleman should have been immediately dropped during the secret meeting because he did not meet the usual criteria for being appointed to the court. I could provide other examples of how, often, the NDP has not been involved in the debate on issues of concern to Quebec. For example, you said nothing about the Canadian securities commission in Toronto.

During the debate on hydroelectric development in Newfoundland and Labrador, not only did you not speak out against it—even though Quebec passed a unanimous resolution—you rose in the House to speak in favour of it. You were completely uninvolved in the debate about the fact that Quebec City did not get a contract to build warships. That is what I am getting at— The Deputy Speaker : Order, please. The member has been in the House for a number of years. He knows he is to address his comments to the Chair and not to other members. [ English ] Resuming debate. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni .

(1335) Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to stand today on behalf of the residents of Nanaimo—Alberni and enter the debate on extremely important federal legislation. Bill C-4 is

an act to implement measures contained in budget 2013. It is the second such bill therefore we could refer to it as BIA 2, the budget implementation act 2. Budget 2013 continues our government's drive toward creating jobs and promoting economic growth in a highly competitive world. It also continues our steadfast drive toward returning to fiscal balance by 2015. Why this bill is relevant and how it is managed is extremely important to the lives of each and every Canadian.

First, let me remind those watching the debate that Canada was slammed by an economic tsunami in 2008, one that was not of our making, but one that crashed across our borders. It started south of our border with a subprime mortgage meltdown. As the credit crisis and housing defaults put financial institutes in peril, the U.S.A. and other nations backstopped the banks to prevent panic south of the border. They spent billions of public dollars in bailout money to institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Businesses had trouble maintaining cash flow and major industries, like the auto sector, danced along the edge of insolvency. It quickly spread around the globe. Many nations were faced with huge financial commitments to stabilize their financial institutions and prevent wholesale collapse. As the world economy spun, our government had to act fast to keep Canadians employed and provide incentives and retraining programs.

Part of the economic action plan was targeted short-term spending on infrastructure, investments that would generate economic activity, keep people employed and improve the quality of life in communities across Canada. Our plan worked. In fact, it worked so well that since the depths of the recession in July 2009, we have generated nearly a million new jobs, more than 80% of those in the private sector. We have been driving toward balanced budgets year by year with targeted measures to keep our economy moving forward.

Canada has the best job creation record in the G7, the most stable banking sector and the lowest debt to GDP ratio. Why is this important? It is important because debt is strangling economic opportunity and competitiveness in many nations. The commitment of this government and the Prime Minister is that we will bring Canada back to balanced budgets and we will do it without raising taxes and without slashing transfers to the provinces for services upon which Canadians depend. I am pleased to report that we are on track to do exactly that.

Our Minister of Finance recently reported that we would achieve this objective not only on time, but ahead of time. We will, barring world circumstances beyond our sight or control, achieve that objective and a healthy surplus by the fiscal year 2015. Budget 2013 and Bill C-4 continue to drive toward balanced budgets. There are provisions that impact British Columbia in a significant way, such as $92 million for innovation in the forest sector. These funds will help our forest industry continue the transformation to compete in new global realities.

Budget 2013 includes measures to protect the iconic west coast Pacific salmon. In fact, the entire Pacific salmon stamp, collected from recreational fishers on the coast, is valued at just over $6. For years, $1 from that stamp used to go to the PSF, the Pacific Salmon Foundation. Now the entire value of that stamp, which would be a value of about $1.2 million, will go to the Pacific Salmon Foundation and into projects that restore salmon habitat.

In partnership with local environmental groups, we have salmon enhancement societies and streamkeepers, which share great interest in bringing them back stream by stream, which is the model of the Pacific Salmon Foundation. In addition, this budget brought in the recreational fisheries conservation partnership program. That is a further $10 million over two years to help activist groups, like the ones I mentioned, advance causes that help restore fisheries habitat, improve the riparian zones and remove obstacles that prevent fish from getting up to their spawning grounds.

(1340) This is like one project that was announced in my riding. A major highway culvert was eroded and it was restored so the fish could get past that obstacle and up to the spawning grounds. These projects, collectively, have a huge impact on helping our great iconic salmon resource on the west coast. The funds dramatically increase the reach of our premier salmon habitat restoration institute on the coast. Doing so allows mother nature to do her thing.

As we remove obstacles and improve the riparian zones and spawning grounds, it helps mother nature help the salmon do what they do best, which is to reproduce successfully and create opportunities commercially, for first nations through their food cultural ceremonial programs and recreational anglers. One of the reasons many people move to British Columbia and coastal B.C. is to take

part in a tremendous fishing opportunity. Since 2006, our economic action plan has cut taxes in over 150 different measures to make our economy more productive. As a result, the average Canadian family is saving about $3,200 each and every year in reduced federal taxes. That means more money to meet family needs and address priorities of their own choosing. On this side of the House, we think that is a good idea.

It allows Canadians to manage their own money, invest in priorities that strengthen their families, help their children participate in activities that are meaningful to them and ensure the needs of their families are met. Bill C-4 continues our drive to job creation and economic stimulus. I would like to refer to a few of these measures. I will talk about renewing the hiring tax credit for small business and other measures, such as closing tax loopholes to ensure tax fairness.

The one I mentioned earlier was the accelerated capital cost allowance in a question for the member opposite, a measure that would allow manufacturers to invest in equipment upgrades. There are other measures like extending the lifetime capital gains exemption to increase the rewards for investing in small business in Canada and closing tax loopholes to protect the inherent integrity and fairness of our tax system. The number one priority of our government is creating jobs. The hiring tax credit recognizes the important role of small business in sustaining Canadian communities.

Economic action plan 2013 proposes to extend and expand the temporary hiring credit for small businesses. The measure provides up to a $1,000 credit against an increase in EI premiums for businesses. Small businesses are the engines of job creation. This measure was first introduced in budget 2011. It helps defray the costs of taking on a new employee and permits local employers to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities. It is estimated some 560,000 small businesses could potentially benefit from this measure, saving them an estimated $225 million in federal taxes in 2013.

With regard to tax fairness, since 2006, including measures in the 2013 economic action plan, the government has introduced more than 75 measures to improve the integrity of our tax system. One example in budget 2013 is to close tax loopholes that permit certain individuals and/or institutions to avoid tax. Included are stiff penalties to curb a disturbing new trend, which is the electronic suppression of sales software that is designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion. Specifically, the following administrative money penalties and criminal offences apply.

For using electronic suppression of sales software, there is an administrative monetary penalty of $5,000 for the first infraction and up to $50,000 on subsequent infractions. For possession and acquisition, there are even higher penalties for the manufacture, development, sale and possession. There are also criminal offences for those involved in this type of tax avoidance. Those measures are broadly supported by business and job creators across Canada.

If I had time, I would quote the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, which issued a statement commenting on closing the tax loopholes and tax fairness measures in the budget. It concluded by saying that it supported efforts to maintain the integrity of our tax system.

(1345) The tax relief for new manufacturing and equipment is a very important measure, and there are many other measures in this budget that are important for advancing our economy and bringing us back to balanced budgets. I hope all the members opposite will join with us in passing these measures to keep Canada moving in the right direction. [ Translation ] Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech given by the member for Nanaimo—Alberni . He talked about many things in his speech, and he overlooked some other things.

One of the things that interests me the most in Bill C-4 is the issue of phasing out the tax credit for labour-sponsored venture capital funds, which, as we know, are extremely important in Quebec. There is about $10 billion in capital, and nearly 70% of that capital is invested in Quebec and outside Quebec. This makes Quebec a leader in the area of venture capital, not only in Canada, but internationally. In terms of economic importance, Quebec ranks third among all OECD members.

Furthermore, it invests nearly three times as much venture capital as the Canadian average, and more than four times the Ontario average. At present, 160,000 jobs are supported by the capital provided by labour-sponsored funds. The phasing-out of this tax credit could kill about 20,000 of those jobs. The government claims to support economic growth and job creation, but this measure will be extremely harmful to Quebec. What does the member think of that? I would like to hear his comments on the phasing-out of this tax credit.

Furthermore, why does the government insist on continuing in this direction, without any proof, when Canada really needs venture capital and private equity funds want to continue benefiting from the support of the Fonds de solidarité and Fondaction? [ English ] Mr. James Lunney : Mr. Speaker, in trying to balance the budget for a country the size of Canada and with an economy like ours, there are many measures that have to be kept in balance. As I mentioned in parts of my speech, there are measures to close developing situations where tax loopholes have been exploited by certain individuals.

Also, there are investments that are strategically designed to help certain sectors advance their interests, but times have changed. For example, there are changes to measures that were brought in the 1970s to help credit unions in the country. Now, with advances and changes in the budget over the years, those measures are no longer needed and so they are being phased out. There are measures for the mining sector that are being phased out, some by 2015 and some by 2017.

The measures the member has referred to are part of the ongoing evolution of shifting to ensure our tax plan remains balanced, fair, representative and that it delivers the kinds of benefits to keep our economy moving in the right direction. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat amazing the number of times in which the member has made reference to balancing the budget and the government's desire to balance the budget. In reality, the government inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus from a Liberal government.

Prior to the recession even starting, the Conservatives turned that multi-billion dollar surplus into a multi-billion dollar deficit. Now they are trying to convince Canadians that they can actually bring us back to a balanced budget sometime in the future. There is a credibility issue with which the Conservatives will have to deal. Having said that, my question for the member is this. Why does the government choose to bring in so much legislative change through the back door of budget legislation when in fact it should be separate pieces of legislation? Bill C-4 is really about that.

It is being used as a back door for that sneaky government, through the PMO, to bring in numerous changes to other pieces of legislation. Why is the Conservative government doing that? Mr. James Lunney : Mr. Speaker, frankly, the member also has selective memory it appears. He says that we inherited a great surplus.

(1350) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Billions. Mr. James Lunney : Yes, billions, but in fact we managed the economy so well in 2006, 2007 and 2008 that we paid down $37 billion on our national debt. That actually took us to the lowest national debt in 25 years at about $458 billion. The member would probably like to acknowledge that the economic downturn was worldwide. It did not start in this nation and so we had to respond. We had to keep people employed and we had to do something that this government was reluctant to do, which was to run a deficit in order to keep Canadians on track.

Unlike the government opposite when it was faced with a deficit, we did not slash transfers to the provinces for health, social services and education. We are determined to balance the budget by growing the economy and without increasing taxes. We are on track to do that to keep Canada going in the right direction. Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to Bill C-4 , the government's latest budget implementation bill.

The bill fails to address the very real challenges faced by the middle class in Canada. [ Translation ] This bill does little to help middle-class families in Canada. [ English ] First and foremost, this bill does nothing to create good paying jobs for Canadians. Middle-class Canadians are worried about their finances. They ought to be, because they face record levels of personal debt, amounting to $1.66 for every dollar of annual income. They are struggling to make ends meet when interest rates are low. They are petrified to think of what will happen in the future if interest rates start to rise at some point.

One of the driving forces behind this accumulation of household debt is the direct financial subsidization of adult children who cannot yet make it on their own. These are young people between the ages of 25 to 35 who are living at home and unable to pay rent. In fact, 43% of Canadian families have directly financially subsidized young people who have lived for extended periods of time at home with them because they cannot make ends meet.

Young Canadians have been left behind during this so-called economic recovery; they have 225,000 fewer jobs than before the downturn. [ Translation ] Bill C-4 does nothing to help young Canadians find jobs, even though the youth unemployment and underemployment rates are higher than they were before the recession. [ English ] Instead of supporting job creation for young Canadians, a number of items in Bill C-4 would put existing jobs at risk. This bill phases out the labour-sponsored venture capital corporation tax credit. These venture funds help small business start-ups grow and create good jobs for Canadians.

They are particularly important in Quebec. [ Translation ] All of the chambers of commerce in Quebec are against these changes. [ English ] However, it is important to realize that the impacts of these labour-sponsored funds and investments, many of which are based in Quebec, benefit small business across the country, in start-ups, technology companies, biotech, cleantech, and certainly the jobs of tomorrow. The provinces that have labour-sponsored venture capital funds include B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Bill C-4 would cut the tax incentives for those labour-sponsored venture capital funds by half, endangering not only their business model but also the businesses that rely on that venture capital to grow and create jobs. The government has said that the reason it is doing this is because it is bringing in the VCAP, the venture capital action plan, The problem is that the VCAP is not up and running yet. Therefore, the government is actually destroying one source of venture capital, the labour-sponsored venture capital source, without having a new program that is running. It is creating a vacuum in funding.

That funding is extremely important to create innovation, commercialization, and jobs of today and tomorrow for young Canadians, exactly the kind of jobs we ought to be focused on. Again, this is like the government with its jobs training program that it introduced shortly after the last budget. In fact, it is still not running. It forgot to talk to the provinces. Therefore, there is no jobs training program. It spent millions of dollars on advertising it, but there is no program.

This is a government that invests money in self-promotion, but does not get the job done when it comes to putting in place the kinds of measures to create jobs, good training and to close the job skills gap. The government is more interested in promoting activities as opposed to getting the job done. In terms of the mining sector, Bill C-4 reduces tax incentives for Canadian mining companies, which will severely hurt Canada's competitiveness in an important global industry where Canada is seen as an international leader. Canada's mining sector is an important source of good paying jobs for Canadians.

These measures in Bill C-4 would put Canadian jobs, particularly in rural and remote communities, at risk. These are communities that are struggling. Rural Canada is struggling. This is no time to reduce the support for and incentives for investments in mining, particularly at a time when the mining industry faces huge challenges globally.

(1355) In terms of employment insurance rates, the Conservatives claim that the proposed changes to EI rates are going to be good for the Canadian economy. Certainly extending the EI hiring credit is an initiative that we do support, but this credit has been in place for three years and young Canadians are still struggling to find good work. Clearly, this measure is not strong enough to kick-start the economy, particularly in terms of opportunities for young Canadians. However, Bill C-4 also freezes EI rates, which at first glance may seem like a good idea.

When EI rates are going up, it may be good for small businesses and good for workers to freeze EI rates. We now know that the EI account will be balanced in 2015 instead of 2016, and ultimately would be able to start falling after that, left to its own devices. The problem is that the Conservatives had promised to set EI rates at a break-even rate as soon as the EI account is balanced. However, Bill C-4 actually breaks that promise by freezing EI rates until the end of 2016, instead of them being allowed to fall naturally commensurate with the account being in balance.

As a result, Canadians will pay an extra $5.6 billion more than what is required to balance the EI account. That is an extra $5.6 billion over two years that we should be using to keep in the pockets of Canadians and Canadian small businesses in order to create jobs during a time of significant unemployment and underemployment in Canada. This legislation has a large number of measures that have nothing to do whatsoever with the budget or the fiscal framework. They do not belong in a budget bill. This legislation amends the rules for appointments to the Supreme Court.

With Bill C-4 , the Conservatives created this farce whereby the finance committee was tasked with making decisions on the selection process for the Supreme Court of Canada. What is next? Are we going to be having members of the justice committee making decisions on government-wide fiscal policy? Bill C-4 amends the Conflict of Interest Act to allow cabinet to designate one person or class of persons as public office holders or reporting public office officers.

We have even heard from the Prime Minister 's former chief of staff, Guy Giorno, who was so concerned about this part of Bill C-4 that he wrote to MPs on the finance committee. This is what Mr. Giorno had to say about the measures in

part 3, division 15, of Bill C-4: Cabinet's power to designate new public office holders and reporting public office holders would be unlimited and far-reaching. The bill would place no restrictions on cabinet's power to designate individuals and classes of individuals as subject to the Act. Virtually anyone could be designated as subject to the Conflict of Interest Act at any point during his or her employment or tenure in office. The government has not indicated who, if anyone, might be designated if these provisions are passed and come into force. The Budget is silent on this point.

In fact, the Budget Plan did not even suggest that the Conflict of Interest Act should be amended. Mr. Giorno makes some very clear points as to why this may be the wrong direction, but the finance committee is not the best committee to actually deal with this kind of issue or the process around the appointments to the Supreme Court. The changes to the Labour Code in the bill ought to have been dealt with at another committee. They were broad, sweeping and controversial and ought not be dealt with by the House of Commons finance committee.

Again, there are changes to the numbers of members of the veterans review board. The government continues to demonstrate disrespect for Parliament, parliamentarians and the people who elect us. Conservative members and opposition members have a responsibility to defend their right to do their jobs and to study legislation. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Statements by Members (1400) [ English ] World War II Heroes Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to honour two Chilliwack heroes, Flying Officer Dave Barrett and Warrant Officer Bernie McNicholl, for their service in Bomber Command operations during World War II. Flying Officer Barrett was a pilot in Mosquito bombers with the Pathfinders, flying ahead of the bomber squadrons to light up the target areas. Warrant Office McNicholl was a rear gunner on a Halifax heavy bomber, where he completed 38 operations over enemy territory, an incredible feat, considering that nearly half of all air crew in Bomber Command never made it to the end of their tour.

My late grandfather, Bill Strahl, joined the Royal Canadian Air Force during World War II, so it was a special privilege to meet and honour these two RCAF heroes and present them with their Bomber Command honours. Approximately 50,000 Canadians served with the RCAF and the RAF in Bomber Command operations over occupied Europe in one of Canada's most significant contributions to the Second World War effort. We will never forget their service and sacrifice. [ Translation ] Community Housing Project Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I rise in the House today to reiterate my support for a community housing project called Envolée des mères, which is particularly close to my heart. This project helps young single mothers in the region and is backed by the Drummondville organization Partance. Together, we want to help improve the quality of life of low-income single mothers who want to return to school or re-enter the labour market. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are giving up on social housing by putting an end to long-term funding for the social housing stock in Canada.

The NDP will always be guided by the legacy of Jack Layton, who was a staunch defender of the right to housing. That is why I am proud to financially support this project. Jack Layton will be immortalized in Drummond, where a housing unit will bear his name. Some hon. members: Hear, hear! Mr. François Choquette: I also want to acknowledge Dominique Chevalier and the Rotary Club for the work they have done on this project that brings the whole community together. [ English ] Citizen from Bolton Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to congratulate Bolton resident, William J.

Coyle, on his appointment as honorary colonel of 16 Wing Headquarters Borden and on receiving an honorary doctorate from the Royal Military College of Canada. Bill has dedicated himself to serving his country, and we appreciate the countless contributions he has made during his long and distinguished career. These recent honours underscore his lifelong pursuit of personal excellence and outstanding service. We as a community celebrate his many achievements with him.

The 16 Wing headquarters will significantly benefit from Bill's considerable knowledge, immense experience and exceptional enthusiasm for the Canadian Forces. This Honorary Doctorate is an incredible achievement and an enormous distinction, from one of Canada's most prestigious educational institutions. Caledon is very proud of Bill's success. On behalf of the Government of Canada and the residents of Dufferin—Caledon , I would like to express my sincerest congratulations on these very special honours. Women in Sport Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, Sports Day in Canada was held November 30, in communities from coast to coast to coast, to celebrate the power of sport, from grassroots to high performance, and to build community and national spirit and facilitate healthy living. Canada must continue to deliver sport programs that meet the needs of girls and women, if we want to develop fit, self-confident girls and women across their lifespan. As in other areas of Canadian life, we need more women on boards, in this case of national sports organizations.

Although we have made good strides in women achieving Olympic success, we still have low numbers of women coaches at the high performance level: college, university and national teams. We must focus on attracting more women into coaching and officiating. I know all of us in this House look forward to the Sochi Olympics and Paralympics and a new generation of female role models to celebrate.

(1405) Seniors in Elmwood-Transcona Mr. Lawrence Toet (Elmwood—Transcona, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the many seniors in Elmwood—Transcona who have worked hard and helped make our country great, as well as the organizations helping them to stay active, healthy and engaged in the community. I would like to acknowledge the great work of the Transcona Council for Seniors, the Elmwood-East Kildonan Senior Centre and the Good Neighbours Active Living Centre. These organizations provide classes in activities such as cooking, art, exercise and woodworking.

They also provide assistance with transportation, serve as gathering places and are an exceptional means of support for seniors in Elmwood—Transcona . I would especially like to recognize one senior in particular, Juno Beach veteran Paul Martin, who upon his return from the war served his community in many roles over the years, including as mayor. Most important, he has given presentations for the last 30 years to students about the importance of Remembrance Day. Sadly, at the age of 93, he recently said he would be giving his last presentation to the students at École Centrale.

Paul Martin is a shining example of what community commitment is all about. God bless Paul. Cliff Chadderton Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness I rise in the House of Commons today to announce the passing of one of Canada's greatest citizens, Mr. Cliff Chadderton. Mr. Chadderton was born in Fort William, Ontario, and was raised in Winnipeg. In 1939, he joined the Royal Winnipeg Rifles. He fought for his country with great valour and distinction, being wounded twice. He said, “I left my leg in that beautiful country of The Netherlands”.

When he came back, he was a tireless advocate for all veterans and for children with disabilities, and he helped start the War Amps society. He was also chair of the National Council of Veterans Associations in Canada. He received many awards, including the Terry Fox Hall of Fame, the Canada Veterans Hall of Valour, the Companion of the Order of Canada and the Legion of Honour from France. Mr. Chadderton was a true Canadian, in that he sacrificed so much of his own personal life to help those citizens around him, especially those children with disabilities.

That is why I encourage every Canadian to recognize and honour this man by joining up with the War Amps and getting a key chain with a key tag so that children with disabilities can be helped. Mr. Chadderton, indeed, was a true hero. On behalf of the House of Commons, I extend our sincere condolences to his family and friends and say, “Lest we forget”. 150th Anniversary of Huron University College Mrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House, today, to extend congratulations, on behalf of the Government of Canada, to London's Huron University College on its 150th birthday. Over the years, Huron College has established a reputation for being one of Canada's leading liberal arts colleges. Chosen by many for its charming campus, diverse and inclusive student body, and academic excellence, Huron has always stood out as a leader in post-secondary education. During my time as an MP, I have been privileged to work with Dr.

Stephen McClatchie, principal of Huron College, and so many remarkable Huron students, graduates and alumni. In fact, I happen to have a Huron graduate right here in my own office in Ottawa. Congratulations to Huron University College and all who are gathered in London today to celebrate this tremendous milestone. I am honoured to have Huron College in my riding of London North Centre. May the next 150 years be as meaningful and inspiring as the past 150. Turkic Canadian Convention Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize Anatolian Heritage Federation, as it hosts its first annual convention today at the Marriott Hotel. Its annual receptions have been great successes and have brought together a wide range of Canadian and Turkic stakeholders. Although our two countries already collaborate as long-standing allies in NATO and co-operate in various multilateral forums, they have not met their full potential.

The first Turkic Canadian Convention intends to establish a framework for bilateral relations, with two discussion panels, a luncheon with dignitaries, and a reception to celebrate Turkic heritage in Canada. Hopefully, this will become a landmark annual event showcasing Turkic-Canadian solidarity. As the chair of the Canada-Turkey Friendship Group, I once again congratulate the Anatolian Heritage Federation for all its hard work. I wish it continued success today and in all its future endeavours. (1410) [ Translation ] Montcalm Fundraising Campaign Ms. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the traditional charity fundraising campaign held in Quebec in December. Every year, thousands of volunteers across Quebec turn out to collect non-perishable food items and cash donations in order to help families going through hard times. In Montcalm, the fundraising campaign is always an opportunity to work together, share, help out and, above all, cultivate friendships. Yesterday, my husband and I went to help a group working out of the Émilie-Gamelin parish in Saint-Lin-Laurentides.

We met compassionate people who, in their own way, encourage every volunteer to do their best. I have a great deal of respect for their dedicated efforts. They work tirelessly to help young families, seniors and people with disabilities. I must also mention the organization Parenfants de Mascouche, whose mission is to help and to nurture the development of young vulnerable families. I sincerely ask my colleagues to be generous so that, together, we can make real change happen. [ English ] Member for Scarborough—Agincourt Mr. Rob Clarke (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party has decided to keep his veterans' spokesman even after that Liberal MP slammed veterans as recently as last week. In the latest gaffe he said: A lot of the veterans were in the army. We taught them one skill: to kill or be killed, to survive in order to be able to kill tomorrow.... Who could forget the same Liberal MP going on national television on Remembrance Day, saying that giving money to injured veterans was: ...like hanging a case of beer in front of a drunk.... They get the lump sum, they go and spend it,...on booze or addiction.

As a veteran of the RCMP who, like many other military veterans, struggles with PTSD every day, I find these comments to be disrespectful and uninformed. This may be how the Liberal Party feels, but Canadians know veterans can be, and should be, trusted to manage their own finances. Canadians also know veterans have remarkable skills and experiences that organizations across all sectors would be lucky to have. Why does the Liberal Party not know it? I call on the leader of the Liberal Party to remove his spokesman immediately. [ Translation ] Montreal's Filipino Community Ms.

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, after the devastating typhoon struck the Philippines, Montreal's Filipino community mobilized to help the victims. [ English ] In Pierrefonds—Dollard, the seniors of the West Island suburbs organized a clothing drive and a bowling tournament to raise funds. What is more, the Filipino-Canadian Association of West Island mobilized its members and the West Island community by launching an appeal for donations to Typhoon Haiyan relief.

Also in the West Island, Filipino women's group, PINAY, held a spaghetti fundraiser at the Beaconsfield United Church. The Filipino community of St. John Fisher Parish Catholic Church will be hosting a fundraising event on December 14. [ Translation ] For its part, the Filipino Association of Montreal and Suburbs is collecting money and clothing for the victims. It is also organizing a benefit concert in Montreal this Friday. I congratulate Montreal's Filipino community on its dedication.

I invite everyone to show their support for these exemplary humanitarian efforts. [ English ] I thank them for their hard work and donations. [ Translation ] Champlain Bridge Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the hon. Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec made an important announcement about the future of the current Champlain Bridge.

On the weekend, a team of skilled engineers set out to install a superbeam, an exceptional bit of maintenance work that went off without a hitch. This allowed traffic to return to normal, which will help people who use the bridge get to work on time and maximize their time with their families. Our government has also announced that the new bridge over the St. Lawrence will be delivered in 2018 instead of 2021. What is more, the architectural criteria will be established by an engineering firm in Montreal in collaboration with a world-renowned Danish expert.

These new developments address the concerns of the Montreal community and are another testament to our government's determination to ensure the viability of the current bridge and to have a new bridge built as soon as possible. [ English ] Medals of Bravery Ms. Judy Foote (Random—Burin—St. George's, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate constituents Captain Frank Skinner from Burgeo, Ben Savory from P