Bill C-10 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2009

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures

Part 1 implements income tax measures proposed in the January 27, 2009 Budget. In particular, it
(a) increases by 7.5% above their 2008 levels the basic personal amount and the upper limits for the two lowest personal income tax brackets, thereby also increasing the income levels at which income testing begins for the base benefit under the Canada Child Tax Credit and the National Child Benefit supplement;
(b) increases by $1,000 the amount on which the Age Credit is calculated;
(c) increases to $25,000 the maximum amount eligible for withdrawal under the Home Buyers’ Plan;
(d) introduces amendments to the rules related to Registered Retirement Savings Plans and Registered Retirement Income Funds to allow for recognition of losses in accounts between the time of the annuitant’s death and final distribution of property from the account;
(e) repeals the interest deductibility constraints in section 18.2 of the Income Tax Act;
(f) extends the mineral exploration tax credit for one year;
(g) increases to $500,000 the annual amount of active business income eligible for the 11% small business income tax rate and makes related amendments;
(h) clarifies rules relating to timing of acquisition of control of a corporation; and
(i) creates cost savings through electronic filing of tax information.
In addition, Part 1 implements income tax measures that were referenced in the January 27, 2009 Budget and that were originally proposed in the February 26, 2008 Budget but not included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2008. In particular, it
(a) clarifies the application of the excess corporate holdings rules for private foundations;
(b) increases the amount that corporations will be able to pay as “eligible dividends”;
(c) enacts several regulatory amendments that complement and complete measures enacted in the Budget Implementation Act, 2008;
(d) introduces minor adjustments to the Tax-Free Savings Account rules and the scientific research and experimental development investment tax credit rules included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2008;
(e) implements rules in respect of donations of medicines; and
(f) reduces the paper burden on businesses by allowing a larger number of government entities to share Business Number-related information in connection with government programs and services.
Part 1 also implements other income tax measures referred to in the January 27, 2009 Budget that either were themselves previously announced or flow directly from previously announced measures. In particular, it
(a) implements technical changes relating to specified investment flow-through trusts and partnerships and new tax rules to facilitate the conversion of these entities into corporations;
(b) contains amendments to take into account financial institution accounting changes;
(c) extends the general treatment of capital gains and losses on an acquisition of control of a corporation to gains and losses that result from fluctuations in foreign exchange rates in respect of debt denominated in foreign currency;
(d) enhances the carry-forward for investment tax credits;
(e) implements amendments relating to the computation of income, gains and losses of a foreign affiliate;
(f) implements amendments to the functional currency tax reporting rules;
(g) implements minor tax amendments relating to interprovincial allocation of corporate taxable income, the Wage Earner Protection Program and the Canada-United States tax treaty’s rules for cross-border pensions;
(h) provides for an extension of time for income tax assessments that are consequential to provincial reassessments;
(i) ensures the appropriate application of the Income Tax Act’s trust rules to certain arrangements and institutions under Quebec civil law;
(j) enacts regulatory amendments relating to prescribed amounts for automobile expenses and benefits, eligible medical expenses, and the tax treatment of foreign affiliate active business income earned in a jurisdiction with which Canada has concluded a tax information exchange agreement;
(k) introduces rules to reduce the required minimum amount that must be withdrawn from a Registered Retirement Income Fund or from a variable benefit money purchase pension plan by 25% for 2008, and allows related re-contributions;
(l) extends the deadline for Registered Disability Savings Plan contributions; and
(m) modifies the provisions relating to amateur athletic trusts.
Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Tax Act to implement measures to reduce the paper burden on businesses by allowing a larger number of government entities to share Business Number-related information in connection with government programs and services.
Part 3 amends the Customs Tariff to implement measures announced in the January 27, 2009 Budget to
(a) reduce Most-Favoured-Nation rates of duty and, if applicable, rates of duty under other tariff treatments on a number of tariff items relating to machinery and equipment imported on or after January 28, 2009;
(b) divide tariff item 9801.10.00 into two separate tariff items pertaining to conveyances and containers, respectively, and make two technical corrections, effective January 28, 2009; and
(c) modify the tariff treatment of milk protein substances, effective September 8, 2008.
Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act until September 11, 2010 to extend regular benefit entitlements by five weeks. It also provides that a pilot project ceases to have effect. In addition, it amends that Act to provide that the cost of benefit enhancement measures under that Act, provided for in the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009, are not to be charged to the Employment Insurance Account. Finally, it sets the premium rate provided for under that Act for the years 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2010.
Division 1 of Part 5 amends the Financial Administration Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to take, subject to certain conditions, a number of measures intended to promote the stability or maintain the efficiency of the financial system, including financial markets, in Canada.
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to provide the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation with greater flexibility to enhance its ability to safeguard financial stability in Canada. The Division also adds Tax-Free Saving Accounts as a distinct category for the purposes of deposit insurance. It also makes consequential amendments to other acts.
Division 3 of Part 5 amends the Export Development Act to, among other things, expand the Export Development Corporation’s mandate to include the support and development of domestic trade and business opportunities for a period of two years. The period may be extended by the Governor in Council. Division 3 also increases the Corporation’s authorized capital.
Division 4 of Part 5 amends the Business Development Bank of Canada Act to increase the maximum amount of the paid-in capital of the Business Development Bank of Canada.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Canada Small Business Financing Act to increase the maximum outstanding loan amount in relation to a borrower. It also increases individual lenders’ cap on claims. These amendments will apply to new loans made after March 31, 2009.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends a number of Acts governing federal financial institutions to improve access to credit and strengthen the financial system in Canada, including amendments that will
(a) provide new authority for further safeguards to promote the stability of the financial system;
(b) enhance consumer protection by establishing new measures to help consumers of financial products; and
(c) implement other technical measures to strengthen the financial sector framework in Canada.
Division 7 of Part 5 provides for payments to be made to provinces and territories, provides authority to the Minister of Finance to enter into agreements respecting securities regulation with provinces and territories and enacts the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act.
Part 6 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for various purposes, including infrastructure and housing.
Part 7 amends Part I of the Navigable Waters Protection Act to create a tiered approval process for works in order to streamline the approval process and to exclude certain classes of works and works on certain classes of navigable waters from the approval process. This Part further amends Part I of the Act to clarify the scope of the application of that Part to works owned or previously owned by the Crown, to provide for the application of the Act to bridges over the St. Lawrence River and to add certain regulation-making powers.
Part 7 also amends the Act to clarify the provisions related to obstacles and obstructions to navigation. The Act is also amended by adding administration and enforcement powers, consolidating all offence provisions, increasing fines and requiring a review of the Act within five years of the amendments coming into force.
Division 1 of Part 8 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act and the Wage Earner Protection Program Regulations to provide that unpaid wages for which an individual may receive payment under the Wage Earner Protection Program include unpaid severance pay and termination pay.
Division 2 of Part 8 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to, among other things,
(a) require the Chief Actuary of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to report on financial assistance provided under that Act; and
(b) authorize the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to suspend or deny financial assistance to all those who are qualifying students in respect of a designated educational institution.
Division 2 of Part 8 also amends both the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and the Canada Student Loans Act to, among other things,
(a) terminate all obligations of a borrower with respect to risk-shared loans and guaranteed loans if the borrower dies;
(b) authorize the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to require any person who has received financial assistance or a guaranteed student loan to provide that Minister with documents or information for the purpose of verifying compliance with those Acts; and
(c) authorize that Minister to terminate or deny financial assistance in certain circumstances.
Division 3 of Part 8 amends the Financial Administration Act to provide express authority for agent Crown corporations to lease their property, restrict the appointment of employees of a Crown corporation to its board of directors, require Crown corporations to hold annual public meetings, clarify Treasury Board’s duties to indemnify Crown corporation directors and officers, permit more flexibility in the frequency of special examinations of Crown corporations, and require the reports of special examinations to be submitted to the appropriate Minister and Treasury Board and made public. This Division also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 9 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to set out the amount of the fiscal equalization payments to the provinces for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2009 and amends the method by which fiscal equalization payments will be calculated for subsequent fiscal years. It also amends the method by which the Canada Health Transfer is calculated for each fiscal year in the period beginning on April 1, 2009 and ending on March 31, 2014.
Part 10 enacts the Expenditure Restraint Act. The purpose of that Act is to put in place a reasonable and an affordable approach to compensation across the federal public sector in support of responsible fiscal management in a difficult economic environment.
It sets out rules governing economic increases to the rates of pay of unionized and non-unionized employees for periods that begin during the period that begins on April 1, 2006 and ends on March 31, 2011. It also continues certain other terms and conditions at their current levels. It preserves the right of collective bargaining with regard to other matters and it does not affect the right to strike.
The Act does not preclude the continued development of workplace improvements by employers and employees’ bargaining agents through the National Joint Council or other bodies that they may agree on. It also permits bargaining agents and employers to agree to the amendment of certain terms and conditions of collective agreements or arbitral awards.
Part 11 enacts the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that proactive measures are taken to provide employees in female predominant job groups with equitable compensation.
It requires public sector employers that have non-unionized employees to determine periodically whether any equitable compensation matters exist in the workplace and, if so, to prepare a plan to resolve them. With respect to public sector employers that have unionized employees, the employers and the bargaining agents are to resolve those matters through the collective bargaining process.
It sets out the procedure for informing employees as to whether an equitable compensation assessment was required to be conducted and, if so, how it was conducted, and how any equitable compensation matters were resolved. It also establishes a recourse process for employees if the Act is not complied with.
Finally, since the Act puts in place a comprehensive equitable compensation scheme for public sector employees, this Part amends the Canadian Human Rights Act so that the provisions of that Act dealing with gender-based wage discrimination no longer apply to public sector employers. It extends the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations Board to allow it to hear equitable compensation complaints and to provide other services related to equitable compensation in the public sector.
Part 12 amends the Competition Act. The amendments include
(a) introducing a dual-track approach to agreements between competitors, with a limited criminal anti-cartel provision and a civil provision to address other agreements that substantially lessen or prevent competition;
(b) providing that bid-rigging includes agreements or arrangements to withdraw bids or tenders;
(c) repealing the provisions dealing with price discrimination and predatory pricing, replacing the criminal resale price maintenance provision with a new civil provision to address price maintenance practices that have an adverse effect on competition, and repealing all provisions dealing specifically with the airline industry;
(d) introducing an administrative monetary penalty for cases of abuse of dominant position, increasing the maximum amount of administrative monetary penalties for deceptive marketing cases, and increasing the maximum fines or terms of imprisonment, or both, for agreements or arrangements between competitors, bid-rigging, criminal false or misleading representations, deceptive telemarketing, deceptive notice of winning a prize, obstruction of Competition Bureau investigations and failure to comply with prohibition orders or production orders;
(e) clarifying that, in proceedings under section 52, 74.01 or 74.02, it is not necessary to establish that false or misleading representations are made to the public in Canada or are made in a place to which the public has access, and clarifying that the “general impression test” applies to all deceptive marketing practices in sections 74.01 and 74.02;
(f) providing that the court may make an order in respect of cases of false or misleading representations to require the person who engaged in the conduct to compensate persons affected by the conduct, and may issue an interim injunction to freeze assets if the Commissioner of Competition intends to ask for such a compensation order; and
(g) introducing a two-stage merger review process for notifiable transactions, increased merger pre-notification thresholds and a reduced merger review limitation period.
Part 13 amends the Investment Canada Act so that the review of an investment will be applied only to the more significant investments. It also amends the Act to allow more information to be made public. This Part also provides for the review of foreign investments in Canada that could threaten national security and allows the Governor in Council to take any measures that the Governor in Council considers advisable to protect national security, such as prohibiting a non-Canadian from implementing an investment.
Part 14 amends the Canada Transportation Act to provide the Governor in Council with flexibility to increase the foreign ownership limit from the existing levels to a maximum of 49%.
Part 15 amends the Air Canada Public Participation Act in relation to the mandatory provisions in the articles of Air Canada regarding constraints imposed on the issue, transfer and ownership of shares. It provides for the repeal of the provisions requiring that the articles of Air Canada contain provisions imposing limits on non-resident share ownership and the repeal of the provisions requiring that the articles of Air Canada contain provisions respecting the enforcement of these constraints.

Opposition Motion--Municipal Infrastructure

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to contribute to the debate on this motion from the hon. colleague. I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont.

I think we should start the debate by talking about why we are in the situation we are and by understanding what is happening globally, because if we do not understand that and deal with this motion in that context, we are going to miss exactly what we are trying to do. We will get into the gutter and start playing politics, as petty as they can become in the House.

Let me try this out for a bit. We have to understand how the banking system in the Unites States has failed and how the asset-backed commercial paper and mortgages in the United States have collapsed and brought us into this situation. It is not only in the United States; it has rippled into the banking systems in Europe and Asia. We are not immune to it, because America is our largest trading partner.

This is a global slowdown. It is not something that has happened just to us. It is not something we caused or asked for or had any part in promoting in any way. However, we nonetheless have to deal with it. We have to deal with it collectively, because any stimulus money that is put into the American, European or Asian economies will not spin us out of the global slowdown if it is not done collectively. It is only if we put our collective efforts together as the G20 and do it respectively in each of our countries that we will see Canadians, Americans, Europeans, Asians and so on go back to work. Then we will spin our way out of this situation.

Failing to do this, we will see a repeat of what happened in the 1930s. Hopefully we have learned from history and we will work collectively to get out of this slowdown. We have to look at the stimulus package in that light.

It is not that this is our first stimulation package. This is the second one. As the world economy was slowing down, the first package we saw started in the fall of 2007 with a $200 billion stimulation package. This package included lowering the GST from 7% to 5%, implementing child tax credits and putting $100 per child into the hands of ordinary Canadians for child care, lowering corporate taxes to 15% and lowering small business taxes to 11%. These agendas were started long before we got into what was recognized by the world as an international economic slowdown.

We have to understand that what we are trying to do with the infrastructure and stimulus funding is actually twofold. First of all, we have to put Canadians back to work with their own money. We have to do it now, because they are losing jobs at the present time. However, we have to do more than that. We have to build an infrastructure that will prepare us to compete and be productive long into the 21st century and long after the current economic slowdown has passed.

That is why we are putting money into transit which is green. It not only improves the quality of the systems that get individuals to and fro in our major urban settings, but it is also environmentally friendly and it allows us to breathe cleaner air. We are also putting money into waste water, making sure that we have cleaner water. We are also making sure that we have green projects, that we have the very best of municipal waste disposal systems in the world, the best coal-burning and biofuel facilities in the world and the ability to create energy from those cellulosic and forest sectors and other opportunities that we have.

If we can do that with our infrastructure money, we will not be playing that petty game of who gets the most, which municipalities win and which municipalities lose. This will sustain us well into the 21st century. Everyone in Canada will win and we can be very proud of the technologies we design and the progress that we make.

We started this stimulus package three years ago. We came into power with the understanding that the infrastructure across the country was deteriorating and we had to do something about it. We put forward a $33 billion infrastructure program. That program is being built on with our action plan, which is another $12 billion. That $12 billion is split up a number of different ways. We have $4 billion in infrastructure stimulus funding.

One of the magic parts of this economic action plan, which I appreciate the opposition supporting, is the concept of use it or lose it. If we are going to stimulate the economy, we have to do it now and create the jobs when jobs are being lost. If we do not include the concept of use it or lose it, the money will go out beyond the time when it would be of appropriate use, not on the infrastructure side but on the stimulus side. It has to be done now and it has to be in new projects.

We are not prepared to put money into the hands of the municipalities or give them blank cheques and tell them they can spend whatever they want, because they would just balance their books on the backs of the federal government. They would not use the money as a stimulus for creating new projects. This money has to be used to stimulate the economy, to put Canadians back to work and to create jobs that would not normally be there.

Also, there is $2 billion to accelerate the construction of colleges and universities across the country. Canada has nothing to hide or to be ashamed of when it comes to post-secondary education. We are number one in the world when it comes to post-secondary graduates, but we can do better. We can keep on top of this agenda. When our young people are educated properly and have the best facilities to obtain that education, we will win in the 21st century. We have to put money into the high tech part of it and make sure our universities are creating the very brightest and best. Our future is based on the strength of our educational system and our youth. We are very pleased to be able to put $2 billion into that.

There is another $1 billion for the green infrastructure projects. This goes right to the visit of the President of the United States, who was here last week. He told Canada that he is very interested in the carbon capture and sequestration programs. We have to make sure that we are not only using fossil fuels in the cleanest way possible, and developing technologies that we can sell internationally, but that we are also working together to make sure that technology works.

As well, dealing with coal, which is another source of energy, we realize that if we are going to keep our GDP growing and our economic growth the same in the next 30 years as we have in the last 30, we have to double the amount of energy in that time period. Doubling the amount of energy in a clean, environmentally effective way is no small task. It is something that all of us have to look at intelligently. We have to do it in a way that understands the politics of the world. A lot of the fossil fuels come from unstable political regimes such as in the Middle East, Venezuela and so on. These are the challenges of North America and we can meet those challenges.

There is another $500 million in support for construction of new community recreational facilities. We were very proud, as were all Canadians, when a lot of these rinks were built for our centennial anniversary in 1967, but they are getting old. They need refurbishing. This infrastructure funding is there to help build centres for cultural and other activities in the small communities across the country, from one coast to the other. We are very proud of that and it is something that is needed to sustain the infrastructure in the local communities.

We are going to do it, which goes to the essence of question in the motion before us that we are debating. How are we going to get the money out? How are we going to do it effectively? We are going to be working with the provinces to be make sure that we fast-track key infrastructure projects.

For example, part of the infrastructure project is a base fund of $25 million over a five year period. Every province gets the same: $25 million. That is $175 million over seven years per province. We are not going to wait for seven years before we spend it. We are going to accelerate that so the provinces can spend that $175 million right now. They can do it on good projects that are based on criteria set by municipal and provincial governments. It is leveraged three to one, so we are going to see not only federal money but also municipal and provincial money going into those accelerated funds to build capacity for more employment and more infrastructure.

It is timely, very important and smart to do this kind of spending at this time because there is better competition in the bidding process for the jobs that are out there right now. I was talking to a number of the premiers. I was talking to one premier's office last week and I will be talking to another one this afternoon. What I am hearing right across the country is that the competitive bidding process is better today than it was a year ago. In fact some are telling me it is 25% to 30% better. Our dollar is going to go much further and we are going to be able to build more infrastructure because of the way we are doing it and the time in which we are doing it.

Let us do it smartly. Let us clean out some of the hindrances that we have seen. That is why in Bill C-10 there is a portion dealing with the Navigable Waters Protection Act to make sure that we get a lot of the bureaucracy out of the way, deal with the appropriate places where the environment is compromised, and not be so phobic about some of the things that are ridiculous under the act. We are going to change the definition of navigable waters. We do not want to duplicate environmental studies. We want to make sure that we do the appropriate study on that.

This government is building a tremendous amount of infrastructure projects at the present time and we are going to continue to do a lot more. I ask all members to please stay tuned.

Finance

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures.

The Economy

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can bluster or indeed move over as far as he wants in talking to it. It will have no effect.

The simple fact of the matter is that in the survey of business, which was contained in The Globe and Mail on Monday, the universal view of business leaders was very clear. That universal view was their main concern, their principal preoccupation, was the absence of credit. It is the lack of credit which is choking our system.

The simple question is this. Why are the credit measures that he talks about, that he blusters about and throws in front of us, not contained in Bill C-10?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Around the world business leaders are indicating that the key issue for them is credit. Last night the President of the United States repeated this point when he said that the lifeblood of the new economy was credit.

Could the Minister of Finance please explain to us why there is no reference to this question and why did the government not deal with this question in Bill C-10?

Automotive Industry

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gets worse. There is no leadership from the government today and yesterday the Minister of Finance demonstrated that he does not understand his own budget.

It is clear the Canadian secured credit facility is not in Bill C-10 but it can and must be implemented by the Conservative without further delay. It did it for the banks last November. Why can it not do it now for the auto sector and consumers? Canadians will lease or purchase cars if they have access to credit, which is the other side of the auto industry solution.

Will the minister commit to the immediate creation of this credit facility?

Opposition Motion—Securities Commission and Equalization

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the speech by my colleague from Trois-Rivières, who is as clear as ever. I have one brief question to ask her. Is it not a little surprising that it has been decided to include in Bill C-10 implementing the budget a clause establishing a securities commission?

Is this not the vengeance or influence of the Ontario lobby, which will have the support of the Conservative members from Quebec? In the end, there was no connection to the economic crisis, as was recognized by the OECD and by the person responsible on the committee that introduced the bank papers solution. Are we not faced here with a situation where the federal government, both Conservatives and Liberals, has decided to take advantage of a budget implementation act to propose a centralizing motion? Is this not a very concrete example that here only the Bloc Québécois is defending the real interests of Quebec?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that clause 314 of Bill C-10 be amended by replacing line 17 on page 290 with the following: except those requiring contributions from other levels of government, a sum not exceeding twenty-five million

You will note on page 290 of Bill C-10 that this is the clause that deals with housing for persons with disabilities, a matter very close to my heart and on which I could wax eloquent for hours, but I won't. I will keep this down to a few minutes, but I do want to emphasize it, because it is a very serious matter.

My colleague from the Bloc just reminded me that I should help explain what the amendment actually does.

What it in fact does is take out the sentence that comes in the way of the rapid flow of money to the group in question, in this case people with disabilities. It takes away the words “in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board”, because those are the words that allow the government to continue down this path of demanding that the money be cost-shared, or that the money available be met equally by provinces or municipalities.

We have argued from day one that that is inappropriate on all counts. We have referred to the past experience of the federal government on this matter of allocating money for investment in serious infrastructure and other programs, only to see the money not flow because of all of these requirements of matching funds and bureaucratic red tape and federal government interference.

The Liberals have said this is a major issue. They're the ones who in this committee and in Parliament have waxed eloquent about the failure of federal dollars to flow for infrastructure projects. In fact, they've said themselves that in the past 96% of federal dollars have not flowed.

My colleague Mike Wallace asks me whether I believe them. Yes, I do believe them. In fact, time and again we've seen good projects sitting on the shelf, gathering dust while the need keeps growing, because of all of these requirements.

What we're simply saying is, let's allow the money to flow. Yes, set broad conditions; obviously set conditions when it comes to the targeted group that the policy is directed to, in this case people living with disabilities, for whom the need is huge and who feel totally left out of the government's plan to deal with the economic recession. They acknowledge that a few steps have been taken and that there have been some important programs, but nothing that meets the need at all of people living with disabilities.

I don't know about my colleagues, but I've had all kinds of letters—maybe it's because I am the critic for persons living with disabilities in my party—from individuals asking how it is that, under this budget, a middle-class or a wealthy person can get money to build a deck on their cottage, but that they can't get their home retrofitted to make it accessible for people with disabilities. Or they wonder, “How is it that I'm basically living hand to mouth in totally deplorable housing conditions—in a rooming house, with no standard of care, with no proper, decent living conditions—and there are no programs for me to access?” The issues are real. People living with disabilities—as is the case with seniors—are more vulnerable than most people at times of economic recession. They don't have the savings; they don't have the backing; many of them don't have relatives around looking after them. They're on their own. They fall between the cracks.

The small steps that are taken in this budget are not to be dissed; they are important. I don't think they're nearly enough. If you look at the amounts on page 136 of the government plans, housing for persons with disabilities—$25 million in the first year, $50 million in the next, and $75 million in the next—it's pretty small potatoes in the scheme of things, but it's better than nothing.

But then to have that tied up in red tape without certainty that it will flow and to require that it be matched doesn't make sense. Where will the flexibility happen? How will it happen? If a provincial government such as Manitoba is engaged in a particular project dealing with housing for people with disabilities because they've had the vision or the fortitude to move in that direction and have made it a priority, and along comes the federal government and says, “We've got some money, but you've already started that project, so you're not going to get any help,” why doesn't the federal government say, “Okay, province, you look after 100% of the cost of that project and we will look after 100% of the next project”? Why not? Why not, to ensure that the money flows and we can get somewhere in terms of this big need?

I hope I've answered the question of the Bloc in terms of what the amendment does. I hope I've made the case about how important this issue is. I hope there will be support at least on this particular matter. It is critical and it is important to remove these obstacles to the quick flow of money for housing needs of people with disabilities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'd love to speak to this amendment.

You have heard from my colleague the finance critic for the NDP the general reasoning for this amendment throughout Bill C-10. You will understand that our concern is with the requirement on the part of the federal government to engage in cost-sharing arrangements with municipalities and provincial governments. You've heard that this places an unanticipated and most likely intolerable burden on our municipalities and provincial governments at a time when investment in infrastructure, and in this case particularly investment in housing, is so critical.

If there is ever an item or a matter pertaining to infrastructure and investment that will stimulate the economy and help people through the worst times of an economic recession, it is housing. I don't need to tell you, Mr. Chairperson, how much we've missed having a national housing policy in this country. Your government has made an attempt to start to put some money back after the Liberals basically destroyed any kind of national housing policy.

Let me take you back to 1993, when we dealt with the cuts. The 1995 budget, in particular, dealt with the cuts of the then Liberal government under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the finance minister, Paul Martin. So many programs were gutted in order to deal with an economic downturn. In particular--I won't go into this too much--we noticed the biggest cut in the history of this country in terms of health and social policies. By the way, that was to a tune of about $6 billion, and we are just now beginning to catch up, just now beginning to be back where we would have been back in 1995, without even considering the increase in the cost of living. Less noticed than the areas of health and education was the move by the federal Liberals to actually exit the field of housing completely, leaving Canada one of the only countries in the advanced industrial world that does not have a national housing policy. That's an embarrassment.

What we have said in this budget is that there must be a return to a national housing policy. While we acknowledge the small steps taken by the Conservatives, by this government, we are very worried that the amounts themselves are so small that they will not create the critical mass needed to turn around a deteriorating housing situation in this country, and that the moneys available once more require matching contributions by the municipalities and provincial governments at a time when either they are already stretched to the limit or when some provinces have started to make investments--such as my own. The Manitoba NDP government has started.... I shouldn't say they've started; it's been over a long period of time that it's been making significant investments in housing, and it desperately needs the federal government at the table--not negating or minimizing the work that's already been started, but supplementing and complementing that work.

So it's really critical, in our view, that the moneys that are available for housing, however small they may be, are there without necessarily requiring matching contributions by provinces and municipalities. You should know, especially when it comes to the area of social housing, that many have commended the federal government for beginning, for taking a small step towards covering social housing. But if you look at the amounts, you'll know they will address hardly the tip of the iceberg in terms of social housing needs in this country. And I hope you've heard from social housing coalitions about the importance of this area and just how minimal this is. So it's more important in that context to ensure that the money flows freely to support and complement provinces and municipalities and does not impose further restrictions on them.

In the case of the Manitoba NDP government, we are working actively to try to advance housing when it comes to people living with mental illness. And there are some projects under way, but there are so many more needs. So it would be absolutely counterproductive for the government to come forward with a proposal that says that the money set aside for a project dealing with housing for people with mental health problems has to be included in the overall amounts. It doesn't make sense when there is such a huge need.

This recommendation is actually a way to speed up the investment of money in housing so it's not hampered and tied up by municipal requirements and provincial government planning but, in fact, can flow quickly without all that bureaucracy and paperwork. It will ensure not only that are housing needs met but that we can actually stimulate the economy because we have moved quickly and expediently to address what is considered to be one of the most fundamental issues in terms of the present recession, or what some would call an economic depression.

Mr. Chair, I don't know how much you've heard from my colleague who spoke before me, Tom Mulcair; I hope I'm not repeating any of the arguments. I hope the Liberals understand the importance of this amendment, because they bear some responsibility for the cutbacks to housing in the first place. Secondly, they have expressed a desire to see the money flow quickly and to not repeat the pattern of the past in which, as they acknowledge, 95% or 96% of federal investment dollars did not flow or were not spent.

Here is another way to make sure we meet a very serious need as quickly as possible. And I can tell you, coming from an older neighbourhood in the north end of Winnipeg, that in the twelve years that I've been around--and I've witnessed the cutbacks of the federal Liberals, and now the very slow movement of the Conservatives--housing has been deteriorating rapidly. We're talking about old housing stock that needs a rapid injection of funds to help homeowners repair homes, to help non-profit housing corporations build new homes, and to help organizations involved in the aboriginal community, the disabled community, people dealing with mental illness, and seniors in particular. All of those groups need to have access to these funds.

In many cases, the provincial governments are ready to work with those organizations. There is goodwill in terms of the federal, provincial, and non-profit communities, and I would hope that we can advance this money and these issues as quickly as possible. And I hope that the federal Liberals, especially, will recant their past sins and agree with us that it's time to work together to develop a national housing policy. The way we do it is by spending this money, which some would consider a paltry amount of money, and getting housing stock revitalized and our economy stimulated.

Thank you. I hope that's been a fulsome explanation of my amendment.

Did you miss me?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The third amendment moved by the New Democratic Party amends clause 302 of Bill C-10, which covers the communities component of the Building Canada Fund. It would amend line 15 on page 287. Clause 302 reads as follows:

302. There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on the requisition of the Minister of Transport, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, a sum not exceeding $250 million to provide funding for infrastructure projects in communities that have a population of less than 100,000.

After replacing line 15 on page 287, the amended clause would read as follows:

302. There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on the requisition of the Minister of Transport, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, except those requiring contributions from other levels of government, a sum not exceeding $250 million [...].

Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that my Bloc Québécois colleagues will support this amendment, because this covers communities that have fewer than 100,000 people. Under current National Assembly legislation, those communities are officially prohibited from dealing directly with the federal government. Quebec will thus find its prerogatives intact.

I hope that my colleagues from Ontario, who represent regions with communities comprising less than 100,000 people, will agree and see the wisdom of this amendment. Once again, we are assuming that municipalities, towns and communities comprising fewer than 100,000 people can provide significant amounts to match the amounts provided by the federal government. Two hundred and fifty million dollars is quite a sum. That money will have to flow. However, as we have already said, if the funding is provided on condition that those small communities match it, we can safely bet that the money will never flow, and will never leave government coffers. That would once again support our belief that the Conservatives are simply claiming that they will spend enough money to come up with a figure that stands at over 3% of GDP, but do not really mean to spend any of it.

Here, an assumption is being made about the money that communities, cities and provinces will spend. The government has also claimed that it has saved some $8 billion by cutting spending in departments—that is a joke, Mr. Chairman, because Conservatives are the worst public administrators in Canada's history. In just three years, before tabling this budget, they had already increased government spending by $40 billion a year, over 23%, without any concrete results for Canadians. It goes without saying that even more spending is provided for here, Mr. Chairman. Once again, there is no vision and there are no real results.

In addition, the government is now talking about $250 million that will go to communities. Yet, we already know that those communities are in no position to provide their own share of the funding, a share they must put up before the money can actually flow.

In defence of those communities with a population of less than 100,000, the New Democratic Party begs its colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party to understand that the money will never be spent if they do not support our amendment. Our amendment is in order because it does not incur additional government spending. What we do want, however, is for the federal government to actually spend the money, and to stop making that spending conditional on municipalities' or provinces' matching the funds.

Mr. Chairman, to sum things up in English, right now we're looking at the communities component of the Building Canada Fund, $250 million for communities with a population of fewer than 100,000 people. I think that in a municipality with less than 100,000 people it's quite obvious we're going to be dealing with the type of situation we've already described. The federal government is putting up a big number, $250 million, but it's not going to get spent.

Most of those municipalities can't pony up the cash to meet their part of the obligation. Provinces have already said that money won't be there. And to assuage my colleagues from the Bloc, I would remind them that existing provincial legislation in Quebec, duly enacted by the National Assembly of Quebec, provides that those municipalities are not allowed to deal directly with the federal government, so any concern that they might have regarding jurisdiction is obviated.

I think the City of Montreal, as much as the City of Toronto in the previous example, deserves their money; the smaller towns and cities of Quebec, Ontario, B.C. and all the other areas of Canada that so sorely need this money--there are a lot of municipalities that fall into this category of under 100,000--deserve the support. They don't have the money to meet this new requirement that they match funds with the federal government. That's why we're proposing it be removed. The amount, of course, is being maintained; there just won't be any strings attached anymore, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have a ruling on the subamendment.

The subamendment is inadmissible because it introduces a new concept into the bill. The introduction of provincial priorities is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-10 and is therefore inadmissible. If you refer to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 654, it says: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” Therefore your subamendment is inadmissible.

The chair's ruling is not debatable, but the member can choose to challenge it if he wishes.

Monsieur Carrier.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain on his speech, but also to thank him for having presented this motion which is today before the House, because the subject is very important for Quebec and Quebeckers.

To begin, we have here with this motion another demonstration of the effective role played by the Bloc Québécois. For proof of this, what party is focusing on this situation brought about by the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 which will substantially penalize Quebec as well as the entire population because of the services that this province has to provide to the citizens we represent?

Under the calculation of equalization, Quebec would be penalized $991 million. That is no small amount. And what is that money being used for? By the way, we will not be guilty of the same paternalism we often encounter from the Conservatives, who say we have voted for a budget with billions and billions of dollars in infrastructure programs. They would almost have us believe that this money is coming out of the pockets of the Conservative ministers and members. Hold on there. Quebeckers pay $54 billion in income taxes to Ottawa every year. When the federal government invests in Quebec, I hope that no one here—among those listening to us and those in the gallery—thinks that the federal government is giving us any gifts. That is our money. This is precisely what Maurice Duplessis, in his time, was saying when he referred to federal encroachments in fields of provincial jurisdiction: give us back what is ours. That is what this motion means.

Which party is defending the consensus of the National Assembly at the three-day special session in January? Not one Conservative member has risen on this subject, nor one member of the Liberal Party. Only the members of the Bloc Québécois have addressed this. Our objective and our role, our reason for being, is to defend the interests of Quebec. This we demonstrate on a daily basis, not just during election campaigns, as we saw on the trailer of the former senator and minister Michael Fortier, which announced that the Bloc is unnecessary, that it has cost so many billions of dollars.

One thing: when you lie, your lie must not be so big that no one will believe it. If you tell a little lie, something a little more restrained, it raises a doubt, and people will say, yes, maybe it is true, maybe it is possible. They said that the Bloc had cost $450 billion because we were in the opposition. Hold on there. From 1900 to 2006, over 106 years, the Conservative Party was in opposition for 62 years. That means that, when the Conservatives were in opposition, that cost money, billions of dollars, and they did nothing? That is patently ridiculous.

When we say that the Bloc is here to defend Quebeckers' interests, it is because we can back up that statement. We raised this issue here in the House. The House is going to vote. Members from all parties will have the chance to say yes to Quebec, yes to the National Assembly consensus, or else to trample on that consensus. By the way, when we refer to the National Assembly consensus, we are talking about a unanimous motion passed by all three parties represented in the National Assembly, not just the Parti Québécois. There is also the Liberal Party of Quebec, headed by Jean Charest, and the Action Démocratique party, which was then led by Mario Dumont, who should be leaving political life today. That is the consensus we are talking about: a unanimous motion passed by the National Assembly.

Two provisions of the budget implementation bill clearly penalize Quebec: the new method of calculating equalization payments and the creation of a centralized securities commission in Toronto, even though the current system works well and Quebec and the provinces have their own commissions.

Quebec's Autorité des marchés financiers plays its role fully. Why does the federal government still want to stomp on the provinces' jurisdictions? Why are this Prime Minister and this Conservative government, which kept on saying they were going to practise open federalism, throwing everything out the window and slapping Quebec in the face at the first opportunity? This is totally unacceptable.

I call on the elected members of the Conservative Party from Quebec. I am a member from the Quebec City area. I call on the members for Beauport—Limoilou, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Lévis—Bellechasse and Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. I could also mention the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is the member for Pontiac. I challenge them. What do they think of the consensus reached by the National Assembly of Quebec? Do they agree to vote with the Bloc Québécois for this motion, which only confirms that consensus?

That is the difference between a Bloc Québécois member and a Conservative Party member from Quebec. My colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain has brought that difference to light by putting this motion before the House for debate so that the masks come off and we see who is really defending Quebec's interests in this House.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Watson has missed the point. What took place at the transport committee last spring was a discussion of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which is part of Bill C-10. What's being discussed or reported in the media as being discussed behind closed doors with CEAA and environmental NGOs are changes contemplated to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Bill C-10 does not speak to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It speaks to the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

These are more significant and more material changes. I share Monsieur Bigras' and Ms. Duncan's concern that this isn't being brought to this committee. That's why I asked four times in a row this morning what the government's legislative agenda was, and the answer I got was that we're bringing in environmental enforcement. Okay. We're bringing in environmental enforcement.

Yes or no: Is the government pursuing legislative changes to CEAA behind closed doors? I think that's a reasonable question to have been asked by Monsieur Bigras. We're all concerned. I'm sure every Conservative MP sitting at this committee is concerned about environmental assessment and the impacts on our communities, so we would like to know. Is this an issue under item six, “other matters”, that we ought to be dealing with sooner rather than later? However, they're not the same, Mr. Watson.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I think it would be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, since this will be our first vote on the bill, to give a little bit of background on these clauses, their insertion generally into this Bill C-10, and the process we're going through today.

Having just accepted graciously the suggestion that we group those clauses that don't form the object of any amendment right now, it's worth bearing in mind that Bill C-10 is the continuity of the fiscal and financial update that was brought in on November 27 by the Conservative government. It should be borne in mind that at the time there was a strong parliamentary reaction by all three opposition parties for three reasons. One, the update withdrew women's rights by taking away the ability to effectively contest issues involving equal pay for work of equal value. Two, it removed the party financing that had been put in place in the wake of the Liberal sponsorship scandal, which was, as we all know, the biggest political corruption scandal in the history of Canadian politics. Three, it took away union rights and the ability to bargain collectively and effectively. So those three subjects brought the opposition parties together and we were ready to defeat the government.

What's interesting to note as a prologue to our discussion here today is that of those three key issues, only one was solved. The budget no longer takes away the Liberals' party financing. I say the Liberals because the Liberals depend more on public financing proportionally than any of the other parties. The two other issues, women's rights and union rights, are still being taken away by this bill. What is fascinating to watch—and we're about to make proof of that—is that the Liberals are going to vote for it every step of the way. Now that they've gotten what they wanted for their own purposes, they're abandoning women, they're abandoning the environment, and they're abandoning social and union rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call the 10th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance to order. The order of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, December 2, 2009, is Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures. This is the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10.

Members, I just want to make a couple of points. We do have two legislative clerks with us, if we require their expertise on procedure. I think they've been helping members with their amendments. It's a very large bill, so it may take some time to go through. I will go through each clause, and when we come to a clause where there is a proposed amendment, I will ask the member to move the amendment. Then I will give the ruling on the amendment, whether it is admissible or not. Of course, members can appeal to the committee.

Also, for members' information, we do have officials from the Department of Finance here in the room. If there are any questions on any particular subject, please indicate that to me and I will call the relevant officials to the table for any information they can provide to us.

So I'm going to proceed fairly slowly, as we do have a large bill. I want to make sure that we know exactly what we're doing.

We'll start clause-by-clause consideration pursuant to Standing Order 75(1).

(Clause 1 allowed to stand)

(On clause 2)

[Claude Poirier, President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CAPE represents 12,000 Canadian public servants, some of whom you may already know very well. They include the Library of Parliament analysts, research officers, translators and interpreters working on the Hill and, last but by no means least, the economists and political analysts who advise you.

Allow to briefly review the situation for you. Approximately 10 years ago, Treasury Board decided to reduce the number of groups with which the government negotiates agreements. The recommendation was that the number of professional groups, anywhere from 65 to 70 at the time, be reduced to 25 or 30. Bargaining agents like CAPE participated in the exercise in good faith, and some groups did merge. The economists and other professionals represented by CAPE were faced with a fait accompli, namely the creation of a new group, the EC group. No one knew exactly what lay in store, but the group was composed notably of economists and sociologists.

To facilitate the process, it was suggested that a new classification be created. The general classification standard that the government was considering at the time did not apply, for a variety of reasons, So then, to facilitate the process, salary scales were merged to create a single pay scale, with different levels, for all of the employees in the group. The final phase of the process—and all parties at the table clearly agreed on this—was the negotiation of new pay scales. That was supposed to have happened in 2005-2006. Unfortunately, work on the new EC classification standard was not far enough along to allow for the negotiation of the new pay scales at that time. Consequently, the union signed a one-year collective agreement. We were given a formal commitment that during the next round of bargaining, new pay scales would be negotiated.

In the fall of 2008, the government presented a final offer to the union, one that was just recently accepted by our members, on the understanding still that the pay conversion issue would eventually be resolved. Unfortunately, when we saw Bill C-10, in particular Part 10, we realized that there had been one exception made, which my colleague alluded to earlier. Several members of the Canada Border Services Agency were able to benefit from pay conversion, whereas our members who, while they may not be protecting our borders, nevertheless provide valuable services to the Canadian government, have been overlooked. A classification conversion occurs only once during a person's career. Our members have been waiting for this day for 15 or 20 years, and the next opportunity won't likely come along for another 20 or 30 years. Our members won't see this during the course of their career. This was their last chance.

Given that the legislation provides an exception for the border services group, we would like to recommend to you that, for the sake of a healthy bargaining process, a short five-line clause be added to the text of the bill. It follows the exact same model as the exception provided for employees of the Canada Border Services Agency and would allow the negotiation of pay conversion for our group members to move forward in a dignified manner.

Thank you very much and good evening.