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.

[Stephen Richardson]

We can't directly speak for the provinces in terms of what their intentions or capacities are, but we are structuring the availability of these funds from the federal government to occur in as rapid and as efficient a manner as possible to make them available to those provinces who are prepared to participate and use it.

We have indications from some provinces, some in public.... I believe one example would be the comments by Mr. Duncan, Ontario's Minister of Finance, that he's ready to match all of the funding involved.

So we will make sure that this funding is available at the earliest possible date, using whatever methods we can, to appropriately speed up the availability of funds such as appropriations through Bill C-10. The sooner that bill becomes law, the sooner those funds will be appropriated and available. Then we fully expect to have a strong take-up from the provinces.

[Stephen Richardson]

There are a number of different aspects of the stimulus package, and although they have somewhat different delivery mechanisms, several of the large stimulus items in the budget will involve cooperation between the federal government and the provinces.

In fact, I can note in this regard that there are appropriations for some of these funds in Bill C-10. This is a method that is not always used, but Bill C-10 contains specific appropriations--for example, for the infrastructure stimulus fund, which will allow it to be put in place more rapidly. We expect that those at Infrastructure Canada who are responsible for this fund will be in discussions, or they already are in discussions, with representatives of provinces in order to identify projects.

[Stephen Richardson, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Finance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a brief opening statement.

The plan will provide almost $40 billion of economic stimulus in support for the Canadian economy over the next two years. Including incremental funds from other levels of government, the total economic stimulus provided will be over $50 billion. This is equivalent to 1.9% of gross domestic product in 2009 and 1.4% in 2010.

Key federal government components of the plan include $12.8 billion for action to help Canadians and stimulate spending, including a Canadian skills and transition strategy and personal income tax relief; $7.8 billion for action to stimulate housing construction, including a home renovation tax credit, support for energy retrofits, and investments in social housing; almost $12 billion for immediate action to build infrastructure, including funding for roads, bridges, rail, small craft harbours, broadband Internet access, electronic health records, laboratories, and border crossings across the country; and $7.5 billion for action to support businesses and communities, including $1 billion for a community adjustment fund.

The plan also contains existing and new measures to provide up to $200 billion in support of the extension of financing for Canadians and Canadian businesses through the extraordinary financing framework. It takes measures to strengthen Canada's financial system, including moving forward with willing provinces on a Canadian securities regulator.

The plan is based on three major principles: the stimulus must be timely, targeted, and, where appropriate, temporary. With that in mind, the government is moving forward to quickly implement measures from the plan.

Last Friday the government tabled Bill C-10, which contained legislation to give effect to various measures proposed in budget 2009, including important income tax measures such as an increase to the basic personal amount, the upper limits for the two lowest tax brackets, and an increase to the age credit; important changes to employment insurance, such as the five-week increase for regular EI benefit entitlements for two years; and further safeguards for the stability of Canada's financial system, such as additional flexibility for the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Bill C-10 also would provide authority to make payments out of the consolidated revenue fund totalling nearly $6 billion for infrastructure, housing, and community adjustment. Together with the value of the tax and employment insurance changes, Bill C-10 provides legislative authority for approximately $11 billion of stimulus, or about half of the stimulus to be provided in 2009.

As well as moving forward without delay with the Economic Action Plan, the government recognizes the need to report on the progress made in the implementation of the Economic Action Plan. The first report will be tabled in Parliament at the beginning of March and further updates will be provided in June and December.

We welcome any questions you may have.

BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill, which is an important document. Canadians have been looking for leadership from the government to deal with today's economic climate and the problems we face.

It is important to point out, as I start this discussion, that the New Democrats do not support the bill for a number of different reasons, but we are doing our job. We are showing leadership on what we should have in the country. The country should have a more balanced approach with regard to a budget that not only deals with the economic crisis, but deals with some of the systemic issues the country faces with previous legislation and lack of action as well.

We have an interesting case with regard to democracy. Last year, when the Liberals consented to the Conservative budget changes, the Immigration Act was changed. We have to remember that with the passage of the budget bill last year, the immigration minister received a blank cheque to change the immigration system, without going through the normal, democratic process in the House of Commons.

The normal process is the minister introduces a bill which then goes through a reading in the House of Commons. Then it is vetted at committee and comes back to the House of Commons. If passed, it goes to the Senate and if there are changes, it comes back here. Now we have avoided that consultation process under our immigration policy, which is truly unfortunate, because there is economic opportunity. It is a social justice issue to ensure Canada does the right thing with its immigration policy. There is also an opportunity to engage the public and the private and not-for-profit sector about how our immigration policies work of do not work for our country.

By agreeing to that, the Liberals gave the government a blank cheque to change it. We have seen the effects, and it has not been an improvement in our immigration system. We have seen greater lineups, greater delays and it has reduced our capacity to respond in this global climate.

There are a couple of issues. Interestingly enough, through Bill C-10, the government is changing the Investment Canada Act. It also changing other legislation with regard to pay equity, for example, which will unfairly hurt women. Women will no longer be able to go through the court system to challenge pay equity. They will have to go through another process that will not be as fair. It takes away from the judicial system, which is the appropriate process.

It is important to note that this sends a message across the country that women's issues are secondary. It can be done on a one-off, with no problem at all, by the government. It sets the mandate for how it feels and how it goes forward to deal with serious matters.

Avoiding our legislative review process is truly unfortunate. Members of the House of Commons collectively are supposed to review bills. We are supposed to have input. We are supposed to garner the witnesses. We are supposed to go through a process to improve a bill.

Often we find common ground. Sometimes we get amendments put forth and avoid some unintended consequences. Since 2002, I do not know how many times I have been in committee reviewing a bill and our party or the government has found errors in it, whether it was the Liberals in the past or the Conservatives currently. We go through the legislation to fix those errors. Instead we have legislation being rammed down our throats, which is unacceptable.

With respect to the budget implementation bill, it is ironic. After the G20 summit, the Prime Minister talked with other world leaders and said that he would come back with a package for Canada. Instead he set off a political crisis by cutting the provinces and a number of different services and putting in some other elements, which still cannot be explained today, for example, billions of dollars for sales of public buildings. The Conservatives cannot even name the buildings or what they will do with them. That really set up a firestorm in the politics. Hence, the government took a time out.

The Prime Minister went to the Governor General and told her the Conservatives needed a time out because everybody was upset with them. The Conservatives misled the world by saying they would do something, but did nothing. Apparently they thought nobody in Canada was paying attention to the international news, or they did not have access to the Internet or something else. Canadians quickly realized that the Prime Minister said one thing and came home and did another. However, the Conservatives had their time out. In that timeframe one would have thought they would have come back with a plan.

I come from the automotive sector and I have spoken many times in this House of Commons about a plan for the automotive sector. One would have thought the government would come back with proper legislation that would actually address the issues. It decided to go to Washington. The Minister of Industry went down to Washington, but nobody would meet with him.

The Americans are going to do something for the automotive sector to assist in filling the gap caused by the economic crisis and liquidity issue. There is a difference between what is happening here and what is happening in the United States. The United States had two sets of public hearings on the auto sector. Last year the U.S. had a series of hearings on the energy act and created a $25 billion low interest loan program for the auto industry to get new technologies and cleaner vehicles. Then there was the actual bridging legislation for the loans. Whether or not one agrees with the loan program, at least the Americans went through the process. The United States passed its legislation. There were hearings and input was received. It made a lot of news. The Congress and the Senate had the opportunity to vet the legislation. The legislation went through that process and was actually delivered to the public. What do we have in Canada? We only have promises from the minister. There has been no input at the industry committee. We have not had that type of vetting process.

When one looks at the plan that the United States passed, it is a plan with different rules and things that are changing. The document, “A Call for Action: A Canadian Auto Strategy”, was produced by the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council, CAPC, back in 2004. The auto industry, unions, suppliers and many other auto industry components warned the then Liberal government of the potential failure of the auto industry in the future if we did not lay out a plan. It put forward a simple and straightforward plan where results could be measured. It had a series of strategies calling for action. What have we done since then? Nothing. We have not done anything on it. That is unacceptable, because this plan could have been tabled with the budget bill. It could have been more extensive. The government had the time to do it.

What has happened in between is quite astonishing. We have seen the collapse of the auto industry, not only here but also in other parts of the world. There have been success stories. I reference the United States and its $25 billion low interest loan program which was passed last year. The U.S. is already seeing results. General Motors is going to build the Volt in Detroit, Michigan. The state of Michigan recently signed on to assist in the battery procurement policy. The battery for the Volt will be produced in Detroit as well. Despite the challenges of the industry and where it is going, the Americans have already laid out the game plan.

What have we done on the Canadian side? In the last budget, money was cut from the auto sector. On top of that, the government imposed a new tax on vehicles. It kept the tax component of the eco-auto feebate program. For those who are not aware of that program, it was an unbelievable disaster. There was about $116 million in that program. Most of that money went to vehicles produced overseas. That is the irony of what the Conservatives did in their first budget. They created this incentive program to buy certain vehicles. It did not work. On top of that, they ended up sending money to Japan, China, Korea and other areas where vehicles are produced. It is not acceptable in terms of a policy.

The Conservatives also brought in a tax on vehicles. They kept the tax, which represents around $50 million a year in revenue for the government. That is the estimate from the industry. The United States laid out a plan that is very progressive, and which is focused on cleaner new vehicles, production, manufacturing and low interest loans that are recoverable for the taxpayers. Here in Canada, the government added a new tax. It put some of that money into a new program of $50 million per year for five years for a total of $250 million. Basically, the industry had to go through h-e-double-hockey-sticks just to access it. That happened leading up to an election.

The government is sending the message that Canada is closed for business and partnerships to revolutionize the industry and that if people want to take advantage of one of the government programs, the Conservatives are going to make them squirm, beg and crawl. They are going to punish people pubically for wanting some type of a procurement element.

These things are not foreign to North America. Germany is the second largest auto producer and Japan is the third largest. Japan is a major exporter. Germany has major exports too, but it also does a lot more domestic. Germany and Japan have procurement policies that actually work for their industries. That element is out there. If the government wants to assume that a free market economy with no actual incentives is some type of carrot with which to approach the industry, the Conservatives are alone in the world in that. Even the United States does not do that. Nobody does that. If the Conservatives want to change that policy, then great, let us engage the world about that practice.

Until that time, if we keep our current automotive policy, we will see that what is happening will continue. We have gone from fourth in the world in assembly to eighth. What does that mean? It means that not only auto workers and their families are losing out on economic development, but so are those in the mould-making industry and the tool and die industry.

The tool and die industry has made an appeal to the Minister of Industry. That industry is owed about $1 billion. The industry needs that money to prevent bankruptcy from happening.

There are other victims in this mess if we do not have a viable auto industry and one of the most value-added industries will disappear. It is going to cost money for things such as the United Way and skills training.

It is also important to think outside the automotive box. If all that industrial development goes into new technologies, they can actually revolutionize other industries, especially looking at some of the new technologies in the use of battery and other elements. It is an exciting time despite the challenges. Some new and interesting products are coming on line that will meet new customer desires. It is also going to provide an opportunity to have a greener, cleaner industry, which is really critical because we put so much faith in that.

It was interesting to see the minister, when it came to the budget, make a big to-do about the shoes he was going to buy. We saw him on TV when he bought some workboots. He came to work that day and decided that they did not fit right and they hurt his feet. It is ironic, because it is the same with this budget. It hurts a lot of Canadians and it does not fit right for what we need to do.

It is not even a question about how much money we are or are not spending. It is also about the way we actually spend. That is why it is important to recognize that this was an opportunity that was wasted.

I will point to one of the more interesting cases we have had recently and what could have been in the budget bill but is not. Today the New Democratic Party introduced a bill to respond to that. A procurement policy could have been part of it. I know that some people will say that the NDP wants to put up trade barriers and do something that would set off a trade war and create all kinds of problems, but that is a bunch of nonsense. Since the Great Depression, the United States has had a procurement policy in place. I would have liked to see one in this bill. What we could do openly and accountably is a percentage of that could go into Canadian manufacturing when there is a government procurement policy. That is done all over the world. Our partners do it. I do not regret that the United States does some of that. It is a challenge in some respects.

The most important example that has recently shown how poor we are in Canada in terms of strategy is the Navistar truck contract. I have spoken extensively about that, and I am going to keep talking about it because it is a great example of a missed opportunity and the lack of leadership.

Navistar, for those who are not aware, is in Chatham, Ontario. It produces trucks. A number of years ago, I and the member for Windsor—Tecumseh fought along with the CAW to get a modest investment from the federal government in that plant. It was saved, and it has paid back its worth. It is a windfall, not only with regard to the tax revenues to the nation but also to the workers and their families who have been contributing taxes.

What has happened is the government is not dealing with procurement policy, which is totally legal and which many municipalities endorse across the country right now. They back it because they understand it. We understand the rules. We can do this. The United States will not get upset with us for doing it. The Americans have a policy in place that has similar elements, and we accept that.

The Navistar truck plant in Chatham could produce the next load of defence vehicles, trucks that are necessary for our military. Ironically the government tendered it out, and what ended up happening is that Navistar International won the bid and the truck building component is in Texas. Texas is getting 300 million dollars' worth of work from the Conservatives, supported by the Liberals, and at the same time the workers in our communities are losing their jobs. Those are good paying jobs, jobs that this country invested in. The trucks we make are the best and we are going to lose out on that opportunity because of the ideology of the Conservative government.

The government is going to award a $300 million contract to Navistar in Texas when that contract could have gone to our own community. The excuse is that there was $800,000 of retooling necessary for that facility in Canada, but Canadians would have been doing that retooling. The value-added components would have been manufactured in Canada. There would have been economic benefits for Canadians who would have been paying taxes.

That investment would have been understood by the United States. The Americans would understand that Canadians want to build Canadian trucks for our Canadian men and women who are serving in our military. They would understand that. We understand when they do defence procurement for the same reason.

The Conservatives are allowing this to continue and are not cancelling the contract. It is unacceptable. Sending work down to Texas is not a solution for this country. It sends a message to all the others concerned with defence procurement. The government is saying that Canadians cannot be the ones who build for our men and women who serve in the military. That is the message the government is sending to people in Chatham, that they are fired and they are not going to be the ones who produce the vehicles for our military, that Texans can do it. That should have been in this bill. We could have done it.

What is also important in connecting the dots on this is that this country needs to have a manufacturing capacity for its sovereignty so that it includes components for shipbuilding, trucks, airplanes and other elements that are important for national infrastructure. A country needs to make sovereign decisions about what it does. The United States does that. I do not begrudge the Americans for that. If they want to build their military trucks in Texas and not in Chatham, I understand that because it is part of a plan for their country.

What do we have in Canada? We have no plan. Other contracting is being looked at right now. The plane contract is being examined. The Department of National Defence is eyeballing a single source contract that would exclude all Canadian aerospace manufacturers. It would be created and assembled in Italy. How is that possible? How can we have single source contracting for companies outside Canada?

What does that tell those companies that actually cluster and try to build around our manufacturing bases here in Canada? It tells them that if they invest and make that type of commitment to the Canadian people, if they do the training that is vitally necessary for the post-production development, they may not benefit from it, that we will simply have it built in Italy. That is the wrong message.

It is important that the government reverse the Navistar decision. It would send a message that we are serious. I expected that to be in the budget bill.

I spent a lot of time talking about Navistar and the auto sector, but I want to touch on one thing in the bill that is symbolic and important to me because of my background in developing programs for persons with disabilities with respect to employment and home services. Ironically in the bill there is a new program for home retrofit. Those who do some work on their houses get a 15% tax break on the first $10,000 spent on their homes. It includes some really interesting things, such as, sod and decks. However, those who rent are excluded from this. Twenty-five per cent of Canadians rent their accommodations. I think about seniors in my riding who have rented houses or apartments for a long time. They are not eligible to upgrade their bathrooms or other areas to make them accessible. Meanwhile, those who want to put new sod on their lawns or expand their decks in Muskoka are going to get a tax break. Ironically those people are the ones who have to subsidize that program with their taxes in the first place. It is wrong. That is why the budget needs to be defeated.

The House resumed from February 9, 2009 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee and of the motion that this question be now put.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

So we will revert to the normal witness.

I would like to remind members that we expect to get Bill C-10 some time in the near future. I know that Mr. McCallum and Mr. Menzies have submitted some witness names, but if anyone has any for Bill C-10, please get them in to the clerk as soon as possible.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-10, the implementation bill for the recent budget.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Rivière-du-Nord, who will probably speak tomorrow.

It is impossible for those of us on this side of the House to vote in favour of Bill C-10. This budget implementation bill is just as lacking in vision as the budget speech of January 27.

This bill lacks vision. We would have expected this Conservative government to present a real economic recovery plan. Not just a plan to stimulate the economy but a visionary plan leading to the creation of new jobs that are greener, forward looking, have value added, are innovative and more modern. Not a short-term or medium-term economic recovery plan but an economic plan with a more structured and modern approach to the 21st century.

These are not the expectations of the Bloc Québécois alone. They are also the expectations of the citizens of Quebec and of Canada. The proof is in a survey conducted between January 22 and February 1, when we were debating in the House whether to accept or reject this budget. What did the survey tell us? It indicated that no less than 93% of Canadians wanted the federal government to put in place a green job creation program to address the economic crisis. That is quite something.

What does it mean? Unlike the government opposite, Quebeckers and Canadians know full well that protecting the environment boosts the economy. They understand that the economic crisis we are going through should not prevent us from tackling another crisis, that of climate change. Why? Because not only will climate change wreak havoc socially and environmentally, but also economically.

For example, while in New Delhi on Thursday, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, said that failure to combat climate change would result in worldwide economic and social disaster. Failing to take action against climate change will have negative environmental, social and economic effects. Consider what is happening in Australia, where forest fires are destroying a huge swath of land and floods are wreaking havoc in another part of the country. There is no better demonstration of the major social, environmental and economic consequences that climate change will have over the next few years.

The government has no choice but to embark on a major transition from a traditional economy to a greener one. How? The government should have addressed Quebec and Canada's economic future by focusing on three elements.

First, it should have made renewable energy a major strategic focus of Canada's economic development. Renewable energy development, which creates jobs, should be at the heart of Canada's economic and technological development.

It was not for nothing that our colleagues to the south introduced an economic plan that will double renewable energy production over the next few years. Reinvesting in renewable energy will stimulate the economy and create jobs. Rather than give $5.9 billion in tax breaks over two years to the oil industry, this budget should have called for tax breaks for the renewable energy industry. That is what we should be debating with Bill C-10 today, following Germany's lead.

In Germany, they decided to give tax breaks not to the oil industry, but to the renewable energy industry, which created 90,000 jobs there. That would have had positive economic consequences: new jobs and a more sustainable, more modern economy.

Second, the strategy should have been to focus on energy efficiency, beginning with institutional buildings, as the U.S. has decided to do. We have to set goals for ourselves. The American plan calls for improving the energy efficiency of 75% of federal buildings. The U.S. has decided to go ahead with such a program for environmental reasons, and also to create jobs. Let us look at another continent: Europe. A 20% increase in energy efficiency would create about one million jobs, according to the United Nations Environment Programme. Reinvesting and improving energy efficiency in institutional and residential buildings would create jobs.

The U.S. also plans to build two million homes in the next two years, whereas the goal in the budget and the budget implementation bill is to renovate and improve the energy efficiency of a mere 250,000 homes.

We have the wherewithal to come up with a real green plan, not because we are environmental romantics, but because we believe that a green plan is the basis for a future economic plan. What should the government have done? First, the government should have established greenhouse gas emission caps in order to put a price on carbon and to say we have economic tools at our disposal. The government should have put in place emission caps to enable companies that have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions to trade on international markets with Europe or the U.S., where carbon credit exchanges are being set up. Canada needs to put a price on carbon and sell emission credits.

Second, the government should have taken measures such as introducing tax incentives, reinvesting in renewable energies, creating energy efficiency improvement programs and developing appropriate transportation infrastructure. The government needs to do more than just subsidize bus passes, as the commissioner said. We have to reinvest in our transit infrastructure in order to build not only sustainable transportation, but a more sustainable, forward-looking economy that creates not only jobs, but green jobs.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to add my voice to this debate on the budget implementation bill, Bill C-10.

As I open my remarks, I want to go back to when the debate started this morning. My good friend, the parliamentary secretary, in his very eloquent speech, said that the government wanted to move this thing forward fast and it would not put up speakers. I would like Canadians to know that what he was really saying was he did not want anyone to put up speakers so the bill could be expedited and moved along.

We get paid by Canadians to be here and to debate these issues, and that is important. My heritage is Greek. Some years ago an ancient Greek by the name of Solon founded democracy. He believed in debate. It is through debate that we can move democracy forward.

If we do not have the opportunity to debate the budget implementation bill, how will we analyze what the flaws are? We cannot just take it for granted. I am going to get into some specifics.

In the morning, when I began feeling really frustrated, I went out for a walk, I cooled off and thought my good friend for Parkdale—High Park would start off and I would move forward.

Why did we choose to support the budget bill? For Canada and Canadians. Our constituents told us that we could not afford to spend an extra half a billion dollars plus for an election, when the result might probably be the same. It is the last thing they needed right now. We agreed with them. We agreed we had more important things to address as opposed to going back to the people.

We wanted to put up speakers to explain to Canadians what was happening. There are areas in the budget with which I am very pleased, and I will outline them, but there are areas about which I have concerns.

There is significant investment outlined for social housing, infrastructure and for first nations, which makes me very happy. There is targeted support for low and middle-income Canadians through the expansion of the child tax credit and the working income tax benefit. I am very pleased about that as well. There is investment in regional development agencies throughout the country.

We have grave concerns. That is why our amendment has put the government on probation. I believe the government will be reporting three times, and we will see if it delivered.

Today a friend of mine told me to read page 24 of today's The Hill Times, which states “Infrastructure money hasn’t flowed, says Federation of Canadian Municipalities”. It is not the Liberals who are complaining, it is the cities. Earlier today they referred to 1967, centennial year, where we had infrastructure unfolding right across the country, hockey arenas, community centres, and it was all wonderful. You remember very well, Mr. Speaker, and we were young at that time, it was a different country.

It was not the country we live in today. We did not have the billions of dollars in debts and deficits that are outlined here and the cities were functioning differently at that time. My parents were maybe paying $500 a year in property taxes. Seniors today are having to pay $4,000 and $5,000 in property taxes. They cannot afford any more tax increases. The cities do not have the ability to put up their one-third. The provinces are finding it difficult, as well. That is not how the program worked in 1967.

We hear what is going on in the United States. I have not heard President Barack Obama talk about one-third, one-third, one-third. If ever there were a time for a government to step in, if ever a nation needed help, it is now.

The area I come from, the former city of Scarborough, has a need. There are potholes like crazy in our streets, and there are unbelievable numbers of complaints. It is the greatest city of Toronto. What is happening? We are downloading to who? Through property tax increases, maybe so the cities can come up with the one-third, one-third, one-third.

I am concerned primarily because in the past the government, with all due respect, has made a lot of announcements. This is not Liberal bias. According to the papers and the statistics, the government is not delivering the programs. Let me give one an example.

When we were in government in 2006, we announced funding of $25 million for the necessary infrastructure for the Canada film festival. I was there with the former senior minister, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, Susan Kadis, a former member, Tony Ianno, the former member for Trinity--Spadina, and several others. We cut the cake, pictures were taken and we announced the funding. The funding was confirmed in that Liberal budget.

In the last election the Conservatives announced this funding. They saw me in that picture. This funding was announced almost three years ago. This is the concern I and my constituents have. There is a lot of talk, but one has to deliver. This is the kind of accountability we are talking about on behalf of Canadian taxpayers.

Under the picture, which shows the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and his assistant Chris Day, it says, “'best estimate' the department currently has is that $3.6-billion of the funds have been”, and this is the key word, “allocated”.

The Conservatives told us that this money had already been given. The key word is “allocated”. This is a quote from the executive assistant, Mr. Day. What does that mean? Allocated means it could come on the 35th of the month or maybe the 37th of the month five years from now.

The parliamentary secretary has asked why the Conservatives do not have input from the Liberals. We took a difficult situation in 1993 upon ourselves as a Liberal team and made those tough decisions, as a party, and we allowed Canadians to judge us accordingly.

The Prime Minister has said that he is an economist. He said during the election that he ran his own business, but he did not know what business he ran. He compared himself to our member for Markham—Unionville, who is an economist. He has hands on experience. He worked for a bank. I would like the Prime Minister to tell me where he applied his economist experience. This is the time he should be proving his experience.

We did not go out knocking on anybody's door. We made those decisions on our own. We consulted right across the country. Before our budget, all my colleagues held extensive consultations. I held them in Scarborough with my other colleagues from Scarborough. We brought information. We were receptive to input from the opposition, but these are different times. These are times that call for bold and tough decisions. These are times that call for pulling up our socks and being honest with Canadians.

I will tell the House of concerns that people have brought to my attention.

For example, the United States today is talking about green jobs, a green economy. Every day when the Minister of Human Resources answers questions in the House, she says that the government has invested money in training for future jobs. Have those future jobs been identified? Before investing in training, the jobs need to be identified. I have a human resources background. Before I go into the water, I want to know that I can swim.

The minister talks about retraining people. For what jobs are we retraining? We have heard the government talk about high-tech jobs, but we have also heard about high-tech companies laying people off right, left and centre. Bombardier was mentioned the other day.

The government has talked about investing in the Canadian Space Agency. That is wonderful. How many people will be retrained to become robotic engineers?

If the Conservatives have identified these new jobs, then I ask them to please let us know so I can inform my constituents who are getting laid off as well.

It boils down to credibility.

A friend of mine knew I was going to speak today so he brought me an article that was printed in the Toronto Star, on Sunday, October 5. I know I cannot use names because I do not want to be reprimanded. The article headline reads “[the Prime Minister's] tactics mislead voters”.

Canadians are worried about that. As much as we want to give the government the green light on its budget, to a degree there is a gut feeling that we are being misled somewhere. That is why it is important for speakers to get up in the House. That is why this debate is important, so we have the opportunity to express our views on behalf of our constituents.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-10, which, if passed, will implement the budget that was tabled a few days ago.

First, this budget is full of smoke and mirrors. It is a sham. It throws a lot of money around, but it does not help individuals. This budget will help some multinationals, but will leave seniors, women and individuals in the lurch. Even though part 1 of the bill does contain various measures targeting personal taxes, a person will have to earn $85,000 or more in 2008 to get a $317 tax break. That is not even a dollar a day. In addition, not everyone earns $85,000 or more. On average, people earn between $40,000 and $60,000 and will therefore save about $200 or $235 for the year. That is not a huge tax cut.

As well, people who have children and earn $2,000 more than their current salary can be sure their child tax benefit will not go down. But when someone is trying to make ends meet, works hard or does overtime, he or she will make a lot more than $2,000.

Economists agree that tax cuts are not very effective. On page 239 of his budget, the Minister of Finance himself says that this tax cut will be ineffective because it is a weak economic stimulus, compared to money for low-income households or infrastructure investments.

Another measure is not so bad. The Conservative government is increasing the old age credit for seniors, who could get $150 more. All in all, individuals could get $300. Seniors who do not earn $85,000 could get a tax cut of about $100, $300 at most. That is not really much help for individuals.

There is also no help for forestry or manufacturing companies. The government likes to boast that it is helping companies, but our manufacturing and forestry companies are not turning a profit. How are they supposed to use tax credits to invest in their company? They cannot. They cannot get a tax abatement because they are not turning a profit, so this does not help our companies.

Something that comes as a real surprise is the Minister of Finance's position on his commitment to get rid of tax havens. People are not stupid. Companies make money here in Canada, then put that money into accounts in other countries. Those companies should be paying taxes here so that we can have more equitable distribution of wealth. Unfortunately, in 2007, around the time when the Minister of Finance said that he was about to take action against tax evasion, he put together an expert panel, ostensibly to examine the minister's ideas for tackling tax evasion.

All of a sudden, people realized that the panel was reversing the minister's decision and persuading him to blindly accept its recommendations not to do anything about tax havens because, it said, our companies had to be able to deal with international competition. I find that more than a little strange. Honest, hard-working taxpayers, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, find it appalling that these companies are granted tax exemption and can send their money elsewhere. Unfortunately, members of other parties in the House voted for this. People are appalled.

I want to draw my colleagues' attention to the single securities commission. We know that, in Quebec, the securities commission falls exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. According to this budget, the government plans to use this bill to set up a Canadian securities regulation regime transition office. That, too, is pretty strange. Quebeckers, among others, find the current Conservative government's position disrespectful, and they are wondering just how much their Liberal Party colleagues will put up with. This is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

One group is proposing that a federal securities regulation agency be created. The report proposes various things, including various mechanisms to implement the project without agreement from Quebec and the other provinces. This expert panel is also proposing that the federal government use legal recourse. But, in response to questions in the House, the minister stated that we would have the freedom to choose whether to join a single securities commission. Does it seem that we will have the choice?

We know that in the end they will force our hand. Our companies that want to do business will also have to join this single securities commission, even if they already belong to the one in Quebec. I wonder when it will stop, this poaching that ends by forcing them to be part of a single securities commission. I find it perverse.

This is another trap in the budget. The Conservatives have a habit of that. This is the second time that one of their budgets has quietly passed another small element.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois will strongly oppose this single securities commission. Even Quebec's National Assembly came to a consensus. I do not understand how the Quebec members of the Conservative and Liberal parties can accept this when even their own National Assembly is against it. They will have to explain themselves sooner or later.

The question of infrastructure also has some traps. Our municipalities have to pay as much as the federal and provincial governments. Each will pay one third. This is not clearly stated in the document, but the municipalities have to be aware of this.

This budget proposes a collection of amendments and measures that the Bloc Québécois will vote against because they do not take the National Assembly's consensus into consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not believe my colleagues in the Liberal Party really understand what is at stake here. If it was not apparent before either in the doomed economic statement of November 27 or the recent budget, then it should be clear now based on what is in this legislation, Bill C-10, the budget implementation act.

If there is any way for me to make a miracle happen on behalf of the women of this country, it would be to convince the Liberals not to sit back and support the budget implementation act which sets back the clock some 30 years in terms of women's equality. I wish I could find those words because they do not realize that what is at stake here is everything that the member for Beaches—East York fought for all these years, that I fought for, that my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan fought for, that the member for Trinity—Spadina fought for and, of course, that my male colleagues fought for as well.

We entered political life to make a difference. One way to make that difference was to ensure that some measure of pay equity was being enforced right across this country. I cannot believe that the Liberals are going to sit here today and let this go down the tubes. I cannot believe that they are going to let the women of this country down simply because they got boxed in by some stupid response to this Conservative budget, which does not deserve to be supported for one second of the day. I cannot believe it.

I may be emotional today, but I have been involved in the women's movement for some 30 to 40 years. When we started working in the women's movement it was not just to be patsies for the men or for a right-wing macho party like the Conservative Party. It was to stand up for women, to stand up and be counted and make sure that the laws of the land respected and reflected the great diversity of this land and the values of this country. At the heart of that is equality and justice. At the heart of equality and justice is pay equity, and what pay equity means is equal pay for work of equal value.

If the Liberals do not understand what they are doing right now, then they only need to talk to the Conservatives who at their last convention in November, in the city of Winnipeg, rolled back the clock in terms of their own party resolutions and eliminated the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. They changed the definition of pay equity back to what it was 30 or 40 years ago, which is equal pay for equal work. That resolution was sponsored by the Conservatives' own caucus. It was not an individual member who did not know what he or she was doing. It was sponsored by their caucus and introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

How can anyone sit and ignore what is really being done to us here today? Look at the legislation. Look at what the Conservatives are doing to the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. Look at the sections under the supposed public sector equitable compensation act. The title gives the first clue. Does it say “public sector pay equity act”? No. There is a weasel word in this bill. It is a weasel word that allows the Conservatives to do what they passed at their last convention, which is to eliminate the notion of pay equity forever from this country and from women's struggle for equality. It is absolutely reprehensible and no one in the House should allow them to get away with it.

I can go back to 1985 in my province of Manitoba, when the notion of pay equity was just being developed. The women's movement was trying to convince politicians and governments about the importance of dealing with pink ghettos and women earning half of what men were making, because at that time we did not have anything that resembled equal pay for work of equal value.

That is a concept that looks at what is involved in a job and what a person brings to a job. It is not just about the straight job description, comparing a female car mechanic to a male car mechanic. It is about comparing jobs that are not necessarily identical but there is an equal value to the job, a certain level of skill, education, expertise, knowledge that justifies that job being paid on an equal basis to an equivalent job in the male sector, or in a male dominated workplace.

In 1985, the NDP government in Manitoba listened to the voices of women. In Manitoba we brought in the first legislation in this country on equal pay for work of equal value, called, The Pay Equity Act. It was not called the “equitable pay act”, to sort of pay women on an equal basis to men. It was very specific. The Pay Equity Act states:

WHEREAS many women in the Manitoba labour force work in traditionally female occupational groups, where their work is undervalued and underpaid;

AND WHEREAS Canada's international obligations commit this country to implementing the principle of equal pay for work of equal value;

AND WHEREAS section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees individuals equality before and under the law and the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination;

THEREFORE HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, enacts as follows:

1 In this Act..."pay equity" means a compensation practice which is based primarily on the relative value of the work performed, irrespective of the gender of employees, and includes the requirement that no employer shall establish or maintain a difference between the wages paid to male and female employees, employed by that employer, who are performing work of equal or comparable value--

That was the breakthrough over 30 years ago.

What do we have today? We have a government that wants to eliminate this concept from the federal statutes. It wants to take away the very notion, change the definition and eliminate any right for women to inherit what is rightfully theirs.

Today and every day that we have raised this issue, the President of the Treasury Board, the minister responsible for Manitoba, has perpetrated a hoax on the House. He has totally misled this chamber. He has not told the truth about what exists in Manitoba. He has tried to leave the impression that what the Conservatives are doing is equivalent to this historic pioneering move by Manitoba back in 1985.

Let me set the record straight. There is no comparison between what the government is proposing and what is on the statutes in Manitoba. Instead in this federal system, under the Conservative government's proposals, there is no legislation that entrenches the notion of equal pay for work of equal value and there is no mechanism for appeals. The Conservatives are taking away the right to go to the Human Rights Commission. As my colleague from Beaches—East York pointed out, it also will fine people who actually advocate on behalf of employees who want their rights upheld. The Conservatives want to fine people maybe $50,000 if someone in the union decides that the complaint is worth pursuing and the woman was done an injustice and therefore needs some representation. Not only do the Conservatives take it away, but they penalize people for advocating on behalf of women.

What we need in this country at the federal level is a government that does not turn back the clock on women, that does not negate a value or a struggle that was won legitimately with integrity and with all the education and research to justify and to explain that breakthrough.

We in the House cannot let the government take away something that has been so important to our struggle, no matter what party we belong to today. All of us, Liberals, Bloc and New Democrats, one way or another have fought for equal pay for work of equal value. I do not know about the Conservatives. Maybe there are one or two or a few among them who know what this means, what it is all about and what they are doing today, but if not, I suggest they go back and do a little research, a little reading, because what is at stake here, what they are about to do is to eliminate something that is fundamental to any notion of equality.

Manitoba's legislation is not based on the notion of equitable compensation as this bill is, but Manitoba's legislation is grounded on the principle and founded on the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. That is the system that was started in 1985, and as a result of the pervasive nature of the fact that it operates in all sectors of our society, it has gone from strictly the provincial civil service to all sectors. When it does not touch a certain sector and there is a gap, a person can still go to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission and lodge a complaint.

What the minister said is rubbish. It is absolutely not true when he suggested any comparison between Manitoba with its enlightened policies about women and the Conservative government's outdated, retrograde, chauvinistic, macho approach to decisions that have to be made on the basis of women and women's equality.

I saw it in the House today. Those members stand up and hoot and holler when someone brings forward legislation to get rid of the gun registry. Do they stand up to their Prime Minister and make all kinds of noise on something as negative, as regressive, as outdated, as unjust as their party's decision on equal pay for work of equal value?

All I can say is that we are talking about something that is fundamental to everything we have done and worked for over the years. We cannot let it slip away. The Liberals have an obligation to look at this and understand what they are doing by agreeing to pass Bill C-10, a bill that eliminates--

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I think you're referring specifically to Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament. I will not be reintroducing Bill C-10 or a copy thereof.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

Today we are debating Bill C-10, the Budget Implementation Act, 2009, tabled by the Minister of Finance on January 27. The Bloc Québecois will not support this bill, because we have spoken clearly against the bill and the budget. We will remain true to ourselves, unlike our colleagues in the Liberal Party. The Conservative government's budget, supported by the Liberal Party, is simply unacceptable to Quebec and the people there, who, in a period of recession, were expecting significant and effective measures.

Indeed, it will be seen that, instead of helping Quebec, the Conservative government has consciously chosen to deprive it of the means to deal with the crisis. Absolutely. Not only did the government refuse to help Quebec sufficiently, on the contrary, it chose to respond to Ontario's demands. The budget contains measures intended primarily for Ontario—the media have discussed them at length—measures amounting to nearly $4 billion. They serve to support the automotive industry, primarily. We are not opposed to these measures, but would have liked the forestry and manufacturing sectors to receive a little more than the few millions announced.

On the weekend, we saw statistics on the numbers of people who have lost their job in the manufacturing, forestry and aerospace sectors. We can see that the measures announced by the Conservative government and supported by the Liberals do not appear to stimulate these sectors.

It is surprising that the Liberal Party of Canada chose, only a few hours after the budget was presented, to support it, knowing what the Quebec National Assembly called for unanimously. While the Bloc in its recovery plan proposed much more generous measures in order to help manufacturers, the government turned a deaf ear. The Liberals shut their eyes, criticizing in this House what they decided to support. It is surprising.

The manufacturing sector—particularly furniture manufacturing—is also present in my riding, and once again finds itself without a definite plan to help it survive the crisis, whereas the automobile industry received $2.7 billion.

And, to add insult to injury, the Conservative government has decided to reintroduce the community adjustment fund, which we criticized in the past. With this fund, Quebec will receive some $2,300 per job lost in the manufacturing sector, whereas Alberta will receive $25,000. That is incredible. In short, Quebec receives a minuscule fraction of the money allocated per job lost, even though Quebec is where the crisis in the forestry industry is hitting the hardest.

But that is not all. In addition to the $2.7 billion Ontario will receive for its auto industry, southern Ontario will also benefit from a $1 billion assistance fund. A new agency is being created for southern Ontario with $1 billion in funding, and in the same budget, Quebec is being deprived of $1 billion this year thanks to the cap on equalization. It is insulting and completely unfair to Quebec. That is why the Bloc Québécois is voting against these measures. I must admit, it is especially sad to see the Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec accepting such measures.

In short, this shows once again that it is impossible for elected representatives from Quebec to effectively defend the interests of Quebec within the major federalist parties.

Another important file is employment insurance. We have talked about it on several occasions. While thousands of workers are unfortunately losing their jobs—26,000 jobs were lost in January 2009 in Quebec alone—a large number of them still do not have access to the employment insurance system. Indeed, instead of expanding accessibility and eliminating the waiting period, the Conservatives, with the support of the Liberals, have decided to do nothing to rectify those injustices. Bill C-10 only extends the benefits period by five weeks, even though approximately 50% of the people who lose their jobs are not eligible and some of them may have found another job. These measures do not meet the needs of workers. Once again, the Conservatives have shown us the scorn they feel towards the thousands of workers who are losing their jobs.

Let us talk about equalization payments. The bill to implement the budget includes an amendment to the formula for calculating equalization payments. By changing the formula, and doing so without consulting Quebec, the federal government will cut the equalization payments Quebec was to receive this year by $1 billion. That will no doubt affect our education network and the health care system. Here again, those who are most vulnerable will be paying for it. This unilateral and unfair decision will mean painful consequences for people in Quebec. This says very clearly that the fiscal imbalance has yet be righted. We will continue the fight to make sure we settle the fiscal imbalance once and for all and eliminate the current formula ceiling.

Let us talk about investment in infrastructure. Although the government has stepped up investment in the 2009 budget, it must be mentioned that this is merely an attempt, in the end, to make up for the slowdown that has built up under the Conservatives since 2007. In addition, we call on the federal government to pull everything together into a single and unconditional transfer fund to respect Quebec and provincial jurisdictions. Finally, I believe the shares of municipalities and the federal and provincial governments must be adjusted in a more equitable manner in these agreements.

In Quebec, a number of small municipalities are heavily in debt. They do not often have the means to make a one-third contribution to a program. Given that the revenues of towns are less than those of higher government levels, contributions must be changed so that municipalities contribute 15%, provinces, 35% and the federal government, 50%. The Bloc has called for this division for many years. Once again, it does not appear in the budget. The municipalities, however, are calling for it.

As I have only a minute left, I will close as follows. Bill C-10 confirms as well the federal government's decision to proceed with a single securities commission, probably centralized in Toronto. With this bill, the government establishes a Canadian securities regulation regime transition office, with an operating budget of $150 million. In addition, a number of mechanisms are proposed to establish this commission, without the prior approval of Quebec and the provinces.

For all of these reasons, as the defender of Quebec's interests—and only Quebec's—we will oppose this bill, which would implement a budget that fails to meet the needs and expectations of Quebec and, of course, the riding I represent.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and then a question for the hon. member for Richmond Hill.

He has done a rather eloquent job of describing some of the deficiencies in the budget, and I will build on that. How does he feel about the fact that there is money for subsidizing nuclear and oil, but nothing for renewable energy sources, or passenger rail across Canada to bring it back to its glory days when it is so fuel efficient and needed, especially by poorer Canadians and the disappearing middle-class? He has identified deficiencies in forestry, infrastructure and I think he mentioned health care. The list goes on.

Why did the member for Richmond Hill vote for the budget? Will he vote for Bill C-10 to implement these inadequate budgetary measures?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak 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 size of this bill speaks to its largely technical nature.

As its title suggests, the purpose of this bill is to implement the far-right policies of this new government which follows a conservative-liberal axis. This government has been led for three years now by we know who. A few months ago, however, a new player emerged from the shadows to lead the so-called Liberal Party, which really is liberal only by name. That political formation which used to promote social values at the economic and human levels is shifting toward the far right.

Let us start by going briefly over the past three years to see how we ended up where we are today. For the first time in a long time, the Conservatives took power in January 2006. This was a minority government, something they have always found hard to swallow and accept. The fact is that voters sent a clear message. They had had it with the party responsible for the sponsorship scandal, that is the Liberals. They wanted change, but did not trust the Conservatives quite enough, and they did not want to shift the country all the way to the right.

Instead of listening to this message and learning how to deal with the various forces at work, the government stuck to its dogmatic, ideological approach. The worst example of their lack of good budgetary and fiscal sense was the great leap in government expenditures. The Conservatives spent like never before in Canadian history. In their first three years in power, government expenditures increased by 25% or $40 billion a year, with no tangible results to show for it. They continually misled the public, particularly in regard to the cost of the war in Afghanistan. They promised to do certain things, for example hold public consultations on appointments to the Supreme Court, through its various organs. They ignored this promise. They always talked about democratizing the Senate but then took advantage of the holiday season to appoint 18 close friends of the Conservative government, until they reach the age of 75.

Even more shocking, after claiming that it was unfair for governments to have the sole power to set election dates, the Conservatives promised henceforth to have fixed-date elections. That was one of the self-congratulatory pieces of legislation they like to call their ethics package. That too was a lie, because they broke their promise, broke the law in question, and called an election in August 2008. The election only took place in October. Their fondest dream, of course, was finally to achieve a majority government, but they failed.

As soon as the election was called, the current Prime Minister said that if he should be returned with a minority government, he would accept the people’s judgment and learn to get along with the other parties in the House. In actual fact, the Conservatives took 37.5% of the votes in the election. This meant that the 62.5% of Canadians who voted for the more progressive voices—the ones on this side of the House—did not have any say in the government when it continued to act as if it had a majority.

The budget before us today, which Bill C-10 would implement, was passed on January 27, 2009, as indicated in the title. Exactly two months earlier on November 27, 2008, we were confronted with the dogmatic, ideology-driven Conservative reality. They attacked women’s rights, social rights, and the right of labour unions to bargain collectively and use the negotiating power of a strike, if need be. Finally, they attacked the clean party-funding system, which had been established in light of the greatest political scandal in Canadian history, the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

In one fell swoop, they attacked these three things on November 27, 2008. And people across Canada were outraged. Instead of correcting their past mistakes, they went on the attack, and they are still on the attack.

For two and a half years, during their first term in power, the Conservatives rigorously applied their ideology. For example, in the extreme-right Reagan-Thatcher doctrine, the government has no role in the economy. The role of the government must be reduced. As I mentioned earlier, no government in the history of Canada increased government spending as rapidly as the Conservatives, and that was no small feat.

In keeping with their theory that the government has no role to play in the economy, they stubbornly refused to understand a simple fact: Canadians, 30 million people, occupy the second-largest country in the world, after Russia. Since World War II, successive governments have all understood one thing: to occupy and develop this vast land takes a vision that can target certain economic activities in certain regions, to create a stable, balanced economy. On the other hand, those sorts of targeted interventions go against all their economic theories.

For two and a half years, their solution to our economic woes was wall-to-wall corporate tax cuts. The percentage was the same across the board, but that posed a small problem. Any company that had not turned a profit had not paid tax, so the Conservatives' tax cuts did not benefit the companies that needed them most. They made $40 billion in corporate tax cuts. But where did that money go? It went to the most profitable companies. And where, by chance, are those companies located? In the Prime Minister's home province, where most of the members close to him live. This is the province where, contrary to common sense and all the rules of sustainable development, companies are working the tar sands and completely ignoring our duty to consider future generations when making such decisions. The oil, gas and mining companies and the banks got the lion's share of these tax cuts.

I would like to talk about the forestry and manufacturing industries. Most manufacturing companies are located in central Canada, especially Quebec and Ontario. Vast segments of the forestry industry are located in British Columbia. These two industries in particular suffered because of the Conservatives' policies. In fact, during the two and a half years of the Conservatives' first mandate, Quebec lost 150,000 to 160,000 manufacturing jobs. Those are well-paying jobs with pensions.

When we talk about sustainable development, the first thing that comes to mind is the environment, but in fact, sustainable development means that we must not download our responsibilities onto the backs of future generations. When jobs with pensions are taken away, future generations are forced to find the money to pay the way for those people when they retire.

That is what was done when well paid jobs in the manufacturing and forestry sectors were replaced by jobs in the service sector. I do not wish to take anything away from people who earn a living selling clothes at a shopping mall located where a factory once was. But such people work for $12 an hour with no pension, while the other workers earned $30 an hour. They could meet their families' needs, while compulsory deductions were put aside for their retirement.

That is the Conservatives' strategy. They did it deliberately, by applying a right wing theory inspired by Reagan and Thatcher policies, and of course the catastrophic eight years of George W. Bush's administration. That is their model, their inspiration.

After the October 14 election, one might have expected to see a change, but that did not happen; actually, things got worse. On November 27, we saw a full scale attack on the rights of women, unions and the other political parties. People reacted immediately and intensely, both among the public and in the House. However, there was no underestimating the ability of the current Prime Minister to spread hate and divide Canadians through his choice of terminology. When referring to the former leader of the opposition, he talked about “separatists”. He knew what he was doing. He does not have the right to attack people for their language or ethnic origin, but that is precisely what he did by using that term, which he never had the nerve to say in French. In fact, “separatists” in English became “souverainistes” in French, a much softer term. He never had the nerve or the integrity to use the same term in both languages. That revealed a great deal about his character.

Just mention it to francophone colleagues from northern Ontario or Acadia. Following the attacks by the Prime Minister against the so-called separatists, they heard attacks against French Canadians and francophones outside Quebec that had not been heard for a generation. Such was the force unleashed by this sneaky, below-the-belt attack. This does not seem to bother the Prime Minister in the least. He only cares about himself. He does not care if he causes chaos or pits Canadians against one another.

Today, we have before us the implementation bill for the Conservative budget. This budget implementation bill is entirely in keeping with what we saw on November 27. It includes some of the most pernicious aspects of the deplorable document that was supposed to be the November economic update but which proved to be a new ideological attack by the Canadian right in the guise of a budget document.

One of the most reprehensible components is the attack on women's right to equal pay for work of equal value. Many confuse the right of women to earn equal pay for equal work and what I just said, that is the right to earn equal pay for work of equal value. According to the first principle, if we take the job category of truck driver, the man or the woman who drives that truck will be paid exactly the same. That was settled generations ago and people have a good understanding of that principle. The far greater challenge is eliminating the discrimination inherent between employment groups. It is readily understood just by looking at the public service in Ottawa. Historically, when the same requirements are examined, such as the difficulty of the task, the level of education required and other objective factors, employment groups with men in the majority are better paid than employment groups where there is a concentration of women. This has been definitively proven.

Our human rights legislation has always recognized the right of a woman to go to court, represented by others if need be, to obtain equal pay for work of equal value. On November 27, in the objectionable document I just referred to, the so-called economic update that really was not that at all, but rather an ideological attack, the Conservatives took away that right from women. This is exactly what the Conservatives want to do again today. It is written in black and white in Bill C-10. And what makes it even worse is the fact that a party that calls itself Liberal will vote with the Conservatives to take away the right of Canadian women to equal pay for work of equal value.

As if this were not enough—still speaking about sustainable development and our obligation to consider future generations every time we make a decision in this House—the bill creates a new power, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, that will have an impact on the bed of any navigable or floatable waterway. Again, this will be done behind closed doors, through regulations, without any public debate. The government will remove the obligation to have environmental assessments for projects worth less than $10 million.

Here, the Conservatives are sending the same message as when they take away the right of women to equal pay for work of equal value: it is a luxury that we simply cannot afford in these times of economic crisis. The message is the same with regard to the environment: environmental protection is a luxury that we simply cannot afford in these very tough economic times. That is hogwash. Shame on those who are suggesting that.

Tying the need for an environmental assessments to the value of the project show just how ignorant the government is when it comes to the environment. The mayor of a town who has been dreaming for years of filling in a precious wetland will now be free to do so as long as his project costs less than $10 million. It is so ludicrous it defies belief, but that is what is happening. This is all driven by ideology, certainly not common sense or knowledge. It is obviously not the cost of what is going to be put on a wetland that should be considered but the ecological value of the environment that is going to be destroyed.

We should seize the opportunity provided by the very real economic crisis we are facing to build things that will last and are sustainable, especially those related to green, renewable energy, so that future generations can be paid back. All we are bequeathing them now is the enormous debt we are going to run up. We are also going to bestow a second kind of debt on them. Not only will future generations have to pay back all the money we are spending now in excess of our revenues, but even more despicably, they are going to inherit an ecological debt and deficit that can never be offset.

They are going to destroy our precious wetlands and the quality of our air, and the health of our children will begin to suffer the effects. All this damage will happen because we are destroying the environmental protections that, in the long term, preserve our ecosystems and human health. Once all this damage has been done, thanks to the support of the Liberals, the Conservatives will have achieved what they always dreamed of: attacking the rights of women and attacking environmental protection, always in support of their right-wing ideology.

I really should mention the most important of our immediate needs: employment insurance. The government still has $54 billion that it stole and put in its general revenues, even though this money was paid by working people and their employers precisely for times like these. Instead of abolishing the two-week penalty applied to people who are eligible for employment insurance, the Conservatives are going to retain it, with the help of the Liberals. Instead of extending employment insurance, they are going to keep the same rules.

For all these reasons, we in the New Democratic Party are going to stand up against the narrow, hard-right vision of the Conservatives.