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.

Motions in amendment

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 317.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 318.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 319.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 320.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 321.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 322.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 323.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 324.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 325.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 326.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 327.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 328.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 329.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 330.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 331.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 332.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 333.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 334.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 335.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 336.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 337.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 338.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 339.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 340.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting Clause 341.

Madam Speaker, we are presently considering the second group of amendments to Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill. We want to delete one of the Conservatives' deplorable provisions concerning the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

It is a bit disarming to listen to the Liberals stand, one after the other, and explain that they are actually in favour of protecting the environment, women's rights and collective bargaining rights but they will vote against them.

It is worthwhile to take a moment to give context to the amendment that is before us and see what has happened in terms of the economy in Canada and with regard to the actions of the Conservatives over the past couple of months.

We remember that during the election campaign the Conservatives kept saying that there was no problem in Canada, until the wheels started to fall off the economy in the last two weeks of that campaign. Then they really did not have any place to hide. All through the rest of October, after they were elected into a minority situation here in Parliament, and in November, they kept insisting that there would not even be a recession in Canada. Then they invented the term “technical recession”, whatever that was supposed to mean. It meant that we were in a recession, of course, like the rest of the world.

On November 27, in what was supposed to have been an economic update, a fiscal and financial update for the government, the Conservatives, instead of taking care of the economy and recognizing that we were in dire straits like the rest of the world, decided to go after their reform base, go for some of the nuggets of the extreme right and embed them into this fiscal and financial update.

Some of the things it contained were an attack on women's rights by removing a woman's right to have equal pay for work of equal value and an attack on collective bargaining rights. They were taking away the right to collective bargaining and to enforce collective bargaining, even though 104,000 civil servants had just signed. It showed utmost bad faith by the government.

Finally, the Conservatives were taking out the clean financing of political parties that was brought in, in the wake of the Liberal sponsorship scandal. We remember that when the Liberal Party of Canada stole millions of dollars of taxpayer money it was necessary to bring in a cleaner form of financing for political parties.

It was interesting that two months later, day for day, January 27, 2009, two of those things were still there: the attack on women's rights was still in the budget, and it is here in Bill C-10; and the attack on union rights and collective bargaining rights is still in Bill C-10. The only thing that was changed for the better was that they took out the attack on the clean political party financing.

In November, the Liberals were willing to vote down the government, supposedly for all those issues, saying that it was not a stimulus package, that it had all these horrible things in it like the attack on women's rights, the attack on unions and an attack on clean party financing. The only thing that was changed with regard to all of that in the January budget was that the Liberals got their beefsteak back.

We must remember that the Liberals rely more on direct public financing of political parties than any other political party in the House. Almost as if to prove that it takes at least three odious measures to make the Conservatives and their troglodytes happy, they replaced the removal of the party financing with something else that is equally odious, which is what we are about to deal with now, the removal of the essence of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, a protection for the environment that has existed in Canada for over 100 years.

My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona has already had an occasion in the last few weeks to demonstrate that there are documents to prove that the Conservatives want to remove environmental assessments for projects that are under $10 million. Those were clear documents that the government was never able to deny.

What is so absurd there is that it is not the value of the project that matters. If we are back-filling a precious wetland for a project that is worth $9.9 million, it matters not. It is the value of the ecosystem we have to look at, which is why we do an environmental assessment.

We must not forget that in these tough economic times, everything becomes an excuse for the Conservatives to bring in their right-wing agenda. They are going to remove environmental protections, especially the safeguards provided by an environmental assessment.

They always talk about the need to streamline. This is their new leitmotif. They say that things will be more flexible and a bit faster. This is the thing that they are talking about again with regard to the $3 billion slush fund that they want to bring in for Conservative ridings.

What the Conservatives forget is that some of us have actually been in a position to do something about these issues. When I was Quebec's minister of the environment, we signed a deal with the federal government. David Anderson was the minister at that time. The deal was a model. That was streamlining. We made sure there would be only one hearing and that responsible federal and provincial people would be present because they had different jurisdictions and different things they were competent to look at. There was no removal of the process and no lessening of the safeguards for the environment, but it made it go faster.

This is an old canard that one often hears. I heard the former minister of the environment and current transport minister repeat in the House something he had already said in committee. It is an anecdote but it shows his mindset. He claims, based on what he heard from the Premier of B.C., that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is the greatest job killer in Canada. Can anyone imagine the absurdity of a statement like that? He says that with a straight face, which proves that either he is very good at saying things that are contrary to the truth and not letting it show or that he is just too dim to realize that what he is saying does not make any sense. It is like when he used to tell us that he was bringing in a fixed ceiling for greenhouse gas emissions when in fact he had intensity targets. It is just possible that he did not know the difference between the two, which was the conclusion I finally came to.

A new subsection is being brought in to the Navigable Waters Protection Act that would allow the minister to create new categories of things that would no longer be subject to the normal protection of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The enabling provisions would allow not only orders in council, but ministerial orders. An order in council at least needs to go through cabinet. There is a vetting process. A ministerial order is something generated within the department. This would remove large numbers of waterways from the purview of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the statute that has been a model.

If we look at what we have done in Canada to protect our waterways compared to what has been done in Europe, in the south we have had our problems but, general speaking, across this country we have done relatively well. Navigable and floatable waters have always been the responsibility of the federal government. I can say that there are a lot of mayors across Canada who are waiting for nothing more than to see this type of protection disappear so that their pet projects can go through. They often talk about that.

This has no more to do with stimulating spending than removing a woman's right to equal pay for work of equal value and no more than removing a union's right to collectively bargain effectively by having it be applicable. This is what the Conservative government is all about. It is deeply cynical to use the vehicle of a budget in tough economic times to slip in the continued poisoned pills of its doctrine.

This should in fact be two bills. In committee, the New Democratic Party of Canada tried to take out the part on navigable waters, as did the Bloc Québécois, and tried to take out the reprehensible part that would remove a woman's right to equal pay for work of equal value.

It was interesting to listen to the government on the weekend. The statute that we are debating right now runs 528 pages. It went through committee in a single morning. Does anyone know what the government was saying on the weekend? It was saying that it was being held up in committee. Can anyone imagine the temerity of making that type of representation?

That is quite simply false. The Navigable Waters Protection Act is part of a collection of legislation developed in Canada over the last hundred years. Canada once had the well deserved reputation of doing things right.

A moment ago, I was listening carefully to the hon. member for York South—Weston. He said the quarterly reports currently requested will galvanize Parliament.

The last time I heard a Liberal use the word “galvanize” it was Eddie Goldenberg, the former chief of staff to Prime Minister Chrétien, when he admitted that when the Liberals signed Kyoto it was supposedly to galvanize public opinion. They had no plan and no intention of meeting the targets. Instead of reducing the targets by 6%, they increased them by 30%. That is the Liberals. They have no principles. They are voting with the Conservatives. No one should listen to a word they say. At least the NDP is in the House standing up for Canadians and for principles.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, as it is my first opportunity to talk about the budget, I am pleased to rise to speak not just on the amendments that have been presented but to attempt to capture the budget's themes and relate them to the residents in my constituency of York South—Weston. Hopefully, members will find that there are some similarities with respect to issues across the country because that is why we are here. We are here to extract the best from the provided legislation, the budget in this case, and to criticize the shortcomings.

For those who are watching, this is Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill. There are hundreds of amendments that have been moved to varying degrees, exercising the will of the opposition to impress on the government those shortcomings. The shortcomings in the areas of pay equity and employment insurance have been discussed and commented on much better than I could. I am going to let it rest on the record that the government has been listening. It has listened from the very beginning, when the opposition indicated in the budget overview that there was no response to the kinds of issues that Canadians across this country could see on the horizon.

I would like to talk about 10 areas as briefly as I can. First, I think that it behooves us to talk about the manufacturing sector. There is probably no area in the country that has been harder hit than Southern Ontario. We were told years in advance that there was a crisis brewing within the manufacturing sector in Ontario. I do not need to dwell on this, but a huge amount of the disposable part of the gross domestic product comes from Ontario and that goes toward equalization. We have just been informed that the GDP is dropping very rapidly, notwithstanding the situation in Ontario. If there is a gap between the growth and the GDP, that impacts on our regional ability to contribute to equalization.

That was a case that was made. None of us come to the House with clean hands. That is an issue that was not addressed. My hope is that out of this discussion, the issue with respect to equalization and its impact on Ontario is placed under the microscope of concern. However, the creation of a regional authority providing $1 billion for a community adjustment fund that will look at manufacturing, particularly in Southern Ontario, and attempt to stabilize, reinvest in and revitalize the sector is a step in the right direction.

Small businesses are reeling in my constituency, especially those related to the automotive sector. Those that are not employed by the Big Three but are peripheral to the automotive sector, involved in various used parts and creating new parts for the industry, are being hurt very much. I am encouraged that, with more funds being allocated through the Canada Small Business Financing Program and the Business Development Bank, some of my constituents and the small businesses in the area I represent will find that there is hope in this budget. The sooner we can ignite that hope and bring it from the declaratory stage to the implementation stage the better.

When we talk about a more sustainable environment, we cannot help but look at the transformation that is occurring with respect to industry. We have talked about green jobs and green technology. There is no question that there is capacity built into the budget to develop integrated technologies across this country.

The natural resources committee is looking into this with ongoing hearings. We must begin bit by bit contributing to a more integrated and technologically transformative and green economy, certainly producing climate change results that will excite Canadians and that will begin to be part of this global transformation that is taking place.

I would like to think that in York South—Weston, for example, in the Kodak plant that is no longer in existence, that 60 acres would find an incubating taking place that would see high value added activity on that site, and that it would contribute to the city of Toronto's green plan and to green plans similar to it right across the country.

There is no question that local and community investments in cultural, sports and community centres are part of the budget. In York South—Weston the boards of education have been reeling, along with the city, in trying to continue to rehabilitate their recreational facilities. It is the proverbial caucus race. They are investing but they are falling further and further behind. We now have an opportunity, through cooperation with cities like Toronto and cities and communities across the country, to make a substantive change in retrofitting those buildings and bringing them up-to-date. The legacy from that will be that future generations will benefit.

Investments in federal infrastructure projects through the federal infrastructure programs are high on the list for municipalities but this is where I have one criticism. It relates to the one-third, one-third, one-third that has been discussed. Many municipalities are going through a credit crisis in looking at their fiscally sustainable future and possibly not being able to participate in the programs that have been etched out as partnership programs. The suggestion we would put forward in this regard is that we do have the mechanism, for example, of the commitment of the federal gas tax and the ability to front-end load that by using it and taking hopefully the revenues that might come from it and reinvesting them back in as a revolving form of financing into infrastructure programs that are going to stimulate the economy. There is absolutely no question about that.

The government has to listen to the critiques that are being made of these programs and in the mechanism that has been suggested by the opposition where there are quarterly reviews coming forward. If that part of the stimulus program is not working, then there has to be a recalibrating of that mechanism, so that we can extract the highest value in the shortest amount of time from our partners at the municipal level.

Regarding the whole matter of investments in housing in my area, there are many social housing units. It is a very high needs area and this budget makes it very clear that investment in housing, social housing in particular, and the rehabilitation of old housing stock, is a high priority.

Finally, I would like to talk about students and an aging workforce and what the budget provides, but I want to finish with two issues that are really time-fused issues. That is the issue of private pension plans and the issue with respect to deposit insurance with respect to our banking institutions and so on. These are two areas that the government must take under greater scrutiny because the whole issue of private pensions and deposits will become more and more an issue as the actuarial differences between existing investments and their ability to cover both deposits and pensions is strained to the limit.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member, who just gave a passionate, heartfelt speech about the Conservative government—with some criticism, of course—what he thinks about a very recent story in the weekend media.

During his speech, he said that he and his party are standing up to defend good legislative measures. I have my doubts because as recently as this weekend, Saturday to be more precise, more than 100 unionized public service workers demonstrated in front of a Halifax hotel where Liberal Party members were meeting. The leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was there to speak. But the crowd was not there to demonstrate against the government, but against the Liberal Party, which supported Bill C-10.

According to the representative of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which was also present, Bill C-10 contains three poison bills, namely a public service wage cap, a rewrite of the federal pay equity legislation and a complicated new employment insurance process.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is another opportunity for me 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.

This is probably one of the most important bills that we will have before us in this Parliament, although I also believe it is vitally important that the Conservative government bring forward legislation as soon as possible to deal with the unfortunate crimes that are taking place in different parts of our country. I do not want to name provinces or cities, but crime is crime is crime.

This has come to my attention because during the election there was a shooting in a school in my riding. I was asked to speak on the radio which I did. The attorney general was also on the radio. He said everything and nothing. I said to him then and I will say it again now that he should not just do the talk, he should do the walk. He should bring in the legislation. We will be there to support him. We will support good legislation that will help fight crime.

Everyone remembers that the Liberals brought in the anti-gang legislation which helped address the problems that were occurring in Quebec with the biker gangs. It helped us address problems with gangs in the greater Toronto area. I am asking the Conservatives to put their money where their mouths are and bring forward that legislation.

On the budget implementation bill, Bill C-10, my colleague, the member for Don Valley East was so eloquent in her speech. She pointed out the main reasons the Liberals are supporting the bill. We had discussions with our constituents and they told us to support the bill for various reasons.

One reason is that the economic downturn that is taking place in our country needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

As well, as I responded to the NDP members when they questioned me as to why I am supporting the government, the last thing Canada needs right now is to dish out over half a billion dollars for an unnecessary election. Our support for the bill has conditions. There is a caveat. We want to make sure that the government does what it is supposed to do.

For the last little while we have been listening to Canadians and to other parliamentarians who bring their views from their constituencies. There are some things in the budget that are merely cosmetic as far as I am concerned. For example, on the home renovations allowance of up to $10,000, Canadians today are worried about keeping their jobs, not about fixing their basements or adding on an extension. Should Canadians go out and borrow money or use some of their savings to add on an extension, to do a kitchen renovation, to replace windows or put on a new roof so that they can get a maximum $1,350 tax credit?

We had a similar program in our platform in the most recent election. Our program was that if Canadians wished to renovate, they would be able borrow up to $10,000 interest free for those renovations. I do not think Canadians paid that much attention to it. They were buried by all that propaganda put out by the Conservatives. The Conservatives spent tens of millions of dollars in advertising to defame our leader at that time, to talk about the so-called carbon tax and the green economy that we wished to bring forward. Who is talking about the green economy today? President Obama. Who agrees with him? The current Prime Minister. I listened to the Prime Minister on CNN on Sunday. If my TV screen had been blank, I never would have imagined it was the Prime Minister, the leader of the Conservative government, who was speaking. Nevertheless, that is what we are dealing with today.

An unemployed auto worker, a gentleman by the name of John MacDonald, in talking about the retrofit program stated, “ You're not going to retrofit your house if you don't have a job”. He is right.

The most important thing today is how to get Canada moving, how to make the right investments. Most important, the budget talks about putting billions of dollars here and billions of dollars there, but that money has to get to the specific areas. We talk about shovel-ready programs. That is the new term nowadays, shovel ready. That means the shovel is ready to go in the ground. Great. If we assume that is the case, then let us explain to Canadians what the delay is in getting the money for a new recreation centre, or for upgrading a road, or for repairing a bridge. What is the delay? Proper due diligence should be done, and I think the system is there to make sure that is the case.

The Conservative government knows very clearly that we on the Liberal side are prepared to support this budget bill. We are standing here expressing our views constructively to ensure that Canadians understand why we are behind this budget bill. Canadians are applauding what the leader of the Liberal Party and the entire Liberal team has said, which is that we need to look after the nation today given what is going on. We are putting our differences aside and we are working for the good of the nation. We are stepping up to the plate.

As I said earlier on the crime and justice issues, it is very important to all of us, or at least to us on the Liberal side, that we ensure that the legislation is brought forward as soon as possible. The Minister of Justice stood the other day and a lot of hot steam came out of his mouth, which is fine, but bring forward legislation. Nothing is stopping him. I can tell him right now that the Liberal team is here to stand and support good legislation.

I also have a concern. When we talk about shovel-ready programs, moneys have been allocated in previous budgets, but to this very day, these moneys have not been delivered. I want to put some figures into the record. The Conservative government, for example, has left unspent $88 million that was meant for two specific areas. The government had allocated $140 million for disaster relief, but $76.4 million is unspent. The big sheriffs from the west want to fight crime. The government allocated $43 million in its last budget for crime prevention. The government has spent $19.3 million and $24 million is still sitting there.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill, but before I speak to Bill C-10, I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the member for Winnipeg North.

I would like to remind the member not to be so sanctimonious. She talks about principles. What principles does the NDP have? It has zero. What did it give up in 2006? It gave up Kelowna, Kyoto, the agendas of citizens and communities, and early learning and child care.

The NDP leader said “Lend me your vote.” For what? He then got into bed with the Conservatives. The NDP members talk a good talk when it comes to the vulnerable, but when it comes to the real fight, the real nuts and bolts of supporting the vulnerable, they are nowhere to be seen.

So I really do not need any lessons on principles from the member or from that party.

Going back to Bill C-10, this has been a strange week in Ottawa, with an admission from both the Prime Minister and the finance minister that Canadians should somehow expect that rushing the stimulus package out the door will result in a budgetary boondoggle by the Conservative government.

This is a remarkably frank admission by the Conservatives, considering that the money has yet to be approved by Parliament. It is defeatist language coming from the Prime Minister, who presented a self-inflicted political crisis in December when his fledgling government was forced to withdraw its November 27th economic statement that was drafted by some zealots in his office.

Last November should have been the government's first opportunity to present a stimulus package, when the whole world was aware that we were heading into tough economic times. Instead the Conservatives, who lack all impulse control when it comes to partisan games, brought in an economic statement that had more to do with political tricks than economic management.

In the fall, during the last election, the Prime Minister falsified information. He claimed that there was no economic crisis, and that if there were a recession, Canadians would already be in one. The Prime Minister even joked about the opportunity to buy stocks. This is the Prime Minister who does not have any regard for the countless Canadians who have lost their jobs.

The solution they provided in their November economic statement, which was the most absurd solution—

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

Madam Speaker, that was a shock to all of us. We knew the Conservatives were dead against something as progressive as pay equity and were going to try to do whatever they could to kill it, but on top of that, to fill up this legislation with slings and arrows and to suggest that anyone advocating in the labour movement on behalf of an employee to get the employee's rightful access to pay equity would be penalized to the tune of $50,000 is just beyond comprehension, beyond belief.

I have never heard or seen anything like this in my 20 years of elected political office, nor in my 40 years of working in the political movement, especially in the women's movement where we have fought for so long to have pay equity in the first place. We cannot stand here and allow pay equity to be killed in one fell swoop without doing everything we can to stop it. Everything about this legislation is wrong, wrong, wrong, and I would urge the Liberals to rethink their position.

Just today in the press we noted that the Minister of Health, a woman in the cabinet of the government, has come out in full support of the Conservative government's legislation preventing female federal public service employees from filing pay equity complaints, and supports the notion that a union would be fined $50,000 if it gave support to an employee for pay equity. That is shameful. That is unacceptable, and I would hope that if we cannot convince the Conservatives, at least the Liberals will stand up and help us separate this part of the legislation out of Bill C-10.

When it came to equalization, the leader of the Liberal Party somehow managed to give all the members from Newfoundland and Labrador dispensation from voting against equalization. Now we are simply asking, if the Liberals really believe in pay equity and understand it is a fundamental right, will they be given dispensation to vote against Bill C-10 and stand up for the women of this country and stand up for pay equity?

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

My Conservative friend over there suggests they are smart people. I guess by a Conservative definition, that is being really smart. That is intelligent, is it not? Do not stand for principles. Do not stand for what one believes in. Do not be committed to why one got involved in politics in the first place. Principles go out the window. Expediency counters all commitment to principles. It does not matter. Is that smart? Is that intelligent? That is not what the voters want. They want us to stand up for something in which we believe.

We are not looking at this from the point of view of whether it is going to cause an election. We are simply saying this is fundamentally wrong.

The Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of this land, is wrong. He is not being forthcoming. He is not telling the truth to Canadians. We have only a few opportunities to say that and to try to convince somebody in the House, besides New Democrats and the Bloc, to stand up for their principles. We do not have any time left.

The Liberals need to think about what they are doing. They need to realize what this means in the country. They need to understand what they are doing in terms of destroying a legacy, of destroying something women before us fought for and won. They should not think about themselves; they should think about the women and others who fought for pay equity before us.

There are other parts of the bill that are up for debate this afternoon, and I want to touch on another one. This group of amendments deals with the national securities regulator. Again, I want to let all members of the House know why we are opposed to the national securities regulator. In fact, this does not come from a group of New Democrats but from many Canadians who are very worried about savings that may be lost or who are feeling the pain of having lost their life savings.

Whether we look at our seniors or our small business investors, one thing is clear. They have all told us we cannot simply put in place a national regulator and expect the world to be fixed. This will not mean anything unless the government decides it really wants to get tough, in terms of financial abuses, and wants to crack down on fraudsters and those who take advantage of others through criminal means.

I want to refer to a well-known activist in this area. The Conservatives will know the name of this person, I would hope. It is Stan Buell, president of the Small Investor Protection Association. He says very clearly that we can consider the idea of a national securities regulator. However, we know that unless we proactively work in this area to protect seniors and others from those who take advantage of them, all the national securities regulators in the world will not mean a thing. Regulators, he says, requires someone who believes in taking power to do just that. This area requires investor protection, not just regulation. He says that we have to have action that allows for whistleblowers to come forth under protective and proactive legislation.

He says:

For Canadians across Canada to receive adequate investor protection, there must be a paradigm shift in the approach to regulation.

I want my Conservative friends to listen to this very clearly so they will know where we are coming from and what we expect of them. He says:

Whether Canada moves to a NAFTA regulator, moves to a harmonized system with passports and Uniform Securities Laws, or retains the status quo, investors will see no improvement if the regulatory system remains based on prescriptive rules that enable the industry to circumvent regulations and to develop new products faster than rules can be changed.

That is what is at stake with respect to this part of Bill C-10 and why New Democrats are fundamentally opposed to a provision in the bill that now suddenly, out of the blue, moves toward a national securities regulator. For all of these years, nothing was done by either the Conservatives or the Liberals before them, to the point where the provinces put in place the passport system, which has been serving our country well in the face of a vacuum.

It makes no sense for the government to now proceed without indicating to Canadians that it is prepared to crack down on fraudsters and con artists who take advantage of people and their life savings. No one in the country will be assured through this budget of any kind of help or assistance on the part of the government if there is no set of protective measures put in place that will give Canadians the confidence that someone will be there when a fraudster operates and when consumers are taken advantage of. That is putting the cart before the horse, and we object to that.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise with incredible sadness, disappointment and concern again today. It is really hard to sit in the House and to hear from Liberals that they find certain elements in the budget bill absolutely repugnant and reprehensible, yet they are able to look themselves in the mirror and vote for it.

The Liberals suggest that it is the Conservatives who should look in the mirror and try to face up to what they are doing. The irony is we know where the Conservatives are coming from and we are trying to change their minds. We know from statements of the past that they do not believe in equal pay for work of equal value. In fact, they are clinging to the concept of the fifties of equal pay for equal work. We know they do not respect the work of women in our country, women who have for the last 30, 40, 50 years struggled for equality. We know they do not understand what is at stake for women who desperately want to achieve in their lifetime that goal of equal status. Therefore, we understand what we are up against and we are using every tool we can think of and find at our fingertips to try to bring them to their senses. While they may agree with those antiquated regressive statements and positions, the majority of Canadians do not. Therefore, we expect the government of the day to reflect the majority will of Canadians.

However, for the Liberals, I cannot begin to find any rationale at all in the statement just made by the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, that they can justify standing up and saying that they believe in something as fundamental as pay equity, but they are going to let the government do what it has to and that they are going to just hold their noses and let it happen.

Where do they draw the line? When do politicians stand up for what they believe in? When does it count? Why did we get elected than but to stand for something we believe in and fight for it?

Pay equity is unlike all the other issues we are dealing with right now. It is a fundamental human right. It is a right that is being totally eliminated in Bill C-10. Members should read the bill. The government is taking away the right of women to go to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. There is no reprieve, no avenue through our courts to seek that fundamental right entrenched in the charter.

Instead, the government is putting in place legislation that does not honour the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. In fact, it does not allow for a comparison of jobs between men and women so we can get rid of women in ghettos where they are underpaid and undervalued.

Interestingly, nowhere in the entire legislation, in this so-called equitable compensation act, is the word “men”. How can we have pay equity if there is no way to compare? The legislation is not proactive. It takes away a fundamental right. It is the loss in one fell swoop, in an instant of everything for which the women's movement has fought for more than 30 or 40 years.

The Liberals can stand in the House and say that in the interest of avoiding an election they will let it go.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to Bill C-10 to implement the budget, the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments that were then grouped with other amendments. The main purpose of the Bloc Québécois' amendments was to delete the entire portion of the bill relating to the government's intention to create a single securities commission.

Last week, during the Bloc Québécois opposition day, we focused on this issue. In Quebec, there has been strong opposition to this plan for several years. The Conservative government had a so-called expert panel undertake some studies and, in the end, it told the government exactly what it wanted to hear.

Quebec has always been against this plan, primarily because of jurisdiction. Securities regulation falls under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction. The federal government must respect that. That is the main reason the Bloc Québécois proposed the amendment to delete provisions creating a single, Canada-wide securities commission from the bill. Such a commission would result in a regulatory monopoly that we believe would be dangerous for the entire regulated securities sector.

We currently have a proven system that has been made better with the introduction of the 13 passports. Within this system, the various regulators can deal with each other and institutions or organizations regulated by one entity can do business with the other 12 regulators.

At present, only Ontario has refused to take part in this initiative, which has been commended by the OECD and the International Monetary Fund as being very effective. Ontario has refused to take part because, by refusing, it put pressure on the government to waste no time in creating a single securities regulator that would likely be located in that province. That would have many benefits for Ontario, but not for Quebec.

With the changes affecting stock markets, including the case of the Montreal Stock Exchange versus the Toronto Stock Exchange, the securities regulator in Quebec, the Autorité des marchés financiers, has become the last bastion protecting the industry and securities trading in Quebec. The current passport system has made it possible for several organizations to exist, and it will continue to do so. It provides balance. The smaller regulators can encourage diversity and innovation.

We have only to think of the solidarity fund managed by the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec or FTQ. This is a Quebec innovation, but other provinces have also made innovations. The current system makes these innovations possible. It provides protection against overly large markets that would create a form of regulatory monopoly, as I said earlier.

This bill would establish a Canadian securities regulation regime transition office. This bill would provide the government with $150 million for this plan. We do not need such a system. To start, we would save $150 million. We can see that the government wants to spend large sums at a time when the economy needs the money. Creating this kind of an organization does not make sense; this money should go into supporting businesses. We are reminding the government almost daily that it must increase its help to Quebec's forestry industry, yet it is contributing only $170 million for the entire forestry industry across Canada. This is pitiful compared to the $2.7 billion given to the auto industry in Ontario. This $150 million could very easily be directed elsewhere. It would not entirely correct the inequity, but it would at least serve to soften the severe blows to Quebec's forestry industry.

This group of amendments also deals with tax havens. If it passes—which we hope it will—one of the amendments would ensure that the government cannot back down on recent announcements. In 2007, it said that tax havens are unfair to small and medium-size businesses and to workers in various sectors, because businesses that benefit from tax havens pay less tax, and then the tax which the government requires in order to fulfill its responsibilities comes, for the most part, from the pockets of workers and small and medium-size businesses.

This amendment would keep the government from backing down on previous commitments. We will support this amendment to remove the entire clause pertaining to tax havens from Bill C-10.

To conclude, I reiterate the Bloc Québécois' support for these Group No. 1 amendments.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I see that I have some fans in this chamber, or at least one.

The budget implementation bill, Bill C-10, presents various initiatives contained in last January's budget, in particular the transition office for the single securities regulator. The Bloc Québécois has introduced amendments to delete clauses 295 to 299, that is to eliminate the clauses to establish a single securities regulator. The government, through this bill, wants to establish a transition office for the Canadian securities regulator and would provide an operating budget of $150 million for this office.

The Expert Panel on Securities Regulation in Canada, appointed by the Minister of Finance, tabled its final report in January 2009. It is proposing the creation of a federal regulator for securities, over which Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction. This is an encroachment into Quebec's jurisdiction. The report proposes various mechanisms to implement the project without agreement from Quebec and the provinces. Furthermore, the report also proposes that the federal government use legal recourse to force dissenting provinces to comply with the federal project. The 2009 budget reflects the recommendations of the expert panel and reiterates the government's commitment to establishing a single regulator in Canada.

The Bloc Québécois would like to reiterate its opposition to the creation of a national securities commission. Instead, it will support harmonization of the rules governing the financial system through a passport mechanism, like that of the European community, in order to maintain the autonomy and jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. The Bloc Québécois will continue to vigorously argue against the creation of such a commission and will continue to fully support the Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec.

I want to go back one year and talk about the 2008 budget, which confirmed this Conservative government's intention to set up a single securities commission. At the time, the minister reiterated in his budget his intention to introduce federal legislation to establish a single regulator. To this end, the minister commissioned a panel of experts to draft a bill to create a single securities commission. He said, “I am asking the panel to develop a model common securities act to create a Canadian advantage in global capital markets.” That is what is written in a news release issued by the Minister of Finance on February 21, 2008.

The panel tabled its final report at the end of 2008. That document includes a series of measures to establish a single securities commission. In his 2009 budget, the minister welcomed the recommendations made by the panel in its report. Moreover, the budget allocated $150 million to set up a committee to implement those recommendations.

This is unacceptable. The Minister of Finance is stubbornly going ahead with an initiative that goes against the unanimous will of Quebec's National Assembly and that is a flagrant violation of Quebec's constitutional jurisdictions. The Bloc Québécois will continue to defend Quebec against the centralizing views of this federal government.

For over 40 years, the idea of a single securities regulatory body has been surfacing every now and then. Since 2003, the issue has again moved to the forefront of federal politics. The Liberals, who were in office at the time, set up an expert panel to look at the possibility of establishing a single regulatory body in Canada.

In 2005, the Ontario government mandated a group of experts, led by Purdy Crawford, to examine the benefits of a single securities regulatory system. Of course, the Crawford report supported Ontario's arguments in favour of a single regulator.

The 2006 federal budget revisited the idea. In that budget, the government announced that it planned to work with the provinces and territories to set up a common securities regulator. That position was confirmed in the November 2006 economic update and the 2007 budget.

In June 2007, following a meeting of ministers responsible for securities, the current Conservative Minister of Finance announced plans to set up a working group to, first, study the outcomes, principles and performance measures that would best anchor securities regulation and the pursuit of a Canadian advantage in global capital markets. The group was also supposed to study how Canada could best promote and advance proportionate, more principles-based regulations, starting from existing harmonized legislation and national and multilateral regulatory instruments. It was supposed to look into how this progress could facilitate, and be reinforced by, better coordination of enforcement efforts.

In September 2007, the minister announced that the group would focus on how to set up a single regulatory organization instead of looking at how effective the current system is. When the Minister of Finance announced that work had begun on February 21, 2008, he confirmed his intention to change the expert panel's mandate and have it focus on drafting model legislation to create a single securities commission.

Budget 2008 confirmed the Conservative government's intention to set up a single securities commission. In his budget, the minister reiterated his plan to introduce the bill before us to create a single regulatory body. Quebec's National Assembly rejected the federal government's initiative and unanimously passed a motion to that effect on October 16, 2007. I will read it: “That the National Assembly ask the federal government to abandon its Canada-wide securities commission project”.

Authority over securities is given to the provinces by virtue of their jurisdiction over property and civil rights under section 92.13 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Conservatives ignored Quebec's motion. In the November 2008 economic and fiscal update and in this budget, the Minister of Finance reiterated his intention to set up a single securities commission in blatant disregard of his own Constitution.

Not long after the economic statement was tabled, the expert panel set up by the minister tabled its report, which, as expected, suggests creating a single securities regulator. It also proposes a mechanism that would allow companies to disregard the laws of Quebec and do business with the Canada-wide regulator, ignoring the organization in Quebec. In short, this report reflects what the minister wants: to impose a single securities regulator despite Quebec's legitimate objections.

Lastly, when budget 2008 was tabled, the current Minister of Finance again expressed confidence in the expert panel report. In addition, he made $150 million available to implement his proposed Canada-wide commission.

The Conservative government is prepared to infringe on Quebec's jurisdictions in order to advance its plans for a single, Canada-wide securities commission. The federal Liberals are in favour of creating a single institution. All the political parties in Quebec are against this initiative. The current passport system works. Under this system, a company that registers in one participating province can do business with people in all the other participating provinces. The first phase of implementation was completed last fall, and the second phase is under way.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the member poses an intriguing suggestion. It goes back in history. The interest of our party was to make the system work. At a time of crisis, the last thing that our country wanted or needed was a political crisis. We in the Liberal Party said that we wanted to work with the government by fulfilling and implementing a series of initiatives that would deal with the economic crisis before us. Frankly, that is what we did.

Our critics in the Liberal Party put forth some profound solutions to the government. To a degree, some of them were adopted, and we were happy that the government took the olive branch that we put forward. There were some fruitful negotiations that took place with our finance team.

However, subsequent to that, the government has slammed the door shut on any viable negotiation. This is not democratic. This is not in the interest of our country. This is not in the interests of our citizens. We in the Liberal Party have said that we have a series of solutions. We can make Bill C-10 better. We want to make this bill better, but we do not want to have an election. We do not want to put our country through that because that would be utterly irresponsible.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-10. I want to talk about a couple of things that are important for not only my riding but also nationally.

In clause 10 of the bill, the government has done a very sly thing. I will give the House a bit of history, which you know very well, Madam Speaker, coming from the area that we come from, the greater Victoria area. Our dockside workers are the men and women who ensure our navy has ships that are functioning properly for our brave men and women in the Canadian Forces.

During the last several years, people in the trades nationally were earning a lot of money in the private sector and our workers in the dockyards could have easily left the civil service, gone into the private sector and made more money. Did they do that? No, they did not. Why not? They felt they were honour bound to continue to serve our country as civilian workers on the docks.

The government refused to negotiate their contract in good faith, so it went to arbitration. The arbitration was completed in January of this year with a fair and reasonable increase of 5% that goes back to 2006. What did the government do? In clause 10 of Bill C-10, it literally tore up that arbitrated agreement and has actually rolled back the moneys that our dockyard workers are owed. That is an underhanded approach.

My party, the Liberal Party, approached the government and asked if we could work for the betterment of the dockyard workers. We asked the government to negotiate a way to enable the dockyard workers to receive the pay and benefits that are their due. What did the government say? It said no. It said that it would not negotiate at all and that we must take this bill in its entirety. It would not allow us to change or amend the bill. It would not accept any of our suggestions to make the bill better for Canada and Canadians. It said that we had to take this lock, stock and barrel and, if we did not, since the vote on this bill would be a vote of confidence, it would invoke an election and ensure we wore it.

The government has refused to negotiate in good faith with the opposition on this bill. It has refused to allow us to work for our constituents. It has refused to negotiate to make this bill better in the interest of our country. It said that if we do not take this bill lock, stock and barrel, it will not only have an election but the stimulus package that is in the bill, which is important now for our workers, our economy and our country, will not go through. Therefore, after an election the stimulus package might get through some time this fall.

What kind of response is that from the government to Canadians at a time of need and at a time when all of us want to work together for the common good during a time of economic crisis in our country? We have a government that simply will not negotiate with the opposition to strengthen the bill in the interest of the public. That is what Canadians need to hear and what I hope they hear in the debate today.

The government is simply saying to Parliament and to the Canadian people that if we do not take this bill we will not get the stimulus package, jobs will be lost and we will have a $350 million election that nobody wants.

Is it not remarkable when we see events south of the border, where the U.S. president is willing to work across party lines in a bipartisan way. He is asking what the best solutions are that his country needs right now for his people. That is the kind of leadership that Canadians want and deserve. The Prime Minister is failing again to do this because he is playing politics. Why is he not listening to those of us in the other parties? Why will he not work with us to implement a series of solutions that will strengthen our country and help our citizens during their time of need?

Let us look at the stimulus package for a second. The stimulus package was intended to pass quite quickly. If last year is any indication, in 2008 in my province of British Columbia 75% of the moneys allocated for infrastructure projects are still sitting in the bank. What kind of infrastructure project is that?

The community of Sooke requires umpteen infrastructure projects. The west shore needs the E&N railway up and running, the Bear Mountain and Spencer Road overpasses need to be up and running, a storm sewage drainage system requires fixing, affordable housing needs to be implemented, and the federal government must work with the provinces to help post-secondary institutions from Royal Roads to the University of Victoria, Camosun College and the Pacific Institute for Sport Excellence. These and many other infrastructure projects have their hands out saying we should use these moneys now in order to provide a long-term benefit for our economy and our country.

The president of the high tech parks in Canada, Dale Gann, has an exciting proposal that would enable the government to invest taxpayers' money into high tech infrastructure parks that will enable our economy to compete internationally. We are a trading nation. We are an exporter. The government has simply not responded. Why is it doing that? Unless we invest in high tech parks today, we are going to be so far behind the eight ball that we will be at a huge disadvantage in terms of the changing economies.

China, for example, is building dozens and dozens of high tech parks. India is doing the same. They are getting into the forward cutting edge of research and development, which are the central pillars of the ability of any economy in any country to be able to move forward and capitalize on the future challenges ahead of us.

If we also look at the ability of our workers to access post-secondary training, one of the great challenges now is the fact that access to post-secondary training is often dependent on the amount of money in one's pocket. That is not an egalitarian situation. How can we have a nation whose access to post-secondary training, to be the best that we can be, to contribute in the best way possible for our nation, is actually predicated on the amount of money in our pockets? If we do not have money in our pockets, we cannot fulfill our highest potential for ourselves and our nation. That needs to change.

The Liberal Party put forth a number of very exciting solutions that could have been beneficial and, frankly, ought to be implemented now by the government. A couple of those are that the interest rate would be prime plus .5% and that the time students have to repay their loans would only start two years after they graduated.

In the case of medical students, for example, and those in residency training, they should not have to pay their loans until their residency training is over. Why should students have to pay off very hefty loans when they are making $50,000 or $60,000 a year while they are still essentially in medical school, in training? They are not able to pay off all of what they owe.

Some flexibility must be put into play to enable them to pay back the amounts they can. Many students graduate and go into jobs that are just a bit above minimum wage. They cannot possibly meet the financial requirements that are placed on them. The government has to invest in post-secondary institutions in an intelligent way and enable students to access the post-secondary training they need.

The other issue is investment in research and development, from Genome Canada to the stem cell research taking place in various institutions. Canada is full of outstanding researchers. The lack of interest and attention the government has given in this particular bill to research and development is going to hamstring the ability of our researchers to save lives and to develop research and development initiatives that could massively improve the health and welfare of our citizens.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with interest that I rise to speak today to Bill C-10, a bill to implement the 2009 budget the Conservative government presented in January.

Obviously, we oppose this bill. We made it clear that we would vote against it, because we believe that the 2009 budget and the measures in Bill C-10 do not meet the needs of the public, which, in an economic crisis, is entitled to expect appropriate and sufficient measures.

Not only does this budget not meet the public's expectations, but this legislation contains provisions in direct opposition to the unanimous demands of the Quebec National Assembly. As a responsible party, the Bloc, which works solely and always in the interest of the Quebec nation, has introduced a series of amendments aimed at correcting the main elements of the Conservative budget conflicting directly with the interests of Quebec and Quebeckers.

For the purposes of this debate, I am going to focus on two of the measures contained in the implementation legislation that we consider unacceptable. First, we are proposing an amendment to eliminate clause 6, that is, the section permitting the use of tax havens. This is a major issue. I have been hearing about these tax havens since I was first elected in 2004. The Liberals put measures in place at the time, and the Conservatives, who were supposed to abolish this type of measure continued with clause 6 of this budget.

While this Conservative budget does nothing to help the regions and sectors such as furniture manufacturing, which is a major industry in the riding I represent, or the infrastructure the Liberal member just spoke of, and contains no measures to help the thousands of workers who have lost their job, the Minister of Finance is going to allow the major corporations to avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes through tax havens. It is a scandal.

This is despite the fact that, in 2007, the Minister of Finance clearly stated his intention to put an end to tax havens and to ensure that everyone would pay their fair share of taxes. However, this is not the case. At the time, that same minister also lamented that, whenever large corporations managed to avoid paying taxes, workers and small and medium-size businesses had to pay more. That is something the Bloc Québécois noticed a long time ago and it rightly came to the conclusion that this was unfair.

Yet, in the 2009 budget, the Conservative government has decided, with the support of the Liberals—those masters of tax havens—to remove a provision in the Income Tax Act that was meant to prevent businesses from continuing to avoid paying taxes through the use of tax havens. Clearly, this Conservative government has yielded to the pressures of large corporations, including oil companies in western Canada. It has reneged on its commitment to fight tax evasion during this economic recession, at a time when thousands of workers need support. It is quite insulting to see how the Conservatives and Liberals are now refusing to act to put an end to this injustice.

The Liberals did just like the Conservatives and supported this budget because they, in fact, have always been against fighting tax evasion. Who could forget the former Liberal finance minister and Prime Minister who personally took advantage of these tax havens to avoid paying taxes in Canada? I thought the Liberals would have learned a lesson from the 2006 election. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

This is why I am asking all members to support this amendment from the Bloc Québécois. Those billions of dollars we are losing could definitely be useful to the unemployed, to low-income seniors and to manufacturers who are neglected in this budget, at a time when they need programs and support.

There is no question that, while the Bloc Québécois wants to help our regions and our poor, the Conservatives and the Liberals are as always protecting the large multinationals that do not want to pay taxes.

The second amendment that I want to discuss is the one calling for the clauses relating to the establishment of a single securities commission to be deleted. That amendment is necessary because this government with, of course, the support of the Liberals, has decided to use this legislation to introduce the provisions that will set up a Canadian securities regulation regime. Why does the federal government want to interfere yet again in an area that comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces? Why do the two main Canadian parties want to deprive Quebec of one of its powers? Why centralize the whole process in Toronto, thus depriving Quebec of quality jobs and of its expertise in an area that is its own, namely its financial sector? Why are the Liberals and Conservatives opposed to the consensus that was clearly expressed by the Quebec National Assembly against the establishment of a single securities commission? This is despite the fact that, as my colleague indicated earlier, the OECD believes that the current monitoring regime under the authority of Quebec and the provinces is one the most efficient among industrialized countries. Why question such a successful structure?

The passport system, like the system used in the European Community, works very well and allows a uniform, coordinated approach to the operating rules. It also promotes the development of specific areas of expertise, which makes it possible to have different, but complementary approaches to compliance with the regulations.

Lastly, the Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec is the last bastion against the disappearance of stock market activity from Montreal, because the AMF has the regulatory power to require exchange activities in Montreal. In the interest of Quebeckers and given the unanimous will of our National Assembly, with this amendment, we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, reiterate our opposition to the creation of a Canada-wide securities commission.

Last week, we voted on a motion calling on the federal government to abandon the idea of putting in place a Canada-wide securities regulator. Yet not a single Conservative member from Quebec got up to support that motion, even though the National Assembly of Quebec had taken a unanimous position against such a regulator. As always, they agreed to stand up for their party and the interests of Canadians at the expense of Quebeckers. But all the Bloc Québécois members rose to support that motion by a Bloc member, and I am proud that we did. Our mandate is still to defend the interests of Quebec, its National Assembly and its people.

Now, I call on the members of this House, but especially all the members from Quebec, to vote for the Bloc Québécois amendments to this budget implementation bill. The main purpose of our amendments is to defend Quebec's interests and the consensus expressed by the National Assembly. Our amendments also address the needs of the people of Quebec. The House will vote, and we will see once again which party is the only one that really defends the interests of Quebeckers in this House, which party is the only one that stands up for unanimous votes in the National Assembly of Quebec. That party is the Bloc Québécois.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-10. It has been an interesting journey for us to get to the point where we have a budget for us.

This is a very interesting story. When we go back to before the last election, in this House we actually passed a fixed election date law. The election was supposed to be held on October 19, 2009.

We had an election. One has to wonder, if we look at all the things that have happened, whether there is something more to the story. I looked at it very carefully and listened to how the government explained this.

In the November economic statement, the government indicated that there would be four years of surplus ahead of us and that everything was fine. The Prime Minister was happy that a recession had not occurred in Canada and had clearly indicated that if we ever to go into recession it would have already happened. That was out of line with virtually every private forecaster and with the parliamentary budget officer who has been under attack by the government. I do not know why.

The government started to change its tune as things started to come out. All of a sudden, in the January budget, instead of four years of surplus, we are looking at four years of deficit and at a recession.

The government says that we are in good shape. The Prime Minister's original assessment was that our banks were stronger than the banks in the rest of the world, so we did not have anything to worry about. On top of that, all these other countries that are boasting about being ready for the impending recession and the financial crisis, will be spending a lot of money. Since we are a trading nation, all the money they spend will benefit trade with us because we are a good trading country. It was basically an explanation that somehow we did not need do anything. We just needed to sit back and let other countries do the job and Canada will be just fine.

As we well know, that is not the case. In the January budget, we now have four years of deficit. The government's latest jingle line is that this is a global economic crisis. That means that everybody who is a player in the global economy is in crisis, and we are all there.

This is an absolute miracle, when we consider that last November there was no problem. We had an economic statement that said there was no problem. However, between November and January, when the budget came out on January 26, there was a global financial crisis. Instantaneously, the entire world was in a global financial crisis with no indication whatsoever that there was any problem out there. This is a lot of hogwash. The whole world does not go into an economic crisis without people knowing it.

The government knew it and the parliamentary budget officer knew it and told the government about it. The Governor of the Bank of Canada knew about it and told the government about it. I have heard from far too many people that the Prime Minister simply did not want to listen to the facts. He did not mind if the finance minister was left hung out to dry by giving numbers that were clearly a terrible indication.

The House knows that under the rules of budget day, the budget secrecy provisions, and even in general developments, the finance minister should never make commentary that may have some impact on the marketplace or on other financial indicators or instruments that might be involved. It is hard to believe that he actually gave that November economic statement that was basically panned by virtually everybody who knows anything about economic forecasting. It was clearly wrong but the government will not admit it now.

We now have a situation where the Prime Minister has said that we need to rush this through because we need to get the money flowing, and if we do not do it, there will be an election. I thought that was a little over the top because the official opposition has decided, notwithstanding the flaws in the budget, to support this one because we need to get that economic stimulus package moving and in place.

The only alternative would be to defeat the government now, go into another election and probably not come back until just before the summer or maybe even after the summer, depending on what happens. That would be unacceptable for the people of Canada. We need to put the people's interests before partisan interests.

However, the Prime Minister is still playing this partisan game saying that he has to get this going because he has to take care of the country and he is the only one who can take care of the country. I am not sure whether or not that is the assessment of the people.

As a consequence, when we think about it, there were indicators. Most people, who had any investments in RRSPs or direct investments, probably received the economic forecast letters that I received and I have seen others receive where it said that we have had a long good run of balanced budgets. We ducked the last recession that the U.S. had. We had low interest rates. We had the highest employment rate in 30 years and everything was going very well. We paid down debt and gave tax breaks. However, eventually it has to turn. Fat builds up in the system, the system gets lazy, the system gets undisciplined and things happen. Of course we are now into a more cyclical scenario.

Is it not a shame that the government broke its own law and called an election a year before it should have called it? Then, is it not a shame that it decided that it was going to go forward with an economic statement that made absolutely no sense, but wasted time? Then Parliament was prorogued, for how long again, so that the government could go back and figure out what would be its next political step. It came back with a budget.

What is in the budget? It is not just budget information. It turned out to be like an omnibus bill. There were things in there that had nothing to do with the budget, nothing to do with the financial crisis, and nothing to do with the need to get an economic stimulus package out.

It included an all out attack on pay equity. It included an all out attack on the public service, on the Competition Act, and even on the Navigable Waters Protection Act, things that have taken up time because they are in the budget and members have to address them, but they should not have been there in the first place. They could have been separate bills.

The Prime Minister says that he wants to get the stimulus out. Canadians want that stimulus out. However, we cannot just flip a switch and say, “Here's the cheque, go do it”. Obviously, we have to pick the projects, we have to appropriate the money, we have to come to an agreement and work out the details. Could that be going on now before the budget is passed? Could that be going on now before the cheque is cut? Absolutely.

As a matter of fact, if the government is not happy about that, why is it that over the last two years there was $2 billion of infrastructure spending that was budgeted, approved, appropriated and a cheque ready to be cut but never spent? It never got spent. It is called lapsed, promised but not spent.

If the government was clearly committed to doing something about the financial crisis that we now face, and when the January budget came out and the Prime Minister recognized or apparently recognized at that point that there was this financial crisis, why is that he did not accelerate or get out the already approved money and not have to wait for this? That would have put shovels in the ground or at least all the work would have started to move forward. There is no reason why money should not be out there.

The other issue that I would like to comment on is what I read in the paper, which I found a little disturbing. It was on the front page of the Globe and Mail where a minister of the Crown had a meeting with the representatives of 65,000 academic and general staff of universities and colleges. He started yelling at them and telling them that they did not understand the budget.

Why is it that we want to change the channel when the issues are creating jobs, saving jobs that are at risk, and taking care of the most vulnerable in our society in this financial crisis? Those are the priorities. The tools are available. The Prime Minister has to stop playing games saying that there are somehow delays going on here. This budget has gone through faster than any other budget in the history of our country. The official opposition is supporting it. It will pass quicker than any other budget. The tools are there. The government should get on with the job.