Bill C-51 (Historical)

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

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

Part 1 implements income tax measures proposed in the Budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 but not included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2009, which received royal assent on March 12, 2009. In particular, it
(a) introduces the Home Renovation Tax Credit;
(b) introduces the First-time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit; and
(c) enhances the tax relief provided by the Working Income Tax Benefit.
In addition, Part 1 extends the existing tax deferral available to farmers in prescribed drought regions to farmers who dispose of breeding livestock because of flood or excessive moisture and sets out the regions prescribed either as eligible flood or drought regions in 2007 to 2009.
Part 2 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for multilateral debt relief and in relation to offshore petroleum resources. It also makes the following amendments:
(a) the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act is amended to implement amendments proposed by the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund;
(b) the Broadcasting Act is amended to extend the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s borrowing limit to $220,000,000;
(c) the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 is amended to clarify the purposes for which payments may be made;
(d) the Canada Pension Plan is amended to
(i) remove the work cessation test in 2012 so that a person may take their retirement pension as early as age 60 without the requirement of a work interruption or earnings reduction,
(ii) increase the general drop-out from 15% to 16% in 2012 allowing a maximum of almost seven and a half years of low or zero earnings to be dropped from the contributory period and to 17% in 2014 allowing a maximum of eight years to be dropped,
(iii) require a person under the age of 65 who receives a retirement pension and continues working to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and thereby create eligibility for a post-retirement benefit,
(iv) permit a person aged 65 to 70 who receives a retirement pension to elect not to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan, and
(v) have the adjustment factors that apply to early or late take-up of retirement pensions fixed by regulation after December 31, 2010 and have the Minister of Finance and the ministers of the included provinces review the adjustment factors and make recommendations as to whether the factors should be changed;
(e) the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act is amended by repealing section 37 and by permitting the approval of regulations made under subsection 53(1) before they are made;
(f) The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act is amended to provide for Crown share adjustment payments to be made in accordance with an agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia;
(g) the Customs Tariff is amended to change the conditions relating to containers temporarily imported under tariff item 9801.10.20 and to add new tariff item 9801.10.30 relating to temporarily imported trailers and semi-trailers;
(h) the Financial Administration Act is amended to require that departments and parent Crown corporations cause quarterly financial reports to be prepared every fiscal quarter and to make them public; and
(i) the Public Service Superannuation Act is amended by adding the name of PPP Canada Inc. to Part I of Schedule I to that Act.
Part 2 also amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and chapter 36 of the Statutes of Canada, 2007 to correct unintended consequences resulting from the inaccurate coordination of two amending Acts.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker criticized at length the government for all of the spending we are doing. Yet, less than a week ago, members of his party stood en masse and applauded their leader when he accused this government of starving the beast, in other words, not investing enough in government agencies.

I wonder how, on one hand, the Liberals are accusing us of not spending enough and, on the other hand, are saying that we are spending way too much.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the whole essence of the leader's comment was that it is starving the revenues coming in to the federal government and handcuffing the federal government in its ability to provide services for Canadians, especially Canadians in need.

What we have seen is that the government has not been fair and it does not care. There are citizens out there who are hurting. The reference was made by the Liberal leader that the government is starving the revenues and it is no longer able to provide for those most in need in this nation, and that is a shame.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak to second reading of the economic recovery act. This important piece of legislation before the House includes key provisions from budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan, along with many other important initiatives.

During this ongoing global crisis, our Conservative government's number one priority throughout remains protecting the economy. We also believe, as do the vast majority of Canadians, that the economy should remain the number one priority of this Parliament and certainly not throw Canada into another unnecessary election.

This is not the time for political games but a time to focus on the important work that is needed to be done to ensure a strong economic recovery. We must continue to work on implementing Canada's economic action plan. It is a plan that is working, a plan that is protecting and creating jobs. It is a plan that we need to ensure stays on track.

While we are seeing some early signs of a potential global economic recovery, we must remember that it is just that. It is a potential recovery and one that is both tentative and fragile.

The G7 finance ministers and the Central Bank governors stated in a communiqué following meetings in Turkey this weekend:

In recent months we have started to see encouraging signs of a global economic recovery and continued improvement in financial market conditions. However, there is no room for complacency since the prospects for growth remain fragile and labor market conditions are not yet improving.

On the international scene as well as the national scene, obviously the recognition is there.

Clearly, the job is not done. We have to stay the course. We must ensure implementation of Canada's economic action plan both to ensure a strong recovery and, very important, to support the co-ordinated global efforts under way across the entire world where we are working collectively on the same track with other nations. The economic recovery act is just one way that we are doing exactly that. This economic recovery act will implement key measures in our action plan, another vital initiative that will help to secure a sustained recovery and certainly protect jobs.

We are continuing our proud tax-cutting legacy with the economic recovery act, legislation that will implement a slew of tax-slashing measures, measures as popular with Canadians as they are important in spurring a strong recovery, such as: implementing the temporary home renovation tax credit, or HRTC; implementing the first-time home buyers tax credit; enhancing the benefits provided under the working income tax benefit to help the working poor; extending the existing tax deferral available to farmers dealing with severe weather; and relaxing tariffs on temporarily imported shipping containers. These are but a few of the many elements in this progressive plan.

Shamefully, the Liberal leader and Liberal members are voting against this bill and all of these important measures. It is incredible. I ask why they are doing that. Is it to throw Canada back into another election which nobody, I repeat nobody, wants?

The Liberal Party is voting against helping the working poor, farmers, homeowners and the men and women in retail and construction whose jobs have been saved by the success of programs such as the HRTC. Maybe our Liberal colleagues have not picked up a local newspaper. Maybe they are not watching television these days. Maybe they are not listening to radio shows. Maybe they have not walked into their local Home Hardware store. Maybe they have not talked to their constituents. Maybe even some of them have not talked to a family member.

I can assure them that the home renovation tax credit is working. As a matter of fact, it is more than working; it is a runaway success. It is successful in doing exactly what we said it would do and more. It is helping families improve and build value in their homes, their most important investment, while supporting jobs in areas ranging from contractors, construction, retail, forestry and more all at the same time.

As a respected financial columnist, Sun Media's Alan Caplan, remarked, the HRTC is “financial stimulus where it counts”. It is the fastest and easiest way to get money into the economy, create jobs and then get new income tax payments from the people hired to do the work. It is a well rounded success at both ends of the spectrum. Putting people to work is something this tax credit has done in spades.

The tax rebate of up to $1,350 for home renovations has created a flurry of small projects. The result? All over the country there are brand new decks, roofs, driveways and brickwork.

The Canadian Home Builders Association said that the renovation credit is creating a construction spike across the country. I can see it in my riding and any other riding I have been in. This is keeping construction workers employed, who in turn spend money to keep other people employed. The spinoff is wonderful. Home centres and hardware stores are humming. Helping the construction industry was exactly the right thing to do.

Let us give credit where credit is due when it comes to the reno credit. We really have to wonder how why the Liberal Party would boast about opposing it and voting to defeat the HRTC.

From our side the positives continue. We are doing even more through our economic recovery legislation. I will mention a few of the highlights. We are strengthening pensions by allowing for increased flexibility in how Canadians live, work and retire through reforms to the Canada pension plan, as agreed upon by federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers in their triennial review completed last May. These are reforms that the Edmonton Journal approved and referred to as:

--welcome changes...[that] will allow Canadians of a certain age to draw on their Canada Pension Plan benefits and still be allowed to work...the prospect that thousands will be able to discern a horizon when they can not only choose to be gainfully employed but also collect on a pension they paid into for years must come as certain relief.

We are promoting global growth and cooperation by giving small and low-income countries across the globe a bigger voice at the International Monetary Fund. It is not just about local or national responsibilities, but international responsibilities as well. We will also strengthen our commitment to debt relief by making multilateral debt relief payments statutory.

We are increasing the CBC's borrowing authority to ensure dependability is maintained for public broadcasting.

We are improving government transparency and accountability by requiring federal departments and Crown corporations to prepare and publish quarterly financial reports. We are following through on a commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians in the 2008 election campaign.

When one hears the term “adscam” or recalls the waste and mismanagement of the gun registry, both notorious legacies of the former Liberal government, it becomes clear why the Liberal Party of Canada and its leader would work toward the defeat of the economic recovery bill. We cannot let that happen.

Canada's economy right now, while clearly being impacted by the most challenging economic crisis of our time since the second world war, is in relatively decent shape when we compare it to the economies of other major industrialized countries, all this as we manage a recession whose causes were outside our borders. We undoubtedly have a responsibility to deal with these. It is not simply a made in Canada problem. This is a global reality.

Of course, we would all be happier without the recession; there is not a person who would not be, but today's Canadians are better off, relatively speaking, than people in just about any other nation on the planet.

We cannot rest on these past achievements. We must build on our strengths and keep the Canadian advantage. Humorist Will Rogers noted that even if we are on the right track, we will get run over if we just sit there. The Liberals may be content to sit, but we intend to run.

Moving Canada forward is exactly what the economic recovery legislation has been doing and will continue to do by building a stronger future for all Canadians. We have to stay the course and complete Canada's economic action plan. We have to make sure we have an entrenched recovery. We have to do what is right for Canadians and what is right for our economy, but if the Liberal leader thinks he has a better idea, then he should simply say so. If he does not like Canada's economic action plan, he should tell Canadians, especially the unemployed and their families, what his plan would mean for them, but if he does not and he will not and he cannot, what is his answer? Wait and see.

Liberals should start asking themselves what is best for the Canadian economy, not the Liberal Party. They should stop the games today and in the future and pass the economic recovery act.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague. We should play back the tapes from 2005 when members of the government were in opposition and they helped engineer the defeat of the Liberal government. We might play back the tape and realize that the $42.5 billion deficit that we inherited, we eliminated. And for my NDP friends, 33¢ of every dollar in 1993 was borrowed money.

I am fed up hearing from that side that somehow we did it on the backs of the provinces and the unemployed. That is from members of the government over there who cut the environmental assessment for houses. People had put money in for programs, and suddenly in the middle of the night they were eliminated.

The Conservatives have a $56 billion deficit and growing. What is your exit strategy? How do you intend to get out of it?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Again I will remind the member for Richmond Hill to address comments through the Chair, not directly to a member.

The hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we are not going to do what the previous government did. As he stated, and I cannot believe he had the audacity to do so, a government should not take a $50 billion deficit and then throw it on the backs of someone else. We would not download to the provinces which would then be forced to download on to municipalities. We would not cut 25% off the health and education transfers to the provinces. We would certainly not mortgage the future. We would simply not walk up to someone and suggest that we had cured all the problems of the world and say that it was simple and easy.

Our government has eliminated the deficit when we could have simply put it on someone else's shoulders.

It takes courage to stand up and deal with a problem, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a lot of speeches today and I have been looking for some information about Bill C-51.

I have yet to find anybody other than maybe one speaker all day who has talked about drought relief for livestock owners, which is part of Bill C-51.

I have heard maybe only one speaker all day talk about the revenue-sharing agreement with Nova Scotia, which includes a $175 million payment, which is part of Bill C-51.

I have heard only one or two speakers all day talk about the first-time home buyers' tax credit and more so the home renovation tax credit program.

I am just wondering why we cannot confine our questions and speeches to the subject at hand, which is Bill C-51.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually agree with my hon. colleague. The regretful thing is I had only 10 minutes. I thought we would have had at least 20 or more to speak to this legislation.

Bill C-51 and all of the implications of such are comprehensive. They cover almost every segment and aspect of the economy from one end to the other, whether it is in Nova Scotia, of whether it is our agricultural producers. Everybody is going to be impacted by this.

I am actually blown away that the Liberal opposition could suggest that this legislation is not important.

Here is the thing that really confuses me. The Liberal leader suggested that after the election he would pass the bill, yet we are sitting here waiting for an election that the Liberals have on their minds. If the bill is good enough to pass after an election, why is it not good enough to pass before an election? Why delay the income and those dollars going out to all of the people who desperately need them in all the fields, from agriculture to environment, to social needs, to farmers, to small businesses, to the regular mom and pop.

The member's point is well taken. The focus should definitely not be on five, 10 or 20 years ago, but on the impact of Bill C-51 today on every Canadian.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we have to talk about Bill C-51 and also talk about the implications if it is not passed.

This is a minority government. I heard a great man once say that we can “get by with a little help from our friends”. It is important that we work together.

My colleague pointed out that the Liberals are not talking to anyone. We know they are not talking to each other. We saw that with the member for Bourassa in Quebec and the weakness of his leader in refusing to discipline him.

I want to ask my colleague why the Liberals do not listen to Canadians. Canadians clearly do not want an election. They would like the Liberals to support our government and get on with the economy and with fighting this recession. Why are they not listening to Canadians?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could maybe borrow just a few words from the same rendition that my colleague mentioned and just say Let It Be. Let us get this legislation passed so it can be effective.

I, like most of my colleagues on at least this side of the House, talk to constituents. I ask them what they want and what they need. How can we get the stimulus in place? Are they ready? Can we implement this?

We have built up a tremendous level of cooperation municipally, provincially and federally. We are moving forward in partnership across this country. It is just unfortunate that my Liberal colleagues cannot--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I would ask hon. members for their cooperation in allowing the Speaker to hear the questions and comments.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-51.

This bill implements the home renovation tax credit, a measure inspired by the proposals in the two plans the Bloc Québécois proposed to this House.

Bill C-51 introduces a first time homebuyers' tax credit, a measure inspired by the Bloc Québécois' most recent election platform. That is why we support this bill.

Bill C-51 implements Canada's international commitments to the International Monetary Fund, which were signed in 2008.

Bill C-51 amends the Canada pension plan, from which Quebec is excluded, based on consultations with the provinces involved.

Bill C-51 acts on the findings of a joint expert panel made up of representatives of Nova Scotia and the federal government to resolve litigation between the parties that has been outstanding since 1984, as an NDP member said here in the House.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill. We will not be like the Liberals, who voted for this budget even though they were supposedly against it and who vote against measures they agree with. Logically, we will support our proposals in these budget measures and vote in favour of this bill.

The Bloc Québécois supports the measures in this bill, which is not at all to say that it has confidence in this government. The federal government's overall plan to tackle the recession is not good enough and misses the mark. We have criticized it many times in this House. That is why we opposed the budget that was tabled in the House. However, because the measures in Bill C-51 are acceptable to Quebec, the Bloc Québécois, true to its responsible attitude and its mission to defend Quebeckers' interests, will support this bill. We always work to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

Although the measures in this bill may be a small step forward, the Conservative government still does not have an environmental plan with a 21st century vision, and its record on economic issues is terrible. I would like to focus on this matter for a few minutes.

The Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, deliberately ignore the needs of Quebec and its citizens. These Canadian parties make their decisions in Calgary or Toronto, to protect their interests, even when they conflict with the interests of Quebec.

I am thinking, for example, of struggling economic sectors like the forestry industry and the manufacturing sector, which are not receiving the same handouts that are being given to Ontario's auto industry and western oil companies. Yet the Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec supported the last budget, which went against the needs and interests of Quebeckers.

Regarding the budget presented in this House, I am also thinking of the thousands of workers affected by the recession who will not receive employment insurance and who cannot have greater access to the system, even though they worked for many weeks. Over 50% of people who work do not have access to the employment insurance system.

I am thinking of our seniors, who are still being shortchanged by the federal government and its guaranteed income supplement.

I am thinking of the fight against greenhouse gases, which, in any case, must not harm the big oil companies, even though it prevents Quebec from properly equipping itself to move forward in the economy of the 21st century, the post-petroleum economy. My colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, a passionate environmentalist, often talks about this in his speeches.

There is nothing in this budget to support an economy based on sustainable development, to ensure that all Quebeckers and Canadians, and everyone in the world, have a better and healthier environment.

The government's plan to pay down the federal deficit did not go over well in Quebec. The government needs to find good ways to eliminate the federal deficit, without making the lower and middle classes pay. The federal government is racking up a deficit yet again, and the Conservatives and Liberals are not telling people what they plan on doing to bring back a balanced budget. In fact, just like the Liberals before them, the Conservatives promised not to increase taxes. But, just like the Liberals, they decided to secretly increase employment insurance contributions to make workers pay for the deficit. The Conservative government plans on taking more than $18.9 billion from the EI fund between 2012 and 2015. It is shameful to be stealing that money from the unemployed, from the least fortunate, the most vulnerable people in this country. It is shocking to make these people and middle-class people pay, while banks, big oil companies and the privileged keep getting richer, since they avoid paying taxes by using tax havens. Banks can save more than $2 billion a year by using tax havens. Nothing is being done to stop this.

What can we say about the measures implemented by Ottawa to save the big oil companies $9 billion over the next three years? They are scandalous.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-51. However, I say in all sincerity that our support for this government is tenuous. The Bloc Québécois rejects the Liberal-Conservative approach to deficit reduction that takes aim at the middle class, the disadvantaged and Quebec while protecting the privileged. The Bloc Québécois is proposing a plan to cut the deficit that, in the end, would result in an annual cushion of $16 billion and that would not be achieved at the expense of Quebec's middle class.

First, the Bloc plan proposes to reduce expenditures without eliminating a single program, unlike what the Liberals did in the 1990s. Their cuts to health and education transfers left Quebeckers high and dry. We do not want that to be done in this House again.

The federal government has lost control over its bureaucratic expenditures and so, through attrition, it could reduce the size of its public service. Between 1980 and 1998, the federal government's operating expenses rose by 74%.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois proposes to increase taxes for big oil companies, corporations and banks. Military expenditures should be scaled back slightly and the focus should finally be placed on the people who have lost their jobs and on economic recovery, support for the forestry sector, which is in crisis in Quebec, and support for the manufacturing sector. We have to move towards sustainable development, a greener economy and more investment in this type of economy. As for the infrastructure programs proposed by the Conservatives, that money must go to the ridings. As we know, under the plan recently introduced by the Conservative Party, there is still a lot of money that has to get to our ridings in order to upgrade our infrastructure.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for his wonderful speech on this bill.

I have a question for him. Earlier, there was some kind of strange misunderstanding between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois, where we were accused of being against support for the automotive industry. That is not at all the case. We never said we were against it; we said we also wanted support for the forestry industry.

The member mentioned a number of Bloc proposals. I would like him to clear things up. The government said that we never contribute anything. But it seems to me that we introduced the renovation idea. I would like the member to confirm that the Conservatives's ideas came from the Bloc Québécois.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Of course we are not against investing in the automotive industry, because Quebec manufactures some of these car parts. There are jobs in the automotive industry.

But we are critical of the lack of support for the forestry and manufacturing sectors in Quebec, because a number of jobs have been lost. That is what we are talking about. In response to the member that, yes, we in the Bloc Québécois support assistance for the automotive industry. We are not against that, but we want money for the forestry industry.