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)

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party will vote against this bill for one very simple reason: we have lost all confidence in this government not only for economic reasons, but also because of its budget and other budget statements.

I would like to take my time to go through the history of the budgetary actions of the government over the last year, which have led, in large measure, the Liberal Party to lose confidence in the government. The reason for this loss of confidence involves three aspects of the budgetary performance of the government: first, incompetence; second, dishonesty; and third, a distinct lack of concern for the most vulnerable in Canadian society.

Let us go back to last November. Do members remember when the Conservatives were still telling everybody that things were just fine, that perhaps we would have a technical recession. They tabled an economic update that contained no help for Canadians and it attacked pay equity for women, rather than providing any stimulative measures for the economy. It was an update the ripped back pay increases for the RCMP, which the government had given it just before the election.

The transport minister reminded us in the House yesterday when he stated, “we were the last ones to deal with this global economic downturn”. He is absolutely right. Last November, most other countries had already passed budgets to give fiscal stimulus to their economies. At that very moment, the government was doing the opposite. It was offering cutbacks in that November economic statement, probably at the moment when the recession was at its most severe. That is grossly incompetent.

The statement is also dishonest. We will recall that the government, at that time, said that we had nothing but surpluses. Not an economist in the land believed that statement, with the possible exception of the Prime Minister. These fictitious surpluses were created partly by cutting government spending at the height of the recession, partly by fictitious non-existent asset sales, which padded the revenue of the government in a manner that was totally against accounting rules. The proof that those asset sales were fraudulent is the fact that in the last budget the government removed them. The government admitted that they should not have been there in the first place.

The November economic statement containing fraudulent surpluses, cuts to government spending at the most inappropriate time, at the depth of a recession, was so bad that it caused three formerly warring parties, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal Party, to unite as one and to threaten to topple the government. It was only for that reason that two months later, in January, the government, under threat of death, was forced to bring in a relatively decent budget.

Had the Conservatives been a majority government, had they not been forced under threat of execution to do this, we would have been left with that November economic statement, with its cuts to government spending at a time of recession. They had no choice. They brought in a budget that was semi-decent, in our opinion. It provided a certain amount of fiscal stimulus through infrastructure and other measures and the Liberal Party supported it. We felt it was in the national interest to get that money out the door as quickly as possible to save or create as many jobs as possible.

However, that budget failed in the execution. We supported it because we wanted to get the money out the door, to save and create jobs. We now know that the money failed to get out the door.

The government uses weasel words like “commitments” or “announcements”, but what really matters is money out the door, people employed, shovels in the ground, construction workers on sites. This is where the government has utterly failed to execute its budget.

Our information from surveys from many mayors across the country is that only 12% of those funds have actually resulted in jobs being saved or created. If only for that reason, we cannot support the government and its budget anymore. We supported it on the condition that it execute it but it failed to execute it and, therefore, has rightly lost the confidence of the official opposition.

Now we come to the third report card, the one the Prime Minister unveiled this past Monday. We were hoping the government would at least provide Canadians with a glimpse of how much of the stimulus money had been spent and how far along infrastructure projects were. Instead, we got nothing. It is not as though the government does not have this information.

This is where I come to the dishonesty and lack of transparency. The infrastructure stimulus fund requires all organizations that receive funding to provide the Conservatives with quarterly reports that outline just how far along their projects are and just how much money they have spent. It is item number 10 in the program's guideline.

The government has all this information at its fingertips and could easily make this information public. However, it is deliberately choosing to hide it. Why would that be? The only plausible conclusion that can be drawn is that it is ashamed of the results. Why else would it have those results in its possession and refuse to give them to Canadians? It must be that it is ashamed of the results. It does not want Canadians to see that after talking about all these billions of dollars in projects, the Government of Canada has barely sent out any actual money.

Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an officer the government is doing its best to destroy, has been told that this information is for Conservative eyes only and that he will not be allowed to have a peek. The saddest part is that this information would not be hard to provide.

Let us consider what is happening south of the border. President Obama also asked each funding recipient to provide similar quarterly reports about how projects are progressing and how much money has been received. The difference in the United States is that on October 15, President Obama will be posting all these reports on recovery.gov so that Americans can actually see how their stimulus plan is working. Canadians will not be so fortunate under their overcontrolling and anti-transparent Prime Minister.

I cannot understand why Americans deserve to get the real facts from their government in terms of money out the door and jobs created and Canadians do not. Are we second-class to the Americans? Is that the view of the government? I do not understand why the government cannot at least provide the same information to Canadians that the U.S. government is providing to Americans.

The message is clear. The Conservatives know full well that they have failed to get the job done and they are simply trying to hide that fact from the very Canadians that they have failed.

The Prime Minister himself summed up that failure when he unveiled the third budget card last week. In his assessment of how well his stimulus package has worked, he said, “Far too many Canadians are still out of work. Too many families are suffering hardship”.

We happen to agree with the Prime Minister on this one. Far too many Canadians are still out of work and far too many families are suffering. The Conservatives have failed to get shovels in the ground, failed to create jobs and failed to protect Canadians, which is why we no longer support this budget.

While it may have had potential in January when we voted for it, the incompetent implementation of the budget is one of the many factors that has caused us to lose confidence in the government.

I will end with one other example of dishonesty. The government has said over and over again that it will not raise taxes in its quest to balance the budget some years from now. Do the members on the opposite side not understand that an employment insurance premium is a payroll tax? I used to teach economics 100 and the dullest student would grasp that point after about one week in class. An employment insurance premium is a payroll tax. How many times does one need to say this before those people across the aisle get the point?

The finance minister said directly in his report that employment insurance premiums would go up over the next five years. An employment insurance premium is a payroll tax, which means taxes will go up over the next five years and, indeed, C.D. Howe suggests that they will go up substantially, like 35% or 40%. I have asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to give us more precise information on the degree to which the Conservatives are raising payroll taxes, employment insurance premiums.

I do not understand why the Conservatives cannot just admit the obvious. They are raising taxes. They have said so themselves.

I wonder if the finance minister, at his next opportunity, could acknowledge the point that an employment insurance premium is a payroll tax and that the Conservatives will be raising those payroll taxes by 30% to 40% in the coming years?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member who taught economics 100 if he could answer a question for the House.

How can the Liberals say on one side that they stand for a 45-day work year, which would cost billions of dollars, $4 billion, and on the other side say that they are concerned about increases in payroll taxes? Where was their concern for the increases in payroll taxes when they were putting forward un-costed, un-budgeted, unaccounted for and enormously expensive proposals for EI last spring? Why are they now concerned about payroll taxes? They cannot have it both ways and the hon. member well knows that. He taught economics 100. Maybe he would like to tell the Canadian people how much their proposals were going to cost Canadians, because we would not have it.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member implicitly acknowledged that his side of the House is raising payroll taxes. I did not hear him say that but neither did I hear him deny it.

His question also indicates my theme of dishonesty. He said that our proposal would cost billions of dollars, $4 billion is what he said. Four billion dollars is utter rubbish and totally dishonest. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the Liberal measure would not cost more than $1.1 billion, not $4 billion.

Once again, we have total dishonesty emanating—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. We can continue with questions and comments on the speech from the member for Markham—Unionville after question period.

The House resumed from October 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, among other things, Bill C-51 implements the home renovation tax credit. This measure was inspired by the proposals made in both the Bloc Québécois recovery plans, presented last fall and the previous April. This bill also introduces a first time homebuyers' tax credit. This measure was also inspired by the Bloc's last platform. Bill C-51 will also implement Canada's international commitments to the International Monetary Fund, which were signed in 2008. It will also amend the Canada Pension Plan, from which Quebec is excluded. The amendments are based on an agreement with the provinces involved. Quebec is not involved, but if there is an agreement, we respect that.

Bill C-51 will implement the findings of a joint expert panel including representatives of Nova Scotia, the federal government and others to resolve a dispute. Once again, Quebec is not involved in that litigation, but if there is an agreement, I do not see why we would not support it.

For all of these reasons, and especially for the home renovation tax credit and the first time homebuyers' tax credit, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill.

Coming back to the home renovation tax credit, in April 2008, when the Bloc Québécois was presenting the initial phase of its economic recovery plan, we proposed introducing a home renovation tax credit with a very specific objective: to encourage people to convert their old oil furnaces to more energy efficient models. At that time, we argued that such a measure would help reduce our dependence on oil. This would have the added and equally important effect of rapidly injecting money into the economy.

This measure has been introduced by the Conservatives and we know that their primary focus was not necessarily on reducing greenhouse gases nor on energy efficient retrofits. Nonetheless, we maintain that this would be a way to stimulate the economy and we are in favour of this measure. We proposed it, we had a debate on it and we made our arguments. Today, our proposal is before us. It has been accepted by the government and we are indeed in favour of it; we would be hard pressed not to be. Even though it is not exactly what we had in mind, many people will benefit from the energy efficient retrofits. What is more, in the past few weeks, since the Bloc Québécois announced it was in favour of this measure, people have realized that we were the ones who proposed this measure and we are the ones who got it. Many people are congratulating us for convincing the government to introduce such a measure in its budget.

Even though this is not only or specifically about energy efficient retrofit measures, several areas are eligible for this tax credit, window products in particular. We know that one way to improve energy efficiency is to replace windows, doors and skylights. In a number of different ridings in Quebec, most MPs have heard many people and many window and door companies say that the tax credit associated with this measure has helped stimulate the home renovation sector.

Many people decided to do it because their heating oil costs were so high. As everyone knows, neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have ever been particularly eager to clamp down on the oil companies, so big oil raises the prices whenever it feels like it. If people have a chance to reduce their oil heating costs by replacing their windows and get a tax credit to boot, they will do home renovations. That makes this measure a very attractive one.

We know that it will also reduce household energy consumption, which will directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions make a significant contribution to undesirable climate change.

Buying better-quality windows and doors will make up for some of the negative effects of oil heating. When people use good products in renovations, they can reduce their heating oil consumption by between 7% and 12%. Renovations also minimize drafts, cut down on interior condensation and so on. They also reduce noise transference. We hear so much about air pollution, but there is also noise pollution. People living in urban centres and near highways experience significant stress due to noise and they will also benefit from this measure, which can cut down on noise pollution.

We also know that Quebec is a very large part of Canada and has an abundance of fresh water. When you have an abundance of a given resource, including water in the case of Quebec, you tend to take it for granted. In most homes in Quebec, you just have to open the tap and water flows freely in every room where it is needed, in the laundry room or in the washroom. Water is not free, especially hot water. Improving the insulation in a house with new doors and windows and other renovations can often cut the cost of heating water by 15%. These are significant measures and important to most Quebec households.

This tax credit also makes it possible to renovate the plumbing in a home. Shower heads can be changed to save water. It is a renewable resource but there are limits. We must conserve the hot water used for a normal family's household needs.

We are very supportive of such measures because they contribute globally to energy conservation and the reduction of pollution. It is a very interesting measure that has been put forward.

I would also like to talk about the first time homebuyers' tax credit. In its 2008 election platform, the Bloc Québécois proposed putting in place a homebuyers' program. Many Quebec families find it difficult to buy their first house. It is extremely important for the government to help families, including middle-income families, to purchase their first home. Buying a home is often the most important investment of one's life. Families often need a helping hand at the start.

Because there is a similar measure in this bill, we will support it once again.

We had some mixed feelings, because the Conservatives' measure is much less generous than what we proposed. But it is a step in the right direction, and it shows some understanding of the very solid arguments made by the various Bloc Québécois members. We think this is a step in the right direction, and that the government seems to have understood that it is necessary to support first time homebuyers.

This is a major investment for many families, and buying a home is an important step for many households in Quebec and Canada. They are able to build equity. As I said, this is the primary investment for many families, and it is very often the biggest investment a family will make in their lifetime. It is very necessary and important to support families in this step and to help them benefit from capital gains.

In recent years, the capital appreciation of real estate and the increase in home values has made home ownership appealing. Quebec is a little behind Canada in regards to home ownership and the desire of some families to purchase a home. So this is a very appealing measure for Quebec.

It is often very difficult for these families to build capital. The government is proposing an interest-free loan up to $10,000. This makes it much more appealing for new and young families to purchase a first home.

This, in essence, is why the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-51, and why we will vote in favour of it.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I was expecting comments but I think everybody was pleasantly surprised that my hon. colleague, who shares a seat at the finance committee, has decided to support Bill C-51. I would encourage, under his leadership, all members of the opposition to do as he has suggested because that was another wise decision from that member.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House today in support of the economic recovery act, a key piece of legislation that would enact essential portions of Canada's economic action plan, along with other important initiatives.

The economic recovery act is part of our Conservative government's comprehensive response to the global economic crisis that has impacted nearly every country in the world since it began a little over a year ago, a downturn whose underlying triggers did not originate in Canada and, as such, cannot be solely resolved in Canada.

I underline for the opposition, seemingly determined to finger out government for the economic ills of the global marketplace, that this was and remains a global recession, one largely originating from the United States. This is not a made in Canada recession.

As a BBC report noted:

...the world economy crashed. The [American] sub-prime crisis lit a fuse that went from California or Southern Florida via New York to Iceland, Hungary and Japan.

The virus spread through the intricate arteries of the world's financial bloodstream.

While conceding this has been a global recession, we all recognize its epicentre is and continues to be our neighbour to the south, our largest trading partner, the United States.

Even as the green shoots of recovery begin their slow ascent in that country and around the world, the enormity of the great recession continues to ravage the American economy. Last week we learned that over a quarter million Americans lost their jobs in September. Unemployment is nearing double digits there. These are stunning numbers. They are sad reminders of the nearly 8 million men and women who have seen their jobs vanish since the start of this great American downturn.

As President Barack Obama noted, the U.S. September job report was:

...a "sobering reminder" that "progress comes in fits and starts and that we're going to need to grind out this recovery step by step.

He went on to say that it “will not happen overnight”.

Budget implementation act 2 is an important part of this step for Canadians.

As I alluded to earlier, green shoots are appearing in the American economy. In the Canadian economy and those around the word, recovery is on the horizon.

This global recovery has largely been driven by the injection of fiscal stimulus by governments, stimulus unprecedented for both its sheer magnitude and for its coordinated global scale. However, this is a recovery that remains as fragile, as it is tentative. Governments must stay the course. Their focus must not waver from the economy. As the G7 finance ministers and central bank governors noted in a communiqué following their meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, this weekend:

In recent months, we have started to see 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. We will keep in place our support measures until recovery is assured.

We cannot become complacent and we cannot allow a recovery to be jeopardized with some opportunistic political games here at home, political games like those that the Liberal leader has shamefully engaged in over the past few weeks. Maybe the Liberal leader has not noticed that rising unemployment continues to be a challenge around the world. Maybe he has not noticed that all governments around the world made the decision to run deficits to fight the recession and fight unemployment.

Our Conservative government, too, has made the decision to fight the recession and has done so through Canada's economic action plan. While this meant we made the difficult decision to run a multi-year deficit, it was the right decision, right for our economy and right for Canadians, for Canada's economic action plan is working.

Our economic action plan is helping to create and maintain jobs. It is extending benefits to the unemployed. It is helping those who need retraining and helping those individuals and industries undergoing a transformation, such as the auto and forestry sectors and so many others.

While our plan is achieving results, the job is not done. We need to stay on track. We need to provide the stability needed to secure recovery. Stability is not achieved by throwing Canada back into an unnecessary election but by following through on our plan and keeping our focus on the economy. That is exactly what we are doing with the ambitious economic recovery act.

Through the economic recovery act, we are cutting taxes for individuals and businesses by implementing the temporary home renovation tax credit and the first time homebuyers tax credit. We are fighting protectionism by relaxing tariffs on shipping containers. We are strengthening the Canada pension plan by allowing increased flexibility in how Canadians live, work and retire, as unanimously recommended by federal, provincial and territorial governments last May.

We are promoting global growth and cooperation by giving small and low income countries a bigger voice at the IMF, and strengthening our commitment to debt relief. We are ensuring dependability for public broadcasting by increasing the CBC's borrowing authority.

Additionally, to ensure that Canadian taxpayers can better keep track of the spending of their tax dollars, we are improving government transparency and accountability by requiring all federal departments and crown corporations to prepare and publish quarterly financial reports.

The economic recovery act also concludes the crown share saga for the people of Nova Scotia after decades of neglect from previous Liberal governments. As former Nova Scotia premier, John Buchanan, declared, “What happened then with the federal Liberal government under Jean Chrétien, they just refused to talk about the Crown share. They would not talk about it all”.

In contrast, not only have we talked about the crown share with Nova Scotia, our Conservative government worked in conjunction with the province to resolve the issue.

Despite all this, the Liberal leader and his party vowed, essentially sight unseen, to oppose all these measures and vote against the economic recovery act. Why? To be blunt, to end Canada's economic recovery appears to be secondary to his obsession with forcing an election. The Liberal rallying cry is simply corrosive to Canada, “No matter what this Conservative government proposes, no matter who it benefits, it must be stopped, it must be defeated.”

Canadians deserve better than that. Canadians deserve elected representatives willing to work together during this global recession, willing to do what is best for the Canadian economy not merely for the Liberal Party of Canada.

I would ask the Liberal leader to stop playing games, stop the obsession and scheming to force an unnecessary election. Sadly, I have no confidence he will listen for he has not even listened to his own Liberal caucus on that matter.

Liberals, like the member for York West who, in early September, pleaded with her leader to drop his maddening election obsession, telling the Globe and Mail that this was not the time for an election and that instead Parliament should “try to do the right thing for Canadians overall. We're in a difficult time. We want to focus on employment and getting people back to work and all of that”.

The Liberal leader has ignored the Liberal member for York West and likely a great deal of his own Liberal caucus to continue with a single-minded obsession to force an election at all costs.

As the Liberal leader continues his quest to force an unnecessary election, he continues to attack our Conservative government's economic management and initiatives such as this economic recovery act. He also continues to gleefully denigrate and talk down our Canadian economy.

This is how he slammed Canada's economy in a speech this past September proudly posted on the Liberal website for the online world to see. He smeared Canada and said that Canada had “the worst performing economy in the G7”. He then lectured by saying that “We've got to make Canada a world leader again, and we've got to do it now”.

Not only are comments like those at the height of self-serving political arrogance, but they are factually wrong and do a disservice to the tireless work and sacrifices of the men and women who have made Canada's economy what it is today.

That is something all Canadians should be proud of, and they should be cheered regardless of partisan affiliation.

I am going to take a moment now to speak not to the present but to the future, and to set the historical record straight, to speak to the readers of this edition of Hansard, the Canadian Parliament's most enduring tradition in a time far removed from today, be it 25, 50 or 100 years from now.

Even though we were in the midst of what has been labelled the great recession of this time, this was an especially proud moment to be a Canadian for one reason. Due to the inherent sense of humility in the Canadian character we downplayed that reason. Canada's economy and financial system during this challenging time was among the strongest and the most envied in the world. From Ireland, to France, to the United States, the Canadian model was the model that all others sought to replicate.

However, do not take my words as proof. Listen to what the world was saying about Canada, our country. Listen to how Ireland's largest daily newspaper, The Irish Times, praised our financial regulatory framework:

...Canada has attracted more attention recently as a paradigm for creating and regulating a banking system that has been stable, and even profitable, through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression...Canada's reputation for fiscal conservatism may have been boring during the boom times, but being boring has left the country's banking system in a rare position of strength in the financial world.

Listen to the French finance minister, Christine Lagarde, who after a meeting of the world's top finance ministers remarked:

I think...we can be inspired by...the Canadian situation. There were some people who said, “I want to be Canadian”.

Listen to what the Institute of International Finance and the world association of banks proclaimed about this country:

Canada is in a position today to punch above [its] weight. Why? Because [it has] come through this better than virtually any other financial system in a mature market, so [it] must be doing something right... [Canada] is viewed in many quarters as having incredible financial and of course political leadership, but also is somewhat of an honest broker.

World Bank president Robert Zoellick described our country this way:

Canada's experience offers lessons to others, especially its strong financial and regulatory environment that is helping it manage the shocks of the downturn.

He also went on to declare that by global standards, Canada' position was enviable:

I think a lot of people would like to change places with Canada.

The President of the United States, Barack Obama, said:

...in the midst of this enormous economic crisis, I think Canada has shown itself to be a pretty good manager of the financial system in the economy in ways that we haven't always been here in the United States. And I think that's important for us to take note of.

Or finally, the IMF, as reported in the Globe and Mail forecasted that:

Canada is on track to lead the world's wealthiest countries out of recession next year, a testament to sound economic policy...reinforc[ing that the] Prime Minister...and the Finance minister['s] policies have helped the Canadian economy weather the financial crisis better than most.

To the future I say with pride that this is how our country was viewed at this moment in time. I would also say that our Conservative government was not merely content to rest on its laurels. That is why we brought forward important legislation in the economic recovery act to help lay the ground work for a stronger economy as we fought off this great recession and built a more prosperous Canada for generations to come for all Canadians.

Speaking to the present, I ask for the support of the House, for members to do the right thing in the interests of what is their country. We share in it across the aisle, and Canadians at home trust us to act in their best interests.

Pass this budget implementation act to help keep Canada strong and keep this beautiful country the envy of the world well into the future.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to comments that were made outside the country, I will remind my good friend of the comments made by his leader with respect to Canada when he was outside the country. They were, indeed, shameful.

The parliamentary secretary said this is not a made in Canada recession. I want to ask him a question that many Canadians are asking me. A short three and a half years ago the reformed Conservative government inherited a $13.2 billion surplus. It now has a $56 billion deficit, for a total of close to $70 billion. Canadians are asking where it blew $70 billion and they are making the following comparison. The Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney increased the deficit in nine years by approximately $21 billion. At this rate, the reformed Conservative government of today is blowing $70 billion every three years. If it governs as the Mulroney government did, in nine years we will be in a deficit of over $210 billion. Can he tell us where this money is going and how we are going to recover it?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate his enthusiasm and I hope no Canadians were listening to his math. I guess that is Liberal math.

Since this Conservative government has been fortunate enough to lead this country, we have paid down $37 billion in debt. That is one of the main reasons we are able to withstand a short-term deficit that we are now running.

As to the incredible statement that the hon. member made about blowing money, he should tell that to an unemployed individual who is now receiving employment insurance. He should tell that to an unemployed individual who is now receiving retraining. He should tell that to an unemployed individual who has an extra five weeks of employment insurance. If that is his view of blowing money, I think Canadians are going to take exception to that sort of comment.

The Liberals talk about their surplus. In fact, they have talked about the surplus that was legislated. Members have heard me make this comment in the House before. It was never legislated. Under a Liberal government there were budget bills passed that had a surplus in them, but there was never a legislated contingency fund, which is the term they use. It was never there.

This government has the interests of Canadians at heart. To suggest that we are blowing money on encouraging Canadians to be able survive in this downturn is unbelievable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that while we in the NDP support Bill C-51, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary regarding the CPP amendments.

One of the benefits is a reduced incentive to retire early and an increased incentive to stay in the workforce longer. I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary what the government's models show as to the projected number of people who will be affected by this. In other words, how many people will take a pass on early retirement and elect to stay in the workforce longer, based on the formula it proposed, and what sort of basis did it present for these numbers?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would use the terms the hon. member used in referring to the changes in the Canada pension plan.

We need to remember that the Canada pension plan has a triennial review and it is under the joint administration, so to speak, of the provinces, the territories and the federal government. It was reviewed and that review was reported back to the finance ministers in May, with the recommendation that it was actuarially sound. However, there were some minor changes suggested to do with, as the hon. member said, early access to the Canada pension plan for those 60 years of age and older.

It was felt by all ministers across this country that it was not exactly fair, that some improvements needed to be made. They are minor changes. They will impact very few and will impact only those who will be coming into that system in the future.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for his speech today and his leadership on the finance committee. I appreciate his advice. I am a member of the finance committee and his leadership has made a big difference in that the committee actually works well.

My question is simple. The Liberal Party supported the economic action plan in the spring. Part of that plan is the home renovation credit which is part of what is being implemented in Bill C-51. Is it not hypocritical of the Liberal Party not to be supporting this bill at this time?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that simple question is yes.

While I have the opportunity, I want to recognize the hon. member for Burlington for his great work. He is always willing to step up and fill in when some of us are called away. He has done a great job. It is Conservatives like him who make this government strong and proud.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the speech by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and I heard him mention their successes. I hope he will also acknowledge their failures.

The situation in the forestry sector is a Conservative government failure. The forestry sector has been in crisis for five years now, and for four of those years the Conservative Party has been in power. Again, the Conservatives have provided assistance to the automobile sector, it is true, but they did nothing for the forestry sector.

I hope my colleague will be honest enough to acknowledge in this House their failure when it comes to the forestry sector.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will do no such thing because there has been no failure of any industry through support of this government.

We have recognized that in this economic downturn and even before we were facing this economic crisis around the world, that the forestry sector was facing some huge impacts of its own.

It was two years ago, I believe, that the community development trust fund was put in place to help communities transition into an economy where the forestry sector was facing some struggles. We brought in a softwood lumber agreement with the United States that brought $5 billion back to the forestry industry in Canada.

We are there for the forestry industry just as we are there for any industry in this country.