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)

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

moved 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.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the second reading of the economic recovery act. This important piece of legislation will implement key portions of budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan, along with other vital measures. There is no doubt that Canada's economy has been profoundly affected by the global economic slowdown, but Canada's economic action plan is getting results, stimulating the economy, protecting and creating new jobs.

While we are still fighting the recession, one we must always remember was not of our making, we are beginning to see tentative signs of an economic recovery both here and abroad.

As Warren Jestin, chief economist at Scotiabank noted:

Monthly job losses appear to have crested and confidence surveys suggest that consumers and businesses are becoming less negative about current conditions and cautiously more optimistic...

[Canada] was dragged fully into the global recession only when faltering emerging economies triggered a collapse in resource prices and export earnings...[and] the erosion in employment, housing activity and car sales has been less severe than [it has been] south of the border.

The bottom line--we will soon begin moving away from one of the most difficult economic setbacks experienced in our lives, but patience will be required because the road to recovery will be a long and winding one.

Clearly, we must remember there is still more to do. We must stay on course. Doing anything else would be reckless and irresponsible. Indeed the goals of the measures included in the economic recovery act are to stay the course, maintain our competitive economic position today and build on it by laying the groundwork for the necessary stability to grow Canada's economy tomorrow, stability to ensure that when the global recession eases, Canada will exit in a stronger position.

My constituents in North Vancouver are concerned about the global economic slowdown and expect us to act. And we have acted. I am proud of this government's record.

Later today, my colleague and a new member of the finance committee, the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, will outline a few of the highlights of this act, such as the home renovation tax credit, the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, and the enhancement to the working income tax benefit. These are benefits that I hear about as I speak with my constituents in North Vancouver. I hear how they are enjoying the benefits of the home renovation tax credit. Families as well as small businesses are benefiting.

First-time homebuyers in my riding are excited about the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, and I am proud to be part of the government that is working on behalf of all Canadians. During my speech I will review some of the important initiatives included in this act. Among them is one that will significantly improve government transparency and accountability while also fulfilling a promise that our Prime Minister made during the 2008 election campaign.

Last fall the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party pledged to make government more accountable for the use of taxpayers' money. As laid out on page 25 of our campaign platform, we promised Canadians that a re-elected Conservative government would require all federal departments and agencies to produce detailed quarterly financial statements.

I am happy to report that through the economic recovery act, we are delivering on that campaign promise.

The act will amend the Financial Administration Act to require federal departments and crown corporations to prepare public quarterly financial reports and more importantly, make them available to the public. Quarterly financial reporting will ensure parliamentarians and Canadians are provided with greatly enhanced information on government spending. This will also help to ensure more timely and better oversight of government expenditures by parliamentarians and taxpayers so that expenditures are subject to regular, ongoing and necessary scrutiny.

Our Conservative government, the government that created the Parliamentary Budget Office and brought in the Accountability Act, believes that taxpayers' dollars are just that--taxpayers' dollars. We believe that respecting taxpayers' money and prudently managing it includes the provision of transparent and timely accounting of how taxpayers' money is spent. Currently, Parliament and Canadians are provided financial statements only several months after the end of each fiscal year.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, we believe that this is just not good enough. That is why passage of this act would require federal departments and crown corporations to provide quarterly financial reports on their activities, ensuring parliamentarians and Canadians have useful, up-to-date financial information that allows them to more quickly and accurately track spending.

One wonders what politician could possibly oppose the kind of transparency and accountability which our economic recovery bill would bring into force. Shockingly, the Liberal leader and his Liberal members, in an effort to force an unnecessary election, have pledged to vote against this bill and this landmark measure.

However, that is not the only key measure the Liberal leader and the Liberal members are voting against for no reason other than to force an election that no Canadian wants. The Liberals are also opposing key reforms to strengthen public pensions in Canada, reforms to the Canada pension plan, or CPP, that will allow increased flexibility in how Canadians live, work and retire, while ensuring CPP remains affordable and fair for future generations.

The Canada pension plan remains one of the most successful pension plans in the world. As Susan Eng of Canada's Association for the Fifty-plus, better known as CARP, recently declared, the CPP was the pension plan that survived the recent global economic downturn almost unscathed.

Through the CPP, Canadians are provided with a secure, indexed and lifelong benefit. The additional measures proposed in the economic recovery bill not only will help maintain the quality of the CPP but also will actually improve it for seniors during these difficult economic times.

I note that these reforms were unanimously agreed to by each and every federal, provincial or territorial government, governments of all political stripes such as the New Democratic government in Manitoba, the Liberal governments of Ontario and New Brunswick, the Progressive Conservative government in Alberta, and the list goes on.

As a point of clarification and for background, I note that the CPP is a jointly managed federal, provincial and territorial plan. Federal or provincial governments cannot unilaterally alter the CPP. Instead a joint review of the plan is required to be undertaken by federal, provincial and territorial governments every three years. The most recent review, concluded in May 2009, recommended the reforms that I will be outlining in my remarks today.

Furthermore, let me note that the recommendations flowing from that review were publicly announced in May. As well, a detailed information paper that explains the proposed changes and their impacts upon workers and employers in Canada is available to Canadians.

As previously mentioned, the reforms proposed in the economic recovery bill are intended to modernize the CPP to better reflect the many different paths people take to retirement today. These reforms will provide greater flexibility for older workers to combine pension and work income if they wish to do so, expand pension coverage and improve fairness in the plan's flexible retirement provisions.

The reforms specifically include removing the work cessation test in 2012 so that a person may take his or her retirement pension as early as age 60 without the requirement of a work interruption or earnings reduction; increasing the dropout from 15% to 16% in 2012, and to 17% in 2014, a change that would allow a maximum of almost seven and a half years of low or zero earnings to be dropped from the contributory period; and requiring a person under the age of 65 who receives a retirement pension and continues working to contribute to the CPP, thereby creating eligibility for a post-retirement benefit.

As I mentioned earlier, the reforms I have outlined were publicly released in May and have already generated considerable positive feedback.

An Edmonton Journal editorial from May welcomed the reforms, remarking that they 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 some relief...

In fact, upon even the briefest reflection it seems odd that this rather simple case of fair play wasn't in force years ago...After all, what would we think if our private pensions were withheld or clawed back because we decided to pick up a job or two following official retirement?

As well, a nation rooted in liberty such as ours should never, ever build in disincentives for those who want to be engaged in productive work. That's simply antithetical to the story of Canadian enterprise. Another positive aspect of the proposed CPP amendments will allow those who are 65 or older and still employed to continue to contribute to the plan.

As well, citizens will be permitted to drop an additional low-earning year from the equation that calculates pension benefits. Those who decide to delay the start of their CPP income until age 70 will be further rewarded, with benefits pumped up to 42 per cent versus the current maximum of a 30-per cent increase for working longer.

The Edmonton Journal editorial concluded by cheering what it labelled an “overdue update”, as it:

...reflects contemporary realities. Older Canadians are healthier than ever and getting even fitter. If they want or need to continue to make a material contribution to the nation's productivity, they mustn't be discouraged.

However, that is not the only positive feedback we have heard. Jack Mintz, public policy professor at the University of Calgary, applauded them by saying, “the more flexibility you build into pension arrangements, the better”.

Finn Poschmann from the C.D. Howe Institute declared that they were:

...an important shift in public pension policy...[t]he proposed adjustments mark an important sea change in government pension policy's approach to dealing with population ageing and, in particular, making it easier for those people who want to work later in life to do so.

Clearly, the new measures will ensure that the CPP continues to address the needs of Canadians.

I would also note that this is only one example of how our Conservative government has been engaged in the important issue of pensions. Indeed, our Conservative government has been and is working hard on this issue, work that would be derailed should the Liberal scheme to force yet another unnecessary election on Canadians succeed.

Our Conservative government has already been engaged in a discussion with Canadians on pensions. In January we released a major research paper on federally regulated pension plans for comment, after which we conducted cross-country and online public consultations open to all. Based on the feedback we received from Canadians coast to coast, comprehensive regulatory changes to improve the federal pension framework are being drafted and will be released shortly.

Also, we have long recognized the need to work with our provincial partners to examine the larger pension concerns facing Canadians. That is why we raised this issue at the annual meeting of finance ministers in late 2008, and earlier this year set up a joint federal-provincial research working group, with respected academic Jack Mintz as director of research to conduct an in-depth examination of retirement income adequacy. The finance minister has already convened a meeting of his provincial and territorial counterparts for this coming December to discuss the findings of this important group.

If members truly believe the future of Canadian pensions deserves attention, they will recognize our efforts and work with our Conservative government, support the economic recovery bill and not jeopardize it and plunge Canada into yet another election. While I doubt that the Liberal opposition will reconsider their obsession with forcing an election, Canadians should rest assured that our Conservative government stands with hard-working Canadians who want to be able to count on their pension plan for a stable retirement. We will take the steps required to make sure Canada's pension framework is strong.

The economic recovery act, with these important reforms to CPP, is a tangible demonstration of that. There is much more to the economic recovery act such as supporting farmers affected by severe weather as we extend important tax deferrals; ensuring dependability for public broadcasting by increasing the borrowing limit for the CBC, as requested by the CBC board of directors; promoting global growth and cooperation by giving small and low-income countries a bigger voice at the IMF, while strengthening Canada's commitment to debt relief; and resolving the Crown share saga, as our Conservative government, after decades of neglect by previous Liberal governments, is ensuring that Nova Scotia finally benefits from its resources through Crown share adjustment payments in accordance with the landmark agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia.

Yet the Liberal leader would vote a against these measures, not out of principle, not out of some disagreement over the contents of the act, for he has likely never even read it, but for narrow, partisan self-interest. He wants an election, regardless of the consequences, not because he has an economic agenda, but because he wants power. In a period of major economic uncertainty, Canadians deserve better from their elected representatives. As Macleans' magazine trumpeted this past August:

Almost any way you look at it, Canada is uniquely positioned...Compared to the U.S. and many other countries, Canada has done well and we should be proud. But it's one thing to gloat, and another to exploit our relative lead.

Let us not exploit our lead, as the Liberals would with a pointless election. Let us work together, keep our focus squarely on the economy through measures like the economic recovery act, and make certain Canada remains in the lead for decades to come. Canadians deserve that.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member has highlighted a particular dilemma for his government, which he has an opportunity now to resolve. His indicated that much work would be stopped if there were election now.

Just recently in Canada's economic action plan, the third report to Canadians, various projects were highlighted as being part of the economic stimulus in direct response to the economic recession that began in the second and third quarters of 2008. A small craft harbour project in Goose Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador was highlighted in particular.

The economic report indicated that $1.25 million would be provided for additional berthage and improve the functionality of the service area to better meet the needs of harbour users. The economic report says that this is in direct mitigation of the economic downturn of 2008. The bulk of that $1.25 million was actually tendered and spent in 2005 and 2006.

Could the member relay to the House how a $1.25 million project, the bulk of the funding of which was spent not only long before 2008, but in 2005 and 2006, can be related to an actual stimulus measure to the economic recession that we are involved in today?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's economic action plan is implementing infrastructure projects across the country from coast to coast. It is extremely popular. I was door knocking recently in my riding of North Vancouver and it was remarkable to see the number of people who were taking advantage, for example, of our home renovation tax credit.

Let me quote from an Ottawa Citizen editorial, which states the home renovation tax credit:

—has turned out be effective and smart....Even the quietest streets roar with hammers and saws....This is keeping construction workers employed who, in turn, spend money that keeps others employed. Home centres and hardware stores are humming....helping the construction industry was exactly the right thing to do. Credit where credit is due, when it comes to the reno credit.

We are taking—

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would invite the hon. member to answer the question about small craft harbours and money spent in 2005 and 2006.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

That is not quite a point of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention what others were saying about Canada's economic action plan.

First, the IMF yesterday released its world economic outlook, a report card on the global economy, saying what we have said all along, that our economic action plan is working as Canada is weathering the global economic storm better than almost everyone. Not only does it forecast we will experience one of the smallest drops in 2009, it has declared Canada will be the fastest growing economy in 2010.

The world recognizes that our government is on the right track. Why can the Liberals not do the same?

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke talked about the renovation tax credit.

I want to go back to the question asked by the Liberal member. There is a wharf in every village and town in Manicouagan and many of these villages depend on the fishing industry.

A home renovation tax credit is being implemented, but do the member and his government intend to repair their own harbour infrastructure in villages that depend on the fishing industry, like those on the Lower North Shore?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many projects across the country qualify for our infrastructure stimulus plan. To date, 4,700 have already been submitted. We are 90% along the way in implementing these measures and getting money out the door, creating jobs and putting Canadians back to work.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague said that we should not gloat, and I agree with him. We should not gloat about the economy right now. I guess the New Democratic Party should not gloat about the fact that for many years in the nineties we fought against deregulation of the banks so we could be in the position we are in today, with an economy that appears to be doing okay in relation to many others around the world.

I would like my colleague to remember that in the fall of last year his leader and his party had predictions for the economy that were completely out of touch with reality.

We are heading into winter now with high rates of unemployment. The recovery that we talked about over the summer did not occur. The projections have not gone the way that economists felt.

How can the member stand there and tell Canadians that we are out of the mess that has been caused by the global recession?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are recovering from the worst economic downturn since the Second World War. We are not out of the woods yet. We have to continue to stay the course and that is what we intend to do.

President 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 and the economy...And I think that’s important for us to take note of...

He further said:

Canada being a good example... they've actually done a good job in managing through what was a pretty risky period in the financial markets.

Canada's economic action plan has already and will continue to create jobs and provide tax relief. It will assist those who have weathered tough economic times and help build a stronger future for all Canadians.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary and I have listened to some of the questions posed by the opposition. They all want to find little cracks here and there.

We look at world bodies that have passed judgment on this government's ability to navigate through the troubled waters we find ourselves in and are worldwide in scope. As mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank make projections and tell us and the rest of the world that we are on the right track. We have been positioned well for the economic recovery.

During question period, we then listen to questions about the lumber industry and building supplies. Could the parliamentary secretary tell us more about how Canada's economic action plan, and in particular the home renovation tax credit, is helping the people in our lumber industry and home supplies and what Canadians are saying about the type of economic stimulus that is actually happening because of this part of our economic action plan?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that question comes up time and time again in North Vancouver. I have been knocking on doors for the last few weeks. People are telling me that they have been putting off renovations to their kids' bedrooms. They have been putting off renovations to their homes and decks, but they are doing it now because of the home renovation tax credit, which was implemented as part of Canada's economic action plan.

An editorial in The Globe and Mail said the home renovation “tax credit has proven one of the more successful of the government's stimulus measures, helping create demand for services and supplies”.

I repeat the Home Hardware CEO, who says, “The home renovation tax credit has been a big help to many of the retailers and certainly we have benefited from that”

It is one of the most popular items in budget 2009. It is despicable that members from the Liberal Party are voting against such a popular measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, by harmonizing the sales tax throughout the country, particularly in Manitoba, the government is expanding the sales tax to include home renovations, thereby pretty much negating the effect of the tax credit.

How is the government stimulating the economy when on the one hand it offers the tax credit, but on the other hand it takes it away by expanding the sales tax base?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the harmonization of taxes is decided at the provincial level, not at the federal government level. That is a decision for the provinces to make.

Several years ago under the previous Liberal government, three provinces decided to harmonize their taxes. Two more provinces have decided to do it now. It is their decision and their decision alone.

[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.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very convenient for the member to say that it is very important to stay the course and for Canadians to keep the government in place because it has not yet gotten the job done. That is like asking for an indefinite extension with no end to it.

I have two questions for the hon. member.

The government keeps harping that 90% of the infrastructure projects have started and are under way. If it is true that 90% are already on track, how would an election stop things that are essentially, according to the government's own words, on automatic pilot?

The hon. member talked about a recession that is not made in Canada. I will remind the hon. member that we are a trading nation. We are very much dependent on world economic trends. Could the hon. member tell us the last time there was a recession in Canada that was not simultaneously going on in the United States or somewhere else in the world?

Would the parliamentary secretary stop with his truisms? Of course it is not a made in Canada recession. We are always affected by what goes on south of the border or elsewhere in the world because we sell natural resources to other economies that use those as inputs in their economies.

Could he tell us when the last made in Canada recession was?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I referred in my speech to Hansard, which keeps track of all the speeches, all the words that are uttered in this House. Mr. Speaker, if you would ask some of your support staff to check Hansard, they would find many occasions where Liberals stood in this House and talked about a Conservative recession.

It is the member's colleagues who try to talk down the Canadian economy, who try to suggest that it is any one government in this one country that has caused this recession.

For him to stand and ask that question now, I would suggest that at his caucus meeting on Wednesday, he ask that question of his colleagues who have suggested that it was a made in Canada recession, because that has only come from that side of the House.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-51 and I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga—Brampton South.

I oppose this bill for one simple reason. Along with my Liberal colleagues, I have lost confidence in the Conservatives' ability to govern this country and guide it through difficult economic times back to a robust, strong economy. Through its budgetary actions over the last year, the Conservative government has failed Canadians by its incompetence and divisive tactics. We can no longer support a government whose failed policies have hurt Canadian families and their interests.

Over the last 10 months, the Liberal Party has tried to make Parliament work and focused on helping Canada through this recession. We tried to work with the government. We insisted on a stimulus package and fought for effective changes to employment insurance that would help Canadian families. However, we have lost confidence and trust in the government.

Let me count the ways. There is a record deficit that was revised from a surplus, from $34 billion to $50 billion to $56 billion in less than a year. The government has failed to plan for the H1N1 flu by delaying the ordering of flu vaccines and sending body bags to communities rather than assistance.

There are 450,000 more unemployed Canadians today than there were a year ago. The Conservatives' fiscal update recently said that another 200,000 plus Canadians will join the ranks of the unemployed in the coming year. The government has done everything to turn the hands of time back on women's equality, especially regarding pay equity.

Harper's broken promises not to raise taxes are an issue. Those are some of the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I believe I heard the name of the Prime Minister. We only use titles or riding names.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

Bill C-51 deals with the Nova Scotia offshore petroleum resources. It would bring certain payments for Nova Scotia's offshore petroleum resources outside the framework of budget bills. This means that in addition to the one time payment the province receives of $174 million, in future years the payment would be automatically sent to the province rather than needing to be passed annually in a budget bill.

Regardless of the details of this change to revenue sharing, the Conservative government does not have the kind of track record on federal-provincial relations that breeds confidence in its ability to treat provinces fairly.

The Conservative government has demonstrated time and again that its promises to Canadians, whether promises not to raise taxes, promises not to tax income trusts, or promises to protect Canada's fisheries, are meaningless.

No province is more aware of the Prime Minister's willingness to break promises than Newfoundland and Labrador. Time and time again the government says one thing and does another. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians well know this with the promises on the equalization formula and Goose Bay. Promises made, promises broken.

Another challenge is the Canadian fishery. The government never meant a word of its promise to reform NAFO to better protect our fish stocks.

The amendments to the NAFO convention failed to adequately protect fish stocks off the east coast of Canada and would create substantial new problems which could eventually compromise Canadian sovereignty and allow foreign patrol boats to establish and enforce catch and quota regulations within Canada's 200 mile zone.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know too well the divisive politics of the Conservatives as we were hit earlier this year with a broken promise regarding the $1.4 billion that was taken away from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador with changes to the equalization formula.

During the government's first two years in office, the Prime Minister did not once convene a meeting of first ministers, preferring instead to leave provincial and territorial leaders outside of the federal government's plans to lead the federation. When he finally did meet with them, he promised to send them a letter of suggestions on how they could stimulate their economies.

This politics of division and heavy-handed federalism is unfair and has been the hallmark of the Conservative government. Canadians are tired of politics of division and isolation. Canada works best when federal and provincial governments work in partnership, in the best interests of all Canadians. That is how the Liberals have governed in the past, by striking agreements with the provinces and territories on things like the universal child care agreement, creating plans to address health care issues, and the Kelowna accord.

On the home renovation tax credit, the Liberal Party has expressed its full support for this tax credit. This credit is part of the budget plan already implemented by Parliament. The Canada Revenue Agency is already working toward the home renovation tax credit.

It would be far more prudent for the government to have included the home renovation tax credit in previously introduced budget implementation legislation along with the rest of its flagship programs. It is disingenuous for the government to tell Canadians that this tax credit is at risk while at the same time running hundreds of ads promoting the use of the program.

In my view, this is the kind of political trickery that the government plays so often to manipulate voters. That the credit is at risk is simply untrue. The Liberal Party is fully in support of the home renovation tax credit and Canadians will not be fooled by attempts to divide them to think otherwise.

With respect to the CBC, this legislation would adjust the borrowing authority that applies to the CBC substantially, permitting the national broadcaster to borrow up to $220 million in order to cash manage through the coming year as it develops a new strategy. Current legislation restricts the amounts that the CBC can borrow, allowing the broadcaster to access loans only up to $25 million.

It was the current government that only a few months ago refused to step in and meet the broadcaster's request for bridge financing to deal with the shortfall in revenues during an economic downturn.

Not only did the Conservative government refuse to provide the CBC with the bridge financing it required to maintain 2008 staffing and service levels across the country this spring but it went so far as to vote against a motion put forward by the Liberal Party recognizing the indispensable cultural role of the CBC in providing national, regional and local programming in Canada.

This challenge to the CBC came at a time when its success and audience share of the market was growing. Every week almost 80% of English Canada uses the CBC. This success comes despite the fact that the CBC is the worst financed public broadcaster in the industrialized world.

The government long argued that funding the CBC was a waste of taxpayers' dollars and used the pretext of tough economic times to launch an assault on this national institution by withholding the bridge financing the CBC needed to ride out the economic storm without job and programming cuts.

In fact, the government went so far as to withhold approval of the annual top-up funding for the broadcaster forcing the CBC to make dramatic job and programming cuts to meet its government forced budget cuts of $63 million.

Had it acted in the spring and made additional financing available to the CBC, the government could have saved jobs and crucial cultural and regional programming that has now been lost. Instead, the government's inaction has forced the CBC to come up with an alternative plan to weather the economic storm.

As a crown corporation, the CBC cannot access loans from the private sector. Because of this and because of the refusal of the government to provide the network with $125 million in a bridge financing request, the CBC had to look elsewhere to find the financial security and flexibility it needs at this time.

Through the bill, the government is allowing one of our most valued cultural institutions to mortgage future stability by selling off assets, monetizing future lease revenues so that the CBC can access the cash it needs during this economic downturn.

The sale of assets means that the CBC will be forgoing future revenues to deal with the short-term economic pain caused by the government's unwillingness to step in and mitigate the fallout of the economic downturn. There is little doubt that members of the government do not value the CBC.

One final point is with regard to the Canada pension plan. The bill makes an accounting change that will reduce the amount older workers are penalized by choosing to work after the age of 65. These changes will be made on a go forward basis and seniors currently collecting their pensions will see no real change in their benefit amounts as a result of these accounting differences.

While ensuring pension policies are actuarially neutral is a responsible step for any government to take, it would be wise for the government to face up to the fiscal realities our seniors are facing in so many parts of our country and look toward providing meaningful support to seniors.

With one in three Canadians retiring with no retirement income savings beyond the core mandatory government programs of CPP, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, governments need to consider making more than cosmetic and accounting changes to ensure Canadian seniors can access benefits they need as they age.

We can do better. We must do better for Canadian seniors and for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech. I am a little shocked to begin with. I am glad that she did finally get back on topic.

We are actually debating the budget implementation act, not whether or not the House has lost confidence in this government because obviously it did not. We survived a confidence vote last Thursday.

I think it is time that all hon. members of the House move on beyond that. I am sure they have not, but I think we should all move on beyond that and actually deal with what is more important to Canadians, and that is ensuring that we survive and recover well from this economic recession.

I then listened with shock to the hon. member's comments about the CBC, suggesting that we had cut funding to the CBC. This is a business plan that the CBC has asked for. We have put that in place.

Before we actually managed to elect a Conservative government, why did the Liberals cut the CBC's budget in three consecutive budgets?

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was most important to give the reasons why I was not supporting Bill C-51 which included the fact that I have no faith in the government's ability to move us through these difficult economic times.

Regarding the CBC, it was the government's inaction that forced the CBC to make cuts to its programming and to ask for these changes so that it could borrow money. It is as a result of the government's inaction that has caused the CBC to make these moves. That is the reason why this has been so challenging to the CBC. That is one of the reasons why I will not be supporting Bill C-51.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 implements the first-time home buyers' tax credit, and that is an ongoing government program.

However, the home renovation tax credit, which is much vaunted and touted by the government and much advertised, is only planned to be a one year effort. How many people were projected to take advantage of this program? Why is it not an ongoing program if it is so popular? Given the big advertising budget the government has allocated to this program, I am just wondering whether it will spend more on advertising than on tax credits.

On that basis, I would like to encourage the government to make an announcement very shortly that it will extend this program on an ongoing basis.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to comment on the amount of spending the government has made on advertising the program. As my hon. colleague commented, perhaps the government is spending more on advertising the program and speaking of the benefits of the program than it is on the tax credit itself.

Canadians should be encouraged to continue to make investments in home renovations, to continue to stimulate and put more money into the economy, especially during these difficult economic times.

There are a lot of people in the construction industry who are unemployed. We would like to see more work for those people. If we look at the infrastructure program, for example, only 12% of that money is actually encouraging work right now. There are a lot of construction workers available for home renovations.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague who is a fabulous member of Parliament with a strong background.

She is familiar with biotech. Folks who were in to see me last week said that the government is turning a blind eye to what should be done to encourage that industry.

Employment insurance, which is not in the bill, needs some more robust work. The hon. member has people in her area who do not qualify but who should quality. I wonder if she could comment on that.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first, on the employment insurance issue, recently a person came into my office and told me that he had worked 17 years in the mining industry. He had uninterrupted service in the mining industry, but unfortunately in November last year he lost his job and does not qualify for these EI changes. The EI changes are simply not enough.

Regarding biotech, the government has turned its back on the biotechnology industry by not giving it some assistance during these difficult economic times with regard to ensuring that it has access to funding.

If Canada wants to move forward in the knowledge-based economy, if we are sincere in saying we want to be an innovative country, then much money needs to be put into the knowledge-based sector to ensure that we lead in this area rather than weakly follow others.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-51, an act to implement certain provisions of budget 2009. The Liberal Party opposes the bill as a matter of confidence. This is not a decision we have taken lightly, and it has come after making a legitimate and honest effort to work with the Conservatives to do what is in the best interests of Canadians. Yet, time and time again the government has demonstrated that it is not interested in cooperation and it is not interested in compromise.

After the last election, the Prime Minister found that once again Canadians would not trust him with a majority government. He initially accepted their judgment, but after Parliament was recalled and the Speech from the Throne was delivered, he made it clear that he was in no mood for cooperation. The economic update that was delivered surprised everyone by its partisan tone, and it did nothing to help deal with the economic crisis. In fact, what the Globe and Mail wrote on November 28 sums up the Conservatives, in terms of their strategy, during the first economic update:

For an economist, [the Prime Minister] can certainly see a political opportunity faster than an economic mess. In the fiscal update yesterday, the government should have concerned itself with rallying the people - and the Parliament - of Canada behind a vigorous response to the global economic crisis. Instead, the proposals put forward by...the Minister of Finance, amounted to fiscal gerrymandering.

After the election, [the Prime Minister] promised a new co-operative, less partisan approach to governing. He pledged to work with the opposition to deal with the economic crisis.

The most significant item in yesterday's update, however, was a manoeuvre that had nothing to do with the economy, and could needlessly plunge the government into chaos....

By destabilizing their own government, the Conservatives have placed Canada at a competitive disadvantage against other states.

Through gratuitous partisanship, they have turned an economic crisis into a political one.

They should withdraw their cynical attempt to rewrite election rules and concentrate on what matters--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I do apologize for interrupting the hon. member's speech. I am sure he is going to get to the point of debate at some point, but I have been listening for about two minutes and he has not even addressed what we are debating. It is not about confidence. It is not about Globe and Mail articles. It is about passing a piece of legislation that we have promised to pass. If the Liberals want to stand in the way of that, that is fine, but let us talk about the subject we are discussing today, the budget implementation act two.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The member is making a point of relevance. I know the member for Mississauga—Brampton South would want to speak to the bill. It is traditional for budgetary bills to have a wide swath of what is in them and why members might support or not support it, but I do hope the member will be mindful of the rules of relevance.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the frustration and concern. As we all know, the opposition called their bluff and the Conservatives were forced to come up with a real plan to deal with the recession. That plan, which the government promotes as Canada's economic action plan, would never have existed if the Prime Minister had a majority government. It is important that we remember that.

After forcing these major concessions from the Conservatives, the Liberal Party then agreed that we would act in good faith and support the budget only after amending the motion to provide for regular reports to Canadians on the progress of its implementation. We put them on probation because we wanted to give Canadians the accountability that they deserve and to make sure that the government would actually follow through on its commitments.

It is almost Thanksgiving. The construction season has wound down and there are still virtually no infrastructure projects under way. An entire construction season was wasted at a time when we were supposed to be stimulating the economy. It is hard to create jobs and get the economy moving when only 12% of the announced projects were under way before September. In fact, it is not just infrastructure. Spending is not getting out the door at all. The entire so-called action plan is simply a listing of one failure after another.

For example, take the $12 billion secured credit facility that the Prime Minister promised for the auto sector. None of the money has gone out. Out of the $1 billion green infrastructure fund, only $71 million, or less than 1%, has been allocated. Of the $2 billion municipal infrastructure lending program, only $80.6 million, or less than one-half of one per cent, has been allocated. Of the $400 million set aside for housing for low-income seniors, only two projects totalling $5.35 million have been announced. The government's own report states that only $350 million of the $1 billion community adjustment fund has been “committed”. I could go on and on. The list gets greater and greater.

One can see that the Conservatives are unable to get the stimulus money out the door. They are spending tens of millions of dollars running campaign-style ads on taxpayer dimes.

I do not know how they can justify spending $40 million to tell us about an action plan that is not actually working and which they cannot implement. Let me put this in perspective. They only spent $6.5 million to warn Canadians about the very real danger of the H1N1 virus. To add to the confusion, the Prime Minister spent the summer making announcements, but 14 of those 16 announcements were for regular, non-stimulus infrastructure projects that either will not begin for years or had been planned for years before and were long delayed by the Conservative government.

It gets worse. Not getting money out and wasting taxpayer dollars on meaningless advertising is just the beginning. The money that the government has spent is being directed in a very partisan manner. In Ontario, the Conservatives promised 15% more dollars on average to their own ridings. That amounts to $13.1 million from the infrastructure stimulus fund and the recreation facilities fund combined, compared to the $11.1 million average for Liberal-held ridings.

In the stimulus program for rehabilitation of the community recreation centres, 18 out of the top 20 ridings by number of projects granted in Ontario are held by the Conservatives. Of course, the government tries to claim that this is all a coincidence and that things just happened to work out this way. However, it is very difficult to keep a secret of this nature.

I assume the member opposite would love to hear this quotation from the National Post, which summed it up by saying:

--the nominated Conservative candidate in the Ontario riding of Markham-Unionville...said on live television that the reason his riding has not received federal funding for a medical testing centre is that the Member of Parliament is a Liberal.

That is not getting the job done for all Canadians. That is buying votes. Canadians expect their government to make informed and prudent decisions and not turn their trust into a Conservative rewards program. Beware of Conservatives bearing gifts because with one hand they giveth and with the other hand they taketh away.

The same Prime Minister who said that he would never raise taxes is quietly implementing a $13 billion payroll tax that kills jobs and acts as a disincentive to employers. Perhaps I am giving him too much credit by taking him at his word. He is the same Prime Minister who pledged that he would never tax income trusts and then did so anyway, hurting seniors and many others who invested their life savings simply because they believed the Prime Minister when he said, “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept”.

I was elected by the constituents of Mississauga—Brampton South to fight for their interests in Ottawa. What I have seen is systematic deception and incompetence on the part of the government. Too many of my constituents are losing their jobs. Despite being a prosperous part of the greater Toronto area, the unemployment rate in my riding hovers around 11%, compared with a rate of around 6.5% when the Conservatives came into power.

There are 450,000 more unemployed Canadians today than there were a year ago and according to the Conservatives' own report card, another 200,000 Canadians will join them in the coming year.

That is why the Liberals oppose Bill C-51. That is why the Conservatives have lost our confidence. We can do better. Canada can do better. We look forward to ensuring they are held to account.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was great, unfortunately, it was on the wrong bill. I thought he was supposed to be talking about Bill C-51. In that vein, I would like to ask him a question about something that does apply to the bill, which is the home renovation tax credit.

I understand his party supports the home renovation tax credit and has said that if the Liberals become the government, they would certainly honour the program. However, has he not noticed that the Conservatives have only made this a temporary program? The first-time homebuyers' tax credit was brought in as a continuous program, but the renovation tax credit is only a one-year event. In fact, they have spent as much money advertising the program as they are probably going to give out in tax credits.

Does he think the government should make a commitment to extend this program beyond one year?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remind my hon. colleague that the premise of opposing the bill is predicated on the fact that we have lost confidence in the government, and it was very important for me to articulate why we had lost confidence. We put the context in place by saying that the current government had clearly demonstrated that its so-called economic action plan was not being properly implemented.

With regard to the home tax credit, we do support it. We understand it is an important initiative. However, the bigger issue here, the point of debate for us and the reason why we oppose the government is we have lost confidence in it. That was clearly demonstrated in my remarks when I talked about the fact that infrastructure money was not getting out and the money that was getting out was being used in a very partisan way. The government is using taxpayer money to advertise its very ineffective action plan. Canadians have a right to know and deserve to understand what is going on, and that is why we are opposing the bill.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I congratulate the hon. member for Mississauga—Brampton South on his role as small business and tourism critic for our caucus. My question for him is with reference to his critic portfolio.

When it comes to tourism in particular, how are the government's policies negatively affecting the small businesses and the tourism industry?

The member mentioned a couple of promises that the Prime Minister did not keep. One was he called for fixed election dates, yet he called the last two elections. How does the member feel about the Prime Minister calling elections in the midst of the economic crisis?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The parliamentary secretary did raise a point of order about relevance, asking members to stick to the topic of the bill before the House. The member for Mississauga—Brampton South is rising to answer the question, but we should be mindful of the rule on relevance.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will very quickly answer the questions of my colleague.

Many Canadians have lost faith and trust in the Prime Minister when he breaks his promise on fixed election dates.

With regard to tourism, which is a very important part of our economic recovery, imposing these restrictions on, for example, a NAFTA partner like Mexico does not help promote business. Nor does it help promote two-way trade. That has hurt our tourism industry and it has caused a great deal of job losses in the industry as well.

However, more important, the Prime Minister talked about the fact that he would not raise taxes. At the same time, the Minister of Finance announced a $13 billion EI premium increase, a payroll tax hike, which effectively would harm small and medium-sized businesses. These businesses are the engine of our economy and they help generate the economic wealth and the jobs created in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very short, once I get over the fact that the hon. member just said he would oppose this budget implementation bill. One of the most important pieces of the bill is the home renovation tax credit, which he said he supported.

Would he square that circle?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are playing partisan games. They are trying to mislead Canadians. Clearly the budget implementation bill is not a reflection of one or two initiatives, which obviously members of the House support. It is a reflection of a loss of confidence.

What the member fails to realize is the fact that this inaction plan, as I refer to it, has not delivered. Only 12% of the funds have gone out and it has gone to Conservative ridings. It has compounded the situation by further losing out on the construction season, with jobs not being created.

That is why we oppose it.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss Canada's economic recovery act. This vital legislation will implement key measures from the economic action plan, our targeted road map to save and protect jobs today, while preparing us for the economy of tomorrow, along with other important economic initiatives.

Since January, we have been putting our plan in place as quickly and effectively as possible. We have done so because our Conservative government understands that Canadians are concerned about their jobs and their future, the very same Canadians I represent in communities all across my beautiful riding of Huron—Bruce.

I want to assure those Canadians that this plan is working. Along with their help, our plan is boosting Canada's recovery by focusing on the economy and promoting economic stability. In so doing, we are helping Canada emerge from the current global recession as a more competitive economy.

Do not take my word for it. Look at the recent IMF world economic outlook, a report card on the global economy. It forecasted Canada to have the highest growth of any G7 country in 2010. The World Economic Forum's 2009-10 Global Competitiveness Report ranked Canada as the 9th most competitive economy in the world, a big jump from 14th under the previous Liberal government in 2005-06.

Under the 2009 Forbes magazine's best countries for business ranking, which looks at business conditions in over 100 economies around the world, Canada has rocketed up four spots to number three.

Listen to how respected BBC economics editor Stephanie Flanders raved about Canada. She stated, “Nowhere is immune, but by most key measures, the Canadians are coming out of this crisis in a league of their own”.

Indeed, Canada entered the current global recession on a strong economic fiscal footing. Our Conservative government paid off $37 billion of debt, giving Canada one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in the G7, while simultaneously cutting taxes and making key strategic investments.

As BMO economist Doug Porter remarked in an interview with CBC Newsworld earlier this year, “Canada did go into this downturn with almost pristine fundamentals. Those pristine fundamentals do suggest that Canada will hold up a little better than other economies and probably will emerge a little stronger than other economies”. We are seeing that evidence today.

Our Conservative government is not, however, merely content to ride on our past achievements. We are building on our strengths to ensure Canada's economy remains in poll position for the recovery throughout Canada's economic action plan.

Canada's economic action plan is targeted, effective and timely. It is a plan that is supporting struggling communities and industries, cutting taxes, building new roads and bridges, helping the unemployed and much more. In total, the plan is providing $61 billion of stimulus to create 220,000 Canadian jobs. On top of these measures, over 160,000 Canadians are benefiting from work-sharing agreements that are allowing companies to continue to provide jobs to their employees.

Canada's economic recovery act is an extension of that plan. Not only will it implement numerous key measures from the plan outlined in budget 2009, but other new initiatives to support ongoing economic stability and growth. I understand the Liberal leader, before even reading the act, decided to oppose and vote against it, as he continues his singular obsession with an election, no matter the cost.

I am proud to say that while the Liberal Party of Canada pushes for an unnecessary election that could threaten Canada's fragile economic recovery, our Conservative government is pushing forward for Canadians in support of economic recovery.

While Liberals seemingly did not bother reading the economic recovery act before rushing out to denounce it, let me highlight the key measures they have decided to blindly oppose.

Through the economic recovery act, we are creating new opportunities for our construction and resource sectors with new tax credits.

To help alleviate some of the fees associated with buying a house, fees that often serve as a disincentive for young people entering the housing market, and to encourage first time home ownership, we have introduced the first-time home buyers' tax credit. This would provide up to $750 in tax relief to help with the purchase costs of a first time homeowner.

If I may add from personal experience, I bought a home a few years ago for the first time. This tax measure would have been a very appreciative measure. I can appreciate that families are looking forward to this new tax credit.

The first-time home buyers' tax credit has worked, as illustrated by the strong existing home sales in Canada largely driven by the entry of first-time home buyers. An entry spurred on by first-time home buyers' tax credit and another key element of Canada's economic action plan, the increase to $25,000 to the amount first time home buyers can draw from their RRSPs. Members do not need to believe me, but this was stated in a Canadian Press article from September:

...thanks in part to government incentive programs, particularly for new home buyers, the market has bounced back.

Earlier this year, Ottawa increased the amount first-time home buyers can withdraw from their RRSPs from $20,000 to $25,000, and implemented a tax credit for first-timers....

Again, this is a program I was fortunate enough to take advantage of several years ago. It was a tremendous opportunity to put toward the purchase of my home and I am very proud to see our government's action enhance this so that other young couples who are looking at purchasing a home can use this system.

While it is important that young families can enter the housing market, it is also important that they and all Canadians can add value to their homes. Another housing measure in the economic recovery act would help do just that, the home renovation tax credit, or HRTC. It is estimated that the credit would provide approximately 4.6 million families with up to $1,350 in tax relief on eligible renovation projects undertaken before February 2010. Without a doubt, the HRTC has been an overwhelming success.

The Globe and Mail hailed it in a glowing editorial declaring that the HRTC:

...has proven one of the more successful of the government's stimulus measures, helping create demand for services and supplies.

While I travel throughout the riding of Huron—Bruce and talk to home builders, home building supply firms, the home building supply companies are very busy. The people who work in the inventory section are swamped and very busy. One would never know there is a global recession going on. Contractors are booked. These are the initiatives that we took to ensure our economy is moved forward. This is definitely one of the great measures brought forward.

The HRTC is putting tradespeople to work and giving a boost to those who produce and sell building materials. A report from the Globe and Mail states:

“Home Hardware Stores Ltd., Canada's largest independent seller of building materials, is getting a boost from the government's renovation tax credit”, spokesman Rob Wallace said....

The company's eastern, central and western warehouses all are reporting higher shipments to more than 1,000 independently owned stores...

“We're ecstatic,” said Mr. Wallace. “We're far ahead of where we expected to be.”

Those are results for Canadians. A report from the Sault Star in northern Ontario stated that by most accounts, the HRTC move has worked. It went on to state:

“There's no doubt that it has brought a lot of people out of the woodwork to do renovations that they normally wouldn't have done,” said Andrew Walton, sales manager at Northwood Window & Door Centre.

John Patrizio, general manager at Rona Cashway Building Centre said that the building store has been busy with customers planning to take advantage of the 15% tax credit that covers projects that were started after January 27 or will be started before February 1, 2010.

Bob Boissonneault, assistant store manager at Home Depot, said that the tax credit has generated more spending. “A tonne of people have taken advantage of it”.

Clearly, the temporary nature of the credit is providing an incentive for homeowners across Canada to continue to invest in their biggest and best asset during these challenging economic times. One wonders why the Liberals have opposed this measure and this act, and one wonders why they took this position even before taking the time to review the act.

Another key measure that the Liberals are opposing in the economic recovery act is enhanced support targeted for those who need it most. For low income Canadians who receive social assistance, landing a job can cost them dearly in both higher taxes and reduced income support. The working income tax benefit, or, as it is known, WITB, helps to reduce the financial disincentives faced by these individuals.

Originally introduced in budget 2007 by our government, the landmark WITB is a refundable tax credit that helps make work pay by supplementing the earnings of low income workers to help ensure that these workers are financially better off by getting a job. For low income working Canadians with disabilities, facing even larger barriers to workforce participation, the WITB includes a generous disability supplement.

The Caledon Institute of Social Policy has called the WITB “a welcome addition to Canadian social policy”...it “fills a long-recognized gap in Canada's income security system”. Roger Martin of the Rotman School of Management said that it was “very helpful to the working poor in our urban centres”.

The economic recovery act would enhance the WITB by $580 million in 2009 and subsequent taxation years. It is expected that more than 1.5 million Canadians would benefit from the enhanced WITB for the 2009 tax year. As a member of the human resources committee, we have heard nothing but favourable comments about the WITB initiative.

That is not all the economic recovery act is about. It also would provide Canadians with more flexibility to improve their quality of life, even during difficult times. Our Conservative government understands Canadians, particularly those nearing retirement who are worried about their pensions. Uncertainty and turmoil in financial markets is a concern for all Canadians, especially older Canadians who have worked hard and saved diligently for their retirement years and rely on their pensions and savings.

The economic recovery act would not only help maintain the quality of life for seniors, it would actually improve it during these difficult economic times. For example, the act would strengthen the Canada pension plan by implementing a number of reforms, reforms that were unanimously supported and recommended by the federal, provincial and territorial finance ministers in their tri-annual review of the CPP last May.

The reforms include the following: removing the work cessation test in 2012 so that people may take their retirement pension as early as age 60 without the requirement of a work interruption or earnings reduction; enhancing the retirement pension calculation to allow up to an additional year of low earnings to be dropped from the calculation; and enabling a person under the age of 65 who receives a retirement pension and continues working or returns to work to contribute to the Canada pension plan and thereby create eligibility for a new post-retirement benefit.

The Canada pension plan reforms would ensure that older Canadians across the country have the support they need to adapt to a changing economy. Furthermore, our Conservative government is also continuing to move forward on pension issues. Earlier this year, we held national consultations on improvements to federally regulated pensions to inform of key changes to be released shortly.

Moreover, as only approximately 10% of pensions are federally regulated, we are also working with provincial governments, forming a research work group and arranging a national summit of finance ministers later this year to further look at the larger issue of retirement income security in Canada.

I would also like to take a moment to quickly review other vital initiatives in the economic recovery act to help provide the stability our economy needs, initiatives include: helping farmers by extending the existing tax deferral available in regions affected by drought; ensuring that the province of Nova Scotia continues to receive a meaningful net fiscal benefit from its resources by resolving the crown share saga after decades of neglect by the previous Liberal government; improving transparency and accountability in the use of taxpayer dollars by mandating that all federal departments and crown corporations produce quarterly financial reports; ensure dependability for public broadcasting by increasing the borrowing limit for the CBC; and promoting global growth and co-operation by giving small and low income countries a bigger voice at the IMF while strengthening Canada's commitment to debt relief.

Canada's economic recovery act would provide a balance between stimulating our economy for the short term and building our capacity in the long term. In every region of Canada, families and businesses are paying less tax and unemployed workers are receiving better support and new training. Major job creating infrastructure projects are breaking new ground. Colleges and universities are benefiting from new investments, and Canadian households and businesses are seeing improved access to financing.

Our Conservative government's economic recovery act would provide much needed stability for our country's economy. It is timely, targeted, temporary and cost-effective and it would lay the foundation for long term growth.

The Liberal leader would rather look at narrow, partisan self-interests and force an unnecessary election, jeopardizing the recovery and inviting a prolonged session. Now is not the time for political games but a time to recognize that our economic recovery remains fragile. We must stay focused and we must stay on course. We need to continue to implement Canada's economic action plan, supporting Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

As the Calgary Herald editor noted:

...the Canadian economy, when compared with outcomes in peer nations, vindicates [the Prime Minister's] claim to sound [fiscal] management...[the Liberals'] promise to vote against him can only be seen as a self-interested reach for power, at a dangerously sensitive time in the nation's recovery. It is irresponsible, as well as widely unwanted.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I can only stand here and shake my head after listening to those remarks. To even suggest that the government has sound fiscal management is so far from the truth it is unbelievable.

We have a Prime Minister who has taken a surplus that was left to him by the previous government and has driven this country into its biggest deficit in Canadian history. In fact, it was in deficit before the global recession started. The government just does not want to admit it.

I am absolutely shocked that the member for Huron—Bruce, which is the biggest hog-production sector in Canada, would get up and nary mention a word about hog producers. He talked a little about helping farmers. Does he think the Ponzi scheme, established by the President of the Treasury Board, will help Canadian hog producers?

Let me explain the scheme to him. Perhaps he just does not know because he is talking from the speaking points from the PMO.

Does the member support the fact that farmers will go and get a loan from the bank that is guaranteed by the Government of Canada, which is a start, at least it is guaranteed, but the first condition of that loan is that producers must pay back the advance payment program they received from the government last year, which is an unsecured loan from the Government of Canada? Farmers will be left indebted to the chartered banks or other credit institutions and in the process they pay off the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada gets its money securely and farmers are left further in debt with no hope and no future.

The government has been an absolute disaster for the farm community. How can the member for Huron—Bruce, which has a big hog-producing population, support such a Ponzi scheme exercised by his Minister of Finance?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malpeque has never been short for words, as we all know. He does, however, support farmers as I support farmers.

He did come in late and the unfortunate thing is that we are actually debating Bill C-51 today. The support we are providing in Bill C-51, which he voted against, would provide support to farmers in drought and flood regions. In a way he is actually talking out of both sides of his mouth on this issue.

I think the member for Malpeque has an issue with the fact that all members of our government worked with pork producers, listened to pork producers, and delivered results in conjunction with them.

Just Friday, the final announcement came out, and today hog producers across this great country are talking with their banks. They are working on their transitional progress. They are looking at ways to market their products not only in Canada but also around the world. Our pork producers produce some of the greatest pork in the world.

I would encourage all Canadians to support their local producers, to buy Ontario, to buy Canadian, and not listen to the rhetoric from the member for Malpeque.

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

Mr. Speaker, it took the member for Huron—Bruce a while to get to Bill C-51 as well in his speech, but when he did he dealt with some of the statistics that I am looking for on the home renovation tax credit program and the first time homebuyers program.

I would like to ask the member how many first time homebuyers have taken part in the program? I realize that at the end of the day we will not know until the year is up as to whether or not this program has been of benefit. The question is whether or not the program is the motivating factor for first time homebuyers in the first place, or it may be just because house prices have dropped and first time homebuyers are jumping into the market.

On the issue of the home renovation tax credit, my colleague mentioned that 4.6 million Canadians will be taking advantage of it. I wonder if that is a projected figure or whether he knows that to be the case.

I wanted to ask him too whether he would intervene with the parliamentary secretary and the minister to make certain that the government announces an extension of this popular program?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the tax credit for first time homebuyers, I would suggest that all first time homebuyers will be able to take advantage of it because they will submit their claim through their taxes. I am sure he is relieved to hear that.

The home renovation tax credit is a popular program. I would just like to give a little commentary on what it means to the people of Huron--Bruce, the riding which I have the good fortune to represent. There is a tremendous number of hardwood bushes throughout my riding as well as a tremendous number of small sawmills, kilns and two manufacturers of hardwood flooring that use local hardwood.

This is just an example of the absolute effectiveness of the home renovation tax credit. It is very vertical. It helps the forestry worker by purchasing logs; it helps the mill and the manufacturer; and it benefits local consumers with a terrific made in Canada product.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have not mentioned what they would cut differently. The last time there was a recession they cut transfer payments to the provinces by 40%, a tremendous hit on health care in Canada. I wonder if the member for Huron—Bruce could tell us if he thinks this might be one of the areas that the Liberals would ravage and once again use their time in government to attack those most in need.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to report that in our budget we stood up for Canadians. We continue to make investments in our health care system by increasing our health care transfers. We also made tremendous investments and commitments in standing up for Canadians by increasing our social transfers to the provinces.

This is a government that is not going to do what the Liberal government did in the nineties which slashed and burned to balance the budgets. We are investing in Canadians because we believe in Canadians.

It is just a real unfortunate thing that the Liberal Party has failed to support the home renovation tax credit by voting against it. In my short time as a member this is quite likely the most popular and effective initiative a government has taken and all of a sudden the Liberal Party has voted against it.

Obviously we are disappointed on this side of the House. We are focused on the economy. We are delivering results for Canadians and that is what we are going to continue to do.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know from the hon. member's participation in the human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities committee that he has a very sincere interest in ensuring that we are doing things as a Parliament for those who are vulnerable and most at risk.

Some of the feedback I am getting with regard to the home renovation tax credit is that there are many people who pay a small amount of taxes or already get back the maximum in terms of rebate on the taxes that they pay. They claim that even though they have already gone ahead and done these renovations, many of them seniors on fixed incomes and people on disability programs, they have begun to see the roll-out and determined that it is actually a non-refundable tax credit that they may not benefit at all.

Is there any truth to that? Can the member clarify that and what do we say to those folks who have already gone ahead on goodwill and were excited about this initiative that they thought would be helpful to them as they tried to fix up their houses, particularly where energy efficiency was concerned, and now they are finding that they may not benefit from it at all?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member is aware of the program that is available to individuals such as he mentioned, but there are a number of excellent programs through CMHC which his constituents can look into for seniors, so that they can stay in their homes longer and for Canadians who have a disability, to allow them to stay in their homes longer. If he were willing to contact my office, I would be willing to show him where it is.

The department of human resources continues to deliver results for Canadians. Our office has worked with a number of constituents in Huron—Bruce to help seniors and those with disabilities stay in their homes and we will continue to deliver those results.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

I took the opportunity to attend the briefing session provided by the finance officials. There were a number of people there. I found it very interesting and found myself put at somewhat of a disadvantage. As we walked in the door we were given a copy of the draft bill, which is the bill now before us, to see it for the first time. There were no other briefing notes. There were no other documents that would explain why changes were being made. It was not about the precise words, but it was to indicate to the members the reason why this is being made.

Very often, the Library of Parliament will prepare briefing notes for members so that they can fully participate in debate from knowledge rather than from ignorance. I think it is very important. When we get important bills and initiatives from any government, accountability requires that it must explain or justify its words, actions or decisions in a manner that is true, full and plain.

That accountability has to not only happen after the government has done something but before it has done it and when it anticipates it should be done. People need to be informed about where a government is going and why. They need to be given an opportunity to prepare themselves. Members need to prepare in a reasonable fashion for debate in order to understand the nuances. Legislation is complex. This is basically an omnibus bill because it touches so many different acts.

With regard to this budget implementation act, in addition to the various credits and amendments in terms of the Income Tax Act, we also have changes to the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Canada pension plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, the Customs Tariff, the Financial Administration Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act, and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

If members were expected to somehow comment on this bill, it would be extremely difficult in the little time that is allocated to individual members to make reasonable contributions to the whole act. One will notice that a number of the members take aspects of the act that they are somewhat familiar with and have something specific that they would like to provide input on.

It may be with regard to the home renovation tax credit or the Canada pension plan. I know that hon. members have received a lot of input on that. I think that most people would concede that allowing Canadians the opportunity to invest in their homes is a good thing because it does create jobs. That kind of improvement is a good thing to happen.

However, as I followed the debate, there seemed to be a big question about relevance and whether or not talking about the broader picture was relevant to the debate and in fact in order. I submit that this budget implementation act is pursuant to a budget. The budget is the government's vision, outlook and proposals to address the condition of the country.

We know that we are in a recession. We know that unemployment has risen to record levels. We know that the deficit, being the shortfall of cash inflows versus cash outflows, is growing to the highest level it has ever been in our history. It is around $60 billion and it is expected to go much higher.

When we talk about a budget implementation bill, we are really talking about the budget, which is really talking about the government's plan to address the realities of a country.

It is very relevant for members to say that this bill, which is in part what is included in the budget, is part of something that some members believe is not the right track to deal with the problems facing the nation. It is not the right track with regard to saving current jobs or to promote future jobs in areas where there is the highest probability of creating jobs. It maybe does not hit the mark when it comes to dealing with a plan to get the country out of deficit over the long term.

The previous speaker talked about a prior Liberal government. His description was that it slashed and burned and all other good things. That is good rhetoric, but if the member were accountable to the House, he would have been truthful and plain about the facts. The facts are that in 1993 the then Liberal government inherited a $42 billion deficit and a debt-to-GDP ratio that was terrible compared to what it is today. It meant one's ability to deal with it was terrible.

I can remember asking Paul Martin at the time about our strategy to balance the budget within a reasonable period of time. That first happened in 1997 and for 10 years since then there were balanced budgets, in fact tax cuts and the restoration of other cuts.

The question I asked him was how we explain to Canadians that this is the right approach to deal with the economic reality of the country. He said he had to impose cuts right across the board and the federal government would be the worst hit. The public service really took a big hit, Canadians took a big hit, our health care took a hit, and the provinces took a hit in terms of the transfers for social services and health care costs. He told me that he had to cut 20% to save the 80% left, and once the government could stabilize the situation, just like a doctor dealing with a patient, then it could build back.

There was a lot of pain and nobody is going to doubt that. However, we should understand that the books were balanced and the financial integrity of Canada was restored within three years from a $42 billion deficit inherited from Brian Mulroney. That in fact carried over to the current government, which took over in 2006.

I have forgotten what the deficit was at the time. The election was in January 2006, Parliament did not start until April, the cabinet was not even formed at that time, and I believe the surplus for the year ended March 31, 2006, was some $17 billion. The current government inherited not only balanced books but a surplus, which allowed it latitude and flexibility to be able to continue to offer tax cuts to Canadians and also to restore program funding, where necessary, to meet the urgent needs of Canadians.

I do not apologize for what happened there. When one has a terrible situation, one has to make tough decisions. Paul Martin always said that government is about making tough decisions.

I never judge a government by what it does when times are good; I judge a government by how it responds when things are going bad. That is important for individuals as well. It is really easy to boast when everything is rosy, but what happens when it hits the wall? How do people show composure, professionalism, knowledge and wisdom to address a situation in the most appropriate fashion? Those are the kinds of things we are talking about.

I cannot talk about everything in this bill, but I went to the briefing session. I was sorry we did not get the briefing notes from the officials. They had panels come forward on each and every one of the items that are dealt with in this implementation bill. I wish they had given us their notes. They had notes, because they explained it to us. When I asked if I could have the notes, they said I would have to write my own from whatever they said. That was not very helpful and I did not think it was very accountable, but so be it.

I talked about and asked questions about the home renovation tax credit when it first came out in the budget. I had to read it a couple of times because there was one aspect, and this will show how members of Parliament may have input into important legislation such as this for our country.

I noticed that the home renovation tax credit, as it said in the initial language, was available to the registered homeowner or joint owners of that dwelling. What if we had a situation where there was a couple, the stay-at-home spouse brought the house into the marriage and the other spouse was the working spouse, but when they got married they did not change the registration to both of them? That means that the registered owner has no income and the home renovation tax credit would not be worth anything to them because they have no income taxes payable to which to apply a tax credit.

I immediately sat down with the finance minister and raised it with him. It was kind of interesting. He did not realize it. He said that it was not the intent and there was family law, division of assets and all that other stuff. One of his responses to me, and I do not think he will mind if I share this, was to ask whether I really thought the Canada Revenue Agency would check the registration of households before it gave out the credit. Probably not, but I was kind of hoping that the finance minister would not even make such a flippant remark, because our legislation has to be grounded and rooted in sound decision-making elements and facts.

With regard to the home renovation tax credit, I wanted to inform my constituents, so I did a householder on it, laying out generally how it works. I talked about the dwelling, which could be a house, a cottage or a condominium. Renters would not be able to do anything. It was not clear to me, and I said it would have to be checked out, whether a person operating a business out of a home would qualify or whether there would be a reduction of the credit otherwise available. Then I saw that if two families shared the same dwelling, each would get one credit. These are the kinds of things I was letting them know about. I gave them some examples of eligible expenditures. I wanted to be sure that they knew that furniture and appliances and the purchase of tools, et cetera, would be ineligible expenses and not applicable for the credit.

I also indicated to them that these expenditures had to be made in a period after January 27, 2009, and before February 1, 2010, pursuant to agreements after January 27, 2009.

It is family-based. People should know that. It is important. That means one family gets a chance to do it, and a family includes children who are under age 18 at the end of 2009.

It does raise the question, though, that if a person has a child who is over 18 years of age and living in that dwelling, who has his own room over the garage, whether he can renovate his room and claim his $1,350. He is not under the definition of family, but he certainly is a taxpayer. I am told that children sometimes do come back to the family home. To anybody who is in that situation I would suggest that they might want to consider, if they have a child over 18 years of age who has some designated area of the house that is his or hers, whether maybe he or she could qualify for this credit. It would be an interesting challenge to the Canada Revenue Agency.

I also dealt with the fact that people can do the work themselves or have others do it. This will probably surprise and maybe annoy some people who do not have disposable income to spend on renovations at this time, but the first $1,000 of the eligible expenditures does not qualify for any credit. The first $1,000 is on a person's own ticket. So it is the amount after that. That means that expenditures after that, up to an additional $9,000, qualify for the 15% non-refundable tax credit. The person actually has to spend $10,000, and the last $9,000 is what is eligible for the credit.

Non-refundable means that it will be applied against taxes otherwise payable. If people have no taxes payable, it does not matter how much non-refundable tax credit they have, they do not get any refund.

People should understand that if there is any way to generate income in 2009, knowing that they will have unused credit, that would be a good thing to do. So they may want to crystallize some investments or whatever.

I also gave them some contact information, because I think there will be a few questions and perhaps a few peculiar situations that people were not aware of. I do encourage Canadians, if they do not remember any phone numbers, to just remember 1-800-O-Canada. That is the main number and will get them to whomever they have to speak to in order to get answers to questions.

Also at this briefing session I had a chance to engage the officials with regard to the CBC. When we mention the CBC in this chamber, Canadians get nervous. We know that. The CBC has had a very significant challenge. There are some who do not believe the CBC should be getting any funding from the Government of Canada. They believe it should compete with others on its own merit. I certainly do not hold that view.

We have a national broadcaster that holds this country together. It is probably, other than our health care, the only thing that keeps us all together. Whenever the CBC has gone on strike or had lockouts or that kind of stuff, Canadians en masse have told parliamentarians, “Deal with it; I miss my CBC”.

Well, the CBC is going to be authorized to borrow $220 million, up from $25 million. I asked whether they could give me more details as to why they are doing this and what it relates to. It basically has to do with properties that the CBC owns that it is not using for its own purposes, so it is leasing them out and getting lease revenue.

If people have an annuity, being lease revenue coming in over this period of time, it is worth something and they can present-value it and discount it. They can in fact go to a financial institution and it may buy it from them. It will buy that right to receive those future payments for a lump sum today.

That is exactly what this is about. It is basically monetizing an asset, a stream of income. That means that the CBC is going to have the cash it needs today to address the severe the problems it has and the challenges, because in down times the CBC has trouble raising advertising revenue as well. It also has to make job cuts and has done so.

The concern, though, and I think many Canadians may agree, is that if the CBC is basically selling assets to take care of today's bills, what it is really doing is mortgaging its future.

My immediate reaction was that the fuse has been lit to the future privatization of CBC at fire-sale prices. It concerns me, and we have to watch this.

Finally, I want to talk about what the member for Huron—Bruce was talking about. I think his words were that we want to save jobs, we are saving jobs today, managing the economy for jobs for tomorrow, boosting the recovery and promoting economic stability.

I think those are laudable objectives. However, I can tell members that when we look at the unemployment line hurtling toward 10% and then look at the words the Conservatives said, that they want shovel-ready infrastructure projects to save today's jobs and to provide jobs in those areas that have the highest prospect of growth, “shovel-ready” to everybody in Canada means that as people are losing their jobs or that curve is starting to go up, they need to have those projects going.

What has really happened, and it is a real shame, is that the infrastructure cash, the cheque to the people for these projects, has not happened, has not tracked with the unemployment curve, and therefore, the job need. They have missed the boat.

I think the government has failed miserably on the infrastructure program, and I hope Canadians will understand it appears that it really did not want to inject stimulus at all in the first place.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all understand that the Liberal leader has lost confidence in the Conservative government, but based on the ramblings of the member's speech, I think the Liberals have lost confidence in the integrity of Canadians, which is very shameful. Indeed I doubt that they ever had confidence in us.

However, the issue now before the House is the current bill, Bill C-51, which addresses the economic recovery for Canada.

The Liberal leader says he would enact these measures but only after an election. The fate of Bill C-51 is not in question. It is going to pass.

Why will the Liberal members not demonstrate their resolve to get Canada moving as quickly as possible by voting for Bill C-51? Why will they not join all members of this House and put Canada first?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, and maybe the member missed the beginning of it, the budget implementation act deals with parts of a budget. It is the budget that is the plan.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

He supported it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question if he would stop yelling at me. The member for Burlington is a chronic whiner, for Pete's sake.

I really think it is important to take it in the context that I put it. When we deal with a budget implement act, we deal with the budget and the government's manner in which it plans to address the problems of the nation.

The Liberal Party has lost confidence in the government's ability to address the economic recession, to address job loss, to address recovery, to address the elimination of a $60 billion deficit. That is non-confidence. It is directly addressing this bill.

I love some things in the bill, but we cannot just say we like some things so we will take everything else. On balance, the package does not meet the requirements that Canadians have of their government.

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member for Burlington, I enjoyed the speech from the member for Mississauga South.

I have noticed that he does not necessarily follow the Liberal line and the Liberal caucus on a number of bills. I know on Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia trade act, he has some independent thought on it as he has on some other bills. I admire him for stepping out of the box a little and not blindly following his caucus. As well, he was the only Liberal member not to say how he would vote on the bill. He spent some time talking about the issue of relevance.

I appreciate the fact that there is some latitude given here, but the members have to deal with Bill C-51 at some point during their speeches. That is what we are dealing with at this point.

I suspect he is like the person looking through the department store window. He really wants to be on this side on this issue, but he has to stand up to his caucus and say so.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the hon. member for his kind words. I appreciate it very much. We are under a microscope at all times. We will leave this place one day and I know all hon. members want to leave here with their good names intact. I know we are all trying to do that.

I do not want to repeat what people have said, I want to be able to add to what has been said.

I was elected a member of the Liberal Party. I am a member of the Liberal caucus. We have a very large tent that embraces all kinds of thinking. Just like a cabinet, which never has unanimity on everything, once we take a decision, part of the rules of the game is we are all then together.

Now we are faced with this implementation bill. I am not happy about the CBC provision. I am not happy about the Canada pension plan provisions. People under 65 who take early retirement will get a lower pension. People who defer it past age 65, those who do not really need the money, will get a higher pension. It makes no sense to me.

The home renovation credit is important. It is a good initiative, one little initiative that will promote stimulating jobs, but there are already cases about some nasty people out there who represent themselves as home renovators but have no experience. There will be some nasty stories.

I will not support it, not because of any issue other than I do not believe it is part of a reasoned approach to address the problems that Canada faces.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tie into the final comments made by the member opposite.

I listened with interest to his speech. He made some interesting points. I would first like to address his comment with regard to judging a government based upon what it doing during the bad times.

It is newsworthy, and maybe the hon. member has not heard, but today the Canadian finance minister will receive yet another international award. He is going to be in Istanbul to receive an award being presented to him by Euromoney magazine. He will be accepting this on behalf of the Canadian government. They are recognizing him as the finance minister of the year, recognizing what this government has done during tough times.

The World Economic Forum has indicated that Canada will lead other countries out of this downturn. We see the same type of analysis from the IMF.

I appreciate that the hon. member will judge a government by what it does during the hard times. Clearly he will join the ranks of the international community in recognizing that Canada is leading on this front.

However, in answering the last question, he went after home renovators. He said that there were some nasty people out there. I would give the member the opportunity, because I know he has plenty in his own riding, to withdraw that comment.

[An hon. member]

He is right.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the last one first. An NDP member just said “He is right” and I stand by it.

When we have an over-demand for services beyond well-established, reputable home renovation firms and experienced people, a lot of unemployed people go out and represent themselves and they do some shoddy work. If members ever watch Mike Holmes, they know that it happens in our world. I raise it as an issue that people should be cautious and check out the people.

If the member believes that the award going to the finance minister by Euromoney magazine in Istanbul is an indication that we are making our goals and everything is beautiful, he should look at our almost 10% unemployment rate, only 12% of infrastructure money getting out in cash and a deficit at the highest levels that we have ever had.

I do not understand where the member gets his ideas. He really should look at the facts. The facts are we are in deep trouble.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with him that the home retrofit program is not beneficial to everybody, but it is beneficial to some people.

Would he not think that it would have been better if the Conservatives has tied that in to greener housing and the retrofit strategy as opposed to allowing people to build docks, which does not really do much to contribute to a greener environment?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to ensure that we hit our first target squarely, and that is to create jobs.

The second target is one that I had the occasion myself to experience. I went to Home Depot. I wanted a new garage door because it looked really bad due to my son shooting hockey pucks and other things against it. We had to replace it. It wanted me to get an insulated door because I would get a higher credit. That is great, but my garage is not insulated.

I understand the member's point and she is quite right. If we can hit two targets with one bullet, go for it.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak in support of the economic recovery act at second reading. The recovery act would implement key measures in Canada's economic action plan and other vital initiatives that would help to secure a strong recovery and protect jobs. Key among these measures is a set of important tax cuts that would support individuals and businesses right across Canada.

To begin with, this act would implement the temporary home renovation tax credit, or HRTC. The HRTC has proved enormously popular with millions of Canadians who will be able to receive up to $1,350 in tax relief on eligible home renovations completed before February 1, 2010. The temporary nature of this tax would provide an immediate boost for Canadians to take on new renovations or speed up already planned projects.

The HRTC is encouraging Canadians to invest in the long-term value of their homes and is increasing the demand for labour, building materials and other goods and services, helping to create more jobs and stimulating our economy when it is needed most.

Do not take my word for it, listen to the feedback we are hearing from right across the country.

Robert Dutton, Rona president and CEO, cheered:

We are happy to see measures such as the Home Renovation Tax Credit being implemented as we believe they will help stimulate the Canadian economy....This initiative directly benefits consumers and the industry while also helping save Canadian jobs.

Paul Straus, Home Hardware CEO, gave the HRTC a big thumbs up. He said, ““That’s been a big help to many of the retailers and certainly we’ve benefited from that”.

Canada's premier celebrity contractor and television personality, Mike Holmes, heralded:

Most homeowners have heard by now of the home renovation tax credit, and many are taking advantage of it. The idea of the tax credit is to stimulate local economy by keeping contractors working and keeping building supply retailers busy. It's a win-win: Invest in your home, and invest in your local economy.

Moncton Times & Transcript columnist, Alec Bruce, said:

—Home Renovation Tax Credit (HRTC)...is arguably the smartest piece of micro-economic policy this government has yet written....This is precisely how the government stimuli should work. By providing incentives to improve the value of the most important assets most people ever own--their homes--the feds guarantee that public money flows back to communities and neighbourhoods, employing skilled tradesmen and women and leveraging private credit markets.

The Ontario Home Builders' Association, president Frank Giannone, heralded the measure, noting:

—renovators are also witnessing positive trends with increasing consumer interest as a result of the federal government's Home Renovation Tax Credit.

Building Industry and Land Development Association president Stephen Dupuis gives the HRTC his stamp of approval. He said:

There's no question that the renovation tax credit has been the most effective stimulus spending initiative the federal government brought forward last January. The tax credit is spurring economic activity while helping to combat the underground economy...

What about small business owners like Maurice Meagher, who owns a construction company in Halifax and was booked solid through the summer building decks, patios and fences for Nova Scotians. He said:

Without [the HRTC]...maybe we wouldn't be getting these calls....People have been kind of sitting on the fence, looking at projects that maybe they'd be thinking about for a while.

Unbelievable as it sounds, the NDP finance critic, the member for Outremont, in the Winnipeg Sun:

—praised the Conservative government's home renovation tax credit...initiatives like that helped the economy because they got “hammers into hands quickly”...

The economic recovery act would also implement the first time home buyers' tax credit, putting up to $750 back into the pockets of Canadians who bought their first home. This tax credit would also be available for individuals who purchased a home for the benefit of a related individual who would be eligible for the disability tax credit.

I am hopeful, but doubtful, that our Liberal colleagues are listening and reconsidering their decision to vote against the economic recovery act with such popular measures, a decision that they will have to explain to their constituents.

However, if neither the home renovation tax credit nor the first time home buyer tax credit are worthy enough for the Liberals to support, what about the enhancements to the working income tax benefit to help those who are particularly vulnerable during tough economic times? This benefit, often referred to as WITB, is targeted to support low income working Canadians. WITB is a refundable tax credit which helps make work pay by supplementing the earnings of low income workers to help ensure that these workers are financially better off by getting a job. It does this by reducing significant financial disincentives to find and keep a job due to having to pay higher taxes and receiving reduced social services support as their paid income increases. WITB also includes disability supplements in recognition of the fact that low income working Canadians with disabilities generally face even greater barriers to workforce participation.

Even the Liberal leader on page 20 of his 2006 book, “Agenda for Nation Building”, claimed that no other measure would do more to strengthen the spine of equal citizenship than a working income tax benefit. When our Conservative government first introduced the WITB in budget 2007, he and his fellow Liberals shockingly voted against its creation. Now the economic recovery act will, as outlined in budget 2009, effectively double the benefits through WITB, increasing its estimated value for low income Canadians by $518 million for 2009. In subsequent taxation years, he probably boasts that he will vote against it.

The Liberal leader will be shamefully voting against more than 1.5 million Canadians that will benefit from the WITB for the 2009 taxation year even despite the fact that enhancement to the working income tax benefit has already garnered wide praise.

The OECD heralded the move stating:

Recent moves to increase the generosity of Canada’s Working Income Tax Benefit are welcome, particularly given that the benefit is strongly targeted to the lowest-income households.

Food Banks Canada praised it commenting:

We called for increases to the Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB), and the government’s proposed improvement to the WITB is a welcome development.

The Caledon Institute of Social Policy applauded the enhancement writing:

The 2009 Budget’s actions to enhance the Working Income Tax Benefit--an important recent addition to Canadian social policy--are laudable. They strengthen both key aims of the program--helping welfare recipients get over the welfare wall, and supplementing the earnings of the working poor. The investment in WITB will foster economic stimulus by sending more money to more working poor Canadians.

As odd as it may seem, the Liberal leader will likely vote against it as his Liberal leader edict. The Liberal member for Kings—Hants has given it a big thumbs up, telling his hometown paper, the The Hants Journal only months ago:

The Working Income Tax Benefit...has helped many working families and increasing it further will contribute even more significantly to helping make work pay.

Again, I am hopeful, but doubtful, that our Liberal colleagues have listened. I am doubtful that they have the capacity to push aside partisan self-interest, ignore their election-mad leader, do what is best for low income working Canadians and pass the economic recovery act and its enhancements to the WITB, and not scheme to force an unnecessary election that Canadians do not want and that could threaten what is an extremely fragile economic recovery.

Nevertheless, there is much more to the economic recovery act.

For instance, we are reaching out to hard-working farmers who have been hit hard by floods and have to dispose of their livestock by extending these farmers the same tax credit deferral that applies to farmers affected by drought. This is a move that Canadian Federation of Agriculture President Laurent Pellerin gave his nod of approval, saying:

This announcement is welcome news in assisting not only Manitoba livestock producers affected in the summer of 2008 get back on their feet. But it also has the potential to assist all Canadian livestock producers who may find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to liquidate their herds due to weather related events in the future.

Furthermore, on the issue of relief for businesses, the economic recovery act will relax tariffs on temporarily imported shipping containers, primarily by increasing the amount of time that such containers can remain in Canada on a duty tax-free basis from 30 to 365 days. This proposal, recommended by various reports and Canadian transport-related associations, will both promote the efficient movement of empty containers in Canada and improve the efficiency of our transportation network.

This action builds on the previously announced elimination of tariffs on a wide range of machinery and equipment in Canada's economic action plan that will lower business costs by an estimated $440 million over five years and the recently announced public consultations to further eliminate all remaining tariffs on imported machinery, equipment and manufacturing inputs.

Our Conservative government's campaign against tariffs will provide a short-term boost and a long-term competitive edge for Canadian industry and lead the charge against the threat of creeping protectionism around the world. Daniel Ikenson from Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies, an influential American think tank, said, “Canada is doing a great thing. The idea of lifting tariffs frees up businesses, lowering their costs. It shows the United States the proper way to emerge from global recession. We should be moving towards reducing barriers, not imposing them”.

Together, we will have the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the leading industrialized countries by 2010. This adds up to a big Canadian advantage for attracting businesses and the jobs they create. Thanks to the business income tax reductions introduced by our Conservative government since 2006, the business tax rate will continue to fall from more than 22% to 15% by 2012. Provinces have added to their efforts by reducing their corporate income tax rates, helping Canada move closer to our Conservative government's goal of a 25% combined federal-provincial tax rate.

We have been seeing the impacts of these business tax reductions recently. Tim Hortons, a homegrown Canadian icon that was forced to flee the high business taxes under the former Liberal government, has reorganized as a Canadian company once again. As a Calgary Herald editorial claimed:

Talk about a double-double blessing!...Canada's national coffee--Tim Hortons--is leaving Delaware and coming home, for all the right reasons. That is, after years during which Canadian business rightly complained of being at a tax disadvantage compared to its U. S. competitors, the pendulum has swung...However, it shows Canada is doing something right...That a company such as Tim Hortons is prepared to go through the upheaval of moving its head office to take advantage of a lower tax environment shows business tax cuts by successive federal governments are starting to work...Timmies may well be starting a trend.

However, our tax relief measures are also benefiting thousands of businesses that are so vital to our communities and economy. Thanks to measures taken by our Conservative government, small businesses can retain more of their earnings for reinvestment, expansion and job creation through an increase in the amount of small business income that is eligible for a reduced federal tax rate of 11%.

That amount is $500,000 this year, up from $400,000. Through Canada's economic action plan, the economy recovery act, our Conservative government is providing tax relief that will encourage economic growth and create jobs for Canadians.

Indeed, since our Conservative government formed government in 2006, we have been working to reduce the tax burden on Canadians from the day we took office. We have provided and continue to provide tax relief that leaves money in the hands of Canadian families and businesses, where it belongs, to encourage growth and boost our economy.

We have slashed taxes by $220 billion for individuals, families and businesses over the next five years. Tax freedom day fell on June 6 this year, nearly five days earlier than under the former Liberal government.

The tax reductions in Canada's economic action plan reinforce our government's goal to foster a tax system that improves standards of living and investment in Canada.

In my short time here today I have presented but a few highlights of our economic recovery bill related to reducing the tax burden on Canadians.

While there is much more to this important legislation from strengthening pensions, to promoting global growth and co-operation, to improving government transparency and accountability, to supporting public broadcasting, and much more, it regrettably appears that Liberal members do not care enough to discuss them.

The Liberal leader wants to plunge Canada into an election regardless of what it would mean for Canadians or our economy and our recovery. Little wonder the Saskatoon StarPhoenix editorial said of the Liberal leader, “For [the Liberal leader] to propose such a thing only makes him sound patronizing and out of touch”.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I remain shocked at the message coming out of the government backbenches. Do those members really believe what they read?

The member for Medicine Hat talked about working to reduce the government's tax burden. The previous Liberal government gave the biggest tax break in Canadian history. The Conservatives took a surplus and presented the biggest spending budget in Canadian history. They misinformed Canadians about the deficit they were entering. They may be reducing taxes a little bit, but now they are leaving Canadians, our children and grandchildren, with the biggest deficit in Canadian history. How is that going to be paid?

The member should tell the whole story. The Conservatives might have reduced taxes in one area, but they are leaving the biggest deficit in Canadian history, a burden on this country's future.

I have a simple question and that is about what is not in this implementation plan.

In 2006 the Prime Minister promised the farm sector, an area that the member for Medicine Hat should know well, cost of production. It was missing in the budget and it is certainly missing in this document.

Could the member please tell me why the Prime Minister broke his word on delivering cost of production to Canadian farmers?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do believe that we are reducing taxes for Canadians from all ends of the country. As part of any funds, the member ought to know that our Conservative government paid off over $37 billion of national debt. We have reduced taxes everywhere across the board for business, for home owners, for low income people. We have increased seniors' ability to--

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Now there's a deficit of $56 billion.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Just a minute. I am actually speaking if you would not mind, sir.

We have reduced taxes all across this country. Canadians understand that. They also understand that the Liberal Party wants to have an election. If we were to actually look at where the deficit originally started, that individual might want to check his party's record back in the days of a former prime minister--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Brian Mulroney.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

No, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, my friend.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to build on the previous question. The member from the Liberal Party actually talked about the biggest deficit in Canadian history, but let us not forget that it was supported by the Liberals.

The Conservative member talked about reducing taxes and how his government has been able to do that. We want to congratulate that member in another way. We have to realize that the Conservatives also reduced the social safety net for Canadians, which is very problematic these days.

Does the member not think that the home renovation tax credit would have been better directed toward greener housing and energy retrofits because that is the direction we need to go in? Maybe the government should consider that.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our government has done more for Canadians in the last four years than any other government has done without offloading taxes to the provinces. We are increasing our eco-energy investments. We are putting money into housing.

We are putting millions and millions of dollars toward helping Canadians right across this country on green energy projects and our various programs. We are getting the job done.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the folks on the other side about the surplus they think they left. It is interesting how they arrived at that conclusion, after taking $15 billion out of EI, after cutting all the transfers to the provinces on social services and health, after not paying any attention to our partners and colleagues in the provinces and not dealing with equalization at the cost of some $23 billion.

We have reduced taxes by $220 billion. There are 20 more tax-free days now than there were before we became government. One of the things they do not understand is that cutting taxes is good for Canadian industry, businesses and families.

They talk about our spending, and then they continue to tell us to spend, spend, spend. I am wondering why the Liberals would vote against the implementation of the home renovation tax credit, against a tax credit for first-time home buyers and against farmers.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly makes one wonder why opposition members would not vote for this bill and particularly for farmers.

I would also like to point out at this time that when we became government, we had the opportunity to reduce the GST. That is something the former Liberal government said it was going to do in its red book. Did the Liberals do it? No, they did not. Our government reduced the GST from 7% to 6%—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would not want the record to be wrong. It is not unusual for the Conservative government to provide the wrong message. The fact of the matter is that was not in the red book. It was a promise by one member. She stepped down and ran again and was re-elected.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am not sure that is a point of order.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue.

Our Conservative government reduced the GST from 7% to 6% and then from 6% to 5%. Guess where the money from the reduction of those taxes goes. It goes to every Canadian. Canadians, particularly low-income people across the country, now have the opportunity to buy more goods.

Our government is doing the right thing. We have provided money for Canadians in tax relief.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised at the member's confidence in the government. I am looking at his own fiscal documents. It is true that in the first two years the government paid down about $25 billion worth of debt. In the next two years, however, it borrowed $60 billion.

I wonder how the hon. member could justify his confidence in the administration of the government if in fact over the four years it was in charge of the nation's finances it ran down the bill by $25 billion and ran it back up by more than $60 billion. How does he see that as a matter of confidence?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of our government and the confidence I have, it is obvious. Around the world we are being lauded for what we are doing in terms of our economic action plan. As well, we have made reductions in taxes. Our finance minister is getting another award. That tells people across this great land of ours that we are doing the right things, not what the Liberal folks would like us to do.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

I am rising today to speak to Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures. I would like to speak to a few of the policies that are covered by this piece of legislation. I am going to focus on a couple of items in this legislation, in particular, payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for offshore petroleum resources, the CBC, the home renovation tax credit, and if there is time, changes to the CPP.

The first issue I would like to address is the $174.5 million for Nova Scotia under the offshore agreement. I would like to thank our former colleague, Bill Casey, the former member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, for the time and effort he gave to this issue, and also for his commitment to keeping all Nova Scotia MPs across party lines updated on Atlantic accord issues.

The federal government did not keep its word. It did not abide by law. It completely ignored and did not honour the original Atlantic accord. I believe that Nova Scotians, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are still getting short shrift. There was an agreement and the government did not keep up its end of the bargain.

However, the government did come to a second agreement with Nova Scotia to try to mitigate the damage caused by not honouring the first agreement. We have been waiting and waiting for this money.

The NDP has been pressuring the government to at least honour the second deal. Thanks to our continued pressure the government is taking the first step toward treating Nova Scotia properly, fairly and with respect.

This money is a step in the right direction. It is a good thing for Nova Scotians, and it is a good thing for Nova Scotia. While I would like to see the next step toward honouring the Atlantic accord, and I hope that the government does work with my premier towards that end, I am very pleased to see this first step towards giving Nova Scotia the respect that it deserves. This is yet another reason that we do not need an election right now. What we need is to see this money get to Nova Scotia.

I will be very proud to stand up and cast my vote in favour of this bill if only for this measure alone, the $174.5 million for Nova Scotia. I am sure that all Nova Scotians would agree with me.

There is also a change to the loan provisions for the CBC in this bill. New Democrats have been calling for these types of changes for some time. I have spoken in this House about the cuts to the CBC in Halifax. We lost programming in the form of reduced time for Maritime Noon, a maritime-wide call-in program. It is an opportunity for maritimers to stay connected, across the Bay of Fundy and across the Northumberland Strait. It talks about issues facing our region.

It is an important show for allowing debate and discussion and the free exchange of ideas. On any given day one can tune in and hear about something as specific as regional gardening tips to ideas as broad as the international response to climate change. The cuts to Maritime Noon are a little snapshot from my corner of the country about how these cuts are affecting Canadians and our public broadcaster.

My colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay, has worked hard on this issue both inside and outside the House. In fact, he said in a speech, “These job losses were completely avoidable. All it required was his signature so that they could get a bank loan or bridge financing, and it would not have cost the taxpayer a cent”.

The Conservatives have responded by increasing the amount of money the CBC can borrow in order to bridge that financing. This is what the NDP has been calling for.

In many of our communities from coast to coast to coast the CBC is a vital part of the communication link. This measure that has been introduced will only strengthen the CBC.

I will be supporting this bill as it contains positive measures, like the home renovation tax credit, the first-time home buyers tax credit and drought relief for livestock owners. However, I am not kidding myself that this is some sort of grand vision for Canada during an economic crisis, because it is not.

I support the home renovation tax credit because Canadians are relying on it, but earlier this week my colleague from Western Arctic pointed out that he saw a rather large sign outside a hot tub emporium which stated that the tubs were available under the home renovation tax credit, that if people bought these hot tubs and installed them, they could be eligible for the home renovation tax credit. We are all trying to reduce our energy consumption and the government purports to take our international obligations about climate change seriously. This is a great example of why policy should have direction.

I believe in government. I believe that governments are there to provide direction. They are not there simply to enable more consumerism. They are there to help Canadians make good choices.

New Democrats have often called for a tax credit or for programs for retrofitting houses that would actually have a green energy focus, not just renovations, but green renovations. This tax credit does not do that. Almost anything could be done with the tax credit, like putting in a hot tub on a new deck.

Before I was elected I worked with the provincial government and the utility in our province on energy efficiency programs. Energy efficiency is absolutely our greatest resource right now. If we could reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, it would be like finding a new source of energy. It would be like an oil field's worth of efficiency.

Energy efficiency could also create jobs. The Suzuki Foundation put out a paper called “Cool Solutions to Global Warming”. In its analysis the foundation said, “Investments in energy efficiency have been found to produce four times more jobs than equivalent spending in new supplies of conventional energy”. That is an oil field's worth of jobs.

There we have it. We could have a positive impact on the environment, a positive impact on making life more affordable for Canadians. The government could have a profound impact on job creation, if only the government would realize that government has a role in providing direction to Canadians. It has a role in helping us make good choices.

I will turn briefly to the proposed changes to the Canada pension plan. This bill would make amendments that would allow people to collect their CPP without actually having to stop work. It would increase the number of low-income years that a person could drop from the calculation of his or her career earnings. Among a few other measures, it would allow people to contribute past the age of 65.

The measures introduced would allow for greater flexibility and choice for people approaching their retirement years. These are very good first steps to reforming the CPP and are worthy of support. However, I remain hopeful that these are just first steps and that the government will honour its obligation under the unanimously passed motion that my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek moved.

The motion put forward by the NDP states that we need to expand and increase the CPP, QPP, OAS and GIS to ensure that all Canadians can count on a dignified retirement. Would that not be something if people could have dignity in their retirement? Bill C-51 does not do this, but I am hopeful the government will begin its expansion of these pension programs soon, as 30% of Canadians are without retirement savings and seniors in my riding are struggling to get by on their meagre pensions.

In summary, I will be supporting this bill. The NDP has decided that it will look at each bill on a case by case basis and see if it is in the best interests of Canadians. According to the measures that have been introduced, we will be supporting it, but we are hopeful that this is just the first step toward a grander vision for understanding that government does have a role to play during this economic crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for an excellent speech, which probably was the first speech all day that dealt exclusively with Bill C-51, the bill at hand.

I would like the member to elaborate a bit on how the tax credit for green renovations would and should work. I thought that was a very intriguing part of her speech and I would like her to expand on that a little bit more.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, different ideas have been thrown around about what this would look like. It could be a tax credit that is specifically for green measures, but there has been a lot of talk in the past about actually having a program for energy efficiency retrofits.

There was the EnerGuide for housing and there was also a program that lasted about three weeks, the EnerGuide for low income households. The EnerGuide for low income households program had a few flaws. It could certainly have been improved but it was an incredible step toward trying to help low income households meet their energy efficiency needs and actually do the retrofits. A person would go in and do an assessment of a home to figure out the most cost effective measures to take and it helped people pay for those measures.

I have done work in Nova Scotia where we have shown that it is cheaper to go into someone's house, insulate the roof, replace the windows and have the energy consumption go down than it would be for us to build another coal-fired power plant in 10 years, which is really the way we are heading because of our increased consumption.

There are different models for these programs. I would suggest that we look to the United States because it is doing wonderful work on low income energy efficiency projects.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about the CPP and about how one of the measures in here would allow people to access that a bit earlier.

I am just wondering if she has any comments to make or worries with regard to whether people who are on CPP disability would find themselves at a disadvantage, and that long term care programs or insurance programs would force them to apply for CPP earlier.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am unsure about the impact that these measures would have specifically on CPP disability. However, with regard to the CPP, I met with some folks in a seniors residence a couple of weeks ago who told me that their CPP and OAS cheques had gone up by 46¢, which is not very much money when a senior is living hand to mouth and the costs of essentials are steadily rising. The interesting thing is that the same person showed me her electricity bill which had gone up by about $46. It is clear that CPP, OAS and GIS are not keeping pace with the cost of living.

We really need to move forward on this motion that was brought forward by the NDP and passed unanimously. It is time for us to take a look at the pension program to ensure all seniors are able to live with dignity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the member dealt with the CPP amendments in Bill C-51 as merely first steps. She went on to explain some other options that we as a party see that we should be developing here to improve pensions. I would like her to expand a little further on her ideas there.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we need improved averaging proposals that are not grandfathered. Currently, pensioners cannot recalculate their benefit levels to improve their pensions and this is a real problem.

We need to look at GIS and OAS enhancement, as I stated earlier, and we need to look at addressing the needs of those eligible non-claimants who are over the age of 70.

Those are just a few of the issues that we need to look at.

Again I go back to this motion that we passed and it is time for us to move forward on it.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to be sharing my time this morning with the member for Halifax, a new member of the House of Commons who has proven herself over the last couple of years as a capable, well-researched and hard-working member. She was actually recognized by Maclean's magazine and named best rookie of the year for the year 2009.

Maclean's states:

In less than six months in the House, she has attracted an unusual amount of notice—enough to win her the best rookie MP title in the Maclean’s poll of her peers.

I congratulate her very publicly for that.

However, it is not just since she has been here. I think people need to recognize this and, because of it, be willing to listen very closely to the advice that she gives in this place and to the voice that she brings to the House of Commons on behalf of so many who have no voice and cannot find the place to have their voice heard. For example, when she was back home in the wonderful city of Halifax, she was part of the Community Coalition to End Poverty. She was part of the Metro Immigrant Settlement Association's legal workshops for newcomers. She also participated in the Dalhousie Association of Women and the Law.

She also was the developer of a very unique and helpful project in Halifax called the “Tenant Rights Project” . She was also awarded for her excellent community development work and her social justice activism in Halifax.

People can get all this information if they google the member. I would suggest that anybody who wants to understand how this place works and the voices that are here, they might want to do that.

She was awarded the Muriel Duckworth award for raising consciousness of women's issues and feminism in the legal community and also the CBA Law Day award for encouraging and promoting access to justice.

As I said, I am very pleased to be sharing my time with such an accomplished, effective and now recognized member of this chamber.

I want to put a couple of thoughts on the record today on Bill C-51 that we are debating.

First, for all the reasons articulated by the member for Halifax, I also will be supporting Bill C-51 but I must say that I do it with a heavy heart. Even though there are some things in this bill that would be helpful to some people, I have some real concern about the overall agenda of the government and whether it understands fully how we got ourselves into this very difficult economic circumstance in the first place and if in fact it has a program to get us out of it.

I will use a couple of the initiatives that the government has brought forward to show the shortcomings and how it is that even though it may make a difference for some people it would not go that full distance to make it better for everybody.

For example, the renovation tax credit, which was announced to great applause in this place and across the country, it turns out that at the end of the day it will probably not benefit those at the low end of the income scale because it is a non-refundable tax credit. Therefore, if people do not get anything back on their taxes or if they do not pay taxes because their income is so low but they have already done the renovations that they thought they were going to get a tax credit back for, at the end of the day they may end up not getting a tax credit at all.

In my view, the renovation tax credit is very short-sighted. It should have been a refundable tax credit and perhaps could have been done differently. It could have focused on those who really needed it in these difficult times to renovate their homes, particularly from an energy efficiency perspective so they could change their windows and doors, put more insulation in or buy more efficient furnaces. That would have gone a long way toward helping people on fixed incomes who are trying to stay in the little homes they have been able to purchase over the years and are struggling now to pay the bills on. That is just one of the initiatives in this bill that I would suggest the government take another look at.

On the other end of the age spectrum, the initiatives in the bill that my colleague from Halifax has spoken to, such as the improvements to the CPP program, will help some seniors but for other seniors who have worked all of their lives, many very hard in workplaces that were very challenging, the government is saying that instead of increasing the CPP or OAS or giving a little bump to GIS that would cover the increasing cost of energy to heat their homes, as the member for Halifax suggested, the government has come up with a plan that actually makes it easier for seniors to continue to work.

It has been said that McDonald's was from birth to the grave work for people. That in fact will be what we will see in this country.

I understand that some seniors will appreciate this but for my money it would have been better had we focused on how it is that we might help seniors who have already done their life's work, raised families and helped build their communities. We need to allow them to enjoy some comfort and dignity in their senior years and those senior years should start earlier rather than later if for no other reason than it creates space for younger people to pick up good well-paying jobs.

Those are just two examples of why it is that even though we will support this, in a very unique and particular time with the economy still falling apart and many people being affected more and more every day we should, as a House of Commons and as different parties, be working together to support things that will be helpful, we think this does not go near far enough.

In my office in Sault Ste. Marie I am beginning to hear the voices of those who have been on employment insurance for a significant period of time and who are looking at it ending. There will be no new jobs for them so they will have very few choices to make. One choice will be to go on welfare, which we know is not nearly sufficient. EI in the first place is not sufficient, but when people fall onto welfare it becomes a different world altogether. People who will fall onto welfare will find that it is a difficult challenge to make ends meet, to keep body and soul together and to look after their families.

The other option they have will be to take on part time jobs. We already know that people working full time in many of those part time jobs that nearly always pay minimum wage are already living in poverty. If people are working part time at one of those minimum wage jobs, they will be falling even further into poverty. The government has no comprehensive program or role to play in eliminating poverty or dealing with poverty, particularly in these very difficult times for hundreds of thousands of people across the country. I find it unconscionable that we would not be putting our minds to that and moving quickly here in this place as we debate initiatives that could be helpful to those most as risk and the most vulnerable.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks of the member for Sault Ste. Marie. I tried earlier to ask questions of the government side but members seemed to produce answers straight out of the PMO. I know the member always gives direct answers.

In his remarks, the member seemed quite reluctant to support Bill C-51 and said that he did not think it went far enough. He talked about unemployment and the fact that it is a serious situation. As the member would know, people in Atlantic Canada would not benefit from these new measures and it is a problem. I am wondering if the people in Sault Ste. Marie would benefit from these new measures. Would they get the additional time?

Second, the government has now put Canada's economy into the biggest deficit in Canadian history. One of the ways it envisions getting out of that deficit is to increase payroll taxes to the tune of billions of dollars down the road. I wonder what the member's thoughts might be in that regard on the increased burden--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate and enjoy my interaction with the member from Prince Edward Island, and his passion about agriculture and agricultural issues.

Some in my community will benefit from the changes to EI but not many. There is a lot more to do.

I could not in all conscience, given that this difficult economy is affecting so many people, say no to the $1 billion for the people who will benefit from it. I appreciate that coming from his part of the country, it is going to be even worse, which is unfortunate.

He raises one of the million dollar questions, and there are a lot of questions to which we are not getting answers, about what we do as we move forward. How are we going to deal with the deficit that we are running up and what are we going to do about it? How are we going to fight it?

He suggests, as we have detected in some of the material and conversation with the government, that perhaps a payroll tax is forthcoming. My concern is it will be similar to what previous governments have done to deal with deficits, and that is programs will be cut, particularly programs that support those who are most at risk and vulnerable in our society. That will be absolutely and totally unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are some benefits as far as CPP improvements are concerned. There is greater flexibility and choice for people approaching their retirement years. There is reduced incentive to early retirement, increased incentive for staying longer in the workforce, an improved averaging formula to boost pensions below the max and the voluntary contributions for post-65 claimants allowing for secure pensions to age 70.

This does not amount to a significant increase in security for seniors. In fact, 30% of Canadians are without retirement savings. Clearly more improvements need to be made in the area of pensions. Would the member elaborate on that point?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Even though the amendments, which we support, will go a distance to help those seniors find decent work to help them pay for the increasing costs of energy, food and the many other things they need when they get to that age in life, my concern, as is his, is what do we do for the larger majority of seniors who have finished their work, who will not get other jobs except perhaps some part-time minimum-wage jobs? How will we reward our seniors who have done their work, built their communities, fought the wars and are looking for a dignified life and some comfort?

I agree, we need to be looking at an overhaul of the pension and retirement system. Our caucus member from Hamilton has tabled a very comprehensive package of reforms to pension and retirement income. Everybody in this place should look at that.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

It is an honour to rise in the House today and give thanks to the people of my riding of Etobicoke North, the community where I was born and raised. We are proudly one of the most diverse ridings in the country. We rank fifth of 308 Canadian ridings in terms of the 74% of people who are first generation Canadian, born into a Syrian, Italian, Somalian and other vibrant cultures.

Sadly, however, we also have major hurdles. Almost 20% of our residents are not yet citizens and often face language and job barriers. About 25% of families are headed by single parents who regularly work two jobs just to put food on the table for their children. Almost 20% of the riding is engaged in manufacturing, the second highest percentage for the entire country. In stark contrast, only 5% are involved in management, the 301st ranking of 308 ridings in Canada.

Etobicoke North is also one of 13 at risk neighbourhoods identified by the city of Toronto and United Way. Our community wrestles with many socio-economic issues related to unemployment, namely affordable housing, education, family breakdown, poverty and violence. In mid-August we tragically experienced three murders within only a few weeks.

Many Etobicoke North families struggle to make ends meet when the economy is booming, but the economy is struggling and the government's policies have hurt our families. For example, the government promised it would not raise taxes, yet it announced a $13 billion EI payroll tax grab.

Last September, the government said that there would be no recession. In October the government said that there were some good buying opportunities. In November it promised a surplus. However, 12 days later the Bank of Canada announced our country was in a recession. In December the government admitted it would run a $20 billion to $30 billion deficit. In January it was a $34 billion deficit. By June a $50 billion deficit and last month a $56 billion shortfall.

The government put Canada on track for a deficit before the recession hit and now holds the record of the largest deficit on record, at $56 billion.

Canada is the worse performing economy of the G7. EI enrolment has increased 63% since October 2008. Young people under the age of 25 have been particularly hard hit, with those receiving EI benefits increasing by 108%.

Statistics are clean, neat, tidy and do not adequately convey human suffering. My office serves 65 families each day. Last week, we met a young man who was accepted into university but who could not afford to go because his mother was out of work after having worked over 10 years in her company. Today she cannot find a job, he cannot find a job and they are at risk of losing their home. On Friday, we met a man age 59 years of age who had been living in his car for two years because he could not find a job.

It is not just those in manufacturing who cannot find a job. To date I have met over 75 internationally trained doctors who are working to earn their Canadian accreditation to practise. I have also met over 50 university professors, one who has two masters degrees, one PhD., two teaching certificates, speaks four languages and yet cannot find a teaching job in Toronto.

In the meantime these talented individuals work in call centres, drive taxis, wait tables or do whatever is necessary in order to support their families. Then they are laid off from call centres and they come to our office desperately looking for employment leads and help for their families. Many after seven years of contract jobs give up their dream to practise medicine in our country.

The last year has taken a tremendous toll on many of our Etobicoke North families that have lost work because auto, manufacturing and steel plants have closed. There are 450,000 more unemployed Canadians today than a year ago and the Conservatives' fiscal update predicts another 200,000 will join them in the coming year.

Our Etobicoke North families need jobs. Our youth see the opportunities other families have and ask, “Why not us?” In June I had the joy of attending the graduation at a local high school. Sadly, the valedictorian's speech was not like others, namely bright, full of hope and waiting for the next phase of life. Rather it was based on Dylan Thomas' Do not go Gentle into that Good Night. The theme was even if one was not from the right family, the right school or the right community, graduates should “rage, rage” and fight for what is duly theirs. I left saddened, distressed that our graduates thought that they were from the wrong side of the tracks, that they would never have the same opportunities as others their age and that some had already given up dreaming.

What makes change happen? It is investment and economic stimulus for community projects to create jobs for families.

Unfortunately, only 12% of the government's $4 billion infrastructure program is getting shovels in the ground and actually creating jobs. Only $71 million, or less than 1%, of the $1 billion green infrastructure fund has been allocated. Only $80 million, or less than 0.5%, of the $2 billion municipal infrastructure lending program has been allocated. Only two projects, totalling $5.4 million of the $400 million set aside for housing for low-income seniors, have been announced.

The Liberal opposition supported economic stimulus spending, but withdrew confidence in the government after it used the money for political favouritism.

The government had the opportunity to invest in communities across this country, create jobs and make a difference to families. More jobs would have meant fewer hungry children. In Toronto we feed 90,000 children, up from 83,000 last year, every morning because hungry children cannot learn.

This week is Feeding Toronto's Hungry Students Week. It is proclaimed by Mayor David Miller to highlight the sad fact that one in three Toronto students lives below the poverty line and 41% of students arrive at school every day hungry. In the city's most at-risk communities, 68% of children go to school without breakfast.

Toronto District School Board trustee Howard Goodman shares, “The kids are hungry for a whole bunch of things. They're hungry for knowledge. They're hungry for experience and independence. They're hungry for affection, recognition and respect, but they hunger above all for food. If that core hunger for food is not fulfilled, they can't satisfy easily any of their other hungers.

We are the only industrialized nation that does not have a breakfast program for our children. Less hunger would mean healthier children, more students staying in school, less youth looking for belonging in gangs and more young men and women eager to improve their lives if only they are given a chance.

We need jobs for the 23% of women-headed, single-parent families in my riding of Etobicoke North, who scramble every month just to make ends meet, yet lose almost a quarter for every dollar a man is paid. What would jobs for these women mean to their children, who are poor because their mothers are poor, and to child care and early childhood education? We know there is a return on investment of $2 for every dollar invested.

Real economic stimulus means needed projects for communities and jobs for families. This is development. It is not something abstract. It is real change in the lives of real people.

In closing, the future of Canada depends considerably on investing in families, as their economic health, physical health and social well-being determines the health of their children, who are the adults of tomorrow. As a first step to protecting the next generation, let the government fight for creating jobs for families.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's speech from across the way. I want to commend her on her voice in the House. I appreciate the fact that we have been able to work on other things and have conversations about things that matter to our respective constituents.

I am concerned that we as members of Parliament come to the House in order to debate policy and do what is in the best interests of our constituents. The hon. member discussed at great length the necessity to create jobs immediately, to get people employed and hungry kids fed. I share those concerns with the hon. member.

We come here to discuss these kinds of policies. Our constituents do not want us to come here to debate politics. It seems like the hon. member's leader has engaged in a political debate over the last little while as to whether the government should survive or not.

What I can guarantee is that the jobs she is talking about will not be created by forcing an unnecessary and very costly election. Our constituents demand that we come here to debate the things that she was talking about.

We understand that this bill will pass, so I wonder why the hon. member will not stand, in the interests of her constituents, and support the measures that will ensure that hungry kids get fed, that her constituents do have jobs and that stimulus money does flow into her community. Why will she not support this bill so that we get on with the real work that our constituents—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Etobicoke North.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have indeed had good discussions.

My concern is that when we look at where the investment has gone, we have seen a large percentage go to Conservative ridings. Last week, a Conservative candidate stated very clearly that the reason one of the ridings did not receive funding was because it was a Liberal riding.

Investment in child care is extremely important. It helps women and their families participate in the economy. Canadian researchers calculate a 2:1 economic and social return for every dollar invested in child care. American researchers demonstrate a 3:1 or 4:1 return for low-income families and show that childhood development programs could have a substantial payoff for governments in terms of improved labour skills, reduced poverty and increased global competitiveness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that in opposition we can often have it both ways. We can demand that the government spend money and then criticize it when there is a deficit.

I would just caution members not to be shrill on the issue of the $56 billion deficit when in fact just months ago we were demanding that the government bring in a stimulus package. Then, when it brought it in, we said it was not big enough and it should be larger.

In opposition we have a responsibility to not only criticize the government for deficits when they exist but also to offer suggestions as to how we should deal with the deficit, such as raising taxes. That is just one of the problems of being in opposition.

I know years ago in Manitoba a Conservative opposition member said, “Well, you know, in opposition, we can have it both ways; we can demand you spend money on a new bridge one day and the next day we can criticize you for increasing the deficit on that same bridge”. It is something that we have to be a little careful about when we are criticizing.

Other than that, I think the member gave a fine speech, as she always does.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my concern is that government has to foresee the challenges coming down the line. In the summer of 2008 we were talking about good times and saying there would not be a recession. The government did not see the recession coming. There has been a global recession, but we also have to have accountability. The numbers have continued to climb. We must be accountable to Canadians.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. members opposite are all fussed about an “unnecessary election”, but this time last year we were in the middle of an unnecessary election. It was interesting to go back to the quotes of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance during that unnecessary election and find out what they were thinking at the time, or at least telling Canadians about the deficit.

The Prime Minister, on CTV Question Period, on October 12, said:

We're not running a deficit. We have planned a realistic scenario. We've got conservative budget estimates.

That is probably true; we do have Conservative budget estimates.

He said:

We've got a modest platform that doesn't even fill the existing fiscal room....

Before the Business News Network, he said:

I know economists will say that we can run a small deficit, but the problem is once you cross that line, as we see in the United States, nothing stops deficits from getting larger and larger and spiralling out of control....

Come on, I do not think so. Some economists will say it is probably true. It is more true than possibly what a politician running an election wants to tell the Canadian public. The finance minister, who should know the numbers better than most, on October 9, just a year ago, said:

We will not run a deficit.

On September 16, he said:

We're running a balanced budget, we're running a surplus, we're paying down debt, so our government finances are solid.

Even during that fiscal year, the finance minister and the Prime Minister were being a touch economical with the truth, because this fiscal year is not the first year that this government has run a deficit. It was the last fiscal year. It is the fiscal year during the election, that unnecessary election that we were told we did not need.

Deficits do not just spring out of nowhere; we actually have to work at it. We have to really work at mismanagement in order to take a $13 billion surplus that we inherited from the previous government and run it into a $60 billion deficit over a period of four budgets. The Conservatives started out with revenues, in really their first year of administration, of $236 billion. The revenues then went up to $242 billion and that is where they peaked. They went down to $233 billion, and then down to $223 billion, roughly where they were five budgets ago.

That is fine. We are all in favour of reduced taxes. If I listen to the members on the opposite side, they can hardly speak a sentence without using the phrase, “reducing taxes”, et cetera. I am all in favour of that. We all like to reduce taxes, but there is another side to that equation, which is that the Conservatives are spending and spending. They started out in, effectively, their first fiscal year with $222 billion worth of spending, and over those years they ran it up to $272 billion worth of spending. That is $222 billion to $272 billion, $50 billion worth of increased spending. Meanwhile they destroyed or flatlined their revenues for a variety of reasons, largely having to do with the ideological predisposition to cut taxes at every corner.

Essentially, the Conservatives made a $25 billion paydown on the debt, and we will even give them the $13 billion from the previous Liberal government, so we will say that is north of $35 billion, $38 billion worth of paydown on the debt. That is all good stuff. We like that. In the last two years, they have run up the deficit by $60 billion. So in that four- or five-year budget cycle, that period of time, they have essentially run the government into a deficit position.

This is not even within the Mulroney era of deficits. The last time we had a Conservative administration it was $42 billion. These guys have exceeded Mr. Mulroney and now it is $56 billion.

I was amused at the fantasyland of going from September or October of last year, where they said they were not running a deficit, that the nation's finances were under control and they would not do the dumb things that were being done in the United States, to the fairy tale in November called “the fiscal update”. The fiscal update showed a small surplus of $1 billion.

They then induced upon themselves a political crisis and suddenly they got a little more realistic. Between the end of November and the beginning of February, we went from a small surplus to a $34 billion deficit. Then we went from January and February to May of this year and we were up to a deficit of $50 billion. As of last month, we were at a deficit of $56 billion.

Lord knows what next month will bring as far as a fiscal update is concerned. Perhaps we will be getting more fanciful statements from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance saying that the nation's finances are under control, that it is a conservative budget. It certainly is that. It is a Conservative budget. It is a Conservative example of gross mismanagement of the nation's finances, and members wonder why the Liberal Party would withdraw confidence in the government.

The Prime Minister is given enormous powers in our system of government. He gets to control the executive of the government by appointing the cabinet. He gets to influence the judicial branch of government by appointing the justices who sit on the Supreme Court and all the ones below that. He gets to influence the legislative branch of government by appointing senators, and he of course has shown some great enthusiasm for appointing senators lately.

There is enormous power concentrated in one person and in one office, and the only thing that this system requires of the Prime Minister is that he maintain the confidence of the House, and he has not. He does not maintain the confidence of the House.

When we were allowing him to govern, he spent an inordinate amount of taxpayers' money ridiculing the leaders of our party, and I imagine those expenditure go on. He spends an inordinate amount of time and money destroying the nation's finances. We got to the point where enough was enough and the confidence of the Liberal Party has been withdrawn from the government.

One would hope that the government would learn its lessons but I have no great anticipation that it will do so. It appears to be the same gang that ran the Mulroney show, which ran deficit after deficit.

In four budget cycles, five if we want to count the tail end of the Liberal administration, we have gone from revenues of $222 billion to revenues of $223 billion, which is wonderful. They have flatlined it. Meanwhile, the population has grown over that period of time by a million people and expenditures have run from about $209 billion to $272 billion, an increase of $63 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how you run your household, but I imagine that everybody sitting in this room has to run their households within their fiscal ability, and if they do not have an increase in their revenues, they cannot go crazy on their spending. The government has gone crazy on its expenditures and we will pay and we will pay and we will pay.

In today's news, there was an item about an Australian bank raising its interest rates. If one does it, they are all going to do it and the low-interest environment that the Bank of Canada has created here will go. If it goes, then all bets are off, because in terms of what we see here now, we ain't seen nothing yet.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly one of the things I do not understand is how the government can continue to spend and spend and spend. This comes from a very proud Liberal who helped to make sure that we got rid of the deficit. How could the government continue to spend and have decreasing tax revenues and possibly think that it can move forward without at some point having to deal with the deficit and having to cut many great programs? I am particularly concerned about seniors and pensions.

Could the member tell me how he thinks the government is going to be able to do that in the future?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we have withdrawn confidence in the government is that we do not think it can govern anymore. We think we could do better. The next government is going to have to deal realistically with the fiscal mess that it is going to inherit. Something is going to have to give.

If my anticipation is correct that interest rates are going to take off, then the $33 billion that we spend every year on interest to service the national debt will go through the ceiling. We will be talking $35 billion, $40 billion, maybe $45 billion. That would inevitably constrain the fiscal capacity of any government. That is a fairly realistic scenario.

Even the governor of the Bank of Canada said that he can only hold the line until June of next year. If interest rates take off, then they take off for the government, everybody in this chamber, and everybody watching. The cost of a mortgage will go up. The cost of doing business will go up. Business will go down. The government will be in an even worse situation than it is now.

The Conservative government has not made the decisions that it could have made during the good times and we are caught in the whirlwind.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member. He talked about how he likes lower taxes and so forth, but that was not true in the last election campaign.

That member wholeheartedly supported the green shift massive tax increase on Canadians. That tax increase was why Canadians voted largely against the Liberals. The Liberal massive carbon tax was rejected by Canadians. Everyone remembers that. I do not believe that member has ever actually supported any of the tax cuts that we brought in that have brought tax freedom day 20 days sooner.

A lot of other jurisdictions in Europe, and even the United States under President Obama, have brought tax cuts in for families and individuals and seniors as a method of boosting their economies. The member does not understand that.

He said that he has lost faith in the government and in the finance minister. Euromoney magazine has not lost faith in our finance minister. It named him G7 finance minister of the year. Maybe the member would like to speak to that. It is quite an honour for our finance minister to be acknowledged in such a fashion.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon. member could spend so much time on finance committee and learn so little.

It is very interesting that the finance minister should be awarded anything by any magazine, however obscure. Apparently his competition is not all that serious. The United States has a runaway deficit, trillions of dollars worth of deficit. Relatively speaking, the finance minster is only incompetent as opposed to grossly incompetent.

The point of the hon. member's little intervention was that somehow or another tax freedom day is sooner. There are no free lunches in this world. Tax freedom day may be a day or two sooner, but debt freedom day certainly will be later.

We are going to start going back up that horrible path. We thought we had learned a lesson but apparently we have not. We thought our finances would not resemble those of a third world nation. Apparently that is the fiscal ability of the Conservative government.

Is it therefore any wonder that we in the Liberal Party do not have confidence in the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously a great opportunity to speak today in support of the economic recovery act, an important piece of legislation to enact key parts of Canada's economic action plan, along with other crucial initiatives.

I understand the Liberal Party will vote against this legislation, sight unseen, for no reason other than to force an unnecessary election which no Canadian wants. It is my hope in today's debate, along with colleagues on this side of the House, to show that now is not the time for that sort of self-serving opportunism.

The stakes for Canadians and their families are high. The member for Scarborough—Guildwood does not understand that the stakes for his constituents are high. He mentioned a moment ago that he is surprised I spent so much time on the finance committee and did not get it. He has been on the finance committee a lot longer than I have, in fact he is a former parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance, and he still does not get it. So I guess I still have some time by his scale to get it. Maybe I will catch up, I do not know.

We simply cannot play political games because we cannot jeopardize a recovery with an unnecessary election. Catherine Swift, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, warned recently:

We've got some good news.... [W]e've been seeing three months of good recovery...we got the highest confidence level in over two years.... All we need is a stupid election to put things right back in the tank. What we need is certainty. Elections do not produce certainty.

I am going to digress for a minute. I mentioned the Liberal green shift. The Liberal green shift means anything but certainty for business.

Catherine Swift said that what we need is certainty and that elections do not produce certainty. With the economy turning right now, this is a bad time to have it. She said that we are just seeing things come back, that we are just seeing confidence come back.

It is clear that we must stand together with our global partners and stay the course. We must keep our focus squarely on protecting our economy and building on the success of Canada's economic action plan and stabilizing our economy.

As declared in the G20 leaders' statement following the Pittsburgh summit:

Our forceful response helped stop the dangerous, sharp decline in global activity and stabilize financial markets.

A sense of normalcy should not lead to complacency.

The process of recovery and repair remains incomplete. In many countries, unemployment remains unacceptably high. The conditions for a recovery of private demand are not yet fully in place. We cannot rest until the global economy is restored to full health, and hard-working families all over the world can find decent jobs.

Clearly, Canada must stay on track by continuing to implement our economic action plan and its related components, like the economic recovery act. This is fundamental to securing Canada's success in the face of ongoing economic challenges.

As expected, to date, Canadians have risen to face these challenges head on and allowed our economy to outperform where others have struggled. This has lessened the recession's relative impact. A sentiment shared by private sector economists, CIBC World Markets forecast that Canada will lead all industrialized nations in economic growth next year, while RBC economists expect that Canada's recession will turn out to be the least severe of the past three.

Our Conservative government has supported the efforts of Canadians with an unprecedented and timely stimulus contained in Canada's economic action plan, representing $61 billion in effective targeted measures.

Only last week we confirmed in the third report to Canadians on the implementation of the action plan that 90% of its 2009-10 funding is now committed. Canadians will continue to benefit from what is proportionately the largest fiscal stimulus package among all G7 partners with a projected 220,000 jobs being created or maintained by the end of 2010.

As Scotia Capital economist Aron Gampel points out:

The substantial stimulus injected into the economy from both monetary and fiscal measures is beginning to show more signs that the economy is regaining traction, but the full impact will become more visible in the months ahead.

Contrary to the views of the doom and gloom Liberals, there are more encouraging signs that Canada is leading the recovery with our strong fundamentals intact. Indeed, last week the International Monetary Fund, IMF, forecast that Canada will be the least affected by the global downturn and that our recovery will be the strongest in the G7.

Contrast that with what we are hearing from the Liberal members. We are not hearing these things. They are talking down the Canadian recovery. They are talking down the Canadian economy. For whatever reason, they do not want to see things recover in Canada because they think that hurts their political fortunes. Canadians do not care about the Liberals' political fortunes. What they care about is their families and their jobs. They want Canada to work. They want parties working together provincially and federally. They want municipalities to be engaged. That is what our government is doing. It is not what the Liberal Party supports, by the way.

Nevertheless, Canada and the global economy will continue to be challenged. As noted in the G20 leaders' statement, we have yet to sustain a full private sector supported recovery. Likewise, as IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn conceded recently, even though we are seeing tentative signs of recovery it remains fragile. I quote, “I want to be crystal clear. Until unemployment will decrease, it is difficult to say the crisis is over. It is too early to crow victory”.

Without a doubt we are at a critical juncture. If we hope to stabilize our economy and secure this recovery, we must stay the course and stay focused on the economy. Parliamentarians of all stripes can accomplish that, not by throwing Canada into an unnecessary election, but by passing the economic recovery act into law on a timely basis.

The economic recovery act is a complex and multifaceted piece of legislation with many components that have been highlighted by previous speakers.

For the remainder of my allotted time, I would like to focus on the reforms to strengthen the Canada pension plan, or CPP, that are included in the economic recovery act. However, before continuing, I should point out that the CPP is a jointly managed federal-provincial plan. Neither the federal government nor provincial governments can unilaterally alter the CPP.

The reforms laid out in the legislation were unanimously agreed to by federal, provincial and territorial governments this past May as part of a mandated triennial review of the Canada pension plan. Moreover, these reforms were made public at that time, available for all to review.

Before these reforms can take place, they must be officially approved, not only by Parliament, but by two-thirds of the provinces with two-thirds of the population of Canada. Moreover, the approved changes will start to take effect in 2011 and will be gradually implemented with all the changes expected to be in effect fully by 2016.

In short, the reforms agreed to by federal, provincial and territorial governments are intended to modernize the CPP to better reflect the many different paths people take to retirement today.

As Patricia Lovett-Reid, host of Money Talk, a popular Canadian personal finance television show and senior vice-president with TD Waterhouse Canada, noted that the CPP reforms speak “to the fact that we are living healthier and longer”.

Increased flexibility will be offered through the removal of work cessation tests that require individuals who apply to take their CPP benefit early, i.e., before age 65, to either stop work or reduce their earnings. The economic recovery act will remove the work cessation test in 2012 so that individuals will be able to take their benefit as early as age 60 without any work interruption or reduction in hours worked or earnings. This change will benefit those who would like to take their CPP pension while continuing to work either full or part time and could help individuals to use income from their CPP to phase in retirement or supplement their earnings.

Such a proposed reform has been particularly welcomed, as an Edmonton Journal editorial applauding it noted:

--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 some relief....

Older Canadians are healthier than ever and getting even fitter. If they want or need to continue to make a material contribution to the nation's productivity, they mustn't be discouraged.

Increased CPP benefits for a number of Canadians will continue through an increase in general lowering dropout which currently allows for 15% of the years where earnings are low or nil for whatever reason, to be dropped from calculations used to determine an individual's CPP retirement pension amount. The economic recovery act will gradually enhance the retirement pension calculation to allow up to an additional year of low earnings to be dropped from the pension calculation. By 2014, it will allow a maximum of eight years to be dropped.

This will benefit virtually all CPP contributors and improve their basic retirement pensions. It will also increase the average CPP disability and survivor pensions, as a calculation of these benefits would be based on the retirement benefit calculation.

It would be particularly helpful to those whose careers suffer more work interruptions for a variety of reasons like those who pursue post-secondary studies or other educational opportunities, those who reduce their participation in the labour force to provide care to a family member, or those who immigrate to Canada as adults.

Respected Sun media financial advice columnist Alan Caplan approved this reform noting:

It's intended to smooth out the earnings history for each pensioner who stopped working. The reasons vary, but may include job loss, further education, illness or care giving and child rearing. Almost everyone benefits from the provision.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I must interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary at this point. He will have nine minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

The House resumed 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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before question period, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage had the floor. There are nine minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

I therefore call upon the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure once again to rise and speak to Canada's economic recovery legislation.

Members may recall that just before the break I was talking about important provisions to improve the Canada pension plan. As I said earlier, the Liberals have already indicated that they are going to vote against this. If they do not support improvements to the CPP, just going along with their direction in question period, if not, why not? Who could stand against improvements to the CPP? These recommended reforms are incredibly important.

Mr. Finn Poschmann, a significant individual from the C.D. Howe Institute, has given these adjustments high marks. He said:

The proposed adjustments mark an important sea change in government pension policy approach to dealing with population aging and, in particular, making it easier for those people who want to work later in life to do so.

TD Bank's chief economist, Don Drummond, also said that this is a “positive development as it provides further options for Canadians in the tail end of their working careers”.

These are the things people are saying about the reforms to CPP that our government has brought forward. These reforms are in our economic recovery legislation. This is what Bill C-51 is about.

The Liberal Party has indicated that it is not too concerned with economic recovery. The Liberals are not too concerned with supporting Bill C-51 because they are more concerned about forcing an election that nobody wants. That is reprehensible.

I am quite surprised with the number of things the Liberal Party has voted against. The Liberals voted last week against the implementation of the home renovation tax credit. Thousands of Canadians from coast to coast--

[An hon. member]

Hundreds of thousands.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague corrects me that it is hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have taken advantage of the home renovation tax credit. That is providing jobs in Canada's forestry sector and is supporting the construction industry at a time when it is needed. People are reinvesting in their homes because of this stimulus. The Liberal Party voted against it. Who could vote against this? It is unbelievable. The Liberals are voting against things that only a number of months ago they supported.

Post-secondary education leaders from Ontario's community colleges were here last week. The president of Sault College said to our finance minister, the G7 economic leader award winner as indicated in question period and the best of the best according to Euromoney magazine, that this is the first money the college has received in decades for upgrades. Furthermore, he said that the morale at Sault College could not be higher. It has broken ground. It is creating jobs. Sault College is being improved. These improvements will lead to a better educated workforce and a stronger Sault Ste. Marie.

That is what we are doing. This is all part of Canada's economic recovery plan. Who could stand against Canada's economic recovery? The Liberal Party could stand against economic recovery. While we are fighting the recession, the Liberals are fighting the recovery.

I can say with clarity that there is nobody in my home riding of Peterborough who does not want economic recovery. There is nobody who does not want pension certainty. The reforms to the Canada pension plan that I mentioned are things the people in Peterborough want.

[Jason Kenney]

Do they want an election?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they do not want the bill on OAS put forward by the Liberal member for Brampton—Springdale and they do not want an election.

The measures in Canada's economic recovery bill are important. We have broken ground on so many public investments over the last number of months and we are going to break ground on many more.

We have been working in partnership with the provinces and municipalities at a time when Canadians are demanding that their representatives work together in their interests, not in politicians' interests. At a time when Canadians are asking us to work for them, the Liberal leader is saying, “It's about me”. That is wrong. It is the wrong time for that type of thing to be happening.

When I go out and meet with Canadians, not just in my riding but broadly, they say to stay the course.

We are working together. We are working to build a Canada that is better, safer and stronger. We are taking these economic head winds head on. They are rising to the challenge once again, as Canadians always do when they face adversity. Canadians are meeting the challenge. They are saying to the Liberal Party to get behind the recovery. The Liberals are missing the message: get behind the recovery. They should not stand in the way of Canada's economic action plan.

Daily we hear the Liberal Party say that the government is promoting itself. No, we are not. We are working for Canadians. When we tell people about the home renovation tax credit, that is to make sure that people know they can take advantage of the tax credits that are available to them. When we tell them about Canada's economic action plan, we are making sure they know the measures the government has put in place during this difficult time to rebuild the Canadian economy. This type of awareness is critical. It is critical for consumer confidence.

I come from small business. The driver in small business is consumer confidence. There are a lot of factors that come into play, but frankly when consumers are confident that things are good or that things will get better, they will spend money. They will invest. They will invest in their homes. They will invest in cars. They will invest in so many of the things that drive our economy.

That is why the government has a role in making sure that Canadians know that we are working, that we are focused on the situation and that we have a plan that will make it better. As I said earlier, that plan is getting international recognition. That plan is going to do Canada well in the future. That plan is going to put Canada in a position where we come out of this economic recession stronger than when we went into it.

That is what the IMF said last week, was it not, Mr. Speaker? I am sure the Speaker follows everything in the news, just as many good representatives do. He would have seen last week when the IMF specifically indicated that Canada will lead the G7 out of this economic recession, that we were the last to go in and we will be the first to come out. We will lead the G7 in economic recovery.

That is exciting because that is what we have been fighting for in this chamber. On this side of the House that is what we have been fighting for. That is what we have been working for. That is what we believe in.

We are determined to get Canada through this in a better position than any nation we compete with. That is our commitment. That is why we must focus on the economy. We must focus on the economic recovery bill that is before the House and people should not be looking for an opportunity to bring the House down just because they think the opportunity is there to do so.

The Liberal leader spoke last week, I believe, at the Economic Club of Toronto. We looked for some kind of alternative plan since he is trying to bring the government down, some kind of alternative or credible economic plan. What we saw was a dusting off of the 1993 red book, billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars of new spending promises and no idea of how we would pay for them, but apparently he is not going to raise taxes. If he is on one side saying we have to do everything we can to get rid of a deficit and on the other side saying we are going to spend billions and billions and billions of dollars and in the middle is saying that we have creative accountants that will be able to do that without raising taxes, forgive me but just about everyone in the country knows that is not on. Certainly the people in the electric city of Peterborough, Ontario know that.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague had some interesting comments to say about an earlier tax freedom day for Canadians. We notice he did not say anything about tax freedom day for corporations because he would not want it to interfere with New Year's Day celebrations.

I would like to ask the member a question about small business. He talked about recovery. If he were to follow the NDP plan to reduce small business taxes to zero, in other words move some of those large corporate tax breaks for those most profitable corporations in Canada over to small business, which I am sure the hon. member would agree is the engine for growth in this country, I am wondering if that is something he might consider.

He talked about bolstering the CPP and recovery. It seems to me that helping small business would be a perfect way to help with this recovery.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I am of a diminutive age, I do understand that big business is very important to Canada's overall economic strength. I look at my own riding where there are companies like General Electric, which the member would like to tax at a higher level, and Quaker Oats, which the member would like to tax at a higher level. They both employ several thousand CAW workers. By reducing their taxes, we are making them more competitive so the workers can continue to hold those jobs.

I would like to point to a very significant company that recently returned to Canada, which had expanded abroad and moved its corporate head office. It is called Tim Hortons. It came back to Canada because we have put Canada on a competitive footing so that we can compete for business investment.

These large corporate entities employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians and further drive the small business economy in this country. Small entrepreneurs cannot do it on their own. They need investment. We need global investment in this country. That is what will make Canada stronger.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member used the Tim Hortons card. It always comes out.

I just want to change my tack a little bit. We have businesses in my riding. In particular, the member may have heard of the Persian Man. Of course Thunder Bay is very famous for Persians, in direct competition with the company he just mentioned. The government's support of HST in Ontario will cause hardship for many, many small businesses and for the consumers in my riding.

The hon. member talked about recovery, which in his books really means consumer purchasing, I wonder how he thinks the HST will help that.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I took a lot of economics courses at university, on top of finance, accounting and a couple of political science courses, and I would like to go back to the professors and tell them how politics really works. That said, one of the things I did study was economics.

One of the problems with a PST, the way it is currently administered, is the cascading effect of taxes. It becomes a surtax on business, because when businesses buy inputs, they have to pay tax on them. It discourages investments in Canadian business.

I will not get into the politics of the HST. I will say though that Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty was the gentleman who made the decision. He is the leader of the government in Ontario. He made the decision in Ontario, as did Premier Gordon Campbell in British Columbia. Nobody is forcing them to move toward an HST.

That said, be under no illusion, they are reducing the input tax into investment into Canadian jobs. That is why they did it, to make Canada more competitive, not less competitive.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the Conservative side is promoting heavily the HST in British Columbia. Conservatives should know that during the recent provincial campaign, the B.C. Liberals actually said that they would not implement the HST. British Columbians are outraged, quite justifiably, because they were essentially told an untruth. They were told that the HST would not be brought in and then the B.C. Liberals, right after the election, have turned right around and are starting to impose it.

The average British Columbian will pay $500 more. Everything from babies' diapers, to funerals, to haircuts will cost more because of this deal with the devil, what we call the Campbell and the name of the Prime Minister, which I cannot use in this House, HST. Most British Columbians fundamentally reject that. In fact, in New Westminster—Coquitlam, which is undergoing a byelection now, the reaction from the public has been very strong against the HST.

I would like to ask the hon. member, will the Conservatives admit that it was a fundamental untruth in the provincial election campaign to say that there would be no HST? Then the provincial government, working with the federal Conservatives, turned around and imposed something that will cost the average British Columbian $500. Will he admit that was wrong and will he apologize?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have never run in a B.C. election campaign, which is good for the NDP because I am a real campaigner.

I must say that when it comes to the HST, this was a decision made by the B.C. government. If people in B.C. have concerns or questions about it, they should talk to their government about it.

Every time we have reduced taxes in this country, members of the NDP have stood against it. They have stood against reductions in the GST, not once but twice. They have stood in opposition to reducing taxes for seniors. Who could oppose tax reductions for seniors? When we removed over 800,000 low income Canadians, predominantly seniors, from the tax rolls permanently, members of the NDP took pride in saying that they voted against it. They personally called for reductions in the GST. It was their party's position. However, when they had a chance to vote in favour of reducing the GST, not once but twice they voted in favour of the GST remaining at 7%.

Canadians want a 5% GST, which is why the NDP is so wrong. For members of the NDP to stand up now and say that they are tax fighters, nobody believes them. They have no credibility on this. There is not a tax the NDP would not raise in any category. Higher taxes make a happier NDP. That is the way it is.

Canadians can count our party to maintain taxes at the lowest possible rate. Tax freedom day is 20 days earlier in Canada under this government. Under the NDP, I do not think we would ever get out from under taxes.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is being a bit disingenuous when he talks about the fact that the NDP voted against the GST. He fails to tell Canadians that it was in the context of a budget bill that stripped the rights for women to file complaints against the Canadian Human Rights Commission on women's equality, it stripped away environmental protection under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and on and on. He has not actually put it into the appropriate context.

I need come back to what is happening in British Columbia with the HST. The member says that it is entirely up to the provinces. I wonder how he would characterize the amount of money that was on page 166 of the budget that was an inducement to the provinces to put in place the HST that the finance minister has had on his agenda now for any number of years.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in budget 2006, I do not remember any of the measures that the member discussed when it came to voting for a lower GST. In fact, if she checks her records she will find that what she just said is absolutely incorrect.

Members of the NDP had a chance to vote against the lower GST and they did not take it. They had a chance to vote against lower taxes for seniors and they did not take it. They had a chance to vote against lower taxes for small business and they did not take it. They had a chance to vote against corporate surtaxes and they did not take it. They had a chance to vote against lower corporate taxes and they did not take it.

They did not take any chances to reduce the tax burden on Canadians in this country. That is why nobody believes them when they stand up and say that they are outraged about a tax. They love taxes.

The NDP is all about big government and big spending because that is what it believes in. It has zero credibility when it comes to taxes.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to address Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

In the few minutes I have to speak, I will try to outline the interests of the various political parties regarding this budget matter, for the benefit of those watching us. The Bloc Québécois, true to its commitment to defend the interests and values of Quebeckers, rises every day in this House in order to do so. I am proud of this, because it allows us to properly assess every bill, motion and budget or budgetary measure brought forward by the government or the opposition parties, in the interest of Quebeckers.

I would like to go over the measures proposed by the Conservative Party in Bill C-51, along with their context. Indeed, since Parliament resumed, all of the decisions made by the political parties of this House, apart from the Bloc Québécois, have been made based on the possibility of an election. Understandably, the members of a party like the Bloc Québécois, who choose to vote every day in the interest of Quebeckers, do not have to worry about saving their seats. We are here to defend the values and interests of Quebeckers. That is what differentiates us from the other parties of this House.

Bill C-51 has been introduced by the Conservatives. Again, as soon as the House resumed in September, the Conservatives had to prove to the rest of Canada, in case there was a federal election, that they do not always introduce unpopular measures. Therefore they decided to introduce Bill C-51. That makes sense when your only objective is to get as many votes as possible, which is what the Conservatives want. In light of an impending election, they decided to introduce a bill to implement what they had already announced in the budget. Analysts were not fooled by this either. Some of these measures did not require a bill in order to be implemented. The government could have handled that itself. This bill is a purely partisan and political tactic.

Bill C-51 proposes the implementation of the renovation tax credit. This is clearly a measure inspired by proposals in both of the Bloc Québécois' stimulus plans. Again, we were the only responsible party that, before each of the government's budgets or budgetary announcements, always submitted proposals, requests and plans to deal with this crisis. The Bloc Québécois has always been responsible and has always worked hard. This week we proposed measures to achieve a balanced budget. Yesterday, our party proposed measures to eliminate the huge deficit the Conservative government is racking up. Other speakers will have a chance to have their say on this in the House.

We proposed these measures during a press conference because we are responsible and because we are probably the most informed party around, and we always represent the interests of Quebeckers. We were the ones who asked for the home renovation tax credit. In the words of the leader of the Bloc Québécois, it would be foolish of us not to vote in favour of the very measures that we proposed.

The second measure is a first time homebuyers' tax credit. In its last platform, the Bloc Québécois proposed a first time homebuyer's tax credit. We did so because Quebec has had programs to support first time homebuyers and they were very popular. They helped Quebec recover from, not this crisis, but the recession in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The Bloc Québécois saw the crisis coming. You will remember that the Leader of the Bloc was the only candidate in the 2008 election campaign to predict a recession and to state that something had to be done immediately.

The first time homebuyers' tax credit was in our election platform. The government decided to implement it. Once again, in the words of the Leader of the Bloc Québécois, it would be foolish to vote against it.

Bill C-51 will also implement Canada's international commitments to the IMF, which were signed in 2008. This agreement has already been signed. It makes sense to ratify it and to have legislation to be able to implement these provisions.

The fourth measure is amending the Canada pension plan. Quebec is excluded as it has its own pension plan. These amendments are based on consultations with the provinces concerned, excluding Quebec. Once again, Quebec continues to be a leader in many, and I would say the majority, of Canada's assistance programs. Quebec is always the leader. We solved the pension problem a long time ago. Once again, we cannot oppose a measure discussed by the other Canadian provinces. For those who accuse us of always opposing what is happening in Canada, we say that if it is a good thing for Canadians, then good for them. We cannot oppose that. Especially since Quebec already has its own plan. No problem there.

The fifth measure will act 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. That obviously affects Nova Scotia. Good for them. They seem pleased. The members from Nova Scotia seem pleased with this measure. We cannot oppose this measure.

That is why we will support Bill C-51. However, I will repeat that this bill was introduced by the Conservatives for purely partisan reasons, because there was a serious chance of an election. They wanted to show Canadians that they had proposed interesting measures in their last budget. But this bill only covers some of them. It only implements part of what they proposed in their last budget, which we were completely against.

I am bringing up our position, because I am trying to understand the Liberals' position. The Liberals supported the last budget, and these measures were part of the last budget. They decided that they were against Bill C-51, again, for purely partisan reasons.

The Liberals did not think about the interests of Canadians and even less about the interests of Quebeckers. After their caucus meeting this summer, they decided that they would no longer support the government. No matter what happened, no matter what the government introduced, good or bad, the Liberals decided they would be against it. We see how that turned out for them. They are in the process of self-destructing. That is a very Liberal way of doing things. They had already started to self-destruct with the sponsorship scandal, and nothing has changed. It is going well. In any case, it is fun to watch. But it is not fun for democracy when there are political parties and members in this House that represent their constituents and think only about protecting their seat.

That is what the Conservatives were doing with this measure. The Liberal strategy has been to bring down the government at all costs. They should have thought about this a little more carefully. The political parties each have their own way of doing things, their own pollsters, analysts and focus groups. It is all very complicated now. I have the good fortune of being the Bloc's chief organizer in Quebec, and I must say, engaging in politics has become a real science. In that regard, the leader of the Liberal Party will definitely not pass the test. He may have studied at Harvard, but he did not study politics. That is politics 101. The way things are done on the ground, he definitely has not done that. Nevertheless, the Liberals have decided to vote against Bill C-51.

As I have already said, they voted for the budget and these measures represent the best parts of the budget that was passed. It is impossible to understand the Liberals. They do not understand themselves, and that is a serious problem.

As for the members of the NDP, they opposed the budget. They have now decided to support this measure, probably for the same reasons we did. That is fine for them, except that they changed their minds because they decided to support this government at all costs, since opposing the budget. Once again, it is only to serve their own personal interests, since they realize they probably would not have too many seats left if an election were called. Naturally, they are doing everything they can to save their own skin.

So they decided to support all of the Conservatives' proposed measures. I can understand why they would support this one because it is the best one.

The employment insurance measure, however, is terrible. I was here, waiting patiently. People know that I am often in the House of Commons. The Conservatives were at least honest about the bill to amend employment insurance, whose goal is clearly to help Ontario's auto sector. Of that there can be no doubt. What the people from Ontario said was right. They defended the auto sector.

Let us review the measure in the new employment insurance bill. Long-tenured workers who have not collected more than 35 weeks of employment insurance benefits over the past five years will get 15 to 20 weeks of extra benefits. That is the new measure. The forestry sector will obviously not be covered by this measure, which will only help people in industries that were doing well before the crisis. That does not include the forestry sector, which has been in crisis for five years now. The Conservatives have abandoned forestry workers to their crisis and their misery. They chose to invest their money in the auto sector instead.

The NDP may have decided to forget about Quebec and the Maritimes and concentrate on Ontario by supporting this employment insurance bill. Not only are they supporting it, but worse still, they plan to support all government measures until this bill goes through, which will probably be in the spring. The NDP will most likely try to stretch out the process for this bill until the next budget is introduced.

That is how the other parties play politics, but that is not how the Bloc Québécois does things. We have always been very respectful of the voters. We stay in touch with our constituents every day. We know that if the Conservatives had put as much effort into helping the forestry industry, which has been in crisis for five years, as they have into helping the auto sector, the forestry industry crisis would be a thing of the past and the sector would now be supporting the entire Canadian economy.

The Conservatives probably did not concern themselves with that because the bulk of the industry is in Quebec. It is a political choice.

However, it is hard to watch Conservative members from Quebec day after day staunchly defend the Conservative Party plan. They stand up and defend the plan. The last report tabled by the government shows that $9.6 billion was spent in the automobile sector, while $70 million was promised to the forestry sector, of which $57 million was spent. They are all pleased. They applaud all that like good soldiers. It is easy to see why their numbers will not go up in the next election. They wonder why. They need only to look in the mirror to understand that they are not defending the interests of Quebeckers in the House. They are defending Canadian interests, as they like to say.

Nonetheless, they forget that the forestry industry existed long before the oil industry. They are denying their own origins. It is true: the forestry sector built the Canada of today, starting with Quebec. Those Quebeckers never hesitate to deny their origins. It is quite extraordinary, but there you have it. It was one of our ancestors who opened the door to the English on the Plains of Abraham. That is a daily occurrence these days. It is hard to watch Quebeckers from other political parties put their personal interests above the collective interest.

I think it is quite honourable of the Quebeckers in the Bloc Québécois to never hesitate, day after day, to put their seat on the line. They do not do so for their own interests, but for the interests of Quebeckers. It is so simple and it confounds the political experts: why is the Bloc Québécois so popular in Quebec? Because it is the only party that does not deny its origins. We try, day after day, to defend the interests of Quebeckers. We are transparent. You can read us like a book. Our leader, Gilles Duceppe, is doing an excellent job. He never hesitates to stand before any crowd, anywhere in Quebec, and even in the rest of Canada—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I must interrupt the hon. member. We do not use proper names, but riding names or titles.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry.

The Leader of the Bloc Québécois is always willing to appear at events and gatherings, where he is received with all the respect Quebeckers owe him as a man of integrity who defends them day after day.

Clearly, it is to the advantage of Quebec, the Bloc Québécois and all Quebeckers to have a leader with a team of members, men and women who come into this House every day not to defend their own interests or the salary they make, but to defend the interests of their constituents.

It is sad that there are Quebeckers in the other three political parties in this House who think only of their own interests, with no thought to the interests of their constituents and their fellow Quebeckers. It is sad, but it is a fact. One day, history will catch up to all the parties, because these successive minority governments will be analyzed. In my opinion, we have not seen the last of minority governments.

Last week, we were looking at the situation in Germany, the most powerful economy in Europe, which once again elected as chancellor a party leader who will have to forge alliances in order to be able to govern. Canada is lagging behind once again because too many members of this House think only of themselves and never spare a thought for their constituents. That is the reality.

Bill C-51 contains two measures that are important to the Bloc Québécois. These measures were among our demands when we presented our recovery plans to the government. Moreover, the Minister of Finance congratulated us and told us that we were the only party in Ottawa that dared to table its plan. He even rose in the House to call on the other parties to follow the Bloc's example. We had called for a renovation tax credit, and our most recent election platform included a tax credit for first-time home buyers. Obviously, we are pleased that these measures are included in Bill C-51.

As the leader of the Bloc Québécois said, we are not foolish, and when we ask for something, we are prepared to support it. When we do not like something, and when Quebeckers do not like something, we will not support it, and we will never hesitate to vote against a budget like the last one, which was not in the interests of Quebeckers, quite simply because it focused on the automotive industry and ignored the forestry industry. It was the same story when the Conservatives introduced the last bill on EI reform, which focused on the automotive industry, and did absolutely nothing to help the forestry sector and part of the Quebec economy.

When the government talks about full-time workers and has the audacity to describe as “long tenured workers” people who have not received more than 35 weeks of employment insurance in the past five years, the government is being very hard on workers in the agriculture, forestry, tourism and fishery industries, who are also long tenured workers and who have given their lives to develop the economy.

The forestry, fishery and agriculture sectors existed long before the oil sector. This is what happens. The Conservative government gives guarantees and assistance to the oil industry. Oil is a non-renewable resource. What will happen when we run out? In Quebec, there will still be forests.

Once again, Quebeckers are happy that members from Quebec in the House of Commons did not all support what the Conservatives proposed, which was to diversify the economy and to get rid of the entire forestry sector, by trying to transfer these workers to other sectors.

The Conservatives even had the gall to propose assistance to have these workers transferred and trained in other regions. I know that the oil sands industry needs workers, but I dream of my constituents not having to work in western Canada. I hope that I will once again be responsible and respectful towards my constituents by demanding that they be able to stay in their regions, where they were born, and that their children and grandchildren have that same opportunity.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noted from my colleague's comments that he is saying that, considering the number of small opposition parties in a minority government, coalitions are now becoming more of a reality.

Given that the Bloc Québécois will never form a majority government on its own, with which other parties would it seek to form a coalition after the next election should a majority government not be formed?

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems as though the Conservative member has a crystal ball. What she suggested is likely exactly what will happen. There will probably be another minority government after the next election.

The Bloc Québécois has been very conscientious. First of all, we would never be part of a coalition, but we might choose to support a coalition, as we did last time, made up of the parties that had adopted the economic recovery plan proposed by the Bloc Québécois. Thus, we will be there to support all political parties that are willing to work in the interests of Quebec. If an agreement must be signed, as we were prepared to do with the two other parties last time—no matter which parties, as long as they have Quebec's interests at heart—we will be there.

Of course, it is not easy to do when the time comes. We managed to negotiate an agreement. It did not work. Some people were very unhappy about it. The fact remains that the Bloc Québécois was the only responsible party. We have always been responsible, from the very beginning. We know what is happening around the world right now with coalitions. As I was saying, Germany, the strongest country in Europe economically, has a coalition government. That will happen in Canada one day. As long as Quebec's interests are properly defended by a coalition, the Bloc Québécois will be there.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is showing grave disrespect for all Quebeckers who did not vote for the Bloc, for the two-thirds of Quebeckers who voted for other parties running in Quebec. The member is attacking everyone. He says that people who represent other political parties in Quebec are not true Quebeckers.

If we take a closer look at the Bloc's history in the House, we see that there have been many times when the Bloc Québécois did not defend Quebeckers' interests. On the contrary, the party supported sellout agreements, such as the softwood lumber agreement. The NDP was the party that said no to that agreement because it was not in Quebeckers' best interests. We were the ones standing up for Quebec workers. We were the ones who said that the agreement would be catastrophic for the industry in Quebec. Unfortunately, it is now clear that we were absolutely right. Quebec has lost thousands of jobs because of the Bloc Québécois' support for this terrible sellout softwood lumber deal. Mills have closed, and now Quebec taxpayers will be forced to pay another $70 million because of the Bloc Québécois' irresponsibility.

Will the member apologize to all Quebeckers for having supported this sellout deal that cost thousands of Quebeckers their jobs?

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

Mr. Speaker, my answer is no and I will even elaborate. I just want the NDP member to realize that he does not understand Quebec at all.

Every politician, every political party in Quebec, together with the unions and the owners, agreed that the softwood lumber agreement had to be signed. The entire industry and all the politicians moved on. The problem with the NDP is that it is still hung up on the old softwood lumber agreement. All the politicians, all the managers, all those who work in the forestry sector have moved on. What they want to see is a loan program, an assistance program, a modernization program. Once again, it is unfortunate for him, but the NDP is lagging five years behind.

Forestry is a poor example for the NDP. All leaders were actually in favour of signing the agreement. However, after the agreement was signed, they wanted the industry's recovery to be spurred by loan guarantees and modernization assistance programs. The Conservatives did not implement such measures and they were not supported by the other parties in this House, except for the Bloc.

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

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has forecast a $56 billion deficit in the near future. The Bloc has suggested that the taxes of oil companies and banks be raised and that funding for the military sector be cut. Instead, the Conservative government, with the support of the NDP, is preparing to implement a bill that will not help the unemployed, seasonal workers or forestry workers. In addition, we have seen that the Conservatives, propped up by the NDP, will continue to pillage the EI fund, just as the Liberals did for a number of years.

I would like to hear my colleague explain how the Bloc Québécois intends to continue defending the interests of Quebeckers with the proposals it has made and helping workers with the proposed comprehensive reform of the EI system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his question. He is doing an excellent job in his riding. He summarized the situation very well. First of all, we are, once again, the only party in the House to have proposed a plan to reduce the deficit. That is what we did yesterday.

I would just like to remind the members about something. Yesterday, I listened as the Conservatives boasted that Canada would be the first country to emerge from the crisis. Why is Canada not as deeply mired in the crisis as other countries? Because of our banking system. When I came here as a member in 2000, the first lobbyists I met with in my office were from the banks. They wanted to merge so that they could acquire American banks. The Bloc Québécois decided to fight bank mergers in every committee that addressed the topic. I would say that we were the ones who saved the Canadian economy because if the banks had merged in 2000, 2001, or 2002 as they wanted, they would have acquired American banks and then been rotten to the core just like their American counterparts. That is the truth.

Once again, my colleague is right, the Bloc is a visionary party for Quebeckers and also for Canadians. If our House colleagues take advantage of that and draw on our good ideas, both Quebec and Canada will be much better off.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about Conservatives having a crystal ball. All members in the House know the Bloc, and we can predict one thing for sure, that the Bloc will continue the politics of division in this country.

We have a very strong auto industry in Oshawa, but what the member conveniently forgets is our support for the aerospace industry in Quebec. He also forgets that the auto industry is huge in Quebec. The auto parts industry is a multi-billion dollar industry in Quebec that employs thousands of people.

With his comments today, what we have seen for certain with our crystal ball is that the Bloc does not support auto industry workers in Quebec and, by extension, it does not support auto industry workers in Ontario or anywhere else across the country where the industry sources parts. Again, it is a sad day. These politics of division are pitting one area of the country against the other, one industry within Quebec against another.

I want him to answer this very simple question. For all the years the Bloc has been in Parliament, can he name one thing the Bloc has actually delivered to industry in Quebec or to anyone in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct one thing the hon. member said.

The only thing the Bloc is asking for—and I said this in my speech—is that the Conservatives put as much effort into the forestry sector as they have into the automobile industry. It is not complicated. The crisis in the forestry sector started five years ago and the Conservatives have been in power for four of those years. That is what we have always asked for: that the same effort be made. When I provided the figures earlier, I compared both industries. The hon. member is from Oshawa. He is quite pleased that the automobile industry received $9.6 billion. I am from Quebec. The forestry sector, which represents 25% of Quebec's economy, was promised $70 million, but it only received $56 million. That is all we wanted to point out.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in support of the economic recovery bill at second reading. This act will implement not only key measures in Canada's economic plan, but other related vital economic proposals to further secure a strong recovery and protect Canadian jobs.

I am disappointed that the Liberal members have already decided to vote against this important legislation, even before reading it, to support their obsession with forcing an unnecessary election, and that they have again decided to place partisan self-interests ahead of what is best for the Canadian economy.

I remind the Liberal members that we are in the midst of a global economic crisis, unprecedented in recent history, one that only a month ago it was feared could potentially match the Great Depression in both scale and scope. While Canada entered the global recession in among the strongest positions in the world, we are not immune, and Canadians have felt the pain of these challenging economic times. However, they can be optimistic moving forward because our collective strengths make a robust recovery more likely.

As RBC economist Patricia Croft noted earlier this year:

This is not a made-in-Canada recession...but because we are a small open economy we've been caught up... But I do think there are reasons to be hopeful...there is a great story to tell about Canada in that we may come out of this recession much stronger than our global counterparts.

It was against this backdrop that our government tabled the earliest budget in Canadian history, Canada's economic action plan. In tandem with our global partners, we took unprecedented action and made a deliberate decision to run short-term deficits and take actions through timely, targeted and temporary spending to protect and stimulate Canada's economy.

As a result of coordinated and unprecedented global cooperation, the potential global great depression was averted. As TD economist Don Drummond noted:

...we're just past the one-year mark of (the collapse of) Lehman Brothers, and remember all the talk that was being thrown around at that time of the Great Depression? ...yet here we are one year later and we've got evidence that virtually every country in the world is going to have reasonable growth in the third quarter, and some of the emerging economies are quite strong.

Or as the G20 leaders' statement at the recent Pittsburgh summit proclaimed:

...we confronted the greatest challenge to the world economy in our generation. Global output was contracting at a pace not seen since the 1930s. Trade was plummeting. Jobs were disappearing rapidly. Our people worried that the world was on the edge of depression.

At that time, our countries agreed to do everything necessary to ensure recovery, to repair our financial systems and to maintain the global flow of capital.

It worked.

Our forceful response helped to stop the dangerous sharp decline in global activity and stabilize financial markets. Industrial output is now rising in nearly all of our economies. International trade is starting to recover. Our financial institutions are raising needed capital, financial markets are showing a willingness to invest and lend and confidence has improved.

While the G20 leaders' statement noted the early signs of a global recovery, it cautioned that victory is not yet assured:

A sense of normalcy should not lead to complacency. The process of recovery and repair remains incomplete...The conditions for a recovery of private demand are not yet fully in place. We cannot rest until the global economy is restored to full health...

That is why our Conservative government remains committed to implementing Canada's economic action plan, focusing on the economy as our number one priority. Canada's economic action plan is getting results. It is stimulating the economy and protecting and creating jobs, but while we have made great progress, there is still much more to do. We must stay on course on the economy, staying on course in implementing the economic action plan. Doing anything else would be reckless and irresponsible.

Not everyone agrees. Take, for example, the Liberal Party headquarters. The Liberal leader is trying to force an unnecessary and opportunistic election. The Liberals want an election that is not in the country's best interests, an election that would jeopardize Canada's economic recovery, an action that would meet the very definition of reckless and irresponsible.

Since we introduced Canada's economic action plan, our Conservative government has been tirelessly working on getting money out the door. By June, 80% of the measures from the plan were being implemented and by September, fully 90% of the 2009-10 stimulus funding was complete.

This is an extraordinary achievement and the results are being felt in our economy. Canadians are paying lower taxes. Every time Canadians buy something or look at their pay stubs, they are seeing reduced taxes. Unlike the opposition, we do not believe that Canadians should pay more taxes. Unlike the Liberal leader, we do not believe that we will have to raise taxes. This is what the Liberal leader said to a stunned Chamber of Commerce audience this past spring. He said that, during the recession, “Federal taxes must go up... We will have to raise taxes”.

Our Conservative government's record is clear. There has been nearly $220 billion in overall tax relief since the Conservatives took office in 2006. An average Canadian family is seeing over $3,000 in tax savings. Businesses are keeping more of their money to reinvest in their workers and their growth and not in bloated bureaucracies in Ottawa. Taxes are at their lowest level in 50 years and, under our Conservative government, they will stay that way.

We are seeing what a low-tax environment has done to position Canada's economy to compete in the future. We are seeing it in the return of businesses that fled higher taxes under the former Liberal government, businesses like one of Canada's most iconic, Tim Hortons. The CFO of Tim Hortons said:

[Moving to Canada] will help Tim Hortons...take advantage of lower Canadian tax rates... [L]ower tax rates help [Tim Hortons] and companies like [them] keep more capital at work and achieve [their] priority in reinvesting in the businesses for further growth.

That is good news for Canada and Canadian businesses. Even a few prominent Liberals have reluctantly admitted that. The president of the New Brunswick Liberal Association, Britt Dysart, said:

[L]ower taxes do matter when it comes to economic development, jobs, population growth, and other good things. In tough economic times, lower taxes matter more than ever as well-established companies such as Tim Hortons decide what locations are best-suited for them and their employees... Like the businesses they work for, skilled workers gravitate to where taxes are lower. Lower taxes work.

The good news does not stop there. Over 4,000 infrastructure and housing projects have already begun. Whether it is funding for wind energy in Prince Edward Island, a nursing residence in remote communities in northern Alberta, much needed social housing in Whitehorse or a new ring road for Edmonton, shovels are in the ground and Canadians are hard at work, building and renewing this country.

Workers are receiving much-needed retraining. At least 44,000 Canadians are receiving training through funds flowing to the provinces and territories. In addition, more than 4,300 young Canadians are obtaining valuable skilled trades training with the help of the $2,000 apprenticeship completion grant. Colleges and universities are being renewed with $2 billion through the knowledge infrastructure program.

Projects are already under way, such as the University of Windsor's centre for engineering innovation. These investments are providing much-needed stimulus today while building Canada's knowledge advantage in the future. Access to financing has improved sharply. Over $131 billion in financing support has helped Canadian businesses and consumers get loans that they need.

Our quick actions in providing financing during the last federal election helped Canada through the worst economic recession. By borrowing at commercial rates, we have protected taxpayers and expect a small rate of return from our investments.

These are all encouraging signs. Our plan is helping Canada recover from its global recession. Indeed, we now expect that the economic action plan will create or maintain 220,000 jobs by the end of 2010. However, this is not all. On top of the 220,000 jobs forecast to be created or maintained, an additional 160,000 plus Canadians are benefiting from work-sharing agreements. This is a forecast largely supported by the independent and impartial OECD, which recently declared:

Canada's fiscal stimulus package should have a relatively large effect in stemming job losses.

While these encouraging signs are welcome, we again must temper our remarks by noting the underlying reality that the recovery is fragile. More work is needed to ensure we do not fall back into economic turmoil. Again, now is not the time to stop providing stimulus to the economy. Now is not the time to jeopardize our recovery with an unnecessary opportunistic election.

I trust it is becoming clear to the members of the House that the economic recovery act is an important extension of Canada's economic action plan, which will implement key measures to help secure a strong recovery and continue to protect Canadian jobs. I have followed closely the comments of my learned colleagues who have spoken to this act already, but I want to highlight a number of the measures of importance to Canadians and to the people I represent in my riding.

Among such measures, the home renovation tax credit, or HRTC. The HRTC provides up to $1,350 in tax relief to encourage Canadians to invest in their most precious asset, their home. This measure has been a resounding success right across the country. Do not take my word for it, listen to the words of a recent Ottawa Citizen editorial that highlights how effective the HRTC has been. It states the HRTC:

—has turned out be effective and smart....Even the quietest streets roar with hammers and saws....This is keeping construction workers employed who, in turn, spend money that keeps others employed. Home centres and hardware stores are humming....helping the construction industry was exactly the right thing to do. Credit where credit is due, when it comes to the reno credit.

The economic recovery act also implements the first time home buyers' tax credit. That will provide tax relief of up to $750 on the purchase of a new home, helping to stimulate the housing sector by making it easier for young Canadians to buy their first home. This $750 saved will go back into the pockets of ordinary Canadians who can then use it to fund their priorities.

The economic recovery act would also enhance benefits under the working income tax benefit, which will effectively double the total tax relief provided by this measure. These enhanced benefits will provide additional income to support low income working Canadians and help ensure that more Canadians are financially better off by getting a job.

Many have praised this important tax incentive for assisting low income Canadians get over the welfare wall. In the words of the OECD, “Recent moves to increase the generosity of Canada's working income tax benefit are welcome, particularly given that the benefit is strongly targeted to the lowest income households”.

These are but a few of the measures protected through the economic recovery act. Along with others, I have not mentioned further measures, including the Liberals' plan on voting against all of this. They vote against enhancing tax benefits for farmers who are facing tough times due to droughts and floods. They vote against amendments to the Canada pension plan, which were unanimously agreed to by all provinces during the triennial review. They vote against provisions to give low income countries a bigger voice in the IMF and strengthen our commitment to global tax relief, and much more. All these measures are necessary measures to help Canada combat this economic recession.

We are achieving results. Canada is on track to lead the world's leading economies out of the recession. The IMF says our economic expansion in 2010 will be stronger than all others in the G7, stronger than the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France and Italy. As the French finance minister, Christine Lagarde, said recently, “I think we can be inspired by the Canadian situation. There were some people who said “I want to be Canadian”.

While Canada is doing better than our international peers, we must not be complacent. Our economy remains fragile. Instead of thinking about what is best for the economy, unfortunately the Liberal Party of Canada is trying to force an opportunistic election by voting against the economic recovery act, voting against first time home buyers tax credit to help young families, voting against the working income tax benefit to help low income Canadians and, shamefully, voting against the home renovation tax credit and much more.

It is shameful and it is disappointing to Canadians following at home and disheartening to my colleagues on this side of the aisle. While our Conservative government's policies have helped our economy and put Canadians back to work, the Liberal Party is trying to force an election that will jeopardize our economic recovery. We must stay the course.

I urge Parliament to support the economic recovery act and Canada's economic recovery.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what exit strategy does the government have with regard to the $56 billion plus deficit? How does it propose to get out of a fiscal hole that it has dug itself into? I remind the government that it inherited a $12.5 billion surplus when it came to office?

Liberals had a strategy. We eliminated a $42.5 billion deficit when we became the government in 1993, with the help of Canadians. What is your exit strategy going to be? Is it going to be higher taxes? Is it going to be looking at other sources of revenue? How do you propose to get out of it?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would remind the hon. member to address questions through the Chair and not directly to members.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, we intend to get out of it by doing our best not to plunge Canada into an unneeded, unnecessary election. He wants to fight a recovery. We want to fight a recession.

Let me talk a bit more about how the Liberals claimed they got out of the last recession. What did they do? They took billions of dollars that were placed in the employment insurance plan and placed it against the deficit. Then they went to people who were sick, people on social assistance and the provinces and removed $25 billion from that plan. If we accounted for inflation, think what those dollars would amount to today.

We will not do that. We will not reduce transfer payments to the provinces. We will not raise taxes, as the Liberal leader has said he would do.

During my report to Parliament on the economic recovery act, I mentioned a great deal of things that we would do. These will generate the kinds of incomes and jobs that will help the Government of Canada pay off any deficits that we have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my Conservative colleague to indicate whether he agrees with his colleague from Oshawa that the assistance to the automobile industry allowed the automobile parts industry in Quebec to survive.

In my riding, in Magog and in Cowansville, there were at least a dozen auto parts companies and they have all closed down.

There are omnibus bills that incorporate two or three things. This bill deals with home renovations, first homes, the IMF, Canada pensions and an agreement on litigation, a bit like Bill C-10, which was a real mishmash.

How can the hon. member think that the opposition could vote in favour of such legislation without constantly being criticized for it afterward? We do not want to vote for such a combination.

How does he think the opposition can live with such legislation? Once in a while it may be acceptable, but otherwise it is deadly.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, every member in the House has probably suffered job losses in their communities due to the global recession. Every industrialized country in the western economies, and almost every country in the world, has lost jobs due to the economic recession. However, every reputable world financial leader has said that this government placed Canada in the best position going into the recovery and coming out. Why did they say that?Because of the very things the member has indicated.

What does the home renovation tax credit mean? First, the home renovation tax credit means that companies, people who work in that field, contractors, et cetera will employ more employees. The second thing is people will buy doors and windows that might be made in his riding. They certainly are made in the Ottawa area.

All we have to do is watch the news on television to find out it is putting more people to work in the building trades. It is also helping the lumber industry. When people put additions on their houses, they use lumber. When people put additions on their houses, they put in windows and doors. Those are all things that create employment. We set tax rates, the lowest in the world, which attract businesses to come in Canada, which will produce more goods, put more people to work, more unionized jobs, good-paying jobs, so they can pay just enough taxes to afford the very programs that we hold near and dear.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will re-ask the hon. member a question that was asked by the member of the Liberal Party. I am not interested in knowing how the Liberal Party got rid of the debt, although that was deplorable. I am interested in knowing how the Conservative government is going to pay off the debt. That is all I am interested in, not rhetoric about the Liberal Party.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I answered some of the question, but for his benefit, I will recap some of the things we will be doing and some of the things we have be doing that will result in us being able to pay down Canada's deficit. Then we will work on the debt. However, we have to work on the deficit first.

First, what we will not do is bring in huge programs that will last forever, that will cause a structural deficit. We will not do it on the backs of the poor. We will not do it on the backs of people who are ill. We will not do it on the backs of the provinces and territories.

However, what we will do, and what the world economists have said we will do, is create the kind of jobs and the kind of economy where businesses will thrive and more people will work. In turn they will pay taxes to maintain those kind of programs that Canadians have come to rely upon, such as universal health care, employment insurance that we can afford. By creating good-paying, unionized in some cases, jobs, people will pay taxes.

The government has a stellar record. For the member's edification, we did pay almost $40 billion down in debt in a budget that he voted against.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is one of my neighbours and he also has a strong auto sector in his riding. I want to get his comments about the Bloc's attack on the support we have given to the automotive sector in Quebec.

The Bloc member has basically confirmed that the Bloc would like all auto parts plants in Quebec to close. I know from numbers from General Motors that one company in Ontario sourced anywhere between $10 billion and $15 billion of auto parts, many of them coming from Quebec, yet he criticizes our support of the automotive sector.

What does the member think about the misinformation being spread by the Bloc members? What does he think about the Bloc Québécois pitting industry against industry in Quebec? What is the strategy to justify their support of the Liberal leader's unnecessary election? What does the Bloc have against the auto—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will have to stop the hon. member there because there are only about 30 seconds left for the member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would hope, and I am quite certain, that every single member in this House wants what is best for their constituents.

There is one very distinct difference between the other parties and the Bloc Québécois members and that is because they are here for a specific purpose. It is not just in the best interests of their constituents. It is to try to undermine this federation called Canada. It is for that reason that we have to be suspicious whenever the Bloc Québécois does or does not do something because its ultimate aim is to render this place ineffective.

I do not think any of the other—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I should perhaps just inform the House that the first five hours of debate have concluded. From now on the speeches will be 10 minutes, and the question and comment period will be 5 minutes.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-51. I will not surprise anyone in the House by saying that NDP members will be voting in favour of the bill. The entire first part of the bill implements the ways and means motion that we supported in the House just last month.

In particular, I want to highlight the inclusion in the bill of the first time home buyers' tax credit and the home renovation tax credit. Both of these measures have been well received in communities right across the country, and although it may be hard to believe inside the bubble of Ottawa, most Canadians had actually thought that the home renovation tax credit had been enacted long ago. Why else, after all, would the government be spending so many tax dollars promoting this program on television and on those big envelopes it is distributing for saving receipts?

Canadians did what their government asked of them. They stimulated their local economies by investing in home renovations, assured by their government that they would be eligible for a tax credit if they spent the money before February 1 of next year.

Let us not kid ourselves, voting against this tax credit now, after our constituents have spent their money in good faith, would be victimizing them yet again during the worst recession since the Great Depression. My constituents deserve better. All constituents deserve better. When I tell them that I am here to make Parliament work for them, I will walk that talk by voting in favour of this measure. No, it is not good enough to vote against this measure now and say we will implement it later, just look at what is ahead on the horizon.

In the 2009-10 provincial budget, the McGuinty Liberals announced that they would be harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the federal government's goods and services tax, effective July 1, 2010. This is terrible news for Ontarians because many items that we need and use every single day, from gas and electricity to newspapers and the Internet will now be subject to a full 8% tax increase at the point of purchase. It will also be charged on all labour costs incurred during home renovations. If the home renovation tax credit is delayed, any benefit from the program will largely be eaten up by the increased tax burden of the HST.

While I am on the HST, let me add this. This blatant tax grab might never have happened had the federal Conservative government not bribed its provincial Liberal counterparts to introduce it. Apparently Dalton McGuinty was reluctant to introduce such an unfair tax during this recession, so the federal finance minister urged him along by offering the Ontario government an additional $4.3 billion of federal tax money to introduce this new tax increase.

[An hon. member]

He went along with it.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

That is right. Canadians' federal tax dollars are hard at work buying them a big fat provincial tax increase. No wonder voter cynicism and apathy is so high. Canadians are rightly asking themselves whether anyone is committed to making Parliament work for them.

I am proud to say that New Democrats are doing just that. We are absolutely committed to making Parliament work for the seniors who built this country and for the hard-working families who need their government's help to survive this devastating recession.

I ran for public office because I wanted to fight for residents of Hamilton Mountain and to stand up for our community. Before I was elected, we had a government MP representing us for 13 years. Yet, the concerns of our riding were rarely articulated and even more seldomly acted upon by the government. While some may believe it is important to elect an MP from the government side, our experience in Hamilton Mountain suggests the opposite. Instead of electing a yes person to the Prime Minister, Hamilton Mountain residents know that it is much more likely that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I take that responsibility seriously and I am proud to stand up for my community. That is why my very first motion in the House was on comprehensive reform on seniors' issues. It dealt with everything from income security to health care to drug costs to safe and affordable housing, and for lifelong opportunities for learning and recreation. I was thrilled when that motion passed in the House. In fact, I am delighted to see that some of the principles embodied in that motion are now reflected in the bill that is before us today.

The amendments to the Canada pension plan in Bill C-51 clearly enhance the income security of seniors, particularly those who want or need to collect their CPP before the age of 65.

Similarly, I had the privilege of tabling a motion on comprehensive EI reform in the spring of this year. That motion too passed in the House. In Ontario, where the recession has hit the manufacturing sector particularly hard, the ripple effect of job losses has impacted workers in the biggest plants and in the smallest of businesses. Those workers are the truly innocent victims of this recession and they deserve the government's help.

Some say that the latest round of EI reforms brought forward by the government was not enough, and that is absolutely right. However, it will help over 180,000 laid off workers and, by extension, their families. How could I not support that?

It reminds me of the story of the man walking along a beach. The sun was shining and it was a beautiful day. Off in the distance he could see a girl going back and forth between the surf's edge and the beach. Back and forth this child went, picking up a starfish and throwing it into the water. As the man approached, he could see that there were thousands of starfish stranded on the sand as a result of the natural action of the tide. The man was struck by the apparent futility of the task. There were far too many starfish. Many of them were sure to perish.

As he approached, the girl continued the task of picking up starfish one by one and throwing them into the surf. As he came up to her he said, “You must be crazy. There are thousands of miles of beach covered with starfish. You can't possibly make a difference”. The girl looked at the man, stooped down, picked up one more starfish and threw it back into the ocean. She turned back to the man and said, “It sure made a difference to that one”.

That is what working in Parliament is like. We do not always win every fight, but we will lose them all if we are not even in them. Often, even the smallest victory makes a profoundly positive difference for thousands of Canadians. That is why, lost in all of the partisanship that drives the media coverage of this place, much of the really productive work on behalf of our constituents goes largely unnoticed.

Many observers were surprised last week that New Democrats would vote in support of a government motion. The inference was that it was unprecedented in the House. Despite the fact that I am as fiercely partisan as any other member in the House, I have actually voted with the Conservatives 37 times on government legislation and I am going to do it again on this bill. The test for me is simply whether the matter before the House is good public policy.

When we had to put an end to the Liberals' election financing run amok, I voted with the government to improve accountability after the sponsorship scandal. When we had the opportunity to deal more effectively with criminals convicted of offences involving firearms, I voted with the government.

When we established the Public Health Agency of Canada, I voted with the government. When we amended the Youth Criminal Justice Act, I voted with the government. When we protected the safety and security of Canadians with respect to human pathogens and toxins, I voted with the government and I did it again when we amended the Employment Insurance Act to increase benefits. To me, that is the essence of good representation.

Yes, it is the role of opposition parties to oppose and expose the weaknesses of government proposals in debate, but we are doing that because we are motivated by wanting to effect change that will improve the lives of our constituents. That is how we make Parliament work. It is by voting in favour of good public policy and against flawed pieces of legislation. Because no bill is ever perfect, sometimes members have to weigh the pros and cons in making their decisions.

The bill before us today is a case in point. I support the first part, as I have outlined. Some of the changes to the CPP are not just welcome but overdue. The extension of the CBC's borrowing limit is something that New Democrats have been advocating for months. The housekeeping amendments on other items in the bill are necessary, albeit not remarkable.

The only clause that gives me pause is the one relating to the Bretton Woods agreement and I want to reserve my right to speak against that at a later time. As always, the devil is in the details and when it comes to amendments proposed by the International Monetary Fund, due diligence demands closer scrutiny.

Again, we cannot pick and choose which parts of this bill we support and which we oppose. Our role in the House is to cast a straight up and down yes or no vote and, taken on the whole, I am proud to support this bill on behalf of my constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that in Bill C-51 there is a provision dealing with a first time home buyers' tax credit, which is being introduced on a permanent basis. Yet, we have what is a very popular home renovation tax credit system, which was brought in on a one time basis only.

Seeing as how the government has invested huge amounts of money advertising this program, maybe more than all the taxes that people are going to save in the entire program, I would suggest the government announce an extension of this program so that Canadians can have the benefit of this program on a long-term basis.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome that suggestion because it would help the hard-working families and seniors who are trying to do the right thing, not just by stimulating the economy but who rather are serious about maintaining retrofitting, greening their homes and who do want to do their bit to help us fight climate change. I think an extension of the program would absolutely be welcomed by them.

More important, we need to have a look at the people who are involved in providing the labour for those home renovations. This economic downturn is having a devastating impact on them as well. One of the things I worry about, because the HST, starting in July 2010, will be applied to the services they provide for home renovations, is that entire part of our economy will be driven underground.

By extending the home renovation tax credit, not only would it help homeowners, but it would ensure that part of our economy would not to be operating underground but would be participating as normal participants in this economy. Although the government always seems to be in a rush to support big businesses and banks, it needs to ensure it does its fair share to protect the small businesses in all of our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the member's desire for supporting and representing her constituents and her desire for social justice. She has supported the government when it suited her constituents, but why did she not support the early learning and child care strategy? Why did she vote against aboriginal health and well-being under the Kelowna accord? Why did she vote against the environment?

If she is truly concerned about social justice, can she explain why she voted against those very major issues, social justice agenda issues that would have made a difference in the lives of a lot of Canadians?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had been here to vote against all of those things. Unfortunately, I was not elected at that time. The member appears to be going back four years before I was elected here.

However, during that particular election campaign in 2006, I remember my constituents saying that the Liberals had been in power for 13 years and had promised early child care for 13 years, had promised significant help for aboriginal communities for 13 years, and had talked about the Kyoto accord and acting on that, although not for 13 years because they were late converts to that process, but, nonetheless, for a significant amount of time before that election.

For 13 years the Liberals talked but they did not act and did not deliver. I think the representation that constituents deserve is not just MPs who talk the talk but members of Parliament who will walk the talk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and I was happy to hear that she supports good government policy. She has voted with our government. I am very pleased that there seems to be an epiphany over there and that now they will be supporting the good policies coming out of this government.

I want to ask her a little bit about the past. Particularly important to me is the auto sector. We put in an auto innovation fund that supported the auto sector and her party voted against that. It voted against our support for the auto sector in this past budget. Does she not think that was good policy?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said during my speech, it is absolutely critical for us to vote on packages as a whole because we do not have the opportunity to pick and choose.

One of the problems with the government is that it wants to choose its own winners and losers. I come from Hamilton where our steel sector is being devastated. Forestry sectors are being devastated in other parts of the country. We need a comprehensive package to fight this recession, not—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, automotive industry; the hon. member for York West, veterans affairs; the hon. member Laval—Les Îles, official languages.

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand here today and speak in support of Bill C-51, the economic recovery act.

Before I start illuminating many of the reasons why this bill deserves the support of all members of this place, «i will first add to the chorus of congratulations we heard many times throughout the day in stating the fact that our finance minister, the member for Whitby--Oshawa, has received a very prestigious award from an organization called Euromoney magazine, an international magazine that has been around for about 27 years. It is a real earmark and spokesmodel for the economic climate worldwide. I want to say that for the first time in 27 years since this award has been handed out, we have a Canadian finance minister who has won the prestigious award of finance minister of the year.

I wanted to point that out because there is a real strong reason for that. It means that the world is watching Canada with great envy as we deal with this global economic crisis that has seized almost every industrialized nation in the world, which is one of the many reasons that our finance minister won this very prestigious award.

Why should our finance minister have won this? There are very good reasons. The economic recovery act speaks to the implementation of many of the temporary stimulus measures that we brought forward to combat this global recession, things such as the homeowner's tax improvement credit and the first-time home buyers' credit. These temporary measures are meant to kickstart our economy and get our economy back on track.

Where other industrialized nations throughout the world are struggling, our economy seems to be showing signs of recovery and that is due in large part to the chief architect, our finance minister.

I also want to say that we could not pass this legislation without the support of other members and other parties in this House. Therefore, I really do want to quite sincerely congratulate, applaud and thank our colleagues in the New Democratic Party for offering their support when this legislation comes before the House for a vote. I must say that it is a bit of a surprise but a very good surprise because on many occasions in the past, at least 79 times, the New Democratic Party has opposed every initiative that we have brought forward.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think you will remember, as I do and members opposite remember, when we brought down our budget in January, the New Democratic Party said that it would oppose the budget without even reading it. Something has changed but I do not know what that is. Perhaps it is because it had an epiphany. Perhaps it has just discovered that our government is handling our economy with great due diligence. I want to thank our colleagues in the New Democratic Party for finally seeing the light in agreeing with us that our approach to managing Canada's economy is the correct approach.

I wish, on the other hand, that many of the members of other political parties in opposition would take the same approach, a considered and studied approach that the NDP has taken, to closely examine what we are attempting to do and in fact take a close look at the accomplishments that we have made over the course of the last several months. If they did, I am sure they would join the chorus of NDP members who have stood in this House, applauded our recovery efforts and said, quite clearly and quite graphically, that they will be supporting this legislation when it comes to a vote.

Once again, on behalf of all of us on the government side of the House, I applaud and congratulate members of the NDP for finally seeing the light when it comes to what is required to stimulate an economy that has been in trouble.

Before my closing remarks, I want to point out a few things that perhaps members of the Liberal opposition should recognize. Canadians at this point in time, in the midst of an economic recession, do not want to see an unwanted and unnecessary election. I beseech the members opposite to pay careful attention to this because if other members of this House, particularly members of the Liberal Party, paid careful attention to some of the information we were gleaning from polling companies, they would find out that Canadians do not want an election. However, members of the Liberal Party, the official opposition, seem bent on forcing this election upon Canadians who desperately want to concentrate on getting our economy back on track.

I can honestly say from our standpoint that we have no intention and no desire to enter into an election at this time.

When we examine the polling numbers of all major polling firms in Canada, the great irony is that it seems that only one party would benefit if an election were held today and that is the Conservative Party, and yet we are the only party that has consistently said that we do not want an election. The reason we do not want an election is that we understand the need to concentrate on economic recovery. That is all we want to do right now. The economy is fragile. Yes, it has shown strong signs of recovery but we are not there yet.

We will still face some heartache and some hardship. Unemployment numbers will continue to be higher than we want. We understand that but we also understand that as a Parliament we need to work together to focus on economic recovery and put in place elements of our economic action plan that will help stimulate the economy.

The stimulus package that we are talking about today is temporary in nature. We are only looking at a two year window but it dovetails nicely with the ongoing efforts that our government has made to keep taxes down, to create a regulatory environment that attracts new business into Canada. I think we have done that.

A good shining example of what we have been doing to attract business to this country is the recent announcement that Tim Hortons, a Canadian institution, an icon, is coming back to Canada to set up its worldwide operations. Why? It is because this government understands the reasons that businesses want to come to Canada, or to any other jurisdiction for that matter, to do business and that is lower taxes and an understanding government that wants to promote economic achievement.

For too many years, in fact for 13 long, dark years, the previous Liberal government did not understand that fundamental truism, and so taxes rose. The Liberals drove companies out of Canada to other jurisdictions worldwide where they could find a better tax regime. Now we are finding that companies want to come back to Canada. They want to open up their shops in Canada and do business in Canada, and that is because of the vision of our Prime Minister and our finance minister.

We may hear opposition members yelp, complain, whine and catcall, but the reality is that Canadians understand that this government is acting in their best interests.

Business leaders, both small and large, understand that our government wants to lead the world in terms of economic recovery. We want to lead the world in terms of giving businesses an opportunity to create employment opportunities for their people.

This, in simplistic terms, is what the economic action plan is all about. It is a plan to attract businesses, to increase jobs, to increase employment and to ensure that Canadians can feel the strong effects of our efforts to improve their lives on a day to day basis.

Let us not forget that in the first four years of our government we have reduced the GST by two full points. We are on the way to reducing business tax to the lowest level of most of the G20 countries. In fact, by 2012 or 2015 at least, we should have a combined personal and corporate income tax of 25%. That would be so much of an attraction to businesses to open up their shops in Canada and also be of benefit to average Canadians who want to take more of their hard-earned wages back home with them, put it in their pockets and spend it so they can put it back into the economy.

However, what we cannot afford at this time is an election. We cannot afford to destroy the good work that this government has done over the past several months to get Canada into a position where we will come out of the recession stronger than we have ever been before. That is because of the vision of our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I only have one minute to ask a question, yet I have about 100 questions I would like to ask the member.

If anybody were ever to believe the great story the member just told us, it would make us all think we were in great hands. However, we know that is not the case.

Clearly the award the Minister of Finance received today was probably for how he dealt with the $13 billion surplus left over from the Liberals, rather than how he has dealt with the current crisis we are in today.

In any event, going on to the fundamental issues about the thousands of unemployed, issues like Nortel, the companies that are going bankrupt and people losing their pensions, I do not hear any comment about what we are going to do with all those people who are struggling to deal with a variety of issues.

What is the hon. member going to tell people like the pensioners who are losing their life savings and other seniors whose pensions going to drop 30% because those companies are going bankrupt? What are you doing to help them and what are you doing to help those companies to prevent them from going bankrupt?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would remind members to direct their questions through the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her kind words about my remarks. I also thank her for once again raising the issue of our finance minister who has been awarded Finance Minister of the Year by Euromoney magazine. This is a 40-year-old publication that deals in financial markets worldwide and is highly respected. I point out again that he is the first Canadian finance minister to ever win this.

During the 13 long dark years of Liberal rule, previous to our taking over the reins of government, we had many prominent Liberal politicians occupy the post of finance minister. The current member for Wascana was finance minister. Did he ever win finance minister of the year? No. The former finance minister, the former prime minister, Mr. Paul Martin, did he ever win finance minister of the year? No. We even had a former prime minister beyond that, Mr. Jean Chrétien, who for a time in a previous government was finance minister. Did he ever win finance minister of the year? No.

It just shows that international institutions and international jurisdictions recognize the fine work our finance minister is doing for our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to Bill C-51. With regard to the CPP amendments, the bill offers greater flexibility and choice for people approaching retirement years. It would reduce incentives for early retirement and increase incentives to stay longer in the workforce. It would improve the averaging formula and would boost pensions below the maximum. There are also voluntary contributions for post-65 claimants allowed for secure pension enhancement to age 70.

There are some flaws to this. It does not amount to a significant increase in security for seniors. More important, at least 30% of Canadians are still without retirement savings.

I know the government is doing a study into the whole pension issue. Could the member enlighten us as to the future plans for pension improvement?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for having the vision and the foresight to recognize the fine work our government is doing in handling Canada's economy.

I understand the member was probably a little misguided for the several months prior to his conversion, when he did not realize the depth and the due diligence we had done to handle this fragile economy. However, whether it be an epiphany or whether it be because he has finally discovered that our efforts are having a positive effect, I thank the member.

NDP members deserve a lot of credit for changing their minds. It takes a big person to stand and say that the members were wrong those 79 times when they opposed the government, that they were wrong when they said that the government did not know how to handle the economy.

On behalf of this government, I thank all member of the NDP for admitting their mistakes and finally realizing this government is on the way to taking Canada back to the strongest position financially of any country in the G20.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all the talk about the Minister of Finance winning his award, I have to dampen a little of the excitement. Our friend and colleague from Wascana, the former finance minister, apparently had to go to outpatients today. He pulled a muscle in his back.

Apparently it is attributed to the fact that the current Minister of Finance has been hanging off the coattails of the member for Wascana, who put in place the financial fundamentals to carry us in such good shape into this current situation. I think everybody recognizes that. I know, with his good health, our colleague will be back here tomorrow.

I have not been in on the debate all day, but from what I have seen, each person who has spoken this afternoon has given a bit of a history lesson. Even in question period today, the leader of the NDP helped out with a bit of history. I know one thing about the House. When something is said inside the House, the other parties will do their very best to remind the individual what was said years prior.

The Leader of the Opposition had weighed in today with a comment that came directly from our current Prime Minister, during the whole debate about the HST and the impact it is having. During the GST debate, the Prime Minister had said that there was collusion between the provinces and the federal government to impose another tax on the people. The leader of the NDP reminded him of that today, and that is worthy.

One thing we see time and time again from the government is this selective amnesia. Its position today does not necessarily reflect the way it was talking weeks, months and certainly years ago. It is a completely different story. In my comments during my brief time here today, I would like to remind the government of several things.

When I first came to the House, I was a member of the Chrétien government. I remember the attacks that were levied on the government at the time. I remember the attacks that were levied on our finance minister, former Prime Minister Paul Martin. One of the most ruthless members in the House would have been the current Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

I remember him going after the finance minister day after day at that time because the amount of surplus was too big. That surplus was always applied to the debt, but it was too big. One year the finance minister had anticipated a $3 billion surplus. It came in as a $6 billion surplus, which was applied to the debt that accrued prior to 1993. The members were outraged that we were able to put that much money on the debt.

I think Canadians will look back to those days when a government was in a position to apply $6 billion to the debt and think of them as the good old days of government in Canada.

Another thing has been talked about a fair amount through this crisis. One of the things that has served us so well through this global economic crisis, and Canadians are unified on this, has been the banking system and the regulation of it. We have seen the meltdown south of the border. We have seen other countries and the problems that they have had.

I know, on several occasions over the last weeks and months, the government has been taking credit for our banks being so solid and performing so well. We on this side know, and most Canadians know, that during the whole debate on deregulation of the banks, Reformers voted 100% for that deregulation. It was successive Liberal governments that stood by the banks and regulation in the banks. That is the reason why our banks have been able to survive this financial storm.

It is important to remind Canadians about that. It is certainly important to remind the House about the banking system and the way the position has changed over the last little while.

I know we are talking about the financial bill, but the Prime Minister's new position on the G20 is one that hits us all. When Paul Martin brought forward the idea of the G20, he was very aware that Canada had a responsibility. If Canada wanted to be a world leader, it had to be a bigger player in the world. He talked about China, India and emerging economies. When he talked about the G20, he was vilified. The current Prime Minister said it was a sign of a weak nation, multilateralism absolutely bad, G20 was a bad idea.

Now the Prime Minister wants to be the poster boy for the G20. He invented it. Time and time again, issue after issue, we have seen what has been said before and what is convenient to be said now. They are completely different stories.

The one that hurts and scares us most is this. Last year the Conservatives were trying to reinforce in the minds of Canadians that all was well, that there were no problems with the economy, that we would get through this and that people were nervous Nellies about the economy. We on this side were telling the government to get its house in order, to ensure we would have a plan coming into this downturn. Nothing was being done by the government. It had said all was fine. The Conservatives called an unnecessary and illegal election at the time. Through that election, they said they would balance the budgets, that there would be a small surplus. We have seen how that has evolved. We have seen the end of the story.

However, maybe we have not seen the end of the story because we get chapter after chapter added on. First we had a $13 billion surplus, then it went to an $18 billion deficit, up to a $30 billion deficit. It is up around $54 billion to $60 billion. We anticipate that by the end of December it may reach $70 billion. If Conservatives are not looking at addressing that for three years, it would mean adding $210 billion to the debt of this nation. My kids, my grandkids and probably great-grandkids are going to be saddled with that. Canadians deserve better.

In the context of the remarks, I come back to why Canadians should be concerned. We have not seen anything that gives us confidence in the amount of money that is being spent and the amount of money that is coming in. What is going to be at the fiscal end and where is this all going to end? There is reason for concern—

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member suggested that the election called last year was illegal. That is false and there is a court action at present. Before making accusations like that, the member should really have his facts correct. I ask him to withdraw the remark.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am not sure that is a point of order, but I see the member for Cape Breton—Canso rising. He has one minute left in his remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that was a point of order either, but the four year election plan was put forward by the government and was adopted by the House. Maybe he would prefer if I use the word inappropriate or the word unnecessary. Maybe my colleagues could help me out with that one. I am sorry. There are probably a number of other words I could have used.

We cannot rely on information that comes from the government. We cannot put any trust or faith in the numbers that come from it. When the few numbers do come forward, it seems to be a big surprise at the end of each quarter and the surprise gets worse and worse. As we go forward, I do not know where this will end, but I know the mess we had to clean up the last time. That is going to be the good old days when we look at the mess we are going to have to clean up this time.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through you to the chief government whip, there is a growing sense of urgency in getting the final stages of the home renovation tax credit through. Building suppliers in my riding are saying that having this is the difference between keeping their heads above water and not. We have new-found support from the NDP. In fact, it is even asking to extend the home renovation tax credit into next year.

My question for the chief government whip is, even though he is requiring that his MPs vote against the home renovation tax credit, is he going to allow them, when they do their home renovations, to take advantage of the tax credit themselves?

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

Chief opposition whip, Mr. Speaker. She is seeing into the future.

With respect to the home renovation tax credit, we all know that what the government is putting forward is merely smoke and mirrors.

The fact is no ways and means motion has to be passed by this House in order to implement a tax credit. If we were going to impose a further tax, then yes, a ways and means motion would have to come to the House, and would have to be debated and would have to be voted on. However, for a tax credit like that, it is not necessary. Again, it plays into the overall game, it plays into the strategy the government is employing to try to make good guys and bad guys, winners and losers.

We have no faith that there is any truism in the numbers coming forward, certainly in the action on this home renovation tax credit, it just underlines our concern.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the National Post on Friday, May 23, 2003, the current Prime Minister, at the time a member of the Alliance Conservative, whatever we want to call it, said about a G20 initiative of Paul Martin:

Canada now relies on what is essentially a “weak nation strategy”--multilateral participation to conceal and deny dependency on its key ally.

Perhaps my hon. colleague would like to comment on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I spoke briefly about that particular issue during my comments. It is a complete role reversal. The Prime Minister wants to position himself as a champion and poster boy for the G20.

We have seen it time after time, on issue after issue. On income trusts, the Conservatives said one thing and did something completely different. With respect to the promise to the veterans and the veterans' widows on VIP, the Conservatives said one thing and did something completely different. We have seen this time and time again. That is why we have no confidence in the government. It is why we do not have trust in the government. With the information the Conservatives are giving Canadians, it has become spin, it has become a campaign to position themselves, and the spending of public dollars to put their position out there is unconscionable.

All Canadians want is truth. If we could get that, I think this House would operate on a much better basis.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. May I have the consent of the House to table a document?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table a document?

[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.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question. I would like to thank him for supporting the bill, which is the right thing to do, but I would like to raise a few points.

Many of the people who have spoken today have talked about the same thing: a proposed surtax on the wealthy. If I understand correctly, Pauline Marois, Blanchet, Desmarais, Beaudoin and Jacques Parizeau are among the wealthy people in my province.

I am trying to understand how he would go about collecting that extra cash from the wealthy. I have named only five or six of them. Does he think that the government should take these people’s fortunes and put the money into the economy, all the while ensuring that these same people, who are the ones we all look up to after all, do not end up paupers the next day? That is what I would like to know: is he ready to bleed them before others?

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand why the member opposite does not get the Bloc’s proposal on this issue. Members of right-wing political parties like his are not very sensitive to the disadvantaged and the unemployed. They proved that in the past with their reluctance to improve the employment insurance system.

We proposed that people earning over $150,000 should pay a 1% surtax. Instead of attacking society’s most vulnerable, the poor and the unemployed, we want some members of the House and other people with high incomes to participate in the collective deficit reduction effort. I can see how that might clash with the member opposite’s ideology.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. Does he not think that one of the central responsibilities of a federal government is to control the public purse? Does he not think that the government has lost control over the public purse and over one of its primary responsibilities?

It was not a result of an omission. It was a result of its direct actions to overspend and create a massive imbalance by lowering taxes while increasing spending at two and a half times the rate of GDP, thus causing a structural deficit in the country today.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we no longer have confidence in this government.

Nonetheless, the Bloc Québécois is a responsible party and Bill C-51 contains proposals that the Bloc Québécois itself made. I gave the example of the home renovations. It is for that reason that we are supporting Bill C-51.

However, as we have said in the House before, it is clear that the Conservative government has done very little to support our workers during the economic crisis in the past few months.

The House resumed from October 6 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill. It is a bill that is central to the lives of Canadians.

One of the great responsibilities of the government is to deal with the needs of our citizens, with poverty, with access to health care, and with the problems of our citizens who fall through the cracks of life. It must put forward a plan for our nation in a way that ensures that Canada and Canadians are going to be at the forefront of what happens in the world, that we are able to be economically sufficient and sound, and that our social programs are going to be stable.

I would argue that the government has failed on all of these counts. Bill C-51 is an act to implement certain provisions of budget 2009. Here is a little bit of history. Earlier this year, we worked with the government to pass this bill. The bill had many things that we wanted to support, in particular, a stimulus package that we knew our nation needed because of the economic tsunami, which had been going around the world and hit our country.

There were also things in it that we vehemently opposed. The government added things to the budget bill, including a provision to tear up the arbitrated wage agreement that took place between the government and our dockyard workers. In doing this, it violated a sacred trust that it had from these workers, who worked so hard day in and day out to ensure that our men and women in the navy would be able to have the naval ships and equipment that they need to do their jobs effectively and safely.

In a slap to the face of these hard workers on the dockyard, the government arbitrarily tore up this wage agreement. We opposed this. It also put in provisions and changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Neither of these things had anything to do with the economy. However, the government chose to put it in and told us that if we tried to change any part of the bill, we would invoke an election because the government would collapse.

We in the Liberal Party felt that that would be irresponsible. For the sake of our citizens, our economy, and the jobs that we need in our country, we passed this bill with the understanding that the government would work with us to implement its provisions, particularly the stimulus package, in an effective manner.

What has happened is quite the contrary and I am going to get to that. On the management of the larger economy, a year ago the government was maintaining a mythology and frankly not telling the truth to the public. It said that we were not going to have a deficit or be in a recession when everybody knew that that was not the case at all.

Progressing forward to the end of last year, the government again claimed that we would have a balanced budget. In December the government admitted for the first time that it would run a deficit of $20 billion to $30 billion. In January budget 2009 showed a $34 billion deficit. In June it had ballooned to $50 billion. In September the Minister of Finance came out to Victoria, one of the furthest reaches of our country, to announce that the deficit had ballooned to $56 billion and that the government did not have a plan to deal with it.

That was what the Minister of Finance of Canada did when he came to Victoria. That is not leadership because it also means that the government has lost control over the public purse. In doing so, it has failed in one of its primary obligations as a government, which is to be a good steward of public money.

The government cannot tell Canadians that it does not have a plan to pay down the deficit and get the country's finances in order. That is not leadership. Frankly, it is a violation of its duty to the Canadians of today and their children, who will be paying off this growing debt long into the future.

The government must come up with a deficit reduction plan to get the country's finances in order. We have been asking for it and we will work with the government. The mythology exists out there that somehow the Conservatives are good stewards and the Liberals are not. However, history bears out a very different story.

If one looks back to the 1990s, the country was embroiled in massive deficits and a ballooning debt. The country's bond rating was declining and we were going the way of Argentina.

The then Liberal finance minister, Paul Martin, and the then Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien, got together to put forth some tough medicine to pursue a balanced budget, which took place in the later part of the 1990s and then we had surplus budgets after that.

A contingency plan was put in place for rainy days, but the government spent right through that contingency plan when things were good. Why did it do that? Why did the Prime Minister do two things that were reminiscent of another leader, George Bush. President Bush lowered taxes and increased spending. Remarkably, our Prime Minister has done the same thing. When times were good, he lowered taxes and increased spending, wiping out the contingency fund and putting us right to the brink of a deficit budget during the good times. When things turned bad, we were pushed into the massive deficits we have today. That is merely a statement of the facts.

I have to point out the failure of the government to introduce a deficit reduction plan, which is one of the most pressing needs of our country today. There is also an issue of how do we plan the future? How do we ensure that Canada will be economically competitive for the next two decades? This is a challenge and a responsibility, regardless of who happens to be in government. Here are some of the challenges: investments; tax changes; reducing the tax burden on the poor and the middle class; investing in education; investing in infrastructure; investing in reducing trade barriers, particularly the interprovincial trade barriers that are a larger burden than those we have with our major trading partner south of the border; expanding trade opportunities with the BRIC countries, particularly India, and we have a large diaspora here in Canada.

There is no vision whatsoever in this area. Why is that so? Because the government has a small vision. The Prime Minister operates his government with an iron fist over his members of Parliament, his cabinet and the public service. It demoralizes the public service and the control that he has over his MPs means that they are not being allowed to exercise their abilities to the fullest. The people of our country pay the price for this. This is one of the grave problems we have, and that leads to the democratic deficit we have in our country today. The problem is that it chokes off innovation, and without innovation we cannot grow our country and we cannot ensure that our country will be competitive.

Let me put forth some of the challenges that the government is failing to face, and it must: first, the long-term economic plan for our country; second, dealing with the demographic time bomb that will threaten everything from our economy to our social programs; third, child care, a national head start program. Our party put forth a national head start child care program for our country that was supported by all of the provinces. The government burnt that. Fourth, defence, we need a long-term procurement process to deal with rust out; fifth, the environment, we are going to Copenhagen at the end of this year. Is there a plan from the government? No, there is not. We need to have a credible plan from Canada to deal with climate change.

Sixth, what plan does the government have with respect to Canada's role in the world? There is a responsibility to protect in times of crisis, but there is no obligation to act. We have a judicial framework with no enforcement mechanism. Canada led on the responsibility to protect when the Liberals were in power. The government needs to see that Canada has a larger role to play and must stop choking off the funds for our foreign affairs department. Foreign affairs has had the stuffing beaten out of it by the government and frankly does not believe that it has much of a role to play.

Seventh, infrastructure, for heaven's sake, put the infrastructure where it is needed, based on merit. In my province of British Columbia the government has put four times the amount of money for infrastructure in their own ridings versus those which are not government-held ridings. It has also neglected to get the moneys out the door and 50% of the moneys so far have been spent.

The government has a challenge on its hands. We are ready to take over to provide that leadership. The Conservatives should just give up and let us have that chance.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca with a lot of interest because we have, of course, this budget implementation act coming forward in the House, but we also have the Liberal vote on the previous budget implementation act. That particular budget bill included implementation of the big bribe, the $2 million bribe, for the HST in British Columbia.

The Liberals supported that attempt by the Conservatives to push through tax legislation that is inherently unfair. What it would do is lower corporate taxes and those corporate CEOs would have more money in their pockets. However, each and every British Columbian is going to have to pay $500 more. For a family of four, that is $2,000 more that British Colombian families are going to have to pay for this essential tax shift, so that corporate CEOs get off tax free. It is absolutely absurd, but the Liberals voted for it.

I want to ask the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca this very simple question. Did he understand that the HST was part of the package and does he support it? Or does he regret that foolish move that the Liberals made?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether or not the member wants to invoke an election at this time, but I know most Canadians do not want that.

However, on the issue of the HST, on the $1.6 billion carrot that the federal government has put in front of the face of Premier Campbell, this is the silent hand that is driving the HST issue.

What I have said in my province is that the federal government, the Prime Minister, must say to the premier of British Columbia that the government is going to keep that $1.6 billion on the table until the premier has had a chance to consult with both consumers and producers to ensure that the negative parts of the HST have been mitigated, including an assurance that it only applies to that which the PST applies to, that there is proper consultation, and that there is a streamlining of the process. The status quo cannot exist because it is going to hurt vulnerable British Columbians

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the previous question was a curious misdirection of questioning in that the Harper sales tax is not clearly a tax whereby the Prime Minister--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member knows that he cannot use the given names of members.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but of course it was not a reference to any particular member in this particular House; it is better known as “the Harper sales tax”, but of course --

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the last part of the member's speech. Maybe I was fortunate in that I was not in the House for the first part.

He talked about the bitter pill that his government needed to swallow in order to balance the budget. What he needs to acknowledge is that bitter pill involved cutting transfers to the provinces and municipalities for health care, education, and many of the things that we on this side feel are essential and we would never take action like that.

However, the question I would have for the member opposite is this. How could he and his entire caucus stand in the House a few days ago, when their leader made a comment that on this side of the House we are trying to starve the beast? On one hand, the Liberals accuse us of spending too much and on the other hand he is suggesting that we are not spending enough to keep government programs operating in terms such as starving the beast. How can he square that circle?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to actually look at the history of what his government did. When times were good, his government took a contingency fund that the Liberals had in place when they were in government and burned through it.

The fact of the matter is that the Conservative government, in good times, actually spent at a rate that was two and a half times larger than the rate of increase in GDP, the largest spending increase by any government in Canadian history. It combined this with a reduction in taxes, causing a massive imbalance and putting us to the brink of the precipice of a deficit budget during good times.

So, when times turn sour, this absolutely irresponsible misuse of the economic levers of our country has caused us to be plunged into a deficit that is much larger than we would ever have had and the Prime Minister has put a large burden on the children of our country.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about various items that relate to the north, most of which are not in the budget. I have spoken with people across the north, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. They have said they would like to see them in future budgets.

Mining and tourism are the two biggest sectors in my riding, unlike any other riding in the country. Therefore, I will first talk about the exploration tax credit. A tax credit could be expanded to help mining companies cover new expenses that have come into play in the last couple of decades, such as the consultation process with aboriginal peoples and first nation governments, which the courts have deemed to be mandatory. This process should take place, but there are expenses associated with it. Another expense involves in environmental assessments.

An additional idea for a tax credit is with regard to expenses that could occur on new drilling done close to existing mines. That way mining companies would not necessarily have to go into pristine wilderness areas to look for new finds. They would have some motivation to do more work in their area, where infrastructure already exists.

Tourism is the biggest private sector employer in my riding. However, I want to speak about it nationally. Tourism is mentioned far too little in the House so I would like to talk about the recent priorities of the national tourism organization. It suggests the federal government needs to recognize that air travel is an enabler and driver of the economic prosperity of Canada, that a strategy should be developed that would advance the competitiveness of Canada's aviation and tourism industries and that the federal government should be proactive and diligent in negotiating liberalized bilateral air transport agreements, as per the Blue Sky policy.

This is not coming just from me. People can talk to TIAC, the Canadian Airports Council, the Canadian Association of Tour Operators, the Hotel Association of Canada, the International Air Transport Association, the National Airlines Council of Canada and the Tourism Industry Association of Canada.

People would like to see more money to help at risk youth. The government cut funds at least in my riding and probably cut back on funds for work projects for at risk youth nationally.

It has been brought up many times in the House that for the first time in a long time students ran out of work this summer. A lot of them will run out of money through this school year. In a recession that program should have been dramatically expanded.

On the missing aboriginal women, when the Conservative government came to power, there was a process to deal with this very sad and unfortunate problem. It was hard to get government to the table, but conferences were held across the country, resulting in a number of recommendations to deal with this. Aboriginal people were involved in these meetings and came up with good ideas. Unfortunately, the action we would like to have seen has not happened.

We want the government to keep up its lobbying, through the embassy in Washington, to continue the Shakwak project. It continues to do excellent and needed work on the Alaska Highway, especially in the area of the heaving permafrost between Burwash and Beaver Creek.

There is some concern about border crossings in Yukon not being open long enough and the possibility of the hours being cut back. That would cut back on tourism.

We were disappointed that the artist programs for overseas were cut, and we would like to see more investment in those, including the travelling exhibits program. The north is farthest in the country and that is the only way people would get to see these national historic exhibits.

Like the rest of northern and rural Canada, the cancelling of $10 billion for both the Kelowna accord and the national child care program was a dramatic disappointment to the people in my riding. Those people depended on that. In fact, we heard witnesses yesterday from major aboriginal organizations that listed a number of priorities with which they wanted dealt. Those priorities were in the Kelowna accord.

As the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca just said, I, too, would like to see the head start program expanded because it is so successful.

There is a program called building communities, which is funded through arts and heritage. A great winter carnival is held in Whitehorse called “Yukon Sourdough Rendezvous”. It has been taking place since time immemorial. It is a great way to get rid of the winter blues. It is a local festival that highlights local artists. We would like the festival to continue to receive funding through the building communities program. Hopefully the government will do that.

When the government came into power, it talked about the two major pipelines in my area, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and the Alaska Highway pipeline. These are possibly the largest projects in the history of Canada, yet not much progress has been made on them.

The biggest problem relating to first nations people in my riding, at least 11 of the 14 first nations, is the insufficient effort being made with respect to implementing land claims. This requires some financial commitments and some goodwill and reasonable negotiation to move forward.

One particular component of that is the Teslin Tlingit Council's aboriginal justice agreement, which is close to going to cabinet. I hope cabinet will be supportive of it. Ministers have said they would support it. This will be great leadership for all of Canada, in fact, the world.

Resource revenue sharing is a huge concern in the Northwest Territories. The people would like to have access to the revenue that comes from the resources to help them become independent of the large transfer payments from the federal government.

Unlike the south, where there is a lot of preparation to reduce climate change, it is already happening in all three territories in the north. It is a growing problem. Ice bridges are melting and roads and sewer lines are heaving because of climate change. These are expensive to repair so we need those adaptation projects.

Road and harbour infrastructure is instrumental in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. They do not have road access like the rest of the country.

Investment in oil spillage clean up is needed. The government is intent on development in the Arctic Ocean, but there is no known technology to clean up an oil spill under the ice. I encourage investment in research there so those projects could go ahead.

There is big emphasis on social investment in Nunavut. Nunavut has the biggest housing crisis in the country. It needs more social investment, more training and more education. Nunavut was promised a port in its capital city of Iqaluit to reduce the cost of goods, but that never came through.

People in Nunavut would like a drug treatment centre because there is no local one. They would also like to have a convention centre. The contracting agreement in their land claim would provide funds to get energy from diesel fuel. They would like to ensure their fishing quota is protected.

I have a piece of wooden pipe in my office, which is part of a water and sewer pipe from the north. People are aghast at the fact that the pipes are still made from wood. It is not acceptable that the infrastructure in the north is that far behind. Municipalities have told me they have not received any of the stimulus infrastructure funding yet.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the long shopping list of items that the member for Yukon would like to have in the bill, but I wonder if he, or anybody in his party, has read anything of the action plan report that just came out.

At the top of page 71, there are improvements to the Freegold Road in Yukon, improvements to the water treatment plant in Fort Simpson in the Northwest Territories, and I could go on.

In addition to that, is he aware of the improvements we have made for ordinary Canadians, such as the home renovation tax credit, or the improvements we have made to implement the first-time home buyers' tax credit? All these advances are important for ordinary Canadians across the country.

Could the member tell the House why he and his party intend to vote against these great moves that will help all Canadians across the country?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as the member said, I gave a huge list of reasons why.

Actually he just made my point. He pointed out the infrastructure and the funding in the north and he read out projects. He did not read out a single project in my riding that went to a municipality, which is the exact point I made, that a majority of our municipalities have not received any of that funding yet.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spent a few terrific days up in Yukon in the first part of September, meeting with the people who run Air North, a fantastic airline.

I want to point out to the member, though, that we are dealing with Bill C-51. I did not hear any comments from him about some of the points of the bill, which include drought relief for livestock owners and a revenue-sharing agreement with Nova Scotia, which includes a $175 million payment. I did not hear him talk about the first-time homebuyers' tax credit. Nor did I hear him talk about the renovation tax credit.

I am sure he was about to get to those subjects when he ran out of time, but he has a few more minutes in which he could perhaps deal with those issues.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about bills, we can talk about what is in them or what is not in them. I talked about what was not in the bill and suggested that in future budgets, hopefully Canadians and members of Parliament would consider those items. It cannot be done all at once, but those are the types of things we would like to see.

It is true that my constituents were not really waiting to hear from me about the revenue-sharing agreement in Nova Scotia, so I did not have time to get to that into my speech. The member was right that I did not get through the things for the north, let alone go across the rest of the country.

However, I would like to commend him for raising Air North. As he said, it is an excellent airline. It is a local airline. It is great when all members of Parliament support our northern airlines. There are Air North, First Air, Canadian North, Alkan Air and a number of other airlines in the north. They certainly need our support.

I did talk about airlines. The tourism industry needs more access into the country for other airlines. Once the tourists are in the country, then our local airlines can fly them around.

In my particular part of the north, I would hope that all airlines would interline. Some airlines right now refuse to interline with northern carriers, which causes a problem. People go into the airport, check their luggage and as soon as they get to the next Canadian city, they have to collect their luggage, go back through security and check in again. That costs taxpayers a bunch of money. That is a needless burden on our tourism industry and on the expenses of the federal government.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

I am going to briefly talk about why the NDP will be supporting the bill and then I will go on to talk about some of the other aspects of government policy.

Our support for the bill in no way implies any sort of endorsement of overall government policy. In particular, we do not endorse the Liberal-Conservative HST on which Conservatives and Liberals have banded together to try to impose on British Colombians and also on people from Ontario.

Let us be very clear from the outset. This is not an endorsement of government policy and I will actually be condemning government economic policy because it certainly has not been in the interests of most Canadians.

I will say that Bill C-51 does a number of things that we do support. First off, one element that we did support in tax policy is the home renovation tax credit, which most Canadians will be surprised to learn the government forgot to put in the original budget bill. Now the government is bringing it forward this fall retroactively.

If the NDP was not supporting the bill to get it through the House, those well-meaning Canadians who were told by the Conservatives last spring that they would have a home renovation tax credit and could renovate their homes would essentially have found that there was no home renovation tax credit in place because the Conservatives, I guess, just forgot to put it in last spring.

It is the same with the first-time home buyers tax credit. It is a tax credit that the government announced and then, I guess, simply forgot to put it forward in the budget bill that was passed last spring.

Those two measures we have supported. It would be retroactive punishment to say that the government simply did not put together the budget bill in the spring the way it should have, so now we are going to penalize the government. The NDP will be supporting the bill to get that through so that Canadians who in good faith invested thinking that the tax credit was coming will not be disadvantaged.

We are also supporting it because of the drought relief for livestock owners, the income deferral. That is a measure we do support.

Finally, there is the long-standing revenue sharing agreement with Nova Scotia, the agreement that was reneged on by the Prime Minister and the government. Obviously, since the election of an NDP government in Nova Scotia, the Conservatives realize they cannot run roughshod over the provincial government any more. Nova Scotia has a very strong premier and a majority NDP government. The Conservatives are finally rectifying their error and we support that. I do not think Nova Scotians are going to forget what the government did to Nova Scotians, but certainly it is important that that revenue sharing agreement be respected.

For those reasons we will be supporting the bill.

However, that does not imply an endorsement of overall Conservative economic policy. It certainly is not an endorsement of what anyone could call an effective Conservative public administration. In fact, I think effective Conservative public administration is an oxymoron. What we have seen from the government over the last few years is quite simply the opposite.

The impact on Canadians of the former Liberal government and the current Conservative government is very clear. Statistics Canada has just released these figures. Since 1989, under the Conservatives, and then the Liberals and then the Conservatives, most Canadian families have actually seen their real income decline. What we have under Conservatives and Liberals is essentially an economic policy that is for the few. They love corporate tax handouts, corporate tax cuts, but most Canadians have been left further and further behind.

As Statistics Canada says so clearly, the wealthiest 20%, the corporate CEOs and the corporate lawyers, now make more than half of all income in this country. Their real income has grown dramatically over the past 20 years. For all the rest, middle class families have seen their market income decline considerably, and the poorest Canadians have seen their total income decline considerably. What we have seen is essentially a shift under Liberals and Conservatives that puts money in a few hands in the hope that somehow the trickle down will magically create conditions for prosperity. That simply has not happened, which is why in this corner of the House the number of New Democrats continues to grow after each election.

More and more Canadians are realizing that these economic policies that are oriented toward corporate CEOs and corporate lawyers are not economic policies that bring prosperity to the community at large.

This brings me to the HST, the Liberal-Conservative harmonized sales tax. The Liberals and Conservatives were working together on the budget bill last spring to inflict on British Columbians and Ontarians the hated, I think it is fair to say, HST.

I am going to restrict my comments to the impact on ordinary British Columbians, because in my province the HST is particularly hated. According to most public domain polls, over 80% of British Columbians say that this is just a dumb idea. It follows along the lines of what Conservatives really believe, the trickle-down theory, shovelling lots of money, tens of billions of dollars, to the corporate sector.

The HST is a tax shift. What the Conservatives wanted to get the B.C. Liberals to do, Liberals and Conservatives working together, is essentially offer up a bribe to cut corporate taxes for the largest companies in British Columbia. They cut their taxes even further. They are now far below what exists in the United States. When we take into consideration the important subsidy to business which is our medicare system put in place by the NDP, as we know, which provides a subsidy of $3,000 per employee, according to most studies by KPMG and PriceWaterhouse, we have a lower corporate income tax than even in the United States that does not have a public health care system.

What we are doing is bringing corporate taxes for the big companies, the big banks, the big energy companies to levels that cannot sustain an effective public administration and the kinds of services that Canadians need.

The HST is another example of that. I will say that what they are trying to do in a diabolical way is have ordinary British Columbians cough up the money for this massive corporate tax cut.

This tax shift means that CEOs of the major companies, the softwood companies for example that are busy buying mills and creating jobs in Washington State and South Carolina, are getting their taxes cut, but the average British Columbian will be paying $500 a year more.

There is a corporate tax rate on the one hand and on the other, increased taxes in a whole range of other areas. If people want to take care of their health, they are going to pay more for vitamins, a 7% tax increase. Far from trying to encourage literacy and information flow, the Conservatives are imposing a 7% tax on newspapers and magazines. For movie and theatre tickets, in their ongoing attack on culture, they are increasing taxes there. Haircuts will cost more. One needs a haircut to go to work.

The Liberal-Conservative HST will have people pay 7% more for clothing, food, and meals in restaurants. I am getting lots of letters from restaurants in my riding saying to top this HST because it is going to hurt their clients. It is going to hurt their communities.

On housing, bicycles, safety equipment, transportation tickets, thanks to the Conservatives, we will be paying 7% more. For health care things like massages, children's diapers, people will have pay more. Parents who buy diapers for their kids will be paying more because of the Conservative HST.

The Liberals and the Conservatives are working together to raise taxes in over 200 different areas. The cost will be $500 more for a single British Columbian, and $2,000 more for a family of four, thanks to the Liberal-Conservative HST. It is absolutely absurd.

This is where we differ from the government. We might support this budget bill because we think it is important to bring in some of those elements, but to say that we support the government agenda in bringing in the HST, well, we very clearly do not.

This corner of the House will be fighting tooth and nail to stop this horrendous HST, this horrendous boondoggle, which essentially makes ordinary British Columbians pay hundreds of dollars a year more so the corporate cat sector can get another corporate tax break. We say no, and we are going to be voting against the HST when it comes to the House.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the House has been treated to a real rant from the member opposite. He was really on a roll. We might have called him on relevance on a whole bunch of what he had to say.

The member has been here for a while. He has sat through a few budgets. He would know that passing a budget is always followed by ways and means motions and budget implementation bills that actually follow through with the details. That is a normal procedure that we are following in the House, even at this time.

When the member rails on one of his favourite topics, which is corporate tax cuts, he always likes to refer to banks. The member would know that in our part of the world we have a lot of corporations that are forest companies, such as Catalyst in my riding and Harmac in Nanaimo. They are struggling. Does the member support increased taxes for forest companies and auto companies that are struggling at this time?

Furthermore, this is the federal Parliament. If the member wants to debate the harmonized sales tax, he should quit his seat in this House and go to the provincial legislature, if he could get himself elected, where he could debate it where the decision is being made.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo—Alberni is not going to get off that easily. The NDP is not going to leave the House. We are not going to turn our backs on ordinary British Columbians. We are not going to stop our attack against the HST. It was simply bad public policy. It is a tax shift.

I do have to answer a couple of the points he made. First, of course it is ridiculous to be debating implementation legislation at this time for a budget that was adopted last spring. The Conservatives are going to have to justify why it took them so long to bring those components forward.

Second, and this is the most important, because he is talking about the forestry industry. The softwood lumber industry has absolutely been gutted by bad Conservative policy. The softwood lumber sellout, which essentially gave away half a billion dollars of British Columbian money, has led to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

Why did the member support the softwood lumber sellout when he knew it was going to cost hundreds of jobs in his riding? Why did he not stand up for the people in Nanaimo—Alberni?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the excellent speech by my hon. colleague and I want to follow up on his comments about the HST.

I know that the HST was first brought into this country in 1997 by the previous Liberal government, which signed HST agreements with maritime provinces. I know that the Liberals also supported the budget in January of this year, which contained several billions of dollars from the federal government to the provinces in exchange for their agreement to harmonize the taxes.

When the members opposite say that this is a provincial decision, I wonder why, if that is the case, they saw fit to provide almost $6 billion in federal transfer payments to the provinces as enticement for them to enter into the HST.

I would be interested to hear my hon. colleague's comments on that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Kingsway is one of the best of the class of 2008 in the House. He is a very dedicated member of Parliament and works very hard, very effectively and very diligently. When he speaks, members of the House listen to him because of the intelligence he brings to the debate.

He is absolutely right. British Columbians see this as a federal issue. They were essentially misled during the provincial election campaign. The B.C. Liberals support the HST with the inducement from the federal Conservatives supported by the federal Liberals. British Columbians were not told. In fact, they were told the opposite. They were told that the HST would not be coming in.

British Columbians who are very angry about this issue will certainly get a chance to vote on it with the upcoming byelection in New Westminster—Coquitlam. I think we will see that many people in that area see it as a federal issue.

We will certainly see it in an upcoming federal campaign. If the government continues its provocation and we go into a federal campaign, British Columbia Conservatives and British Columbia Liberals are going to have to defend their vote and support for this awful HST, which attacks ordinary working families in British Columbia. They will have to defend themselves.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Afghanistan; the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today, as we debate the implementation of the budget, it is important for us to remember that in speaking about budgets it is all too easy to be caught up in numbers, balance sheets and bottom lines. In reality, however, we are really speaking about people, people like the seniors in my riding of Davenport and in communities across Canada who find it more difficult to manage than ever before, or families that have faced financial pressures in simply making good lives for themselves and their children or those who seek only to improve the knowledge and build careers for themselves.

We are also speaking about the financial challenges that face my city of Toronto and other cities and communities as they try to provide service and living space worthy of all Canadians.

Some months ago, the government called on members of the House to support the budget. We agreed but with reservation and concern. However, we wanted to make Parliament work and so we trusted the government. Others, without having seen the proposals, were quick to vote no.

Sadly, we find ourselves, as the leaves begin to fall, with very little being delivered for what was promised to the people of Canada last winter. We, in the Liberal caucus, have worked hard to make Parliament work. We know that Canadians sent us here on their behalf and we never forget that.

The fact that we have lost confidence in the government speaks more to our disappointment in the government's ability to deliver on promises than anything else. We want to work for Canadians but we must also stand up when we see their interests being undermined.

It was Robert Service who once said that a promise made is a debt unpaid. The government has simply failed to honour the debt of the promise to the Canadian people.

For millions of Canadians, the current financial situation is the most significant economic challenge they have ever seen in their lifetime. Our question today in debating this budget is simply this: Has the government provided the assistance it promised to Canadians? The answer is, no. Our cities are struggling and their call to action remains, for the most part, unanswered.

My colleague, the member for Parkdale—High Park, recently presented evidence indicating that the stimulus promised to cities and communities across the country remain unfulfilled. Indeed, his figures and the partisan nature of how funds have been allocated should be alarming to us all.

Many municipal leaders will recall fondly the previous Liberal government's new deal for cities, which greatly assisted my home city of Toronto. At the time, it was a historic invitation to cities to come to the table. Today, instead of new deals for cities, we see from the government no deals for cities.

The previous Liberal government committed $5 billion to assist cities like Toronto and other communities across Canada. Today we see no initiatives with such resolve from the government.

In budget 2005, we saw a $5 billion commitment in collaboration with the provinces for early learning and child care. Today we see no such commitment to our children and to families from the government.

The previous Liberal government committed over $2 billion under the guaranteed income supplement for low income seniors. Today we see more words than action from the government when it comes to the needs of older Canadians.

I make these comparisons because so much has changed. In the days under the stewardship of former Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin and the current member for Wascana, finance ministers championed progressive policies and programming within the framework of fiscally responsible budgeting.

Today we see budget deficits go from $36 billion to over $50 billion and we simply cannot be sure that tomorrow or next week that figure will change again. This is happening when so little is actually being done for Canadians in need.

I must also confess confusion when it comes to the recent epiphany on the road to Damascus experienced by the leader of the NDP and his caucus. It certainly seems to have much more to do with the poll numbers than high ideals, and this is regrettable.

I would remind members of the words spoken in December 2008 and what was said of the Prime Minister and his government:

He simply cannot be trusted. It is not real. What he did do was fail to put forward a plan for the economy and he failed the families of our country. That is the failure. He would not work with other parties to deliver a plan for the families of our country, who are suffering in the economic circumstances in which we are.

How can Canadians have any confidence in the Conservative government?

I will give credit where credit is due. Those words are not mine. Those words were spoken by the leader of the New Democratic Party. What could possibly have changed for the NDP to now support the government when it has delivered so little to the people of Canada?

The government is also quick to manipulate the numbers in terms of jobs and job creation. The sad reality is that people are losing their jobs or being forced to take jobs that do not cover their expenses. Indeed, youth unemployment in Canada is now at a staggering 16.3%, up from 10.7%. We hear now that the Royal Bank of Canada is predicting that a further 200,000 jobs may be lost next year. Who could describe that as an economic recovery?

What are we building in our youth if we cannot give them at least the kind of decent jobs that will help them live their lives with dignity?

What about the commitment to address issues of poverty in this country? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recently released a report detailing the standings of nations in terms of quality of life. A summary noted, “...driving down Canada's score is the alarming numbers of children living in poverty...”.

We are a nation rich in resources, rich in talent and blessed with limitless potential. How can it be that our quality of living is being undermined by the “alarming number of children living in poverty”? More important, what effect is this poverty having on the potential of these children, our future and our nation's greatest blessing? We need to do better, and clearly the government has no plans to do so.

I am proud of the Liberal record which has consistently comprised of concrete action to address poverty, particularly child poverty. In this economic crisis, we should be doing more to protect those who are less vulnerable, not less.

Each year I join with agencies in my community to try to secure assistance from the government so that they might hire summer students. This year, more than any other in recent memory, would have been the year for the government to step up to the challenge with more help. However, once again, we were disappointed.

What about affordable housing or public transit, to name just two other areas that continue to be neglected by the government?

We all recall the previous Liberal government's commitment to public transit, which helped to modernize and expand systems across the country. We were also the first in a generation to return to the table with federal support for public housing.

Simply put, we need to return to more progressive and sound public policy that continues to be fiscally responsible.

It is absolutely true to say that we can do better.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member states that he will vote against this bill and yet he voted for the budget.

In the city of Edmonton right now and in the surrounding area, the farmers are suffering severe drought conditions.

The government has refused to act expeditiously on climate change. Its own Department of Natural Resources has issued a major report identifying impending significant threats to Canadian agriculture from climate change and serious ramifications, including the mental health of farmers.

I am pleased that this bill actually includes some limited redress for farmers suffering from drought. It is unfortunate, however, that it has not been expanded beyond those raising livestock. It should be extended to all farmers, including the valuable market gardeners in our area.

Does the member not think it is important that we expedite this aid for farmers suffering under the climate change created drought?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the new NDP member well but I must say that her statement is full of contradictions. I am sure that if she were to analyze her statement she would actually find out that there are several contradictions in her statement.

We had put forward a proposal of non-confidence in the government and she decided not to vote. In fact, her whole caucus decided not to vote and stand up for Canadians and for climate change.

If the NDP members are really concerned about climate change and the lack of an action plan by the government, they had an opportunity to pronounce themselves and they chose not to vote.

The issue of climate change is extremely important but to think that somehow this budget implementation would address climate change is quite regrettable. it does nothing to address the serious issue of climate change. I am quite baffled by her party's stand. I think most Canadians are also extremely disheartened by the fact that the NDP members talk about these issues but when they had an opportunity and saw the polls they changed their mind and changed their tune. I think there is a lot hypocrisy on the part the NDP.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his always cogent comments on important issues of the day. I know he has worked very hard on a number of issues, but he did mention public transit and the need for efficient systems. It all links into a strategy that the government has not put forward as to what kinds of things we can do to protect and save current jobs, as well as to invest where we can in fact create new jobs.

I wonder if the member would care to comment a bit on some of the infrastructure implications of either public transit projects or those kinds of projects that will help the unemployment situation.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that our cities are facing serious crises. As a former Toronto city councillor and also former vice-chair of the Toronto Transit Commission, I know the infrastructure needs of our city and they are in the billions of dollars.

One of the great things that was done during the past government, when Paul Martin was the prime minister, was to engage the cities. We had a minister responsible for the cities. We were not just putting in infrastructure dollars. We were also providing assistance with operational costs through the gas tax, for example.

There is not only a need to build the infrastructures and improve the infrastructures in our cities, as most of it is very ancient and badly in need of repair, but they also need continual funding. One thing the government has not talked about is how the public transit system in the largest city in Canada get the dollars they need to operate it on a regular basis. This is a major issue that needs to be addressed and the only way it can be done is in collaboration.

We need to have respect for the municipalities and bring them to the table. Too much fighting between the cities has gone on back and forth and that needs to be put to an end because we all need to look after the taxpayers, our citizens, and provide better services to them. The only way we can do that is by collaborating and bringing them to the table with mutual respect.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this very important debate on Bill C-51 today. I say that because this particular bill would put in place many of the measures that have been in the budget but will also return Canada to a shameful history of deficit financing.

It is an important bill and all Canadians should be fully aware of its implications. A shameful history of spending beyond our means will leave our children and our grandchildren still trying to pay down the debt that is being incurred today.

I want to give a bit of history. In 1993 Brian Mulroney's Conservatives had grown Canada's deficit to more than $40 billion, a trend that exploded the national debt to more than $400 billion. In the election of 1993, Conservative fiscal mismanagement was the key issue of that election. Unemployment was very high. Inflation was rampant. Interest rates were out of control. Many of the viewers and certainly the people in York West remember 19% and 20% interest rates. The International Monetary Fund would signal big trouble for Canada.

Canadians were rightly concerned that the careless and free-spending policies of Mr. Mulroney and the Conservatives were putting our social safety nets in jeopardy as well as our entire country. Canadians responded by sending 177 Liberal MPs to Ottawa with a strong mandate to bring spending under control once and for all. After years of empty Conservative promises to get serious about budgetary prudence and restraint, Paul Martin took hold of the finance department and set Canada down a new and brighter path.

By the time the Liberals left office in 2006, we had eliminated the deficit, paid down billions of dollars of debt, reduced taxes by more than $100 billion, reinvested the surplus to bolster social programs and transfer payments, placed the CPP on a secure fiscal footing, and generated and maintained an annual budgetary surplus that the current government always complained was too high. But that was then, and this is now.

Despite inheriting a $13 billion surplus in 2006, in just three very short years the Conservative government has squandered that and returned Canada to deficit once again. Sure enough, Tory times are always troubled times. This is no small accomplishment for the members across the way. In their drive to become the largest spenders, or should I say overspenders as a better description, in our history, they had to first eliminate the massive surplus that they inherited.

I am going to put this in simple terms: a $13 billion surplus the Conservatives inherited just under three years ago, plus the $56 billion we are talking about now which already may be much higher but we are talking $56 billion because that is the amount the finance minister is referring to, makes a total overspending tab of $69 billion, that is $69 billion of Conservative mismanagement. That number must make Mr. Mulroney green with envy. At least the Mulroney government acted like it was trying to bring spending under control, contrary to the current government.

We know what the Conservatives are proposing to do with $69 billion, but I wonder what Canadians would have used $69 billion for. Here are a couple of things that we could have done. We could have more than quadrupled all federal spending on health care and other vital social programs such as our Canada pension plan. We could have given a hefty increase to old age security and helped our seniors. We could have increased the amount of money being spent from all sources on homelessness by more than 700%, or we could have reduced the national infrastructure deficit by more than 55%. Those would have been interesting things to have done with all of that money, but that was not what was done.

Let me put it in terms as clearly as I can for people to understand who are watching. For example, in 1993, 38¢ of every dollar collected by the federal government was needed to pay the annual interest on our federal debt. Thanks to the work of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, that number plunged to just 14¢ by the time we left office.

Today, Conservatives are again increasing our debt by living off our credit cards and having the bill sent to our children and grandchildren. If they continue to overspend at the current rate, never mind the possible increase, just at the current rate today, they will have reversed all of the progress made during the 10 years of national debt repaying before the end of their current mandate. Canadians remember today all the difficulties when they were dealing with the last deficit. That is right, the federal debt is again growing, and at this moment stands at more than $493 billion. The Conservatives are planning for a deficit that is the highest in our history.

Mr. Speaker, you should also know that we divided it up so that we could figure out what your share would be. Your share of that debt, the $493 billion, would be $15,000. That is $15,000 for every man, women and child in the country, regardless of age or income. My husband and I have three married children, and combined they have five children. That makes my family's share of the debt $195,000. That is a lot of money. That $195,000 worth of debt could have nearly paid for a new home in many parts of Canada. Instead, the government is squandering it, hand over fist.

The Conservatives will say that the Liberals supported the budget, and they are right. We voted to allow them the time to get past the current recession. We have held them up for almost four years in order to move the country along. We voted many times we did not want to, but it was important to work on behalf of Canadians. We now realize that will not be possible.

Less than a year ago the Conservatives were pretending they were running a surplus. Then suddenly it was a $34 billion deficit within six months. That so-called temporary deficit became a $50 billion deficit and now they admit to a $56 billion deficit. We will see what it is next week. When will it stop? No one can believe their numbers any more and no one knows how high the balance of Conservative overspending will be. Either they are not being up front with their budgetary facts, or they are not capable of managing our nation's finances. Maybe it is a bit of both, incompetency at both levels. Either way, the current situation is unacceptable, and I will be voting to return control and prudence to our national budgetary process.

As the official opposition, we were prepared to work with the Conservatives, as I indicated earlier, but they have squandered that trust, just like they have squandered billions of hard earned tax dollars, and continue to mislead, twist and turn all of the truth that is necessary when it comes to being a responsible government. I used the word “squandered” intentionally because the Conservatives promised many things like infrastructure and job stimulus, but they have failed to deliver 88% of that money, and the little that has got out there has not got to where unemployment is the highest and the needs are the biggest but to Conservative ridings. Not Bloc, NDP or Liberal ridings, it has to be a Conservative riding first.

The Conservatives promised never to raise taxes. They brag about that all the time, but they have implemented a payroll tax of $13 billion. That is a $13 billion tax on jobs, which will clearly be a job killer, not a job implementer. This measure alone amounts to $632 in annual payroll taxes, an increase on Canadian workers, no matter how much they try to deny it. They will be forcing small businesses, that are already struggling, to pay $884 more for employees per year. And they say they do not raise taxes.

I do not think that is being responsible at all. It seems the government has forgotten the basic rules, and the Prime Minister and the finance minister have failed to be up front and honest with Canadians. They have failed to grasp even the basic fundamentals of recessionary budget management. They have failed to effectively manage a looming unemployment crisis with 459,000 people currently unemployed. The OECD is predicting another 200,000 people who will be unemployed. The Conservatives have failed to keep spending under control.

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak, to get my points on the record, and I welcome any comments. I suspect there will be a few.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear my colleague's comments. However, I was amazed at her selective memory and the things she chose to leave out of her speech.

She failed to mention that this practice that she calls shameful deficit financing actually began under former Prime Minister Trudeau. Certainly, the Conservative government that followed had to continue on to keep the social programs running. Yet, when the Chrétien and Martin years came along, they just cut all of that funding to the social programs. Health received a $25 billion cut.

I have three questions. How can the hon. member refer to paying down almost $40 billion of debt as squandering money? Second, where is the $50 billion surplus that was targeted to employment insurance funds? We do not know where it is. Third, where is the $40 million still not accounted for from the former sponsorship program? I would like answers to those three questions, please.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always amazing how we have these different perceptions of what went on.

The problem with the members across the chamber, which is the current government, is that they know how to talk about lowering taxes, but they do not have the courage to make difficult decisions when it comes to what they are going to be cutting.

Clearly, when Mr. Mulroney and the previous Conservative government were in power, they just kept right on spending and kept saying that they had to get this under control. Then they never had the courage to make the cuts that were necessary.

When we got into power in 1993, by that time our great country of Canada was almost bankrupt. We had the courage as Liberals to engage Canadians and make the cuts that were necessary to balance that budget.

I have yet to see a plan for just how the government is going to plan to deal with this $60 billion deficit that is continuing to grow. How is it going to deal with that? Is it going to just sit back and keep on spending?

Spending is really easy. What is really tough about being in government is figuring out how to pay for everything that is important and how to balance the budget. That is what is important. It is about time the Conservatives stopped doing the spending and started to say how they are going to deal with that issue.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. One of the areas on which the member has worked a great deal is the whole issue of cities and the importance of having a healthy infrastructure.

The member knows that the government allowed some $3 billion worth of infrastructure approved funding to lapse in the last fiscal year. It promised shovel ready projects and yet it has only got 12% of the money out so far, cash in hand. The unemployment rate has gone up almost 10%.

These are the kinds of things that demonstrate the irresponsibility of a government and I am going to give the member an opportunity to comment on why the government has failed to deliver jobs for people.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is because clearly it is out of touch and does not understand how important it is to be investing money all across the country.

The city of Toronto has an unemployment rate of 20%. We have massive youth unemployment. Rather than focusing on where it is putting the infrastructure dollars that are important, there are certain projects that were approved back when Paul Martin was in power that are just going through the process now.

Had the Conservatives used the gas tax, which was something that we introduced, it would have been a very fast way of getting money for infrastructure throughout all of our cities in Canada, which have an aging infrastructure.

If we speak to FCM, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, it will tell us there is a $500 billion infrastructure deficit in this country. These are not community centres. We are talking about sewers and streets that are caving in.

Those are the issues that needed money immediately which could have been out the door and been done six months ago.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Harbour Village Resident Association started a home energy retrofit project. The project offered residents an opportunity to lower heating bills, reduce their carbon footprint, and make their homes more comfortable.

This is made possible through the home renovation tax credit and the ecoenergy program. People are getting a home energy audit for $131.75 and receiving information on where to make the biggest difference with the least investment.

Why will the member not support home energy upgrades, so people can get a grant back from the government which will make a big difference in energy bills?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals do not sell themselves off for nothing more than a home renovation grant.

For almost four years we have supported the government, tried to work with it, and tried to move it forward for this country. At this point we no longer have confidence. The infrastructure money that is being spent, the so-called stimulus money that is being spent, clearly is just going to drive up a huge debt. It is not going to help the people who are currently unemployed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think I heard the member say that the unemployment rate in Toronto was 20%. For those listening, we should clarify that this is probably not accurate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am not sure that is a point of order.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The vote stands deferred until 5:30 p.m. today

The House resumed 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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-51.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #111

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)