Bill C-9 (Historical)

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures

Part 1 of this enactment implements income tax measures proposed in the March 4, 2010 Budget. In particular, it
(a) introduces amendments to allow a recipient of Universal Child Care Benefit amounts to designate that the amounts be included in the income of the dependant in respect of whom the recipient has claimed an Eligible Dependant Credit, or if the credit is not claimed by the recipient, a child of the recipient who is a qualified dependant under the Universal Child Care Benefit Act;
(b) clarifies rules relating to the Medical Expense Tax Credit to exclude expenses for purely cosmetic procedures;
(c) clarifies rules relating to payments made to a Registered Education Savings Plan or a Registered Disability Savings Plan through a program funded, directly or indirectly, by a province or administered by a province;
(d) implements amendments to the family income thresholds used to determine eligibility for Canada Education Savings Grants, Canada Disability Savings Grants and Canada Disability Savings Bonds;
(e) reinstates the 50% inclusion rate for Canadian residents who have been in receipt of U.S. social security benefits since before January 1, 1996;
(f) extends the mineral exploration tax credit for one year;
(g) reduces the rate of interest payable by the Minister of National Revenue on tax overpayments made by corporations;
(h) modifies the definition “taxable Canadian property” to exclude certain shares and other interests that do not derive their value principally from real or immovable property situated in Canada, Canadian resource property, or timber resource property;
(i) introduces amendments to allow the issuance of a refund of an overpayment of tax under Part I of the Income Tax Act to certain non-residents in circumstances where an assessment of such amounts has been made outside the usual period during which a refund may be made;
(j) repeals the exclusion for indictable tax offences from the proceeds of crime and money laundering regime; and
(k) increases the pension surplus threshold for employer contributions to registered pension plans to 25%.
Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 and the Customs Act to implement an enhanced stamping regime for tobacco products by introducing new controls over the production, distribution and possession of a new excise stamp for tobacco products.
Part 2 also amends the Excise Tax Act and certain related regulations in respect of the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) to:
(a) simplify the operation of the GST/HST for the direct selling industry using a commission-based model;
(b) clarify the application of the GST/HST to purely cosmetic procedures and to devices or other goods used or provided with cosmetic procedures, and to services related to cosmetic procedures;
(c) reaffirm the policy intent and provide certainty respecting the scope of the definition of “financial service” in respect of certain administrative, management and promotional services;
(d) address advantages that currently exist in favour of imported financial services over comparable domestic services;
(e) streamline the application of the input tax credit rules to financial institutions;
(f) provide a new, uniform GST/HST rebate system that will apply fairly and equitably to employer-sponsored pension plans;
(g) introduce a new annual information return for financial institutions to improve GST/HST reporting in the financial services sector; and
(h) extend the due date for filing annual GST/HST returns from three months to six months after year-end for certain financial institutions.
In addition, Part 2 amends regulations made under the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, 2001 to reduce the interest rate payable by the Minister of National Revenue in respect of overpaid taxes and duties by corporations.
Part 3 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act to increase the air travellers security charge that is applicable to air travel that includes a chargeable emplanement on or after April 1, 2010 and for which any payment is made on or after that date. It also reduces the interest payable by the Minister of National Revenue to corporations under that Act.
Part 4 amends the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 to provide for a higher rate of charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products from the regions of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba or Saskatchewan. It also amends that Act to reduce the rate of interest payable by the Minister of National Revenue on tax overpayments made by corporations.
Part 5 amends the Customs Tariff to implement measures announced in the March 4, 2010 Budget to reduce Most-Favoured-Nation rates of duty and, if applicable, rates of duty under other tariff treatments on a number of tariff items relating to manufacturing inputs and machinery and equipment imported on or after March 5, 2010.
Part 6 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to provide additional payments to certain provinces and to correct a cross-reference in that Act.
Part 7 amends the Expenditure Restraint Act to impose a freeze on the allowances and salaries to be paid to members of the Senate and the House of Commons for the 2010–2011, 2011–2012 and 2012–2013 fiscal years.
Part 8 amends a number of Acts to reduce or eliminate Governor in Council appointments, including the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. This Part also amends that Act to establish the Canadian Section of the NAFTA Secretariat within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In addition, this Part repeals The Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees’ Provident Fund Act. Finally, this Part makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Part 9 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985. In particular, the Act is amended to
(a) require an employer to fully fund benefits if the whole of a pension plan is terminated;
(b) authorize an employer to use a letter of credit, if certain conditions are met, to satisfy solvency funding obligations in respect of a pension plan that has not been terminated in whole;
(c) permit a pension plan to provide for variable benefits, similar to those paid out of a Life Income Fund, in respect of a defined contribution provision of the pension plan;
(d) establish a distressed pension plan workout scheme, under which the employer and representatives of members and retirees may negotiate changes to the plan’s funding requirements, subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance;
(e) permit the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to replace an actuary if the Superintendent is of the opinion that it is in the best interests of members or retirees;
(f) provide that only the Superintendent may declare a pension plan to be partially terminated;
(g) provide for the immediate vesting of members’ benefits;
(h) require the administrator to make additional information available to members and retirees following the termination of a pension plan; and
(i) repeal spent provisions.
Part 10 provides for the retroactive coming into force in Canada of the Agreement on Social Security between Canada and the Republic of Poland.
Part 11 amends the Export Development Act to grant Export Development Canada the authority to establish offices outside Canada. It also clarifies that Corporation’s authority with respect to asset management and the forgiveness of certain debts and obligations.
Part 12 enacts the Payment Card Networks Act, the purpose of which is to regulate national payment card networks and the commercial practices of payment card network operators. Among other things, that Act confers a number of regulation-making powers. This Part also makes related amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to expand the mandate of the Agency so that it may supervise payment card network operators to determine whether they are in compliance with the provisions of the Payment Card Networks Act and its regulations and monitor the implementation of voluntary codes of conduct.
Part 13 amends the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to provide the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada with a broader oversight role to allow it to verify compliance with ministerial undertakings and directions. The amendments also increase the Agency’s ability to undertake research, including research on trends and emerging consumer protection issues. Finally, the Part makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 14 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to confer on the Minister of Finance the power to issue directives imposing measures with respect to certain financial transactions. The amendments also confer on the Governor in Council the power to make regulations that limit or prohibit certain financial transactions. This Part also makes a consequential amendment to another Act.
Part 15 amends the Canada Post Corporation Act to modify the exclusive privilege of the Canada Post Corporation so as to permit letter exporters to collect letters in Canada for transmittal and delivery outside Canada.
Part 16 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to allow the Governor in Council to specify when a bridge institution will assume a federal member institution’s deposit liabilities and allow the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to make by-laws with respect to information and capabilities it can require of its member institutions. This Part also amends that Act to establish the rules that apply to the assignment, by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to a bridge institution, of eligible financial contracts to which a federal member institution is a party.
Part 17 amends the Bank Act and other related statutes to provide a framework enabling credit unions to incorporate and continue as banks. The model is based on the framework applicable to other federally regulated financial institutions, adjusted to give effect to cooperative principles and governance.
Part 18 authorizes the taking of a number of measures with respect to the reorganization and divestiture of all or any part of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s business.
Part 19 amends the National Energy Board Act in order to give the National Energy Board the power to create a participant funding program to facilitate the participation of the public in hearings that are held under section 24 of that Act. It also amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to give the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission the power to create a participant funding program to facilitate the participation of the public in proceedings under that Act and the power to prescribe fees for that program.
Part 20 amends the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to streamline certain process requirements for comprehensive studies, to give the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency authority to conduct most comprehensive studies and to give the Minister of the Environment the power to establish the scope of any project in relation to which an environmental assessment is to be conducted. It also amends that Act to provide, in legislation rather than by regulations, that an environmental assessment is not required for certain federally funded infrastructure projects and repeals sunset clauses in the Regulations Amending the Exclusion List Regulations, 2007.
Part 21 amends the Canada Labour Code with respect to the appointment of appeals officers and the appeal hearing procedures.
Part 22 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for various purposes.
Part 23 amends the Telecommunications Act to make a carrier that is not a Canadian-owned and controlled corporation eligible to operate as a telecommunications common carrier if it owns or operates certain transmission facilities.
Part 24 amends the Employment Insurance Act to establish an account in the accounts of Canada to be known as the Employment Insurance Operating Account and to close the Employment Insurance Account and remove it from the accounts of Canada. It also repeals sections 76 and 80 of that Act and makes consequential amendments in relation to the creation of the new Account. This Part also makes technical amendments to clarify provisions of the Budget Implementation Act, 2008 and the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act that deal with the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the Conservatives' latest omnibus budget legislation, Bill C-45, at report stage.

I will focus my remarks today on: one, how the New Democrats worked closely with and supported, helped, aided and abetted the Conservatives in their ramming of this omnibus bill through committee; two, a very dangerous precedent that was set at finance committee during the study of Bill C-45; and, three, some of the flaws in Bill C-45 that were identified by Canadians during the committee's study.

As members know, Bill C-45 is a mammoth bill. It is over 400 pages long and would amend over 60 different laws. It includes a large number of provisions that simply do not belong in a budget bill: rewriting the laws protecting Canada's waterways; redefining aboriginal fisheries, without even consulting first nations peoples; and eliminating the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission. These are just a few examples of what is in Bill C-45 and examples of measures that would really have nothing to do with the fiscal situation of the country.

Canadians overwhelmingly disapprove of the Conservatives' use of omnibus budget bills to ram a large number of unrelated measures through Parliament without sufficient study or debate. A recent poll by Forum Research shows that 64% of Canadians oppose the Conservatives' omnibus legislative approach. Even a majority of Conservative supporters oppose the Conservatives' use, overuse and abuse of omnibus bills.

The Prime Minister once opposed the use of omnibus bills, but under his watch we have seen a clear trend toward the use of omnibus legislation. In fact, Bill C-13 in 2006 was 198 pages; Bill C-28 in 2007 was 378 pages; Bill C-10 in 2009 was 552 pages; Bill C-9 in 2010 was 904 pages; Bill C-13 in 2011 was 658 pages; and Bill C-38 earlier this year was 452 pages.

To put this in context, the largest Liberal budget bill was Bill C-28 in 2003, which was 144 pages in length, and it focused on fiscal measures, not on unrelated measures.

I will also speak about the NDP in this case. The NDP actually helped the Conservatives in passing Bill C-45 as quickly as possible through committee. The New Democrats say that they oppose Bill C-45 and they say that they oppose closure. However, their actions speak louder than their words. While they talk the talk, they do not walk the walk when it comes to actually standing up to the Conservatives and their abuse of Parliament. Instead of standing up to the Conservatives and providing any real opposition to Bill C-45, the New Democrats have actually been helping the Conservatives.

Here are a few examples. The New Democrats voted with the Conservatives to impose time allocation to limit the debate on Bill C-45 at committee. The New Democrats voted with the Conservatives to overrule the finance committee chair, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, a chair who is respected by all members of the House for his judgment. To have him rebuked by his own colleagues was bad and it was terrible to see the New Democrats gang up with the Conservatives against the member for Edmonton—Leduc. The New Democrats voted with the Conservatives to throw out the rules at committee and to shut down opposition to Bill C-45. The New Democrats then gave up one of their votes at finance committee and worked out a schedule with the Conservatives so the finance committee could get through Bill C-45 as quickly as possible. The New Democrats voted with the Conservatives almost 2,000 times at the finance committee to oppose measures that could have delayed certain parts of Bill C-45.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

It's important that I clarify this because that's the problem with people who have outside interests. I just ask that we be very clear about both sides of the story.

When we talk about third-party delivery, I appreciate that Mr. Bergevin said he doesn't take issue with that, as long as there are rules. The rules are there. The inspectors are accredited. There are no two ways about it. That is clear.

I also want to correct the record with regard to the size of the budget bill. Let's get to the facts. Bill C-10, which was Budget 2009, was bigger than this one. Bill C-9, Budget 2010, BIA number two, was 880 pages. Bill C-13, Budget 2011, BIA number one, was 644 pages. They were all bigger than this one. This is not unusual in any way, shape or form.

These studies are done over years. One of the witnesses mentioned that. I just want to make that clear so Canadians understand the full picture on some of these issues.

Opposition Motion—Closure and Time Allocation

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will share my time with the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

I find it a little sad that, with this government, we always start with the end instead of the beginning. Regardless of what we may think, this government does what it wants and cares little about parliamentary procedures and tradition.

Since the last election, we are seeing too much abuse. This government is abusing its majority, thinking that with the support of 39% of Canadians it can do anything. And this is an inflated number because it does not include the 40% of Canadians who did not vote. So, it is not even 30% of Canadians who supported the government. Therefore, it should at least respect the opinion of all Canadians. It is not the first time that we raise this issue.

Today, we are talking about the government cutting debate short after introducing a bill, and not even after several hours of debate. This government has shown repeatedly its contempt for our institutions. In the case of Senate appointments, it has also shown that it does not respect its own promises. Indeed, the government had committed to appointing only elected senators. However, two weeks after the election, the Prime Minister not only appointed to the Senate individuals who had lost their election, but he did so without consulting the provinces, as he had promised to do.

Recently, we saw that this government had even set criteria to appoint an officer of Parliament. I am not going to get into details, but there were two basic and very simple criteria to select the Auditor General. First, the individual had to be an accountant and, second, he or she had to be bilingual. This government ignored the fact that the appointee had to be bilingual and it hired an accountant who had some experience in a small province. We can already see the abuse of power.

As we have seen so far, there is always a double standard with this government. We believe the government is abusing its power by constantly resorting to closure to avoid debate. That is the only motive we can find today. It has already done it close to ten times over a period of a few weeks, when none of the bills involved were urgent.

We have seen time allocation invoked on six out of 10 bills. That does not mean time allocation has been invoked 6 times. It means time allocation has been invoked on 6 bills at different stages. Just so that listeners are aware of how many stages a bill would go through, normally a bill would go through second reading, report stage and third reading. If we multiply six bills times three, that would be 18 times that the government could potentially invoke time allocation. To date, we have a calculation of about 10, so we can look forward to seeing more of these bills undergoing time allocation for the next few steps.

The government House leader has stated that the issues on the government's legislative agenda so far this session have been discussed in detail since the government took office. I do not understand it.

The point is that during the elections the Conservative government made promises. However, if we look at the makeup of the House, at least 40% of the members are new parliamentarians, so this debate never took place. Also, what was said during the election campaign was not necessarily in a legislative format. Our job as parliamentarians is to debate these pieces of legislation.

That brings me to another subject, one that is not necessarily tied into the debate today. I am a member of the scrutiny of regulations committee, and we see that if legislation is not properly worded, then a lot of this legislation and, in turn, a lot of its regulations get bogged down. We then have things that are not necessarily clear, Canadians are not happy with how the legislation is worded, and the courts have to get involved. It is all just a churning of bureaucracy and a waste of money.

The claim that the government has already consulted Canadians is far from what the government has actually done. It has not consulted Canadians.

It is saying that three or four hours of debate it is sufficient for a bill. However, let us look at some of the bills that have been tabled. As an exaple, the budget is made up of 600 pages of legislation. It is a government omnibus bill. As a lawyer, I sat in on some of the committee hearings and I can tell members that it was not the easiest thing to follow. I just cannot imagine how a couple of hours of debate would suffice for a proposed bill that is going to affect all Canadians, not just the criminals. It will affect all Canadians, because one day they will have to deal with these issues, and if they do not have to go before a court of law, they will have to at least pay taxes to pay for all the costs that are going to be incurred in trying to monitor these pieces of legislation and put them into force.

We are trying to avoid just passing these pieces of legislation blindly. We are trying to ensure proper vigilance before these pieces of legislation are passed; however, that does not seem to be a valid argument for the government.

We in the Liberal Party are trying to do our job, but the government is making allegations that we are obstructing and we are using unreasonable amendments. I can understand the government's point of view, because sometimes the NDP acts irrationally and tries to filibuster and makes ridiculous amendments. However, I think the Liberal Party has made pretty reasonable amendments up to now. We have been first up to bat on making amendments on proposed bills. I think that we have done our job, but the government refuses to allow us to continue to do our jobs. We want the public, whether it be experts or third parties who are affected by these bills, to come forward to testify and make suggestions so that we can actually make these bills work properly.

Let us look at some of the bills for which time allocation has been introduced. The budget implementation bill was introduced and read for the first time on June 14; there was time allocation at all stages, and it was voted on June 15.

This is nothing new. Budget implementation bills are introduced twice every year, plus the budget. The budget implementation bill is not a partisan issue. It is normally the bill that introduces the legislation to put the budget into application.

Usually it is technical. It requires people affected by the budget to provide us with their input and tell us what changes they would like to see; if there are no changes, they at least come forward to give us their interpretation of that particular bill.

In the past, whether it was a majority government or a minority government, we have always been able to get consensus on how many hours of debate we needed in the House and in committee. However, the government seems to be using its majority at will and is just punching the legislation through. It has done that for the two budget bills, Bill C-9 and Bill C-13.

On Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, the Conservatives invoked time allocation not only in the House but in committee as well. I was there. They suddenly said that they did not want to hear what we had to say. They had made up their minds. It was impossible that they would need opinions from experts. They did not even have to hear from the bar association. They did not even have to hear from the provinces.

Even though members from the province of Quebec had numerous valid amendments to introduce into the bill, the government had already decided it was not going to listen to anyone. I understand that the NDP had numerous amendments that were not relevant to the case and had to be rejected, but my colleague, the member for Mount Royal, introduced some pretty important amendments that were backed up by Minister Fournier from the Quebec government. We are going to have report stage next week, and I am hoping that the government can change its mind and adopt some of the amendments.

With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, it was not a matter of procedure. Again, that was just rammed through. These farmers are working, and they do not have the time to come here and be notified because everything has to be rammed through.

I see my time is up. I am hoping that I will have some good questions and that I can continue.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

I'm now going to talk about FINTRAC, where we ultimately find people who analyze cases. You were clear, in fact, that since last year, with Bill C-9, tax evasion is being more formally targeted and it is more your responsibility to monitor it. You also said that you have had special training from the Canada Revenue Agency for analyzing those cases.

Since you have been doing a precise analysis of it, has that opened up a new area of activity where there is the potential for picking up on cases that should be examined in depth?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very impressed with Inspector Rudderham's reputation. We in the police service in Winnipeg are very familiar with the work he's done in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

I'm going to have to tailor some of my questions; I'll ask them when you come back and we'll be in camera. But I do want to ask you, sir—because we only have seven minutes—with your experience in the proceeds of crime world, money laundering, etc., if you have some recommendations to improve the system, I would ask that you share those with us here and now.

We have listened to the police services across the country, and that's why Bill C-9 has come about. I believe that this is a tool that you are able to use now. What would you suggest that we, as the lawmakers, could do to improve the ability to target these tax havens and these tax evaders?

[Assistant Commissioner Stephen White, Director General, Financial Crime, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you very much for inviting us to participate in today's hearing.

I have here with me today Superintendent Stephen Foster, who oversees our commercial crime branch at our headquarters in Ottawa, and Inspector Dave Rudderham, who oversees our commercial crime unit in the city of Winnipeg. I am the director general for the RCMP's financial crime programs.

I'm pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words about financial crime, our involvement related to income-tax-related investigations, and our ongoing relationship with the Canada Revenue Agency.

In today's complex and increasingly global environment, criminal activity often involves multiple jurisdictions. Criminals today are becoming much more sophisticated in disguising their illegal profits without compromising themselves. Criminals are now taking advantage of the globalization of the world economy by transferring funds quickly across international borders. Rapid developments in financial information, technology, and communication allow money to move anywhere in the world with speed and ease, making it much more difficult for law enforcement scrutiny and providing criminal organizations new financial avenues. As a result, addressing increasingly complex transnational financial crimes requires law enforcement to work closely together with domestic and international partners.

Generally, tax evasion involves individuals or companies attempting to conceal income earned from taxation authorities. This same increasingly connected global environment also creates significant opportunities for tax evasion-related activities. In August 2010, Bill C-9 amended the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, making tax evasion a designated predicate offence for money laundering. In other words, tax evasion is a criminal offence that, if committed, could give rise to criminal proceeds—the evaded taxes. In addition, laundering the proceeds of tax evasion will also be a money laundering offence.

Unlike the Canada Revenue Agency, the RCMP is not a primary recipient of tax evasion information. CRA has its own investigative capacity and is well positioned to investigate tax evasion. As a result, the RCMP generally does not investigate income tax evasion related to legitimate funds earning income offshore.

When the RCMP does identify activity related to income tax matters, it is almost always incidental to an investigation we are conducting on another matter. When feasible, matters are referred to the CRA for their action.

The RCMP commercial crime and integrated proceeds of crime programs have long had a close working relationship with the Canada Revenue Agency. The working relationship between the CRA and the RCMP commercial crime program dates back to the early 1970s, and the integrated proceeds of crime units have been working closely with the CRA since they were created in the mid-1990s. The RCMP may share information with the CRA; however, the RCMP only shares information with the CRA when it is permitted by law and the sharing will not jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation.

Information sharing between the Canada Revenue Agency and the RCMP as it relates to income tax matters is generally from the RCMP to the CRA. The Canada Revenue Agency does not generally make referrals to the RCMP. When requested by CRA investigators, the RCMP does provide assistance to them. In some instances, tax-related information may be provided by the Canada Revenue Agency to the RCMP pursuant to a judicial order under the Criminal Code or after charges have been laid in relation to a criminal investigation.

Through the RCMP integrated proceeds of crime program, the RCMP regularly shares and refers information to the Canada Revenue Agency regarding tax-related matters. Between March 1999 and March 2009, the RCMP proceeds of crime program made referrals to the Canada Revenue Agency that resulted in federal tax assessments totalling approximately $145 million.

In preparation for this appearance, we conducted a search of the RCMP's occurrence records and found that for the same 10-year period, from 1999 to 2009, the RCMP initiated 542 files related to the Income Tax Act. These files pertained primarily to providing assistance to the Canada Revenue Agency.

Within the RCMP financial crime program we currently do not have any investigative resources dedicated solely to tax evasion. However, with the recent legislative amendments I just mentioned, the future may see the RCMP becoming more involved in investigating tax evasion connected to proceeds of crime and money laundering.

As I indicated earlier, the changing environment is one of the greatest challenges we face in our efforts to combat all types of financial crime. The growing sophistication of criminal activity is abetted by the same techniques and technologies that spur legitimate opportunities for business.

As Canada's national police service, the RCMP recognizes that it has an important role to play in combatting financial crime and helping to protect Canada's economic integrity.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, that concludes my prepared remarks. I would now be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[Denis Meunier, Assistant Director, Financial Analysis and Disclosures, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to make a brief opening remark about FINTRAC's mandate and what we do.

With me today is our senior legal counsel, Yvon Carrière.

The legislation adopted by Parliament in 2000, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, created FINTRAC as an independent agency reporting to the Minister of Finance with a mandate to detect, deter, and prevent money laundering. In 2001, post-9/11, the Anti-terrorism Act added combatting terrorist activity financing to our mandate.

FINTRAC is Canada's financial intelligence unit, or FIU. We have a staff of slightly over 300, and we have three regional offices in addition to our headquarters.

We are a unique agency in Canada, as our mandate is both to analyze financial transaction information and disclose certain information to investigators within the thresholds, and to provide strategic-level financial intelligence.

The Minister of Finance is responsible to Parliament for our act and for making proposals for amendments to the act and the regulations made under it.

I think it is important to clarify exactly what money laundering is. The Financial Action Task Force, or FATF, defines money laundering as the processing of the proceeds of criminal acts to disguise their illegal origin. In essence, money laundering makes it more complicated to identify the criminal origin of the money, which is now clean. That is where we come in.

Under Canadian law, a money laundering offence involves various acts committed with the intention to conceal or convert property or the proceeds of property, such as money, knowing or believing that these were derived from the commission of a designated offence.

In this context, a designated offence means most serious offences under the Criminal Code or any other federal act. It includes, but is not limited to, those relating to illegal drug trafficking, bribery, fraud, forgery, murder, robbery, counterfeit money, stock manipulation, and, since very recently, tax evasion.

To give you the most accurate picture of our agency, I would also underline what FINTRAC is not. We are not an investigative body. We do not have powers to gather evidence, lay charges, seize and freeze assets, or create watch lists of suspect terrorist financiers. FINTRAC does not investigate or prosecute suspected offences.

Rather, we are an analytic body that produces financial intelligence to be disclosed, if appropriate, to help further investigations conducted by law enforcement and security agencies and to provide strategic-level analysis to policy departments and assessment agencies.

Because we hold millions of financial transaction records of Canadians, Parliament wanted to ensure that the act was drafted quite carefully to be very specific and clear on what information we can receive and what information we can disclose. The act stipulates that we can only release information to police where we have reasonable grounds to suspect that the information would be relevant to an investigation or prosecution of a money-laundering offence or a terrorist activity financing offence.

Furthermore, the act requires that, once FINTRAC has reached that "reasonable grounds to suspect" threshold, it must disclose that information. In the same way, once FINTRAC has reasonable grounds to suspect that certain information would be relevant to threats to the security of Canada, the act stipulates it must disclose that information to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Our job, in brief, is to provide financial intelligence leads to law enforcement and to national security and intelligence agencies. We are a resource for every police department in Canada, with a unique ability to follow the criminal money trail across the country and around the world.

We also disclose information to the Canada Revenue Agency, the Canada Border Services Agency and the Communications Security Establishment when specific additional statutory tests in relation to disclosure to these agencies are met. Finally, we may disclose information to foreign financial intelligence units, as well.

Our work begins with the daily intake of over 65,000 reports on several kinds of financial transactions from a variety of businesses, which we call reporting entities. The most prominent of these entities are banks; however, we also receive reports from casinos, credit unions, life insurance companies, and money service businesses, not to give you an exhaustive list, but all of whom are obligated by the act to send reports to us.

We received several categories of reports. We are required by law to receive terrorist property reports, suspicious transaction reports, or STRs, and reports of attempted suspicious transactions, large cash transaction reports of $10,000 or more, or LCTRs, casino disbursement reports, and reports of international electronic funds transfers, or EFTs, of $10,000 or more. When I say “international”, I mean EFTs entering or leaving the country. We are not authorized to receive reports of domestic EFTs.

Over the years we have built a very large database of these different types of transaction reports. Through sophisticated computer programs and the skills of highly trained and experienced analysts, we can analyze this data from both a tactical and strategic perspective and understand it in combination with information from other sources, such as law enforcement databases, commercially or publicly available databases, and sometimes information from foreign financial intelligence units.

We specifically look for financial transactions and patterns that make us suspect money laundering or terrorist activity financing. As you can imagine, the movement of illicit funds is often a well-hidden and complex affair, involving hundreds and sometimes even thousands of transactions, as well as dozens of individuals and companies.

I would like to note that our act was carefully crafted to provide the highest possible protection for personal information, while also making it possible for some information to be disclosed to law enforcement.

We are the only federal agency whose mandate specifically includes an obligation to ensure the protection of personal information under its control. Our data banks cannot be accessed by any other outside body. And the act provides for serious criminal penalties to be applied to the unauthorized disclosure of information.

Now let me turn to the subject of interest to this committee, that is, tax evasion by Canadians through use of offshore bank accounts.

In the last two years, we have stepped up our disclosures to the Canada Revenue Agency, sending them 287 cases. These disclosures have been used for criminal investigation into tax matters and also by their Special Enforcement Program, which targets those persons suspected of deriving taxable income from such crimes as commercial fraud and drug trafficking. We know from feedback from CRA that our disclosures have been useful to them in carrying out their investigations and audits and recovering millions in federal taxes.

Until just recently, FINTRAC could provide case disclosures to the Canada Revenue Agency when a dual threshold was met. First, there had to be a reasonable suspicion that the information being disclosed was relevant to money laundering, and secondly, a determination had to be made that the information was relevant to tax evasion.

In the cases we disclosed to the CRA in the past, the predicate offence was very often linked to drug trafficking or fraud. I might add that in these cases the police are the lead investigators, and the culprits are usually investigated in relation to the predicate offence and money laundering. In other words, the law did not permit us to use tax evasion as a predicate offence, that is, the criminal activity giving rise to the proceeds from which to build a case disclosure.

With the recent adoption of Bill C-9, we are now permitted to use tax evasion as a predicate offence from which to build a case disclosure. The Criminal Code regulations were amended to make tax evasion a predicate offence to money laundering when determining whether to send a case to the CRA.

But equally important, just weeks ago, on February 14, pursuant to the coming into force of the regulations to the bill, the threshold for disclosing information to CRA was lowered from “determining” to “reasonable grounds to suspect” that the information being disclosed is relevant to tax evasion.

As you may know, we received additional funding in Budget 2010 to help fight tax evasion. FINTRAC analysts recently received in-depth training on the impact of these legislative and regulatory changes. Also, we received training from CRA specialists on tax evasion with respect to the work they do.

In cases of money laundering, we have developed what we call indicators of money laundering, which are used more or less by financial intelligence agencies around the world to determine money laundering. We have now done the same with tax evasion, through the assistance of CRA. Over the last three years we have worked with the Canada Revenue Agency to develop indicators of tax evasion that would help our analysts determine when cases could be referred to the CRA.

With the changes in the law, the additional funding, and with such training, we feel we are poised to provide more information to help tax investigators with their tax evasion cases.

Thank you.

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario Act

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on this bill, especially since this is my maiden speech in the House of Commons as Bloc Québécois critic for regional development.

From the outset, I should say that we are in favour of Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario. This new federal body’s mission will be to promote and develop Northern Ontario, just like the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec does in Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois stands up for Quebec’s interests. It is in this spirit that we previously voted against Bill C-9, an Act to create the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois, just like Quebec governments for the past 45 years or more, believe that to formulate an integrated regional development policy, Quebec must be master of its own regional development programs.

The regions are the ones with the solutions. There are organizations in Quebec dedicated to regional socio-economic development. They are capable of effectively advising the minister regarding regional needs and of overseeing program implementation. One need only think of the Centres locaux de développement, the CLDs, and the Conférences régionales des élus, the CREs. It is for these reasons that the Bloc Québécois has consistently been in favour of decentralization in this area.

We know that not all governments share the same priorities, and despite instances of flagrant encroachment in the past, should the government of Ontario decide to favour this kind of organizational structure for its regional economies, the Bloc Québécois would be very hard pressed to oppose it.

In 2009, the government created the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. There is still no equivalent agency for Northern Ontario. Northern Ontario does have FedNor, an equivalent program that essentially shares the same objectives as an agency. The main difference however is that FedNor is the responsibility of the Minister of Industry, who can amend its budget as he sees fit. Agencies, on the other hand, are independent and have ministers of state, as is the case with the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

In actual fact, the reason for creating the economic development agency of Canada for the region of northern Ontario is to transform the FedNor program into an agency that would then be more independent of the government’s budgetary decisions, as currently exists in Quebec and in other regions served by agencies.

The Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario or FedNor has existed since 1987. Its purpose is to encourage economic growth and diversification and the generation of jobs and incomes in northern Ontario by providing support for private sector projects.

Even though the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill, a regional development strategy necessarily includes such diverse things as natural resources, education and training, municipal affairs, infrastructure and settlement of the land, which all fall under provincial jurisdiction. In fact, the Constitution makes the provinces responsible for most of the issues involved in regional development.

From 1973 to 1994, there was a framework agreement between Quebec City and Ottawa. Both governments had to agree, or else Ottawa could not do anything. Most federal government funding passed through Quebec agencies. But since 1994, the federal government has been acting unilaterally.

No more co-operation with the Government of Quebec. No more respect for its priorities and the priorities of the regions. This is very unfortunate and even unacceptable.

Following the passage of Bill C-9 in 2005, the federal government appointed a minister responsible for the regions of Quebec. The result has been more quarrels between Quebec City and Ottawa, more duplication, more confusion, a federal government obsession with raising its profile in the regions, and most of all, less respect for the priorities of Quebec and its regions.

Ottawa should stop interfering in Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction and instead start working together with Quebec on determining all federal economic priorities that have an impact on Quebec, while taking into account the economic development priorities of the regions.

Having seen how obviously ineffective the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec actually is, we wonder what use such an institution would be for northern Ontario. The Bloc Québécois would like to warn the Ontario government of the possible harmful consequences of the federal government's integrated, centralized approach.

Take a concrete example. In April 2007, the then Minister of Labour and of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec announced a measure that was heavy with consequences for local groups, such as not-for-profit organizations, working in the area of economic development. He eliminated their grants. Here is an excerpt from the Jonquière newspaper, Le Quotidien, of April 28, 2007:

The Economic Development Agency of Canada will no longer provide operating funding for non-profit organizations that work in economic development and will no longer fund pure research.

However, these non-profit organizations play an important role for small and medium-size businesses. They support innovation and the development of international markets. They have become an essential link in the local economic fabric in many regions in Quebec.

As a result of increased pressure by many economic stakeholders in Quebec, the federal government reversed its decision to some degree by creating a new policy concerning non-profit organizations and partially restoring some funding for those organizations. In fact, nearly a quarter of the non-profit organizations that had received funding in 2007 could reapply.

The Bloc Québécois fiercely opposed cuts to the non-profit organizations that had been subsidized in part by the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and were active in the economic sector. This absurd situation calls into question the economic development model that Quebec has been requesting for several decades. Since it is an inappropriate measure that is extremely prejudicial to the economic fabric of the regions of Quebec, it could result in the loss of some jobs in local communities.

I would like to close by saying that the Bloc Québécois does not oppose the will of the Government of Ontario and that we support Bill C-309.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in the debate on the motion to prevent debate on the content and substance of Bill C-59. I find it rather odd that the Bloc has supported the government's attempt to stifle any attempt at debate on the substance of this bill.

No one in the House can accuse the Liberals of not supporting the idea of eliminating parole eligibility after one-sixth of the sentence is served for economic crimes. Two years ago, my colleague from Bourassa, our candidate in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert and our member for Lac-Saint-Louis participated in a press conference with several of Earl Jones' victims to call on the government to quickly bring forward a bill to eliminate parole eligibility after one-sixth of the sentence is served, especially for criminals who commit major fraud and have multiple victims.

No one can accuse the Liberals of not supporting that idea. I think it is really dishonest of the government to make that kind of accusation when it knows very well what the Liberals' position is. This was pointed out by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Now I would like to talk about the debate and the fact that the Conservatives and the Bloc members want to limit the scope of the debate. Just seven months ago the members of the Bloc rose in the House to criticize the government for doing the exact same thing it is doing now with Bill C-59. The government moved a motion to block debate.

Last June, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain rose in the House to criticize the government for moving a motion to block debate on the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. The Bloc member for Hochelaga also rose to oppose a government motion to block debate on Bill C-9, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, by imposing time allocation.

We are opposed to this time allocation motion because we believe that Bill C-59 addresses a very important issue. Furthermore, for two years now, the Liberals have been calling on the government to eliminate parole eligibility after one-sixth of the sentence is served for economic crimes like those committed by Earl Jones, Vincent Lacroix and others.

I think it is a shame that some would have people believe that the Liberals do not want to protect victims. That is simply not true. When the government introduced Bill C-21 on economic crimes and it was referred to committee, the Liberal justice critic proposed an amendment to the bill to eliminate eligibility for parole after one-sixth of the sentence in cases of economic crime. The Conservatives and the Bloc defeated the motion.

Every MP is entitled to his or her opinion on bills that we are called on to debate in the House. It is a fundamental aspect of the democratic process. The operative word here is “debate”, and the collusion between the Conservatives and the Bloc is preventing us from acting as responsible parliamentarians.

We would like to hear from experts. We want to know how this bill will truly address a gap in the law, how it will do justice to victims, how this bill will improve the chances of rehabilitation for those who once lost control of their lives.

Perhaps we should indeed eliminate parole after one-sixth of a sentence for offenders who have committed serious economic crimes and left a number of victims.

However, for non-violent criminal acts that are not fraud, we believe that evidence has shown that parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been very effective and that the rate of recidivism is much lower.

We will never know what the experts might have said since this closure motion eliminates any chance to consult experts. With this government so eager to control everything, it has become somewhat of a tradition to just pass a bill without any idea of the facts that might call it into question.

The Liberals are against this closure motion. It is not justified, and we regret that the Bloc has decided to join the Conservatives to limit the debate on this bill. As far as the substance of the bill is concerned, in the past and still today, no one could accuse the Liberals of not showing their support for eliminating parole after one-sixth of the sentence for economic crimes.

In order to illustrate the government's intellectual dishonesty, I would like to present a chronology of the Conservatives' failures in their so-called fight against crime.

I am referring here to the various bills that have died on the order paper for all sorts of reasons or that have remained in the House or at committee indefinitely.

Here they are. Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued; Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), died on the order paper before the House had a chance to vote on it; Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime), also died on the order paper. It is certainly not the opposition that forced the government to prorogue Parliament.

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, died on the order paper, and Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, on the faint hope clause, died on the order paper before being brought back this session. One committee meeting was held on Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, before it died on the order paper. Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), which is related to Bill C-59, the bill we are dealing with today, died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued. Bill C-58, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, died on the order paper. The prorogation of Parliament killed many bills.

Among the bills introduced by the Minister of Public Safety was Bill C-34, the Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act, which also died on the order paper. The bill to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act died on the order paper. Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code, died on the order paper. Bill C-47, An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations, died on the order paper. Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole review) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, died on the order paper. Bill C-60, An Act to implement the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, died on the order paper.

To date, no meetings have been held to discuss Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code. Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions), was given first reading 51 days after Parliament was prorogued, and the committee still has not met to discuss that bill.

Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud), was fast-tracked at committee in just one meeting and still has not reached second reading. Bill C-22, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, was given first reading 64 days after Parliament was prorogued, and the government delayed it for 26 days at report stage because of the debate on the short title.

Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, was given first reading 89 days after Parliament was prorogued, and we are still waiting for the next step. Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (interception of private communications and related warrants and orders), was given first reading after 94 days, and we are still waiting. First reading of An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act took place 243 days after Parliament was prorogued. Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), was given first reading and nothing more.

Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences against children) only made it to first reading. Bill C-5, An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act was introduced at first reading by the Minister of Public Safety 15 days after prorogation. Two committee meetings were held and nothing has happened since. As for Bill C-23B, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, we are still waiting. After a few meetings on the subject, the minister was supposed to come back with amendments that he felt were necessary in order to make the bill more comprehensive and definitely more respectful. Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts was introduced for first reading 104 days after prorogation and we still have not met in committee to discuss it. Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act was introduced for first reading 232 days after prorogation and there it remains. Bill C-52, An Act regulating telecommunications facilities to support investigations was also introduced for first reading 243 days after prorogation and we are waiting for the next step. The Senate introduced Bill S-7, An Act to deter terrorism and to amend the State Immunity Act for first reading 49 days after prorogation and we are still waiting for the next step. Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts was introduced for first reading in the Senate 60 days after prorogation. Bill S-13, An Act to implement the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America was introduced for first reading 237 days after prorogation.

I am pointing this out to prove that it is not the opposition parties that are slowing the process down. For all sorts of unknown reasons, the government introduces these bill and then goes no further with them.

To conclude, I would like to question the justification for Bill C-59 and the fact that the Conservatives and the Bloc felt this was urgent enough to warrant this closure motion, which is an affront to parliamentary dialogue.

[Lorraine Berzins]

I don't have it here with me. We also appeared before the Senate committee on the same issue. It was on the mandatory minimums as well as the conditional sentencing issues: Bills C-10 and C-9, back then.

Pensions

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear from constituents about Bill C-428, the private member's bill from the Liberal member for Brampton—Springdale.

My constituents are outraged about a Liberal bill that would raise taxes to give a pension to someone who has only been a resident of Canada for three years. They want to know how the Liberals could justify raising taxes to give a pension to someone who has done little or nothing to earn it.

While the Liberals will have to answer for this in the next election, the Conservatives already have good news for Canadian pensioners. Our Conservative government's Bill C-9, which passed in July, reforms our pension system and has made the retirements of millions of Canadians more secure. Now employers can contribute more to workers' pensions and pensions are better protected in law.

While the Liberals are busy scheming to raise taxes, the Conservatives are working hard to improve the lives of Canadian seniors.

Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Bloc Québécois support the Conservative government's budget policies, but it is also a little surprising. In fact, we have often stood alongside the Bloc to denounce, for example, the theft from the employment insurance fund. Bills C-9 and C-47 are spinoffs of this. The employment insurance fund is in there. For example, they are imposing new airline security taxes, which are inflating airline ticket prices in Canada. The Bloc is supporting that. There is a new regulation concerning the harmonized sales tax. The Bloc has not done anything to obtain compensation for Quebec for the harmonization it has already undertaken in this area. We are very surprised to hear the member for Holchega kowtow to the Conservatives once again and support the government's budget policies. We are very surprised by that.

Let us take a look at what is in Bill C-47, which the Bloc is supporting, and in the Conservative government's economic policy. Everything that happen in politics happens in a certain context. I would like to read a Reuters article from today, which was written by business journalist, Louise Egan.

I will read from this article from Reuters entitled “Canada record-high current account gap spurs worry”.

Louise Egan says this on behalf of Reuters:

Canada entered the club of countries with oversized current account deficits in the third quarter, posting the biggest shortfall on record as its worsening trade profile heralded a further slowdown in economic growth.

That is today.

Statistics Canada said on Monday:

The country's eighth consecutive quarterly shortfall in the current account--a measure of transactions in goods, services and investment income--totaled C$17.54 billion...compared with a revised second-quarter gap of C$12.98 billion.

Analysts surveyed by Reuters had forecast $15 billion.

What is interesting to note is that we are getting observations from people like Doug Porter at BMO Capital Markets, who said “Canada suddenly finds its broadest trade deficit in the company of countries that have typically been cited as extravagant over-spenders/under-savers”. He also said, “This may prove to be a passing phase but it is in fact an early warning that the country may be living beyond its means”.

In the days leading up to the G20 summit of the world's leading emerging and advanced economies, the U.S. treasury proposed capping current account surpluses and deficits at 4% as a way of achieving a better balance between surplus nations like China and debt ridden importers like the United States. We are above that 4% right now.

What we have to look at is how this fits into the overall budgetary plan of the Conservatives, such as it is. That is probably more of a compliment than they deserve to even mention the word plan when discussing the tragedy that has been visited upon the Canadian economy in the past five years since the Conservatives came to power.

We occupy the second largest land mass in the world and we have only 35 million people to try to give that value. That has always required the understanding of a government that placed value on the creation of jobs, on the creation of long-term growth and on the idea that we would try to go into those sectors of the economy that were the most forward-looking and the most productive. The Conservatives will have none of that.

The Conservative ideology is that anyone who seeks to have the government take a look at the economy, to balance it out and to have it grow long-term and make sense in some way is trying to pick winners. Their central thesis is a pristine marketplace that effectuates the best choices in all circumstances.

What we have had is an across the board tax cut being proposed by the Conservatives since they arrived in power. That is their panacea. That will solve all the problems. There is one slight difficulty with that. Any company, especially in the manufacturing field, that was not making a profit had not paid any taxes, so they did not get anything from the Conservatives tax decreases. The most profitable companies received those tax decreases, companies in the oil sector. The banking sector saw the same thing.

We will see a bit later this week the most recent quarter of bank profits, but for the first nine months of this year, Canada's chartered banks made $15 billion in profit. That is not because they are clever managers. It is because they have a quasi monopoly and they can charge people basically whatever they want, especially since the Conservatives came into power. Paying 25% on a credit card is no problem. Banks gouge customers every time they go to the banking machine. No problem. Why not? As far as the Conservatives are concerned it is normal to give a tip to the bank president every time someone accesses money at an ATM.

The real problem is the Conservatives have been destabilizing the erstwhile balanced economy that Canada had so painstakingly built up since the second world war. They are doing it by giving these across the board tax cuts, blind to any notion of productivity, blind to any notion of the creation of stable, long-term jobs which would allow people to raise a family. That is a thing of the past. As far as Conservatives are concerned, the market can decide.

When companies like Encana and Enbridge get millions of dollars in windfall because they have had a reduction in their taxes, we are still hollowing out the manufacturing sector. We are superheating the petroleum sector, bringing in an artificially high number of U.S. dollars, putting increasing pressure on the Canadian dollar, something that the textbooks refer to as “the Dutch disease”. This was after the situation that existed in Holland in the 1960s where the discovery of gas meant that a large number of foreign currencies were coming into the country, pushing the guilder ever higher. All of a sudden the Dutch realized that what was supposed to be manna from heaven was in fact destroying their economy because they could no longer afford to export their goods.

When we look at today's StatsCan figures, we realize the only thing that Canadian companies are spending is on equipment coming in from other countries. We can no longer produce on a competitive basis. Our manufacturing sector is being hollowed out. It is interesting to note that StatsCan, shortly after the Conservatives came to power, almost in a defensive statement, which I have never seen anything like it from StatsCan, said Canada was not suffering from the “Dutch disease”. When somebody bothers to use a term like that and then to affirm that it does not apply, my radar is automatically starting to ping. Why is it even mentioning it if it is not the case? That statement was made in 2006.

Between 2004 and 2008, in other words in 2008 before the current crisis hit, StatsCan put out new figures that showed precisely the opposite of what it had affirmed two years earlier. Between 2004 and 2008, Canada, mostly in Ontario and Quebec the industrial heartland, had bled off 322,000 good paying manufacturing jobs. The prime reason for that was we failed to internalize the costs of the oil sands. Instead of taking the fiscal space that was available and trying to help those sectors of the economy that needed it the most, we were giving the money to those sectors of the economy that were already making the largest profits.

How did we create the fiscal space for the $60 billion in tax increases that had been given to Canada's most profitable corporations? It is not very complicated. The Conservatives finished off the job started by the Liberals. They took $57 billion out of the employment insurance account and transferred it to general revenues of the government. A lot of people would look at that and say “so what, who cares”, that it was government money before and it government money after, but there is a huge difference. Every company, whether they were making money or losing money, had paid into that EI account as had every employee. We had that $57 billion purpose built, dedicated to take care of the inevitable cyclical aspect of the job market in Canada and when the recession hit, there would be money there to pay people employment insurance benefits.

The Conservatives cleaned out the account and now there was no more money there. There is going to be a $15 billion deficit that is going to have to be paid back again by all companies. Whether they are making profits or not or whether they are paying taxes or not, they are going to have this payroll tax for every job in their companies. That is what the Conservatives did. They created that fiscal space to give the tax decreases to the most profitable corporations by looting the employment insurance account, by taking the money that was there to create the fiscal space to do it.

When we talk about sustainable development, the notion that comes most immediately to mind is the environmental aspect. That is after all the driving force behind the United Nations report by Brundtland, the former prime minister of Norway. He put together this important report with a view to the Rio summit in 1992. That was a way of saying every time the government had to come to a decision with regard to a problem, it had to look at not only the environmental but also at the social and economic aspects.

As we have cleaned out the manufacturing sector in Canada, we have shovelled forward onto the backs of future generations not only the environmental debt, which I will talk about in a minute with regard to the tar sands, but we have shovelled the financial and fiscal burden onto their backs. Hundreds of thousands of people will be coming to retirement in the next decades. They will no longer have a proper pension plan. At least in the manufacturing sectors those used to be provided for. We have seen what has happened to companies like Nortel, but more generally, employers that take over companies in Canada with the complicit attitude of the Liberals especially and the Conservatives, the first thing they go after is the pension plan of their employees. That is for the social aspect.

However, let us look now at the long-term deficit with regard to the environment and how that is continuing to cause one of the biggest problems in the Canadian economy. One of the basic principles of sustainable development is we have to internalize the costs of the environment. These are basic principles like user pay, polluter pay. We have to ensure we look at the life cycle analysis of anything that is put on the market.

Right now we are as guilty as a company that is manufacturing a product that is pushing all of its garbage into a river and claiming that it is making a good profit because it can sell cheaper, the way we are developing the tar sands. Right now we have a way of developing them which means we are not cleaning up the mess, we are not including it in the price. We are not even including the price of attempts to go after carbon capture and storage. That is being left on the general tax burden on the backs of every Canadian.

We have an unusual situation. We claim that we have the strategic resource that we are exploiting in the public interest, but in fact we are leaving a huge environmental burden on the back of future generations in addition to the fiscal and financial burden.

I talked about the $57 billion looted from the EI account. I talked about the $60 billion in tax reductions for Canada's richest corporations. It is no coincidence that Conservatives have also racked up the largest deficit in Canadian history also to the tune of $60 billion, and the three are related.

If we continue like this, we will have hollowed out manufacturing sector, we will have become, for all intents and purposes, a third world country relying almost exclusively on the exploitation and extraction of resources that we pump to our neighbours as quickly as possible. That is not a figure of speech, that is literally the case.

Let us look at what we have done with the tar sands. There are projects like Keystone, Alberta Clipper, Southern Lights and we are putting in these pipelines. The Conservatives had them approved rapidly since they became government. They have scrapped the Navigable Waters Protection Act since they came to power. Just recently, they scrapped the whole environmental assessment process in Canada to send it over to the National Energy Board, which has no experience or expertise in the matter, to ensure these large energy projects get approved as quickly as possible.

Then the North American Free Trade Agreement moved in to provide its impetus in all of this. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, there is a proportionality clause that means, essentially, that once we have started exporting the raw bitumen in such large quantities to the United States, we cannot reduce the quantities we export unless we reduce what we send to ourselves.

An independent outside analysis of just one of those projects, the Keystone project, concluded that there were 18,000 jobs being exported to the U.S. at the same time. Like a third world country, we do not even add the value here. There is no processing. Nothing is added. There is no refining. We are not doing anything with it to create permanent, long-term jobs here. It is a shameful way of destabilizing the balanced economy that we have built up since the second world war.

The government has always argued that it is not what is really happening, that those of us who say that the government can and should play a role in building a stable economy are trying to pick winners. The Conservatives have chosen their winners and it is the oil companies and the banks. People are going to pay for those lousy choices. Instead of looking at the most productive jobs and the most forward-looking parts of the economy, things that could be helping us for the future, creating a system of green renewables across the country, that is all going to be lost.

We have had an extraordinary occasion for the past five years to do something for future generations, but the vituperative, closed, narrow-minded attitude of the Conservatives has meant that they spew their venom at those who want the government to do something right with the economy. They claim to be doing a good job, but today's Reuters article, which will be in various forms in all of the economic papers across Canada tomorrow, prove just the contrary, that what the NDP has been saying for years in the House, that the Conservatives are destroying the balanced economy that Canada built up since the second world war, is in fact true.

The NDP is not alone in saying that Canada is suffering from the Conservatives' political and economic choices. It is now proven by today's statistics from Statistics Canada. That is why the NDP has no issues with saying that Bill C-47 will never receive our support, no more than Bill C-9 will, because it reflects the Conservatives' overall budget policy.

Earlier, I listened patiently to the member for Hochelaga, who said that the NDP was going to vote against, but he did not know why. I will return the compliment to my friend and colleague, the member for Hochelaga, by saying that, aside from general remarks about Bill C-47—he seems to have plenty to draw on—it would have been nice if he had told us exactly which clauses in Bill C-9 he likes. Furthermore, with everything we now know about the awful consequences of emptying the employment insurance fund, how can he support a bill that deals yet another blow to employment insurance? How can he support a bill that imposes yet more taxes on people who buy airplane tickets? How can he stand there and vote on the harmonized value-added tax without saying a word about how Quebec was the first province to harmonize its taxes? I was in the National Assembly when that happened. When the maritime provinces later did the same thing, I was there, and I saw how Bernard Landry reacted, with good reason, by saying that Quebec had already harmonized its taxes and was entitled to the same compensation the maritime provinces received.

They said the rules had changed. Even though Quebec was the first, its harmonization was not the same as theirs, so only the maritime provinces would receive compensation. It just so happens that the maritime provinces were about to vote in a federal election, and the Liberals really needed their support.

Then the same thing happened in British Columbia and Ontario. We have already spoken out against that, and we know how the story played out. Still, they said that the rules had changed again.

For all of these reasons, the NDP will once again vote against the Conservative government's budget policies.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Okay.

I guess the last part is that if none of the things that are to be rewritten for Bill C-9 occur, does the impact of Bill C-501 change for you?

[Leigh Ann Bastien]

I can make a couple of observations, first about Bill C-501.

The stated intention for Bill C-501 is that the entire deficit become one held by a super-secured creditor. The words in Bill C-501 are less definite. I would say that when you're doing your clause-by-clause, it's very important to be sure that the words match what you think they ought to mean.

Bill C-501 refers to regulations made under the Pension Benefits Standards Act. It defines the liability that it's targeting by way of a regulation. Under Bill C-9 that regulation has yet to be rewritten; it's going to be rewritten.

So you have a moving landscape. That's my first observation.

Secondly, what we see in Bill C-9—in the statute itself, prior to seeing the regulation—is that there are special payments that are due up until the date of a plan termination. I think I heard a reference to this earlier today. Some think this is the intended scope of Bill C-501. But Bill C-9 introduced a new element to pension plan funding. That's an obligation to fully fund the deficit after a plan is terminated and to fully fund it over five years.

In my view, the language in Bill C-501 is not clear enough to tell me with any certainty that this liability has been excluded. In fact, I think you can even read it to say that the entire deficit is captured, even though Bill C-9 doesn't require a full deficit funding in one moment but requires it over five years.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask my question to Madame Bastien.

I know you were here in the previous session, so you may have heard me asking a question of Mr. Breton. It was concerning the issue of arrears and special payments. That seemed to be what Bill C-501 was addressing. I was asking how much effect that would have, really, on the markets. He brought in the fact that it wasn't just Bill C-501; it was also Bill C-9.

I heard you mention that you're familiar with Bill C-9, so I was wondering if you might shine some light on the linkage, to show why it's a bigger thing than perhaps I've appreciated.

[Ian Markham]

I'll just add to that point. We already have a number of actions taking place across the country. The federal government has already taken action through Bill C-9 and some regulations to enhance the funding of pension plans. We're seeing the same happening in various other jurisdictions. And I think it's inevitable that it will happen right across the country, curtailing the ability to take contribution holidays, curtailing the ability to give benefit increases when there's a poorly funded plan, and making actuarial valuations more frequent. So I'd say that things are already happening that are going to help.

[Leigh Ann Bastien, Partner, Mercer (Canada) Limited]

Thank you for the opportunity for Michel and me to speak today.

I'm Leigh Ann Bastien. I'm a pension lawyer. I have expertise in pension legislation across Canada, including the Pension Benefits Standards Act, as amended by Bill C-9.

Michel St-Germain is a pension actuary. He has 36 years of experience providing advice on the funding and design of employer pension plans.

Our statement today, in simple terms, is that defined benefit pension plans are good things. They deliver pensions to many people through most market downturns and through most downturns in an employer's business. But the retirement system is struggling. Governments are trying to strengthen the defined benefit pension plans and to strengthen the retirement system. Bill C-501 would work in the other direction, making plan sponsorship less viable for employers.

Private sector sponsors of defined benefit pension plans will likely change the funding and design of their plans or leave defined benefit plans entirely if the bankruptcy laws change to make the pension deficit a fully secured creditor.

I'll turn it over to Michel, who will provide more details.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Is that assuming the effect of both Bill C-501 and Bill C-9 and what it might imply, or is it strictly based on Bill C-501 and its focus on special payments?

[Douglas Rienzo]

I understand what you're saying and I understand that it could be interpreted to just apply to those payments, so there are two other concerns there. First of all, Parliament is already passing Bill C-9, which deals with other ways to strengthen the pension system, at least on the federal level.

There's a provision the bill which provides that if a company becomes bankrupt, then all the money needed to fund the deficit becomes immediately due and payable. So there's a balloon payment due on bankruptcy. The concern there is that Bill C-501, in combination with Bill C-9, could cause the entire deficit to be due right on bankruptcy, and therefore that super-priority could apply to the whole deficit. So there's a concern there.

The other concern is--

[William Amos]

I think that it is absolutely necessary to amend a whole range of environmental protection legislation at federal level. But I do not think it is realistic to have to wait for all that to happen.

In the review process for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, we had to wait from 2000 right up to 2003 before the changes were included in Bill C-9. The process leading to the creation of the Species at Risk Act took from 1995 to 2003. In my opinion, the same thing is happening with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Canadians see nothing efficient in waiting for each act to be reviewed, nor does that interest them. As Ms. McClenaghan has just mentioned, if it is possible to amend several acts at the same time and to make sure that they are enforced, it will greatly help us, all across Canada.

Alzheimer's Disease

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he was 80 years old and they had been married for 60 years. He kept his promise to her. He installed a hospital bed in their living room and for seven years he was her sole caregiver, bathing her, feeding her and carrying her upstairs to the washroom.

In another family, she was just 50 years old. Initially she made 20 mistakes playing cards in an evening. Then she showed poor coordination and clumsiness making a cup of tea. The doctor put it down to stress despite the fact that her mother was diagnosed at age 50 with Alzheimer's disease. Peripheral vision problems and general confusion meant that she was no longer allowed to drive. She had overwhelming frustration and fear.

The brain is the most vital organ in the human body. It makes our heart pump and our lungs breathe. It is the physical structure that makes us human and allows us to experience art, love, poetry and science. If the brain does not work properly, every aspect of life may be compromised.

One in three, or 10 million Canadians will be affected by a neurological or psychiatric disease, disorder or injury at some point in their lives. There are no cures for ALS, MS, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and no effective treatments that consistently slow or stop the course of these devastating neuro-degenerative diseases.

Statistics are neat, tidy and do not show the reality of those living with these diseases, people like my cousin who gradually lost the ability to walk, to work, to interact with her family and friends, people across this country who live with MS and who have the courage to battle their disease every day and to take on a new fight, the fight for the liberation treatment.

These diseases put a significant burden on Canadian families. My 70-year-old aunt is at her daughter's house at 6:30 a.m. to feed her, get her granddaughter off to school, ensure that the daily caregivers come to bathe her daughter, feed her and, at the end of a long day, put her to bed.

I came to Parliament to fight for neurological disease, to fight to end suffering through more research for treatment, more support for caregivers and more awareness. I was therefore pleased to receive all party support to form a neurological subcommittee and delighted that the leader of our party committed to a national brain strategy to help lessen the social and economic impacts on people affected by brain conditions.

Alzheimer's disease is an irreversible and progressive brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills. Symptoms usually appear after age 60. Many scientists now believe damage to the brain may begin decades earlier. Thankfully, doctors are now able to start treatments earlier, slowing the loss of brain cells and the progression of debilitating physical and mental impairments.

Some 500,000 Canadians have Alzheimer's disease or a related dementia, 71,000 of those are under the age of 65, with women accounting for 72% of all cases. There are currently at least 2.85 million Canadians providing care for a family member with long-term health problems. According to a Health Canada study, 25% of caregivers have had their employment situation affected by their caregiving responsibilities and about 40% of them face long-term financial pressures as a result.

This is an important motion and I thank the hon. member for bringing it to the House. We need all members pushing for investments in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, as we have an aging population, an increased risk of dementia and rising human and economic costs.

I will quote from my April 13 speech regarding Bill C-9, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget. It reads:

Where is the help now for our seniors in the budget?

Where is the investment in our aging population? We have a federal government that has hardly uttered the word “health” for the last four years. Yet, worldwide there is concern that the baby boomers are retiring and entering their high demand period for health care. In Canada there will be 7.5 million people over the age of 65 by 2025. Population aging has tremendous implications for Canada, where most elderly people would not be able to meet more than a small fraction of the cost of the health care they incur. The average hospital stay in Canada costs $7,000 and does not take into account emergency or cardiac care.

Today, someone in Canada develops dementia every five minutes. This will change to one new case every two minutes in 30 years. In 30 years the prevalence of dementia in Canada will more than double, with the costs increasing tenfold if no changes are made. This means the total cost associated with this mind-robbing disease could reach $153 billion by 2038, up from the $15 billion a year today.

The Alzheimer Society of Canada suggests four key ways to slow the growth in cases of Alzheimer's and dementia: promote healthier lifestyles including encouraging people over age 65 to increase their physical activity levels; add system navigators to guide families through the complex health care system; invest in support and education for caregivers; and combine risk reduction strategies to delay the onset of dementia by two years, particularly through the discovery of new treatments.

If we could merely slow the onset of dementia by two years for each affected Canadian, we would see a return on investment of 15,000% over a 30 year research effort. One of the biggest challenges we face, therefore, is how to best prevent and postpone disease and to maintain the health, independence and mobility of an aging population.

Every day, hundreds of thousands of Canadians experience the difficult reality of Alzheimer's disease. Those living with the disease want to be seen, want to be heard and should never have to face this disease alone. Those caring for a loved one face overwhelming emotional and physical demands and require real supports. We must see the person, not the illness. No one ever wants to be a patient, but rather a vibrant, contributing member of society.

As one woman said:

It has not ended my life. I am still a very viable human being, as are others with the same diagnosis. Certainly I grieved the onset of this disease, but after talking with the local Alzheimer Society rep, I now attend an early-stage support group and feel good about volunteering for the organization. Once again I am allowed to feel useful.

We must strive to ease the burden of every individual struggling to recall a spouse's name, every person unable to recognize a child's face and every family member or friend who brings them comfort and care. We must seek hope for all families struggling with Alzheimer's disease. We must renew our commitment to research that is improving treatments for this illness and may one day prevent it entirely. We must leave no avenue unexplored.

It is fundamentally important to make sound fiscal decisions. As President Obama said, “The answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach”.

We absolutely have the opportunity to change the course of Alzheimer's disease now. Today we have a variety of disease-modifying treatments, but shrinking investment in Alzheimer research threatens breakthroughs. Investing in research to end Alzheimer's is one of the most sensible decisions the government can make. It not only saves lives but also saves money by reducing the burden on health care.

Finally, we must commit to a national brain strategy for Canada, working with the provinces and the territories. Our party has committed to this, with a focus on key pillars such as awareness and education, prevention, treatment and support, caregiver support, research and income security.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for appearing today. My first question is addressed to you, Ms. Michaud. I would first like to express our gratitude for all the work you do at Statistics Canada.

Why are the data you have presented so old? You presented data going back to 1997. For one thing, it seems to me that the situation, as well as the data relating to women's education have changed considerably. So, I am not sure that these data are accurate, compared to the image we have of women in the labour market. Things may have evolved over the last 13 years. The data we have on educational attainment date back to 1997, which makes them very old.

Ms. Pageau, I would like to know whether you are concerned about possible repercussions if we are not able to pass Bill C-471 fairly quickly. Do you think there will be consequences for public sector employees if, for some reason, the House were to be prorogued or Parliament were to be dissolved before we were able to pass Bill C-471 and if, unfortunately, Bill C-9, which has been passed, were to go into effect in January, as planned?

I would like to hear first from Ms. Michaud, and then, Ms. Pageau.

Opposition Motion—Federal spending power

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard many members in the House talk about the health file specifically and the federal government's interference in that area. It is obvious that the options put forward by the other parties are, as my colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel said, aimed at centralizing all health-related matters in Parliament, at that level of government.

But it is clear to Quebeckers that, under the Constitution, health is the exclusive domain of the Quebec and provincial governments. And regardless of the party in power, the Quebec government has repeatedly expressed that in its statements and demands, as well as its concrete actions.

And it is precisely that aspect of the problem that I want to address this afternoon. I am the health critic for the Bloc Québécois. Throughout my entire political and parliamentary career in the House, I have had the opportunity to pit my ideas against those of my colleagues in other political parties. I have also had the opportunity to see how those same colleagues in other political parties in Canada view health care and its future.

One need only consider what the Standing Committee on Health has done in recent months. It studied the whole issue of human resources in the health sector and would have the federal government tell the provinces how to manage their human resources in the health sector. It even went so far as to give the Quebec and provincial governments advice on health education. Under the Constitution, however, education is another area within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec and provincial governments. Once again, we get the sense that our colleagues in other political parties in Canada feel the need to say that this Parliament should have a role in health. And there are other examples.

I can understand them. Any intervention in the health sector has a direct impact on the population. As I have often said, intervention gives them an opportunity to toot their own horn and say that they are doing good work that is helping people. But, from the Bloc Québécois's point view, it is clear that the federal government should do that only in areas under its own jurisdiction.

We see this in various statements, bills, tax measures and budget measures. The government's initiatives belie the promise the Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the Conservative Party, made during the 2006 election campaign to limit the federal spending power. We have seen no sign that he wants to make good on that promise. What we have seen is that with his government's various policies, he has carried on the Liberal tradition of intruding into areas outside federal jurisdiction.

The measure I want to use as an example is extremely worthwhile. It was in Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, which was passed in the House because the Liberals decided to support the Conservative government. They did not have the backbone to get all their members into the House to vote against the budget implementation bill. If this measure had come from a provincial government, it would have been completely fair, because it was directly related to health. But since it comes from the federal government, which has no constitutional jurisdiction over health, we want to know what it is doing in the bill. What the government is doing is interfering.

It is using federal money for initiatives in areas that are outside federal jurisdiction. I will tell hon. members what was in Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, which was passed. The government allocated $13.5 million to the Rick Hansen Foundation, a not-for-profit organization whose goal is to speed progress toward a cure for spinal cord injuries and improve the quality of life of people with such injuries. This is extremely worthwhile and commendable, and it is what health care is all about. People come to us because they are ill and they need support. It is important that the appropriate government take action and develop strategies and programs to address people's needs. It is not up to the federal government to intrude into these jurisdictions because of its spending power.

There are other examples. Organizations that support patient groups, people with specific illnesses, are all calling on the federal government to establish Canada-wide strategies, national strategies, as the government calls them. In the Bloc Québécois, when we talk about anything national we are talking about Quebec, our nation that we are so proud of. These organizations are calling for standards and guidelines at all levels of government to come up with strategies for the entire country that respect the areas of jurisdiction. As I was saying, health is not a federal government jurisdiction.

There is no shortage of examples to illustrate the intrusions, the encroachments and the constant duplication of the federal government, Liberal and Conservative alike, when it comes to the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces over health care. Sections 92.7 and 92.16 of the Constitution Act, 1867 clearly stipulate that health care and social services fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. I am referring to the relevant sections just to prove that this is not a party line or my own idea. From as far back as 1919, Ottawa has been intervening increasingly in these sectors, even forcing Quebec and the provinces to comply with so-called national standards and objectives.

I will list a series of events that have occurred since 1919 to show to what extent the federal government has ignored these two sections of the Constitution by interfering in the health care sector. In 1919, the Department of Health was created; in 1957, the federal Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act was passed; in 1966, the Medical Care Act was passed; in 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed; in 2004, the Public Health Agency of Canada was created; and in 2007, another commission was created by the federal government to take up even more space in this jurisdiction belonging exclusively to Quebec and the provinces under the Constitution. I am talking about the Canadian Mental Health Commission.

In view of all this, it is clear that the Government of Canada, Liberal and Conservative alike, has decided over time to take its place in the health care sector even though it has no business there.

Like my Bloc Quebecois colleagues have said throughout the afternoon, if the government really wants the people that it represents to have access to better services, it should simply give to the provinces the means they need to carry out this responsibility. Instead of spending this money freely, and rarely in concert with the provinces, it should give it to them, through tax point transfers. This would give Quebec and the provinces the means to adequately carry out their responsibility, which is to give priority to the health of our fellow citizens. Of course, these concerns can also be ours, but the actions that result from these concerns and that are taken in this Parliament must absolutely respect the fact that health is a jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Another aspect of federal interference in health has to do with research and education. By creating research institutes, whose mandate is to provide better health products and services and to strengthen Canada's health system, the government is once again—because of its tendency to always control more—further encroaching upon areas which, under the Constitution, fall outside federal jurisdiction.

The Bloc Quebecois has often said that investments in research are necessary. However, it is important to point out that, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the federal government is giving itself the power to impose its priorities and views on the health sector. This goes way beyond research as such.

I have said repeatedly in the House that the Bloc Quebecois wants the federal government to substantially increase research budgets. We think this money should be transferred to Quebec, so that it can invest it according to its own criteria, and without any condition.

The whole educational component is often connected to research. Education is not a federal jurisdiction. It comes exclusively under the governments of Quebec and the provinces. Therefore, all the money needed to fund our university sector should be distributed by the governments of Quebec and the provinces. That is their responsibility.

As I mentioned, and as my colleagues have said throughout the afternoon, since I am convinced that all hon. members are aware of the importance of this sector, it is crucial that the money be available and that this government adequately carries out this responsibility by transferring tax points to Quebec and the provinces.

Throughout the history of Quebec, governments have taken a stand and demanded that the federal government stop interfering in the health file and stop dictating to Quebec, by its actions, how it should carry out its responsibilities in the area of health.

Governments of all political persuasions, not just sovereignist governments, took this position for Quebec.

Although I have already spoken about this in the House, I would like to do so again. I would like to speak of the different governments that, over the course of Quebec's history, presented specific demands to the federal government in this regard.

Maurice Duplessis' second government—from August 30, 1944 to September 7, 1959—had the following message:

Quebec considers that the following areas are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces: natural resources, the establishment, maintenance and administration of hospitals, asylums and charitable institutions, education in all areas including university studies, the regulation of professions, including the entrance requirements to the practice of medicine and relations between patient and physician, social security, health and public hygiene, the construction of bridges and roads.

Earlier, I gave examples pertaining to human resources management in health care, education, the way in which funds are allocated to our universities, and hence the actions, programs and research our universities must carry out. I also spoke of public health. The government of Maurice Duplessis told the federal government that it was none of its business, that it should look after its own affairs, and to give us our money, the money sent to the federal government, the money that it does not want to give back in order for us to meet our needs. That is what the government of Maurice Duplessis said at the time.

I will also quote another government, the Union Nationale government of Daniel Johnson Sr., in power from June 16, 1966 to September 26, 1968. I would like to highlight the demands and the message of that government with respect to health care and protecting this jurisdiction which, under the Constitution, remains the jurisdiction of Quebec.

To ensure the equality of the French Canadian nation, Quebec needs greater powers. It wants to make its own decisions in certain areas: 1) development of its human resources (i.e. every aspect of education, social security and health); 2) economic affirmation (i.e. the power to implement economic and financial mechanisms); 3) cultural expression (arts, letters and the French language); 4) the influence of the Quebec community.

Even back then, there was talk about every aspect of health, and not small exceptions here and there.

It also said “the power to implement economic and financial mechanisms”. We just have to look at what the federal government wants to do with its Canada-wide securities commission. It wants to undermine Quebec's power to take its economy in its own hands and therefore centralize everything in Toronto once again. Does that not prove that what Daniel Johnson Sr. was saying is still current?

He was also advocating for cultural expression, in the arts, literature and the French language, and that is what we have been constantly asking the House to do: to transfer those powers to Quebec and the funds that come with those powers because Quebec is a strong and creative nation and we need to be able to invest all our resources in those areas.

I would also like to talk about Robert Bourassa, if I may.

After the Meech Lake accord, Robert Bourassa said that under the Canadian Constitution, social and health care issues indisputably fell within the exclusive power of the provinces.

Robert Bourassa also told the federal government to mind its own business. The Bloc Québécois is asking the same thing today.

I hope that all the hon. members of the House have understood the message and will vote in favour of this motion.

Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act

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

Mr. Speaker, over and over again I have heard Liberal speakers in the House criticizing the budget implementation process, with Bill C-9 and Bill C-47. With Bill C-9, they complained about the airline tax increases that would raise airline tax fees 50%, bringing them much higher than competing American airlines from which Canadian airlines were trying to draw business. They criticized the provisions of the omnibus budget bill of 880 pages that threw in things like the privatization of the remailers with Canada Post. Then when all was said and done, the Liberals ended up supporting the government, keeping the government in power by making certain that 30 of their members walked out just before the vote.

Are the Liberals going to continue this practice of keeping the government in power, or this time are they going to vote with other members in the opposition and defeat the government on this budget bill? If they are so opposed to the budget, then why do they not vote against it?

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-9 is a very interesting bill in that there are some things in it that the government says it never does. Specifically I am talking about raising taxes.

I will not ask my friend from Winnipeg about raising the export tax on softwood lumber products by 10%. We will not count that as a tax. We have talked many times in the House about the HST and the government contribution to it.

However, let me ask about a tax in the bill about which my colleague knows quite a bit. I am talking about the airline tax that increases, by 50%, the security fees paid for in flights. Could he comment on that?

Canada Post Corporation Act

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of the library book rate, specifically Bill C-509, which amends the Canada Post Corporation Act to protect the reduced postage rate for library materials.

I commend the member for Brandon—Souris for bringing this important bill forward and for his tenacity in pursuing it ever since he was first elected in 2004. I wholeheartedly agree with him that maintaining the book rate is crucially important for a whole host of reasons, some of which I will enumerate shortly. I hope the member will understand that I also have to put this bill into the larger context of this government's record on issues related to Canada Post, learning, and literacy. While that context does not in any way detract from his personal efforts to do the right thing with this bill, it calls into question whether this bill, even if passed, will meet its desired objective.

By way of background, for those who may have just tuned into the debate, I should explain what the book rate is. Since 1939, libraries in Canada have been able to exchange books at a reduced postage rate. That is what is known as the library book rate. It allows all libraries in Canada to access one another's reading materials at relatively low costs, so that smaller libraries, for example, have access to the larger collections that exist primarily in urban centres. That is critically important.

First, the book rate ensures that we do not end up with a two-tiered library service, one for those who can afford to pay for access to information and one for those who cannot. This would jeopardize the access of Canadians to the resources necessary to learn, innovate, and prosper in the information economy of the 21st century. Access to library materials should not depend on the size of one's wallet but, rather, on one's thirst for knowledge.

Second, Canadian students, persons with disabilities, and residents of rural communities would be particularly disadvantaged, since they rely heavily on their local library's ability to share resources with larger centres.

Third, it would severely reduce access to books for people living in rural and remote parts of Canada.

Fourth, it would reduce the level of service libraries provide, possibly forcing the program to operate on a cost-recovery basis, with patrons and learners having to bear the costs. Such user fees would discourage many patrons from making mail-based borrowing requests.

Fifth, smaller libraries would stop providing lending services and, in turn, would only borrow materials.

Sixth, it would deprive the rest of the country of the ability to access the unique information resources often preserved in our local libraries.

Seventh and last, it could easily result in denying access to library materials for people who are homebound.

For all of these reasons, it is imperative that there be some control on increases to the book rate. I applaud the member for Brandon—Souris for using this opportunity to ensure that from now on the library book rate would also apply to the shipping of CDs, CD-ROMs, DVDs, and other audiovisual materials. This is important for keeping pace with the changes in technology that have allowed us to access information in new formats, and in fact these new formats may over time actually reduce the cost to Canada Post since CDs weigh far less than books.

In the end, however, Bill C-509 does not prohibit an increase in the book rate per se. Instead, it simply says that any such increase must receive approval of the Government of Canada. The bill suggests that it is the Governor in Council who must okay an application for a rate increase by Canada Post, and the Governor in Council is the cabinet.

I am sure the member for Brandon—Souris made this proposal in good faith. Indeed, when he spoke to the bill he said that it would ensure that Canadians' voices will be heard on this sensitive issue before any rate changes occur. However, if that is truly his intent, why would his bill not stipulate that requests for increases to the library rate must be approved by Parliament instead of the Governor in Council? It is in the House of Commons that the voices of all Canadians are heard through their elected representatives.

The same is not true of the cabinet. Yet the viability and vitality of Canada's public libraries is, or at least should be, of keen interest to every single MP in the House. It is unfortunate that Bill C-509 excludes a review by all of the elected members who have libraries in their communities, and, as a result, it needlessly circumscribes the scope of the arguments that ought to be brought to bear on any request by Canada Post to raise the library rate.

I know that some members of the House will suggest that I am being alarmist and that the distinction of whether it is the cabinet or the House of Commons that must give its sign-off is one of mere semantics, but I suspect most of those members would be from the Conservative benches. Only in their caucus must members act as they are told by the Prime Minister, without any ability to bring independent thinking to the decision-making process. Indeed, that has been the hallmark of the Prime Minister's administration.

Let us recall what the government's track record is with respect to both literacy and Canada Post.

Let us begin with the latter. Just before the end of the last session of Parliament, the House was dealing with Bill C-9, the government's budget implementation bill. What do we find in that bill? We find an attack on Canada Post's exclusive privilege to handle international letters.

I have twice before had the privilege of speaking on this issue in the House, so I will be brief today.

At the heart of the issue was that international mailers, or remailers as they are commonly known, collect and ship letters to other countries where the mail is processed and remailed at a lower cost. In doing so, they are siphoning off $60 million to $80 million per year in business from Canada Post.

Yet Canada Post needs that revenue to provide affordable postal service to everyone, no matter where they live in our huge country. In fact, one ruling by the Court of Appeal for Ontario stressed the importance of exclusive privilege in serving rural and remote communities and noted that international mailers are not required to bear the high cost of providing services to the more remote regions of Canada.

Canada Post won this legal challenge against the remailers in the Supreme Court. What did our law-and-order government do in response? It stood up for the international mailers, who are currently carrying international letters in violation of the law.

The Conservatives are allowing them to siphon off business from Canada Post, and they sneaked the enabling legislation into the budget bill.

What does that have to do with the library book rate? There is an integral connection. Canada Post would raise the book rate as a way of increasing its revenue stream so that it can continue to meet its mandate. This revenue crunch is now becoming a reality, because the cancellation of Canada Post's exclusive privilege to deliver international letters is taking a $60 million to $80 million bite out of the corporation's coffers.

Why would we trust a government that is hell bent on leading Canada Post down the road to privatization to safeguard affordable rates for access to library materials? It does not make sense.

We know that private corporations are driven solely by profit motives, and subsidies for things like the library book rate detract from that bottom line.

Similarly, the notion of trusting the government to protect access to library materials as an important tool for improving literacy in our country flies in the face of the government's record on the issue.

When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, one of the first things they did was cut $1 billion from critical programs, including literacy and skills training. Yet there was and is a preponderance of evidence to prove that education is critical to achieving a just and prosperous future.

Even the C.D. Howe Institute, which is hardly an NDP think tank, has repeatedly noted that Canada continues to under-invest in education, especially since research shows that the impact of functional literacy on productivity and GDP is three times that of capital investments.

In spite of that evidence, the Conservatives cut their support for literacy training and left to fend for themselves the 42% of Canadian adults who have, by international standards, an inadequate functional literacy level.

In light of that record, it is far too much of a stretch to suggest that the government would act decisively to protect the library book rate on behalf of Canadian families. In fact, the opposite is much more likely to be true.

Therefore, while I have no quarrel with what I believe is a sincere desire on the part of the member for Brandon—Souris to safeguard the library book rate from arbitrary increases imposed by Canada Post, I would ask him to go just one step further. Do not give cabinet the responsibility for final approval. Make the issue come to the floor of the House of Commons and allow the views of all Canadians to be brought to bear on this crucial issue. Only in this way can we be assured that the collections of all libraries are recognized as national assets that must be accessible to all Canadians, so that they can support education and lifelong learning and help to enhance Canada's global competitiveness and productivity.

I know that all members of the House would support that laudable goal.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his input and look forward to working with him in the future on this and other issues of importance to Canadians.

The recent passage of Bill C-9, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, implemented important changes to strengthen federally regulated private pension plans. We will continue to strive to make an already strong foundation of pension services and retirement security even stronger. That said, pension reform must be undertaken with due deliberation. That is why we have taken great care to get input from Canadians from coast to coast and why we have been continuing to work with our provincial and territorial colleagues.

At the end of the day, Canadians can be sure that the government, within its legislative mandate, will make the tough choices and do the right thing to protect the retirement income of Canadians.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to respond to the concerns raised by the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

The government very much understands the value of secure and sustainable pensions and has taken action on a number of fronts.

On the narrower issue of bankruptcies and restructurings, the government has already taken steps to protect pensioners by amending insolvency laws. For example, in July 2008 we amended the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide a higher priority for outstanding pension contributions so that those amounts would be paid to pensioners ahead of even secured creditors. In September 2009 we made similar changes to the Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act, dealing with pensions in the case of firms undergoing a restructuring.

However, attempting to deal with unfunded pension liabilities through insolvency legislation can have a significant impact.

Canada's insolvency laws aim to encourage restructuring as evidence shows that this leads to better recovery for creditors and preserves more jobs. We must be careful therefore before changing the priority assigned to various claims in insolvency, as doing so can have a significant impact on a businesses ability to restructure, the availability and cost of credit and on the other creditors of an insolvent company, including small suppliers, independent business partners, landlords and many others.

However, the longer term answer to pension security requires a multi-faceted approach. Prevention and proactive solutions must be the order of the day if we are to ensure adequate retirement security for Canadians.

That is why last October, in the federal domain, the Minister of Finance announced some important reforms. A number of these reforms are now coming to fruition with the government's recent passage of Bill C-9, Jobs and Economic Growth Act, which among other things, implements important changes to strengthen federally regulated private pension plans.

Complementing the act are changes to the relevant sections of the pension benefits standards regulations that the minister proposed in early May. These changes will enhance protection for plan members, reduce funding volatility and modernize the rules for investments by pension funds. They will allow sponsors to better manage their funding obligations and give them greater flexibility in investment allocations.

The member should rest assured that for its part the federal government, after considered deliberation to reconcile the needs and perhaps at times conflicting advice received from stakeholders, will make the necessary choices and do the right thing for Canadians.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is almost a cliché to say that the events of September 11, 2001 changed the world, but Professor Wayne MacKay, a professor at Dalhousie law school, wrote in a article called “Human Rights in the Global Village” that this was only partly true because:

—terrorism has been an international force for many years. However, on September 11, 2001 the reality of terrorism was visited on the heartland of the United States and it became clear to all that even a super power was vulnerable to the forces of terrorism afoot in the world. The world may not really have changed as a result of “9/11”, but the way that the United States, and by association Canada, approach the world did. We have become more cautious and national security has become a value that trumps most other values--including human rights.

Like most people, I have a very vivid recollection of where I was when the planes hit the Twin Towers in New York City. I was starting my first week at Dalhousie law school and was in the student lounge, which was packed with other students. We were all utterly silent.

I am not really one for numbers. I can never remember if it is Bill C-11 or Bill C-392 or Bill C-9 in the 40th Parliament or the 38th Parliament, but I remember Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act that was introduced in 2001. I remember it like I remember 9/11 because even though I was a fresh-faced law student eager to learn about this great big concept called the law, a concept based on human rights, justice and fundamental freedoms, I still knew that Bill C-36 was a departure from that base of justice and human rights.

As first-year law students, a group of us started a student association called SALSA, the Social Activist Law Student Association. SALSA was and continues to be, and it is still at Dalhousie law school, the coming together of like-minded students who are interested in seeking justice, environmental, social and economic justice. We want to see it realized in our communities.

When Bill C-36 was introduced in 2001, we did not know what to do, but we knew we had to do something. Therefore, we organized a panel of human rights and justice criminal law experts to talk about the bill and educate us on what was exactly going on and what the bill was trying to accomplish. Some of us wrote letters to the editor, others wrote op eds and we wrote to our members of Parliament.

There was a growing consensus then that the dangers of Bill C-36 were that it would trump our human rights and civil liberties in the face of national security and allow for government to act in the shadows shrouded in mystery and secrecy. However, the one thing everybody hung their hats on was the fact that there was a sunset clause in the act. That was the first time I had even heard the term “sunset clause”. The idea was that after a period of time, a review of the legislation would automatically be triggered by Parliament.

The current bill, Bill C-17, proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that would reinstate provisions from the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001 that expired under that very sunset clause in 2007. Very specifically, the bill relates to investigative hearings whereby individuals who may have information about a terrorism offence, whether it is in the past or the future, can be compelled to attend a hearing and answer questions. No one attending a hearing can refuse to answer a question on the grounds of self-incrimination, which is quite different than if someone is in a court facing Criminal Code charges.

The other issue is preventive arrest whereby individuals can be arrested without a warrant in order to prevent them from carrying out a terrorist act. It is detention based on what someone might do. The arrested individual has to be brought before a judge within 24 hours, which is fair, or as soon as feasible and the judge determines whether that individual can be released unconditionally or with certain conditions for up to 12 months. Also, if those conditions are refused, the person can be imprisoned for up to 12 months.

International human rights and domestic human rights are increasingly related when we look at the global village of today. What we do in Canada affects the greater and wider world and our actions have worldwide implications. Similarly, actions outside of Canada's borders can and do have an impact here.

As Greg Walton wrote in a piece for the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development:

Canada has an obligation to provide a model; we need to stand straight lest we cast a crooked shadow.

After my graduation from law school, I had the opportunity to work with Professor Wayne MacKay doing research and assisting with his preparation for the lecture that I spoke about, as well as his appearance before the Senate committee actually reviewing the anti-terrorism legislation back in 2005. While I was working with him, one topic of conversation that we kept coming back to was the idea of racial profiling.

Racial profiling has been defined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which is a really good definition, as follows:

...any action undertaken for reasons of safety, security or public protection that relies on stereotypes about race, colour, ethnicity, ancestry, religion or place of origin rather than on reasonable suspicion, to single out an individual for greater scrutiny or different treatment.

Professor MacKay pointed out that before September 11 the issue of racial profiling was really about driving while black. A stark example of this comes from my home province of Nova Scotia with the story of Kirk Johnson, a boxer whose case appeared before the Nova Scotia Human Rights Tribunal. When Mr. Johnson was repeatedly, over years, pulled over by police in his expensive car with Texas licence plates, the tribunal found that actually race was a determining factor in the police's decision to pull him over again and again.

Since September 11, that phrase, driving while black, has actually been recoined as flying while Arab. Profiling is broader than just race now. It takes into account religion, culture and even ideology. Concerns about profiling based on race, culture or religion are real but they are accentuated by threats of terror. There is an alarming tendency to paint an entire group with one brush when in fact it is the act of individuals rather than religious or ethnic groups that are at fault.

We know about the uproar in the United States with the proposed building of a mosque six blocks from the site of the World Trade Centre. We think that kind of thing certainly could not happen here but here at home, on the day after the arrests of 17 terrorist suspects in Ontario, windows were broken at an Islamic mosque in Toronto. It can happen here and it does happen here.

At the Senate committee hearings in 2005 actually reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act, Canadian Muslim and Arab groups argued that if law enforcement agents were going to use profiling in their investigations, profiling needed to be based on behaviour, not ethnicity or religion. However, in a Globe and Mail article, a member of this House on the government side cited a different opinion when he said, “(y)ou don't send the anti-terrorist squad to investigate the Amish or the Lutheran ladies. You go where you think the risk is”.

Within the context of Bill C-17, we need to think about the real danger of imposing a sentence. I know it is not a sentence in the strict criminal terms of what a sentence is, but it is a 12-month sentence in prison based on something someone thinks a person might do. We can layer that with the fact that we know profiling is happening in Canada.

We know the Criminal Code works. We know there are provisions in the Criminal Code for a wide range of charges related to anti-terrorism. It is working. How do we know that? It is because these proposed sections that we are talking about in Bill C-17 have never been used. Therefore, why would we take that risk?

We have anti-terrorism legislation that has proven to be useful. The reason that these two provisions have never been used and were not renewed at the end of the sunset clauses is that they did not meet that balance between national security and human rights and civil liberties. There is a reason they expired with the sunset clause and there is absolutely no reason for us to bring them back to life today.

Opposition Motion—Prorogation

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal opposition day motion covers some things that are already being done. A legislative committee is working on the prorogation issue. Still, the main advantage of this motion is that it gives us the opportunity to discuss the December prorogation again. The government realized that that was a serious mistake, and it is trying to make us forget about it. As this session comes to a close, I believe it is not a bad idea to look at the Conservative government's overall behaviour by means of this motion, which I must say is not the most original motion I have ever heard.

That said, though, I do think the motion gives us a chance to take stock of the anti-democratic behaviour of the Conservative government and the Prime Minister. Of course, we will not vote for this motion if the amendment is not passed, because it would be pretty odd to vote to set up a special committee that would have to report next Wednesday. We reserve our decision on this. The motion is an opportunity to take stock of how this government has behaved in the House since 2006.

Things would have been different if last December had been the first time the government had used prorogation, a perfectly legitimate mechanism in the British parliamentary tradition whereby the Governor General is asked to prorogue the session. We would have understood if the government had asked for a prorogation for the first time because it had nearly completed its legislative agenda and the bills it had introduced over the months had been debated, amended, passed, defeated or what have you.

But December was the second time the government and the Prime Minister used prorogation to avoid answering the opposition's questions and facing up to their responsibilities. So we are completely within our right to criticize and challenge the government's actions, because the only purpose of last December's prorogation was to suppress allegations that Afghan detainees transferred by the Canadian Forces to the Afghan authorities were tortured. We all know about it now, so the government's tactic did not work. But the fact that it did not work is not why it was the wrong thing to do.

Earlier the parliamentary secretary talked about what a waste it would be to create a new committee. Was there any bigger waste this year, in 2010, than the month of parliamentary work the Conservatives made us lose? They supposedly tried to make up for lost time by getting rid of break weeks. That was the biggest waste there ever was.

The money spent on the G8 and the G20, the fake lake and the virtual decor is one thing but this is on an entirely different plane. We are talking here about a month of parliamentary work that could have prevented what happened yesterday when the government pulled out of its hat a bill that was introduced in mid-May. The government did not bring the bill back to the House until June 6 or 7 and told us, a few days before the end of the session, that the bill was absolutely necessary for preventing a notorious criminal, Ms. Homolka, from applying for a pardon.

Why did the government not wake up sooner? In part because we lost a month of parliamentary work as a result of this unnecessary prorogation. And then the government tried, as it has many times before, to push through a bill that we are not prepared to accept without amendments. We voted to refer Bill C-23 to committee in order to study it seriously and to amend it. The government wanted to impose its agenda on us.

The Bloc Québécois stood firm. I am pleased to note that the other opposition parties did so as well. The Liberal Party in particular stood firm for once. We forced the government to accept a compromise that everyone could agree on. The bulk of Bill C-23 will be studied in committee and we will take the time to amend it in order to change what we dislike about it.

Our experience yesterday with the drama invented by the Minister of Public Safety and the Conservative government could have been avoided had we used the month of February to examine bills already introduced and if the government had better planned its work.

I will give an example. Why was it urgent to pass Bill C-2 on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement? Was it really urgent that it pass? The government devoted all kinds of time, effort and resources to try to ram the bill down the throat of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, even though our trade with Colombia is very limited. Furthermore, the human rights situation and democratic rights in Colombia are cause for a great deal of concern.

We could have used the parliamentary time to examine Bill C-23 earlier. However, the government decided otherwise. It is its right and responsibility, but it did not make responsible choices. This is all the result of the Prime Minister's decision of December 30, 2009 to prorogue the session until early March.

There is another negative aspect. Thirty-six bills died on the order paper, including 19 justice bills. That is an indication of the hypocrisy of the Conservative's rhetoric on justice. Once again, the government told us that it was proroguing to recalibrate its political and legislative agenda. Perhaps it understood that a number of its bills were not acceptable to Quebeckers and many Canadians. It told us it was proroguing in order to come back refreshed in March.

So, what happened? Two days after the start of the session, the government proposed a budget that was completely unacceptable to Quebec. There was nothing in the budget to meet the needs of the regions or the forestry and aerospace sectors. Nor was there anything for the unemployed in Quebec or in Canada. The government spent one and a half months to present the same, unacceptable budget that it presented in spring 2009.

During that month, no work was done. I wonder what the Conservatives were doing. They probably travelled around handing out cheques. In Quebec, that has led to the Conservatives dropping below 16% in the polls. The fact remains that they acted under false pretences.

That was the latest prorogation. With the other one, just a few weeks after the election, a few days after Parliament returned in November 2008, the Minister of Finance presented an economic statement that was nothing more than an ideological statement. No concrete measures were announced to combat the looming financial and economic crisis. Instead, it was an attack on the opposition parties, and on women's rights in particular. This attack was totally unacceptable to the three opposition parties and to a good number, if not the majority, of Canadians. I can assure you that the majority of Quebeckers were opposed to this dogmatic, ideological and provocative approach.

The government sparked a political crisis a few weeks after the October 2008 election. It should have realized that it was a minority government and that Canadians had given it a minority in the House, especially Quebeckers, who sent a majority of Bloc Québécois members to represent them in Ottawa. The Prime Minister should have realized that a minority government has to work with the opposition parties.

That is not what he did. Instead, he sparked a political crisis and the opposition parties reacted by proposing an NDP-Liberal coalition, supported by the Bloc, on certain conditions that we announced and that were respected by the NDP-Liberal coalition at that time.

A confidence vote was scheduled, and instead of submitting to the decision of the House, the Prime Minister chose to pay another visit to the Governor General to request prorogation and avoid being held accountable. His request was granted, but only after two hours of discussions I must point out.

I suspect that her attitude and the fact that she had the nerve to question the Prime Minister cost Michaëlle Jean her job as Governor General. Of course, we do not know exactly what they talked about, but the conversation took long enough to suggest that she did not say yes right away, which is what often happens, and may have asked for an explanation. At any rate, the House was prorogued once again at the Prime Minister's request to avoid a confidence vote.

The very same thing happened during the September 2008 election. The government built up expectations. We have seen some of that during this session too, particularly in the spring when they paralyzed the committees. Mao Zedong gave us the Little Red Book, and then the Prime Minister gave us a blue book about how any good, self-respecting Conservative can sabotage a committee's work. The government created an artificial paralysis in the committees. The Prime Minister and his Conservative members and ministers, with their sorrowful and utterly false statements, have apparently tried to convince Canadians and Quebeckers that opposition parties were to blame for this paralysis because they blocked committee work on legitimate government bills passed in the House.

After this buildup, the Prime Minister simply triggered an election in an attempt to not have to answer the opposition's questions on a number of issues and, in particular, to not have to respond to the allegations of torture in Afghanistan.

There again, this way of doing things seems fine according to British parliamentary tradition, but it is very questionable in terms of democratic legitimacy. Finally, the government is using all sort of tactics to not have to answer for its actions, to try and impose its backwards, conservative agenda on policy, economic, social and cultural fronts. And if that is not suitable, it provokes the opposition and tries, with measures that are, again, fully legal, to short-circuit the work of Parliament.

I think that it is important to use this opportunity provided to us by the Liberals to remind the public of that. At the same time, I must say that the Conservatives' provocative approach, which is extremely negative and undemocratic, has been encouraged by the Liberals' weakness because the government knew in advance that not all of the Liberal members would be in the House to vote against the budget implementation bill, Bill C-9. Again tonight, we will be voting on supply and it will be interesting to count the number of Liberal members in the House.

Benefiting from this weakness, the Conservatives try to impose their agenda on the opposition—on the Liberal Party in particular—and we have seen this throughout the session.

Another example of extremely questionable Conservative behaviour is the issue of the documents concerning allegations of torture in Afghanistan. A motion had to be passed in the House on December 10, ordering the government to produce a series of relevant documents that would reflect the work done by the Afghanistan committee concerning allegations of torture. The House adopted the motion by only a slight majority. A number of weeks after prorogation, we had to raise this issue and demand these documents again. Each time, the government tried to deflect the question by tabling highly censored documents that showed nothing that would lead us to believe that it was responding to the motion passed on December 10 requiring them to produce documents.

The fact that the requests for the production of documents do not die on the order paper following a prorogation, as government bills do, might come as a surprise for the Prime Minister and the Conservatives. Perhaps the Prime Minister had been misinformed and believed that by proroguing Parliament, the order to produce documents concerning allegations of torture in Afghanistan would disappear. That was not the case.

The opposition did not give up, and questions of privilege had to be raised so that the Speaker could intervene in the matter.

The Speaker's historic decision of April 27, 2010, was very clear: the documents must be handed over, while protecting all information related to national security, defence and international relations, and the opposition has always agreed with that. However, we had to pressure the government further to reach an agreement in principle. We also had to constantly brandish the sword of Damocles—contempt of Parliament—so as to obtain the compromises needed from the government in order to finally implement the mechanism. We only hope that it will be implemented quickly.

This shows how we had to push the government to the wall in order to obtain results that, theoretically, should not have posed a problem, since there had been a democratic majority vote in the House. The government should have simply obeyed the order of the House, yet each time we had to use every means at our disposal to force the government to respect the democratic decision made in the House.

We are still in the same situation today. The House is about to rise for the summer break and we will be in exactly the same position when we come back around September 20.

The government has decided not to let political staff appear before committees anymore. The Prime Minister no longer allows his press secretary and director of communications, Dimitri Soudas, to appear before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The committee therefore gave Mr. Soudas an ultimatum: he must appear. But he is hiding. There is bound to be a new children's game called Where's Dimitri? after Where's Waldo? The bailiffs tried to serve him with a subpoena, but he followed the Prime Minister to Europe to avoid it.

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics legitimately and legally said that Mr. Soudas had to be aware of the subpoena requiring him to testify before the committee, because the newspapers had written about it. But perhaps Dimitri does not read the papers, which would be an unusual thing for the press secretary and director of communications with the Prime Minister's Office. Dimitri Soudas is well aware he has to testify before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and the deadline was yesterday.

Today, the committee is starting to write a report that will be tabled in the House. It may be tabled tomorrow, next week or when Parliament resumes. This report will serve as the basis for a new question of privilege and for making a case for contempt of Parliament.

We are leaving off at the same point as where we were at the beginning of this session. The atmosphere in Parliament is rotten, poisoned by the Conservatives' anti-democratic attitude, which has nearly reached the point of provocation a number of times.

Again, what happened yesterday was quite something. At the beginning of the day, the Minister of Public Safety, accompanied by the ineffable Senator Boisvenu, came to tell us that it was Bill C-23 or nothing. At noon, we were told it was Bill C-23 or nothing. Finally, they had to fold.

Instead of trying to get Bill C-23 passed with all its poison pills, it would have been much simpler for the government to tell the opposition parties that it wanted to prevent Ms. Homolka from being able to apply for a pardon, given that she was released from prison five years ago.

The government could have asked that, in light of the seriousness of the acts she committed, we amend the current pardon legislation—that is not actually the title—to change the period of time before an individual is eligible for a pardon to 10 years from the current five years. We would have been open to discussing that, but again, there was a pseudo political crisis provoked by the Conservatives.

I will close by saying that an anti-democratic attitude is poisoning the atmosphere. The government also has an anti-Quebec attitude that is supported more often than not by all Canadian parliamentarians and sometimes by MPs from Quebec in parties other than the Bloc.

I am thinking about the Canada-wide securities commission and Bill C-12 to reduce Quebec's political weight in the House, the GST and QST harmonization, where the government is not just dragging its feet, it has shut the door. I am thinking about the government's attitude with regard to climate change and culture, which is extremely important to Quebec's identity.

There are also the issues of equalization, employment insurance and the guaranteed income supplement. Not only is this government anti-democratic in the way it does things, but it is not meeting the needs of Quebec and the people.

Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendments to the Sex Offender Registry. It is not an easy issue to talk about. Any time we talk about sex offences, it is one of those issues that really causes us great personal pain. Whether as parents or as members of the community, when we hear about these offences, we recognize they are some of the most despicable and horrible acts that can happen in our communities. I do not think any member of the House would say that we should not put at the disposal of police officers every tool they possibly can have to stop one of those crimes from happening, to stop there being a victim in the first place.

I am pleased to be generally very supportive of these changes, but I will do something to start that I do not typically do, and that is to quote myself. The reason I will do this will become clear in just a moment:

We the know of the Stephensons, who lost their son, and all the work they did in developing Christopher's law. It has led in Ontario to some very effective legislation, legislation that is used many hundreds of times a day and searched far more than the national registry. The success of that registry underscores the failure of the national registry. When we look at the statistics, and it is hard to believe, the Ontario registry is used four times more in a day than the national registry is used in a year.

I do not think there is any disagreement from anyone in the House that the sex offender registry is in need of modernization and amendment, and I welcome that debate.

The reason I quote myself is because that was almost exactly a year ago in June 2009 when the House had this debate. At that point in time, I made a speech on the necessity of moving forward with then Bill C-34. Everyone was participating in that debate agreed there was a need to move forward expeditiously.

However, we are here after prorogation, after the government killed that bill, to debate it yet again. What is so frustrating about the bill is the government not only short-circuited, through prorogation, the efforts of the House to deal with modernizing the National Sex Offender Registry, but in committee when we had undertaken a mandatory legislative review, as dictated by the government. We cleared our committee calendar. We pushed away all other business. We said that this was important, that we ought to sit down and work on this in a bipartisan way, We did exactly that.

We went over the National Sex Offender Registry. We had witnesses come from across the country and heard their testimony. As we were developing our report for the government, the government short-circuited all of it and tabled its bill without having even the courtesy of listening to the conclusions of the committee before ignoring them. Our committees are used to being ignored, but usually the government has the courtesy of letting the committee table the report before it ignores it. In this case, it did not even wait for that report. The Conservatives stated that the reason they needed to short-circuit our process was the legislation was so urgently needed, it was so desperate to push this forward and have it done, that they could not even wait to hear from the committee.

Then the summer passed, then prorogation and now we have the bill again. They would not wait for the opinion of committee, yet it was okay to prorogue and cancel the bill and now bring it back and talk about it with great urgency yet again, a year later. It shows of pattern behaviour. The government holds a reservoir of crime bills that it puts forward, retracts, puts forward, retracts, prorogues, kills, moves to the House and there is a curious timing with these bills. They seem to coincide with big Conservative problems.

Right now the government is embroiled in a rather large scandal, involving more than $1 billion that is being wasted on G8 and G20 summits. If Conservatives do not want to talk about fake lakes, gazebos, sidewalks to nowhere and some of this colossal waste they have undertaken, they switch to a crime bill and say that we have to deal with it, that it is urgent. They expect everyone is going to forget that they killed their own bill, are reintroducing it, short-circuited committee's process a year ago because they said that it was so urgent.

Canadians are a little smarter than that. They see the game and it is unfortunate because, as I said, these changes should have been made a year ago.

My colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood asked an excellent question to which he did not get an answer just a few moments ago. Why on earth, if all of these bills are so urgent, did the Conservatives not reintroduce them in an omnibus fashion? They did it with the budget, Bill C-9. They put everything but the kitchen sink into the budget bill. Yet when it comes to a crime bill, they have to reintroduce them one at a time, month over month and there is suddenly time to match whatever controversy they happen to be embroiled in at the time. It certainly makes one ask the question of why the Conservatives are introducing these bills when they are. It would seem that they are channel-changers more than genuine attempts to change legislation.

It is important the committee identified a number of items within the sex offender registry that needed change. The bill has now incorporated many of those amendments, now that the government has waited a year and actually listened to what the committee had to say.

One of the provisions in the bill, which is clearly very important, is automatic inclusion, the idea that people who commit offences of a sexual nature be automatically included in the sex offender registry. When we were hearing from those who were involved in creating Christopher's law in Ontario, they told us how important this provision was. We heard that there were roughly 12,000 people, as of last April, on the Ontario sex offender registry. On our entire national registry, there are only 19,000, to give an example. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, it was being used more times in a single day in Ontario than it was being used in a year. Clearly police did not find this registry reliable and automatic inclusion was an important provision with which to move forward.

The second element we heard again and again in the committee testimony was the importance of the ability for the police to use this tool proactively. As an example, if people call in suspicious activity around a school or somebody acting in an odd way that is causing them concern, if police officers are called, they are able to reference that person against the sex offender registry to find out if that person has a history of sexual-based offences. This is something police officers could not do before and it something they said they needed to do. The bill before us today can do that.

The next point is it allows accredited law enforcement agencies to share information. What we do not want to have is silos, where the RCMP is guarding its information, a municipal police force is guarding its information and there is no exchange of data. In that situation, with those silos, there is opportunity for information to be missed, for somebody who should have been recognized or noticed before a crime occurred not to be noticed. That inclusion is important.

Another provision that one would have thought was in there but was clearly a mistake and an oversight was the fact that if somebody committed an offence overseas in another country, he or she would not be included on the National Sex Offender Registry. Clearly this is a huge loophole. We are aware, unfortunately, that sex crimes are very prevalent in certain parts of the world, where people will actually travel to commit sex crimes. It is essential that this information be captured in our national database and that when police search records, it is not just domestic instances that are picked up, but also anything that happened internationally.

Something left out of the bill, which we recommended as a committee a year ago, was vehicle registration and ensuring the licence plate and vehicle were also registered. This was a big omission. Clearly when police officers are trying to ascertain whether there is something amiss, a vehicle with the plates registered to somebody who is a sex offender is very useful information.

None of these items unto themselves necessarily will stop every crime, but we are trying to empower our police officers to the best of our ability, to give them the tools they need to get the job done.

There were a couple of areas throughout the committee hearings that were concerns and to some extent remain concerns. Christopher's law in Ontario includes a very focused list of sex offences that have been very effective when used by police.

We heard from some witnesses that they were concerned with some of the additional lists of sex offences that were included in the sex offender registry, as they could weaken the registry, for example, if someone were charged with an office indiscretion. None of us want to see that sort of behaviour go on. Clearly it needs to be addressed and needs to have justice be served. However, does it make sense for an office indiscretion or for a mistake of a minor nature to land somebody on the sex offender registry? What the police said was this would weaken the sex offender registry by including too many people who were not an imminent threat to their community and therefore lengthening the amount of time police officers had to search through data and information to get at what was relevant.

For expressing and voicing the concern that police had about weakening this registry, one of the hon. members with the Conservative Party labelled me as trying to weaken the sex offender registry on a panel on national television by saying that I was against the sex offender registry. Again, this leads to yet another tool that the Conservatives often use with their crime bills.

If members ask any questions or raise legitimate concerns, concerns that police themselves are asking, the Conservatives try to make it sound as if we are somehow for sex offenders. Nothing, however, could be more patently absurd or intellectually dishonest.

Another issue for which there was concern had to do with judicial discretion, which is tied to the first point that I made. The committee and the Senate made recommendations, which failed, that said that only in the most extraordinary of circumstances, where judges recognized that inclusion in the sex offender registry would be a gross miscarriage of justice, should there be the opportunity for a judge to say no, that it does not make sense to put that person on the list. So, in the rarest of rare circumstances, would a judge be given a modicum of discretion to ensure that only the right people get on that registry.

Again we were attacked for making that point but it is an important one. Policemen say that they would be put into a situation where the discretion would be forced on them to decide whether putting somebody on the sex offender registry would serve society well or be fair to that individual. Suddenly, the discretion is being put on police to make the decision to not to charge that person. Now, somebody who has committed a more minor offence might be in a situation where he or she is not charged at all after having committed the offence. That remains a concern.

In a broader context, there are a couple of other concerns that raise the question of how we deal with victimization before it happens. I was deeply disturbed when I had the opportunity as public safety critic to tour this country and meet with groups, including the Salvation Army, Boys and Girls Clubs and church organizations, that have seen their funding slashed for crime prevention, for the work they do on the front lines to try to stop crime before it happens. This is stuff that often does not get big headlines because, if it is successful, it never turns into a story.

If one has worked really hard at crime prevention, one can wake up one morning in a safer community. There are no headlines and nothing is trumpeted. There are just less victims and less crime. If we strip away all the rhetoric, should not one of the most major goals of government be to ensure communities are more safe, that crime never happens in the first place and that there are no victims to write about?

This slashing of that base infrastructure that communities have to stop crimes before they happen and to break the cycles of violence is deeply distressing because violence does not come out of the ether. It is not something that appears magically. More often than not, people who commit acts of violence have themselves been victims. They are caught in a cycle of victimization where they are playing out the same tragedy over and over again over successive generations.

What is desperately needed is intervention, to provide people with the opportunity to turn their life toward a bright path, particularly when they start to walk down that dark road. Again and again, when we talk to communities about the most important thing we can do to improve community safety, it is that, and yet, by more than half, spending on crime prevention in this country has been slashed and cut while prison spending has skyrocketed, an issue that, if I have time, I will come back to.

The second area of broader concern is the 41% cut to the victims of crime initiative, which is front line work with victims. The Conservatives often try to haul out the most tragic, terrible, awful examples that make all of our stomachs turn, but the reality is that victims cover a whole range. More often than not, very tragically, victims are aboriginal mothers stuck in a violent situation and needing help to get out of it. The victims of crime initiative worked with those victims to empower them and help them.

The victims ombudsman, the person the Conservatives put in place to be on the front lines of helping victims and recognizing their needs, said that the government's plan was unbalanced and would not work. When he decries the cuts to the victims of crime initiative, there is a pretty big gulf between the rhetoric of the government on victims and the reality. It is a gulf that is unfortunate because, more often than not, it seems that crime is a political tool. Instead of first asking how we can develop good policy, how we can work with stakeholders, how we can develop good legislation and then develop talking points and communiqués around that, the government seems to first want to create communiqués and talking points and then find legislation to make it match.

Another area of concern deals with lawful access. An hon. member of our caucus put forward a private member's bill several times through successive parliaments that would have given police the ability to go after crimes of the digital age. Police have been asking for many years to implement updated powers and abilities to track criminals online, to deal with new technologies and new ways in which criminals are communicating, planning and conducting crimes. When we are dealing with sex offences, particularly sex offences against children, this is an area that is particularly relevant.

In 2005, the then Liberal government introduced a bill to modernize our lawful access rules and to empower police to use the most modern investigative techniques to go after these types of crimes. Unfortunately, that legislation has languished. It was first killed by an election. It was then introduced by a Conservative government but it killed it by calling an election. It was introduced again and cancelled again by it calling an election. It was introduced again and then killed when the Conservatives prorogued. They have introduced it yet again and we still do not have it. It follows a pattern of a lot of talk but very little action on something that is very relevant to both sex offenders and to fighting crime in general, something that police have been demanding.

The last point I will make is with respect to broad concerns as they affect the sex offender registry, and they have to do with the DNA data bank. There is a provision in the bill that ensures that somebody who is on the sex offender registry is automatically included in the DNA data bank. That is something that is laudable and supportable. However, the problem is that the DNA data bank is desperately underfunded. We know that the RCMP is taking seven to eight months to turn around requests and that its office simply cannot handle what is given to it. This automatic inclusion of all of this additional data will mean that the backup will be even bigger.

Again, we have a government passing something but not following it up with the resources to really make it work. If we are to have automatic inclusion in the DNA data bank, it is rather meaningless if the police do not have the resources to actually process and use that information.

We want to see the bill move forward. We are deeply disappointed that we are dealing with it yet again. It should have been dealt with more than a year ago. However, we look forward to its speedy passage through this place and the opportunity in committee to ask some of these important questions.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill is maybe No. 10 or No. 12 of a whole panoply of crime and justice bills, which the government loves to introduce to fix apparent problems in our justice system. We have quite readily supported those which have merit.

A while back, Bill C-9 was before the House and it contained a whole variety of issues related and unrelated to the budget. Why has the government not taken the opportunity to bundle all these justice bills into one crime and justice initiative? That way we could have a fulsome debate on each and every section rather than having a separate bill, a separate debate, a separate vote, a separate meeting at committee, witnesses at committee and the bill coming back to the House, et cetera, which stretches the whole process over literally months and sometimes with prorogation and things of that nature years of dealing with what are essentially small amendments to the Criminal Code.

Canada Labour Code

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-386 introduced by my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel who, on behalf of his political party, is trying for the umpteenth time to put an end to the use of replacement workers in Canada and Quebec.

While Quebec legislated on this a long time ago, workers governed by the Canada Labour Code working in Quebec are not covered by Quebec's Bill 45, passed during the first mandate of the late René Lévesque. This Conservative government is once again ignoring one of the main demands with respect to how the whole area of work relations is governed.

Why is anti-strikebreaking, or anti-scab, legislation necessary? For one thing, the Bloc Québécois would like all workers in Quebec, whether governed by the Quebec Labour Code or the Canada Labour Code, to have the same rights. The Conservative government's stubbornness is creating two distinct classes of workers in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois believes that the best way of recognizing the outstanding contribution of all these men and women who are helping build the Quebec society on a day-to-day basis is to show genuine respect for their rights, starting by banning the use of replacement workers during strikes or lockouts.

Anti-scab legislation would ensure that workers governed by federal legislation enjoy balanced bargaining power, and would keep tension on the picket lines to a minimum. That is the basic objective of Bill C-386, which would prohibit the hiring of replacement workers.

At this point, I would like to list what the Conservative government has done in response to the many expectations of the labour movement. It is a very short list. How much has the Conservative government given to help the unemployed, the tens of thousands of workers who have lost their job in the forestry sector? Peanuts, compared to the billions of dollars it has showered on Ontario to help auto workers. What has the Conservative government done to eliminate the two-week waiting period for people who become unemployed? Nothing.

Workers who lose their jobs go through stress and anxiety. Their income is cut off at the source. Meanwhile, they are expected to wait patiently for a Service Canada official to examine their file, and often they have to endure processing delays, not to mention the 1-800 telephone line, which is insane. In addition to waiting for an answer, the poor jobless people have to put up with this irresponsible treatment.

I will continue with my list, because since I came to the House of Commons in 2004, my social priorities have always included the unemployed and older workers. This government is still refusing to support our proposal to increase the maximum EI benefit period for workers with a serious illness from 15 to 50 weeks. It is currently 15 weeks, as if someone's cancer could be treated in 15 weeks.

I could pull out the list of measures we have called for in recent years and the many bills we have introduced to help our workers. The list of no's from ministers and members is as long as our list of requests. By the way, the government voted against Bill C-429, which would have promoted the use of wood in the construction of federal buildings and would have helped workers in Quebec. But no, the government ignored our workers again. That was another trademark vote by the Conservatives.

I would like to remind hon. members once again of one of the most anti-worker statements ever heard here in the House. On December 3, 2009, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain said this:

I do not see anything in the bill's proposed provision that would help boost Canada's ability to create jobs and to be more competitive in today's economy. What I do see in the bill is a recipe for instability and uncertainty in Canadian labour relations.

What an explanation. According to him, having workers out on the street for months or years is what will stimulate employment, as will the uncertainty of the workers who do not have sufficient power to assert their legitimate rights. What is the government doing about the uncertainty experienced by the many families of strikers affected by these lasting disputes? Nothing, nothing and more nothing. It prefers to build lakes—that is a good one—for journalists and delegates at the G8. In their right-wing vocabulary, the Conservatives call this “stimulating the economy”. I call it keeping families in poverty.

Let us get back to the Conservative government's sad record.

Here is a clear example of that record. During the CN conflict, the Conservative government passed special legislation with respect to Canadian National. The latter had been training its managers and a large group of non-unionized employees for several months in order to maintain service. In the case of CN, they were maintaining over 60% of service. However, Canadian Pacific, which has two parallel lines across Canada—one used by CN and the other by CP—could have covered the other 40% that CN claimed it could not. They could also have resorted to trucking, as well as the short lines in the regions, to serve the Canadian public.

For the Montreal region, for example, AMT had signed an agreement for continuous passenger service and CN would have covered not just 100%, but 120% of the service provided to its clients.

Given all these responsibilities and possibilities, I wonder why the Conservatives thought there was a crisis and why was there a need for additional service? We have to allow negotiations between the parties to continue in good faith and force them to agree on a collective agreement, and not vote on a special law to force workers back to work.

I would also point out to my hon. colleagues that CN is a private corporation, which is why I do not understand why the government became involved in the dispute. Indeed, when it comes to private corporations, we believe that they are in a position to negotiate with workers themselves and capable of doing so, but they do not, nor do they have to. All they have to do is call up the government and say that they are going on strike and will not be able to provide the service. Since it is a transportation service, it is very important. What did the government do? It passed special legislation to force the workers back to work. They forget about negotiating; they make them work and everything goes back to what it was before, without any thought given to negotiating with the workers. I find that unreasonable on the government's part. It is always trying to denigrate workers. Yet our workers form the foundation of the Canadian and Quebec economy. And they are the first people the government tries to steal from.

We saw it again with the $57 billion that the government stole from workers. It is not enough to tax them or to take taxes off at the source, it always wants a little bit more. As for employers, their taxes have been cut. It is not employers that are producing what Canada needs to survive. It comes from the taxes paid by workers.

I could also talk about the theft from the employment insurance fund surplus. My mother always told me that when you take something that is not yours, it is stealing. When they dipped into the employment insurance fund that was not theirs, it was stealing. I will not contradict my mother here today. If she said it, it is because it is true. Nothing will change my mind.

Back when the Conservatives were in opposition, they constantly condemned the Liberals' practice of pillaging the employment insurance fund. Now, with Bill C-9, they are about to keep doing the same thing. How? By wiping the slate clean, as they say. The Conservatives are telling workers and employers, the people to whom that money belongs, that they should forget about recuperating the $57 billion that the government siphoned off over the years.

The Prime Minister himself once recognized that employment insurance fund money was misappropriated to pay down the deficit. He promised workers that he would repay the $57 billion that Ottawa diverted. Now he is breaking that promise.

The proposed new employment insurance measures are particularly sickening because the Conservatives are trying to hide them among the dozens of other initiatives in Bill C-9. Unfortunately, these kinds of anti-democratic manoeuvres have become par for the course with the Conservative government.

With the end of the parliamentary session just days away, on behalf of unionized workers subject to the Canada Labour Code, and on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, we urge the Conservative ministers and members to say yes to anti-scab legislation.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will not be taking the seven minutes. I don't think we need to. I think we've resolved most of the issues that were highlighted, and I appreciate the Liberal opposition's having brought it forward. We had people come to my office to talk to me about it. I think, based on—I know it's shocking—working together, with you guys bringing an issue forward and the minister moving on it and the staff bringing it forward in Bill C-9.... I appreciate the change.

Just for my understanding, though, this is not just a go-forward measure. How will this affect those who are from JDS or Nortel, who have been caught in the issue they had? Or is it just a go-forward measure?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

This is not in Bill C-9, but in the budget prior to C-9?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right. Those were very good answers. Thank you very much.

Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, has now made its way through the House and is off to the Senate. We'll make the assumption it's going to pass; otherwise, we're in an election. That doesn't matter to you guys, but what will it do to supplementary estimates (B)? Is there a lot in the budget that would affect the industry department?

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest travesties of this omnibus bill, Bill C-9, is the sale of AECL, a measure that in itself should mandate a legislative initiative from the government. It is hiding it in this omnibus bill. AECL is our largest crown corporation. The Canadian taxpayers have put $22 billion into it. The government is looking at selling it at a time when it would be lucky to get $300 million for our investment.

I think the public should be demanding that the government at least do this in a transparent way. The government commissioned a report from Rothschild on how to proceed. It never consulted Parliament about its contents. We want to know why the government is sneaking this measure into an omnibus bill like Bill C-9.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege always to rise in the House of Commons, but sadly Bill C-9 is coming to a conclusion with most likely its passage and I would like to speak against the bill for a number of different reasons.

It is an omnibus bill, so it is a bill that has several additional chapters added on to it. The government has chosen the Americanization of our legislature in many respects. It is similar to state and Congress bills that have riders and pet projects that are added to pass legislation in the United States. What has happened here is that cabinet ministers' pet projects and agendas are moved separately.

I am going to spend a lot of time talking about the bill, but I am not going to necessarily attack the Liberals. I am hopefully going to appeal to the Liberals and the progressive forces who are there to come forward, to change their ways, and vote against the budget.

The reality is that the Conservative government will not fall on this with the G8 and G20 coming. To declare these things as confidence, Canadians would be upset in many respects. Normally those issues that we are talking about should be going to legislation and should have the full debate.

This is a high water mark in terms of what is happening to Canadian democracy and also the repercussions of what is being proposed. I have already seen this.

I saw the thousands of jobs that have been lost, as well as thousands of workers thrown out on the streets in the strike, for example, at Vale Inco in Sudbury. The government changed the Investment Canada Act through a previous budget document, which has now resulted in a foreign takeover that is locking workers out from a fair deal, whereas we could have had a significant difference had that legislation gone through the normal process.

Viewers across the country really need to understand that the government has grouped together and piled on a series of significant social policy changes that are even outside the scope of the discussion of whether or not we should be building fake lakes, whether we should be spending money on employment insurance, whether we should be giving corporate tax cuts, or whether we should be increasing pensions and the politics around that.

This is about a further add-on of legislative changes in hundreds of pages that do not receive accountability. They do not get the input of Canadians. They are excluded from that, whether they are the individuals sitting at home who want to contribute when the government talks about changing Canada Post, who live in a rural community and perhaps would be losing that service, or whether they are in the city and dealing with smog and the environment, or whether they work for an organization actively trying to push for change to public policy. They are being denied the right and usual process in the House to change our ways about doing things.

We are also missing, which sometimes happens in the House, resolutions at the table, with debate in the House, and at committee with witnesses and all those things.

The Liberal Party, by not making a stand on that, is providing this window of opportunity for basically a bully government to get its way, to change public policy through the back door. It is afraid to do that and knows it cannot do that through the democratic process democratically that we normally have.

That is a significant departure from what we have had in the past. We have had this happen a couple of times recently with the Conservatives with regard to the Investment Canada Act and we have seen the hollowing out of the country. We have seen the debacles that have resulted with U.S. Steel, and as I mentioned, Vale Inco. As well, we have a series of divestments in the mining industry that otherwise would have had greater scrutiny.

We have seen the loss of Nortel. That is all because the Investment Canada Act was changed without due process. Pensioners were ripped off, employees have lost their jobs, and we have lost the opportunities of RIM, for example, to become a greater Canadian iconic company that could have brought in some of the technology from Nortel because the government changed the process and created a new process without diligence.

We have seen that happen with the Immigration Act. Canadians are upset about the Immigration Act no matter which way they feel about it. The Conservative government is responsible because it has been fiddling with it without having the proper process.

That is what is unacceptable. It is a watershed moment when it decided to pile it on even further and farther which will cost significantly down the road when we look at the Environmental Assessment Act that is going to be changed.

If we do not have the proper process in place or accountability, if people peddle their pet projects or get permission to avoid the process, we could end up hurting our economy and the environment, and I have seen that happen before.

I saw the government's short-natured approach when we looked at the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It was changed in a budget bill. We heard significant uproar from native fishermen, anglers, and a series of other groups who had no opportunity to consult.

Now the government has decided to up the ante. We just need to look at what the government is going to do with AECL, our nuclear power industry. It is important to note that 30,000 value-added jobs are in this industry in Canada. AECL has demonstrated that it is one of the most reliable operators in the world. It has demonstrated that it can actually be a progressive force for nuclear energy, but also making sure that it is not connected to weaponization.

AECL has led the way in many respects and it is now going to be sold, probably to the lowest bid. The government is desperate and it is trying to make up for the deficit. Everyone knows that so bids will come in low. That is unacceptable because billions of dollars of taxpayers' money has been invested in AECL.

I come from the auto industry. That industry has seen the loss of many value-added jobs. The manufacturing sector has lost many value-added jobs. The forestry sector has lost many value-added jobs. The effect is not only the bang at the moment when people are sent home and do not know what their future will hold but it also has an echo effect on the community, when their EI runs out or when they no longer have a pension or benefits so they cannot afford to send their kid to college or university.

We are undermining ourselves significantly by not doing the proper planning. It is frustrating when we see some of the things that are happening.

There is a big stink right now with regard to the $2 million fake lake, which is now being called a pavilion. Let me put some perspective on this $2 million lake that is being built in Toronto and is going to be filled in after the summit.

The government only has $8 million in this budget for the Great Lakes, the most important natural resource on this planet. It provides freshwater which is not only a commodity but essential to our everyday living and our farming communities. This is causing regional conflict across this country. It will be the new gold of the future.

The government is providing $8 million for the Great Lakes, yet in Toronto it will dig a hole, fill it with water, put out some Muskoka furniture, add some screens and some fences, and it is going to cost $2 million. This fake lake is probably going to get more money than Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and Lake St. Clair. It is going to get more than all the Great Lakes. This fake lake is getting $2 million and meanwhile $8 million has to be divided up even though we know freshwater is one of the most significant things that we have.

Lake levels are down right now and that is affecting our economy. We have already witnessed that fact. The shipping port through Windsor and that area is one of the busiest in the world. It has actually had to lessen the loads to make sure that they can actually get through. A whole series of other issues related to dredging are going to emerge. Environmental contaminants occur as a result of dredging. We will lose the use of our waters, whether we use them for pleasure, recreation or the economy.

What do we get from the government in this budget? We get $8 million for that and $2 million will go toward something that will be dug out, filled with water, carved up, and then three or four days later be filled back in.

We have to borrow this money as the government has raked up a record deficit. We will have to pay interest on that money. Whether it be the money for corporate taxes, the tens of billions of dollars that will have to be raked over until 2014, whether it be $6 billion for implementing the HST, we will have to pay interest on that.

Everything we do right now counts because we do it at a premium. We do it at an extra cost, and interesting to note is that it is being done on a credit card. The government's solution is to try to change the channel.

I ask the Liberals to think about this because it is significant for our economy and for our democracy. Now is the moment to call the government on the carpet.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time this afternoon with the member for Windsor West.

It will not surprise members that I am speaking in opposition to the Conservatives' budget implementation bill at third reading. We in the NDP moved 62 amendments to the government's budget that would have immeasurably improved the bill by taking out the most contentious sections and allowing them to be dealt with in stand-alone bills. Sadly, with the complicity of the Liberals, all of them were defeated in this House last night. I therefore have no choice but to vote against the unamended budget bill.

It is worth reminding people at home who may be watching this debate today what is at stake in this bill and specifically what changes we tried to make.

There were six groups of amendments that dealt with Canada Post, AECL, the National Energy Board, environmental assessments, employment insurance and the air travellers security charge. The NDP amendments would essentially have deleted all sections relating to each of these categories. Frankly, these sections should never have been in the budget bill in the first place. Each piece is of such importance that all six should have been brought forward as separate bills subject to separate scrutiny by this House and in committee and subject to public hearings with affected stakeholders.

In fact, the law explicitly states that if the government is contemplating the sell-off of a Canadian asset like AECL, then it has to be brought to the House of Commons as a bill. Instead, the government buried it on page 556 of the budget. AECL is the largest crown corporation in Canada and it is completely irresponsible for the government to sell it off without any transparency and without any accountability.

We should not be giving away our nuclear crown corporation to a foreign company in a fire sale. Over the course of AECL's life, Canadian taxpayers have put $22 billion into building the company. The only public estimates of what the government might receive in a sale suggest that we would be lucky to get $300 million if we sell it now.

The process has been shrouded in secrecy since the beginning. The government commissioned a report from Rothschild on how to proceed and has never consulted Parliament on its contents. Now the Conservatives are trying to push the sale through the back door by burying the groundwork in Bill C-9, the budget bill.

Parliament and Canadians need to be consulted and involved in the process. Otherwise, if the government simply gets its way, Canadian taxpayers are going to get ripped off and high-paying jobs will be lost.

That is why we put forth our amendments in the House. It is imperative to separate out the AECL privatization measures and force the government to bring them forward in a stand-alone bill. The proposed sale of AECL must be closely studied, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that the government cannot just force it through in a budget that is being used as a Trojan horse.

The same is true for the sections dealing with environmental assessments and the National Energy Board. Here, too, the government is using omnibus budget legislation to weaken Canada's environmental protection laws. These are non-financial matters and they do not belong in the budget.

The government's approach is becoming a bit of a pattern. In last year's budget bill, the Conservative government gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This year's budget bill takes aim at the act that is most important in protecting our environment. This is not about streamlining the process. It is being gutted. These changes will undoubtedly result in damage to our environment, and Canadians will be on the hook to clean up the mess. Putting these costs on future generations is not conservative, it is unconscionable.

What is most galling is the process by which this law is being eviscerated. Parliament, in its wisdom, has prescribed that a review of the law and recommendations for reform be undertaken this year by a designated committee. This comprehensive review is already slated to come before the parliamentary committee on environment and sustainable development. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has stunningly dubbed such a review as “frivolous”. So it comes as no surprise that the government has chosen instead to short-circuit the process that would hear and consider the views of interested stakeholders and other concerned parties and fast-track changes through its budget bill.

Bill C-9 transfers reviews of major energy projects from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The effect is a diminishment of public rights, including clear access to intervenor funds and lessened requirements to consider environmental factors.

Also, the Minister of the Environment will be empowered to narrow the scope of any environmental assessment with political considerations potentially influencing decisions.

Finally, one of the key triggers for federal assessment, federal spending, is significantly exorcized with almost all federal stimulus funded projects to be exempted.

Addressing long-term liabilities from unmitigated environmental or health impacts should not be shunted aside for short-term political gain from streamlined or fast-tracked project approvals. Canadians will pay the costs.

Similarly, Canadians will be paying the costs of the ill-conceived erosion of Canada Post's exclusive privilege to handle international letters. I have had the privilege of speaking at length on this issue twice before in the House, so I will try to be brief today.

At the heart of the issue is that international mailers, or remailers as they are commonly known, who collect and ship letters to other countries where the mail is processed and remailed at a lower cost. In doing so, they are siphoning off $60 million to $80 million per year in business from Canada Post. Yet Canada Post needs that revenue to provide affordable postal service to everyone no matter where they live in our huge country. In fact, one ruling of a Court of Appeal in Ontario stressed the importance of exclusive privilege in serving rural and remote communities and noted that international mailers are “not required to bear the high cost of providing services to the more remote regions of Canada”.

Canada Post won this legal challenge against the remailers all the way to the Supreme Court. What is the so-called law and order government doing in response? It is standing up for the international mailers which are currently carrying international letters in violation of the law. The Conservatives are allowing them to siphon off business from Canada Post and they snuck the enabling legislation into the budget bill. Once again, the budget is being used as a Trojan horse and the Conservatives are hoping that no one will notice. Well, New Democrats noticed and that is why we moved to delete all of the sections related to international mailers from Bill C-9.

We also noticed of course that the government is imposing a new tax on Canadians through this budget. This is a new flight tax that is expected to raise $3.3 billion over five years. Ostensibly, it is for better airport passenger screening, but only $1.5 billion of money raised will be going to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. The rest appears to be going straight into government coffers. Even if people believe that the new security measures such as the 44 virtual strip search scanners are better than regular pat-downs, the bottom line is that the Canadian security charge is now the highest in the world without any commensurate increase in aviation safety. Whether it is called a user fee or a new tax, it is an ill-conceived cash grab by the government and deserves much greater scrutiny.

Finally, I want to talk about the changes to EI that are buried deep in the budget and I will cut right to chase. When the Liberals were in power the then finance minister took almost $50 billion of workers' money out of the employment insurance program and used it to cut taxes for his friends in corporate Canada. Since taking power in 2006, the Conservatives have continued to rob workers of what is rightfully theirs. Instead of seizing the opportunity to do right by hard-working Canadians in this budget and returning all of the employee and employer contributions to the EI fund, the budget bill before us does the unthinkable. It legalizes the theft of $57 billion. It takes the $57 billion and simply adds it to its general revenues. That is the biggest theft in Canadian history and it is being perpetrated in the House of Commons and the Senate.

That is not what we were elected to do here. On the contrary, for the last year and a half, our country has been battered by a tsunami of job losses and we as elected members have a responsibility to mitigate its impact on the hard-working Canadians who are the innocent victims of this recession. That was the original reason for creating EI. It was established so workers who lost their jobs would not automatically fall into poverty. EI is the single most important income support program for Canadian workers and we have a duty to protect and enhance it. So no, we cannot just let the budget implementation bill rob Canadians of hope by being complicit in emptying the entire employment insurance account. We cannot and will not let this pass with our consent. We cannot and will not support the bill that is so fundamentally at odds with the best interests of our constituents.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in knowing what the member plans on telling unemployed people in his riding when they find out that Bill C-9, among other things that do not belong in it, would empty out the EI fund and affect the hard-working people across Canada who depend on that fund when they hit on hard times. People in my riding have seen their jobs dissipate without the government's support when it comes to the forestry industry or the issues around manufacturing?

What is he going to tell those workers in his riding who are looking for EI in those difficult days?

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly of all the things that do not belong in this 880-page budget implementation bill, the smoking gun, the item that stands out the most, is the issue of the Canada Post remailers.

The fact is the government introduced that measure in Bill C-14 and in Bill C-44 over the last couple of years as stand-alone bills in the House and were rebuffed by this Parliament. It was unable to get it through.

Now the government has snuck it in under Bill C-9 in the hopes that its Liberal allies will close their eyes and vote for it or avoid the vote and allow this to pass.

How can the member, with a straight face, claim that this is a pure budget implementation act when he knows it is not?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments by the member for St. Catharines on Bill C-9. I know the member and his riding of St. Catharines, Ontario well. When he reflects on what he has heard in the committee meetings, it strikes me that those reflections are rather selective.

I know the people in St. Catharines are profoundly worried about their pensions. At the committee meetings, there was a huge call for pension reform with respect to protecting pensions in cases of commercial bankruptcy and increasing the CPP. People are profoundly worried about seniors falling into poverty and the need to enhance the GIS. Yet there is nothing in the budget about those things.

What is in the budget is the finalization of the theft of $57 billion from the EI fund, something that is also of huge concern in the entire Niagara Peninsula and across the country. Representations were made to the committee about that as well as the privatization of Canada Post, the sell-off of AECL and protecting the environment.

If the member feels as strongly as he indicated today about some aspects of the budget, last night why did he not support severing some of the other key items like EI reform, like the sell-off of AECL and the privatization of Canada Post so we could deal with those as stand-alone matters and he could truly represent the interests of his constituents?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about AECL, which is our largest crown corporation. We have put $22 billion into it over the life of the company and now the government is looking at selling it off and probably getting maybe $300 million, if we are lucky.

The member was present when there were 140 workers from AECL in the gallery basically begging the Liberals to vote against this bill and defeat the government. Why is the Liberal Party going along with the Conservatives and essentially allowing them to pass Bill C-9, which he knows is 880 pages long and throws all sorts of items into the mix that do not belong in it, particularly AECL?

In terms of AECL, the government has commissioned a report about how to proceed and it has never consulted Parliament regarding--

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect my colleague has some constituents who are connected to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the nuclear industry in Canada that is located in his riding.

I guess the confusion I have, and which I think many Canadians would share with me, is when my hon. colleague talked about how Bill C-9 contains 900 pages of everything, including the kitchen sink. Anything the government could not pass independently, it rammed into this bill, which is an omnibus bill, a Trojan horse, or we can call it what we want, but most people would call it a disaster.

The bill would also give permission for the government to sell Canada's largest crown corporation, AECL, with no public debate and no discussion, which by law was required. AECL was set up at the beginning so that if the government ever wanted to sell it off, it would need to bring a bill before Parliament for discussion and a debate about whether that was a good idea, how to do it and what the terms of sale were. Instead, the government has gone through the back door and rammed it into a budget bill with no debate at all.

My hon. colleague's recommendation was that the bill should be broken up into its parts so that we could debate the sale of AECL, debate the environmental watering down of regulations that are in this bill and debate what is happening to Canada Post, which is being stripped of its international mailing rights. We voted on those motions last night. New Democrats moved motions at the committee but the Liberals ducked out of the committee room in order to allow the vote to pass. We had votes in this House last night and the Liberals voted to keep all those things in the bill. We had a vote not more than 12 hours ago on the very thing he is asking for and he voted to keep it in rather than have it out in the light of day. I do not understand how he can stand today and say that this is what should happen, when we had the chance--

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague highlights the fact we are at a very opportune time in Canada. We finally have a coherent foreign policy that takes a place on issues on the world stage. More than that, we are now financially and economically well positioned to lead the world in many ways. In fact many are taking lessons from our financial sector and the changes in Bill C-9 add to that some more. There are many things in this legislation that will help us continue to advance ourselves in the world.

On the point the member made about working together, one thing I have learned the longer I do this job at the local level is that it really is a team game. We cannot do it alone. We need to work together with the provincial governments and the municipal governments, the private sector, the non-profit sector, the NGOs and so on to provide the kind of good government Canadians need and deserve.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Sometimes I say to my constituents that as a government anybody can balance a budget; when there is almost unlimited access to money, just by raising taxes or cutting the way money is spent, almost anybody could balance the budget. If people had that kind of access in their household budgets, for example, I think they could do that. However, it is how a budget is balanced that is really the key to good government. As the member said, we do not want to repeat how it was done in the 1990s. In fact, we have made a commitment, as my colleague has pointed out, not to do that.

One of the measures in Bill C-9 is to implement the transfer protection payments to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Saskatchewan that was announced in December 2009. We need to get that into law. The longer this bill is delayed, as the NDP has done its best to do, the longer it will take to put this and other measures in place.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission on his intervention on this very important bill, Bill C-9, which allows Canada to move forward with its economic action plan.

One of the things we had promised as a government was that we were going to do our level best not to repeat the Liberal performance from about 10 years ago when the Liberals cut transfer payments to the provinces. As a former council member in the city of Abbotsford, I know how much that hurt communities across this country when the federal government balanced its books on the backs of municipalities and provinces.

Could the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission comment on what our budget does to protect those transfers to ensure that we do not pass the buck for balancing the budget onto the provinces and municipalities?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and the good people of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission who support a strong Canadian economy, I rise in support of the jobs and economic growth bill.

Budget 2010 and the jobs and economic growth bill outline a positive and ambitious plan to strengthen Canada's economy, and a plan that is working. Indeed the IMF just forecasted Canada's economic growth to be at the head of the pack for the G7 and all countries with advanced economies this year and next year as well. The IMF also singled out Canada for praise, saying:

Canada entered the global crisis in good shape, and thus the exit strategy appears less challenging than elsewhere.

This follows an OECD report earlier this month also predicting Canada's economic growth will, by a wide margin, lead all G7 countries this year, so we are off to a good start this year.

Statistics Canada announced that Canada's economy grew by 6.1% in the first quarter of 2010, representing both the strongest quarterly rate of economic growth in a decade and the strongest growth in the G7. What is even better, Canada's economy continues to create jobs. In fact, May represented the eighth month of job gains in the past ten months. In May we saw 24,000 jobs created. This follows a record-breaking 108,000 new jobs created in April. In fact, overall, since July of last year, Canada has created almost 310,000 new jobs.

Clearly our government is on the right track. Our economy is growing and we are creating jobs for Canadians, and it is being noticed around the world. The influential magazine The Economist recently called Canada “an economic star”. The OECD said that Canada's economy “shines”. Standard & Poor's, the world's premier credit rating agency, also said:

Of the other G7 countries...Canada is posting the best fiscal results. Canada also best weathered the financial crisis...is now well positioned to continue to outperform...

World leaders are also singling out Canada. U.S. President Barack Obama praised Canada, saying:

—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...And I think that’s important for us to take note of...

This reinforces what we said all along. While not immune from the global recession, Canada's economy did enter it, but will exit it in the strongest position.

However, the global recovery remains fragile. We must stay on track to ensure that our economic recovery remains strong. Our top priority remains the economy and implementing Canada's economic action plan to create jobs, lower taxes, foster growth and invest in better infrastructure.

Budget 2010 and the jobs and economic growth bill is one way our government is staying focused on the economy. I am here to speak about some of the budget 2010 measures that are laying the foundation for Canada's future economic prosperity.

Budget 2010 and the jobs and economic growth bill introduce measures that will help businesses access the financing they need to support the recovery, improve the framework of our financial sector and pursue a more forward-looking approach to protecting consumers of financial products and services.

Canada's financial sector has been widely acknowledged as one of the strongest in the world. The World Economic Forum, for example, rated Canada's banking system the soundest in the world. Well capitalized financial institutions and sound regulation have meant that financial institutions in Canada were better able to weather the global financial crisis than those in many other countries, perhaps all other countries. Over the past year, Canada's economic action plan provided measures to support financial institutions and the financial system in the midst of extraordinary circumstances. In particular, the global economic crisis made it difficult for Canadian banks and other lenders to obtain funds from international markets at reasonable costs.

To soften the impact of this crisis, Canada's economic action plan included measures to provide up to $200 billion to support lending to Canadian households and businesses. This helped to keep credit flowing to Canadian consumers and businesses throughout the crisis and helped Canada's financial sector improve its global competitive advantage.

Nevertheless, ensuring that businesses of all sizes have adequate access to financing to acquire vehicles and equipment is increasingly important as the economic recovery matures.

Our government is not content to rest on our laurels. We are continuing to find ways to improve the financial sector framework.

As outlined in the jobs and economic growth bill, Canada is home to a strong and vibrant credit union industry that provides financial services to millions of Canadian consumers and small businesses. To promote the continued growth and competitiveness of the sector and enhance financial stability, the jobs and economic growth act, Bill C-9, will enable credit unions to incorporate and continue their operations as federal entities. Allowing credit unions to grow and be competitive on a national scale will broaden choices for consumers by helping credit unions to attract new members and improve services to existing members across provincial borders.

Why would we want to delay such a positive part of the jobs and economic growth act? We need to pass Bill C-9. Indeed, let us read what the Case for Progress Committee, a coalition of several credit unions such as B.C. credit unions FirstWest and Vancity, had to say about this measure.

It said that the federal government’s plans to introduce legislation that would make it easier for credit unions to operate nationally was applauded and supported by committee, a group composed of credit unions across Canada. It said that the legislation would give Canadian credit unions more choices in their growth options by allowing them to operate outside their traditional provincial boundaries, and would also strengthen the credit union system. It said we were marking a ”historic milestone” today, that this new legislation would benefit all Canadians by increasing their choices in selecting a financial institution. It would strengthen the stability and competitiveness of the entire financial services industry in Canada.

From my home province of B.C., Tracy Redies, president and CEO of Coast Capital Savings, praised these measures, saying that credit unions are:

—a very, very vibrant part of the financial services industry in Canada and I think the pending legislation will enable it to continue to grow and prosper and...that's good for Canada.

I agree with her.

If we go to the other side of the country, we can listen to Jamie Baillie, president and CEO of Credit Union Atlantic, who said, “this measure will promote the continued growth and competitiveness of the sector and enhance financial stability...This provides a framework for a more competitive banking system in Canada and will enable further growth of the credit union alternative”.

Clearly, this measure is supported from coast to coast and deserves to be passed by the House.

However, this is not all the government is doing to support consumers and to promote the efficient functioning of the financial system. The Canadian payments system is a vital support to the economy, linking Canadians, merchants and financial institutions together and facilitating payment transactions through, for example, credit and debit card networks and clearing and settlement systems.

In November 2009 our government released for public comment a proposed code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry in Canada, which responds to issues raised by stakeholders in the debit and credit card markets. The code, which was developed in consultation with market participants, aims to promote fair business practices and ensure that merchants and consumers clearly understand the costs and benefits associated with credit and debit cards.

In April the government released the final code for voluntary adoption by the industry within a few weeks. To support adoption of the code, the jobs and economic growth act would provide the Minister of Finance with the authority to regulate the market conduct of the credit and debit card networks and their participants if necessary.

We have heard very positive responses since we announced it and participants have already agreed to sign on to the code. For instance, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, or CFIG, commented:

The Code of Conduct is a very positive step and we are very pleased to note that many of the concerns CFIG has raised on behalf of independent retail grocers, such as negative option billing practices, have been heard and responded to, by the government.

CFIG also welcomed the decision by the Minister to bring in legislation that will give the government the ability to regulate the market if the voluntary Code of Conduct does not work...the Code...provides retailers with choice and ensures that our members can continue to compete as important members of the food industry and the communities they serve across the country.

The Canadian Federation of Business, the CFIB, was also very supportive. Its president, Catherine Swift, said:

[The] Code constitutes an important step and is timely as we enter the summer season that is so vital to so many businesses, especially coming out of a recession. We are particularly pleased that government is being proactive in helping to lay the groundwork in advance of major expected campaigns on the part of Visa and MasterCard in the debit card industry. These developments will create a better future for merchants and help ensure a fair and transparent credit and debit card market instead of just letting large industry players call all the shots.

This part was confirmed at the finance committee hearings from the Retail Council of Canada when it said:

[We] commend the minister and the Government of Canada for establishing a card payment regulatory framework, and for equipping the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada with the tools it needs to monitor and enforce compliance with the code of conduct changes, changes that are both contained in Bill C-9.

As the Retail Council of Canada correctly pointed out, many of these important changes to help our small businesses will only take effect with the passage of the jobs and economic growth act, Bill C-9.

That is not all we are doing to safeguard our financial sector in the jobs and economic growth act. A few other measures we are taking include: amending the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act in order to enhance the government's ability to protect Canada's financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing activities; amendments to protect depositors in the event of an institution failure; extending the due date for filing annual GST returns from three months to six months after year-end for certain financial institutions; and much more.

While not as high profile, these measures are nonetheless important to the efficient functioning of our financial sector.

The global economic recession clearly demonstrated the importance of a strong, well-regulated financial sector. Around the world, Canadians were bombarded with news of bank failures and bailouts. In Canada, we did not have any bank failures or bailouts, showcasing the strength of our financial sector to the world.

As a result of our strong financial system, Canada is doing better than our G7 partners. We entered this recession later and are exiting it in a stronger position than our international peers.

For the average Canadian this means stronger economic growth and more jobs for Canadians. It means that for the first time in a generation, Canada's unemployment rate is nearly 1.5% lower than the United States. It means that when Canadians go to their local bank branch, they do not have to worry that their bank will close its doors to them.

Clearly the continued strength of our financial system is important for our government and Canadians. While our financial system is strong, we will not rest on our laurels, as I have said, but we will continue to move forward and find ways to further improve our financial system.

Budget 2010 and the jobs and economic growth act would do just that. The actions and measures in this legislation are important and contribute to a well-functioning financial system that meets the needs of Canadians and supports our future economic prosperity.

We must pass Bill C-9, the jobs and economic growth act, to help build our financial sector for the future and, in turn, create the jobs and economic growth that Canadians need and deserve.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Bill C-9

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, budget implementation Bill C-9 alone amends 70 other statutes, some of which have nothing to do with the budget. The privatization of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited without requiring a debate in Parliament, the end of Canada Post's monopoly on certain services, and the intentional disappearance of the $57 billion that the Conservative government owes the employment insurance fund are just a few examples of the amendments in Bill C-9.

By hiding his reforms in such a huge, indigestible bill, the Prime Minister is muzzling the public, which is struggling to sort everything out, and the hon. members, who cannot study these reforms with the attention and the diligence they deserve.

As Le Devoir's Manon Cornellier points out, by creating this omnibus bill, the Prime Minister is bypassing debates and once again undermining the role and the authority of the people's representatives, .

This is yet another illustration of the Conservatives' lack of transparency and their contempt for parliamentary democracy.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I will use my two remaining minutes. There is a risk with Bill C-9. What does it do in terms of oil and gas drilling projects, especially in offshore areas? It transfers responsibility from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to the National Energy Board. It means that an economic department is going to conduct environmental assessments. That is the current risk. It is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. We must remember the events in the United States. When an economic office is responsible for the environmental assessment of projects, the ecosystems will definitely be in danger.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on this World Oceans Day, I imagine that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie's opinion on Bill C-9 is surely motivated by the increasing concern for the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the estuary, with respect to oil and gas development. I would like to hear what he has to say about this because Bill C-9 opens the door to a laissez-faire approach that, in my opinion, is very dangerous.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, but I am also deeply disappointed. This bill to implement one of the most important aspects of the parliamentary cycle—the budget—and to formalize this defining moment is something of a lost opportunity. The government had a golden opportunity to reposition Canada's economy as a 21st century economy that focuses on the future and will outstrip the past 30, 40 or 50 years during which our economic activity was heavily dependent on the oil industry.

The government decided to shelve the green revolution that Canada needs to restructure the economy and create the value-added jobs of the future, many of which are green jobs. Instead, the government chose to remain in the stone age of economic development and cling to its reliance on the oil industry, which is located primarily in the west, as is its political base.

Today's initiatives concern the budget presented a few months ago, which proved that the government's economic choices were essentially political, partisan choices made in the interest of the party's political base in Saskatchewan and Alberta, choices that penalize most other regions of Canada, especially those that rely on manufacturing. Manufacturing, this country's second economic driver, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, has been penalized over the past few years by Canada's policy of promoting fossil fuels, thereby causing the Canadian dollar to rise. Canadian manufacturing exporters have been victims of what is known as the Dutch disease, a phenomenon that Holland experienced and that Canada is going through, too.

Canada's dollar rose largely because of choices about natural resources. Canada and Quebec are being penalized by the government's economic choices made at the expense of the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

Instead, especially when Canada will be hosting the G8 and G20, we would have expected our country to answer the call that came from the UN on October 22, 2008, asking the G8 nations to come up with a green new deal by developing initiatives to promote investment in clean technologies and natural resources.

This green economy initiative was designed to create green jobs and to develop policies and market instruments that could expedite a transition to a sustainable economy. Moreover, the UN has given countries 24 months, until October 22, 2010, to come up with a plan. But judging by the discussions at the UN, the Prime Minister is refusing to give the fight against climate change a prominent place on the agenda for the G8 and G20. Yet climate change is one of the most important issues of the century, because it is causing other crises, such as food and financial crises.

One day, we are going to have to understand that as long as we do not tackle climate change head-on, the food crisis in developing countries will escalate. Canada's lack of leadership on climate change at the G8 summit is disappointing, and it shows that as soon as the Conservatives came to power, they decided to give up on the fight against climate change. We know what happened. We found out last week when Environment Canada released a report stating that by the time the Kyoto deadline arrives, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will have increased by 30% over 1990 levels.

That is the problem. Canada could have included a number of initiatives in its budget. Moreover, we had made pre-budget proposals calling for Canada's economy to be converted to a sustainable, greener economy. What did we propose? First, we did not propose reinventing a number of programs. We said that existing programs, programs the government had cut and programs that were underfunded should all be enhanced.

That is the case with the ecoauto program, for example, which gave financial incentives to citizens wanting to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles. What did the government do? It refused to agree with us and use an existing tool, taxation, to encourage greener forms of transportation. We also said that the government, again using this fiscal instrument, could give financial incentives to a number of businesses. That is the case with renewable energy. We proposed improving the wind power production incentive program under which, in the past, the federal government would pay 1¢ for every kilowatt hour of energy produced by wind. It was a federal contribution, using this fiscal instrument, to help the economy shift towards a carbon-free economy. Once again, the government turned a deaf ear.

And what is happening now? We have learned that in Quebec, for example, businesses in Bromont's wind-energy sector are closing down simply because the government decided against offering tax incentives. But things south of the border are booming. And American President Barack Obama has decided to invest in energy sources of the future, to pursue this new economic revolution—the clean technology revolution—and use his federal budget to invest more than 10 times more per capita in energy efficiency and the fight against climate change. While the American economy is transforming itself, the Canadian economy is killing time and, when it comes to economic development, has decided to stay in the stone age. But at what expense? At the expense of economic sustainability. And this will ensure that the jobs of tomorrow will not be value-added jobs. We have to use what I call the fiscal instrument to convert our economy.

However, the government has another instrument at its disposal, and that is regulation. The government could adopt regulations that force our economy to be more sustainable. It started to do so by regulating motor vehicles. For 10 years, we have been calling on the House of Commons to amend motor vehicle manufacturing standards to match the ones that exist in California. We are happy to see that the government is going along with our proposal. Quebec initiated this harmonization a few months ago. Quebec was criticized by the Minister of the Environment.

All of a sudden, the minister is saying that Quebec was right. The standards will now be harmonized with those in California.

In conclusion, I want to say that it is possible to present a federal budget that aims to make our economy carbon-free. If we do not do it, our neighbours to the south will. And our competitiveness will be the first to suffer. At the end of the day, it is the workers who will see new jobs created, but they will be so-called carbon jobs with no added value.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech and for pointing out the complacency and, even worse, the fact that the Liberals are again sitting on their hands when it comes to this budget. What is even more pernicious, in addition to the fact that they are keeping the Conservatives in power, is that it allows the Conservatives to add all the elements mentioned by the member because they know that the Liberals will let the budget pass. The bill will, among other things, deregulate the postal service and confirm the pillage of the employment insurance fund. These are elements that should not be in a budget, which has become an omnibus budget bill, as previously stated by my colleague from Hochelaga, our finance critic.

As my colleague asked, why do the Liberals not realize this? Yesterday, they could have voted for the amendments to withdraw these pernicious elements from Bill C-9. They at least would have taken a stand. They have again shown that they are incapable of doing so.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct in his analysis of Bill C-9. We have an omnibus bill which is 880 pages long; it has to be a record. The government is adding in all sorts of measures that have nothing whatsoever to do with budget implementation. More to the point, they are measures the Conservatives have been trying to get through the House for the last two years.

For example, on the post office remailer issue, the government introduced Bill C-14 and Bill C-44 over the last two years. The Conservatives brought those bills to the House, debated them, but could not get them through the House, so they simply have seized the opportunity while the Liberals are sleeping to stick it into this huge omnibus bill and ram it through the House. That is the way the government is approaching the legislative agenda today and it is absolutely wrong. It is the wrong way to proceed.

I would like to ask the member for his comments.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

We are at third reading of Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. The Bloc Québécois voted against this Conservative bill at second reading because, in addition to not meeting Quebec's needs, it undermines Quebec's economic development, against the wishes of Quebec's National Assembly.

We obviously supported the NDP amendments at report stage that would have deleted parts of the bill.

Although it has been shown that this bill is unacceptable for Quebec, it has still made it to the final stage, thanks to the complicity of the Liberal opposition, which arranged that the bill would receive enough support through all the stages.

In their speeches, the Liberals—and we just heard an example—make some pro forma criticisms of the bill but when it comes time to vote there are enough absentees to allow the bill to pass, because it is a confidence vote.

This so-called official opposition does not want to defeat the government. In order to make themselves understood, they even announced in advance what they would do, supposedly because the voters do not want an election. It was very easy, therefore, for the Conservative government to introduce major changes to other bills in six parts of this one in order to quietly slip them through.

The Conservatives also took advantage of the opportunity to trample all over the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces by creating a Canada-wide securities commission in Toronto.

I like to think that the ideal would be a good government that is concerned about the well-being of the population, old people and our fragile environment and, insofar as Quebeckers are concerned, considers us a nation, as it did officially acknowledge. But that is not what this Conservative government elected in the fall of 2008 is doing.

We should all remember that this is a minority government and the opposition parties exist precisely to express their opinions, say why they disagree, and oppose when necessary.

A general election is obviously a major undertaking for the various parties and there are necessarily costs involved, but the social and monetary costs of more years of Conservative rule are much more onerous, especially for Quebec.

I would like to speak now about my riding of Alfred-Pellan. A Liberal candidate was chosen about a year ago and he seems to have been campaigning ever since, in case there is an election. It just goes to show how indecisive and inconsistent the Liberals are.

It is only natural for a candidate to work hard for success during an election campaign, but perhaps this one should be reminded that his party does not even want an election. In any case, I would like to know what kind of alternative a Liberal candidate would currently offer.

Today is the last chance for all the members from Quebec to oppose this bill.

It contradicts two unanimous votes in the Quebec National Assembly, and it is simply unacceptable for members from Quebec to be complicit in it, given that the Quebec nation was officially recognized in this House.

There was a unanimous request from Quebec that the government provide $2.2 billion in financial compensation for the harmonization of the sales tax. Still the government refuses, despite the agreements that were signed with five other provinces for a total of $6.8 billion.

On March 31, 2009—more than a year ago—the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion asking the federal government to treat Quebec fairly and equitably by providing compensation comparable to what Ontario is receiving for harmonizing its sales tax.

Despite the repeated pleas of the Government of Quebec and all the attempts of the Bloc Québécois to correct this injustice, the Conservative government is still refusing Quebec’s requests.

What was possible with five other provinces does not seem to be possible with the one that is in fact recognized as a nation. That is unacceptable to Quebec.

What can we say now about the government’s intention of trampling the powers of the provinces and of Quebec by creating its national securities commission, again in spite of a unanimous vote against it by Quebec?

The entire economic community of Quebec is mobilizing against this coup. The editorial writer in La Presse, a newspaper owned by Power Corporation that is in fact dedicated to defending federalism in Quebec, says, and I quote: “The expression ‘predatory federalism’ is overused, but that is what this comes down to.”

In addition, the editorial writer in Le Devoir says, in an editorial entitled “Perverse process”, that if the government wins in the Supreme Court, it would be a flat-out intrusion into a provincial field of jurisdiction, another step toward centralization of the country.

He goes on to say that the trap lies in the provinces’ freedom to join in the process. The three recalcitrant provinces, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec, will not be able to resist the pressure from the market.

We are looking at a poorly disguised attempt at constitutional fraud. Once it has its foot in the securities field, the federal government will find it easy to expand its sphere of activity, while Quebec’s will shrink, against its will. The members from Quebec must not take part in this attack on the Quebec nation.

This negation of Quebec in the bill was not enough. Taking advantage of the Liberals’ acknowledged servility, the government has introduced very significant amendments to other statutes in this bill that it does not have the courage to put forward and defend by introducing separate bills, as our democratic parliamentary rules require.

In the few minutes available to them, witnesses we heard in committee expressed their confusion in the face of the lack of consideration given to subjects as important as the exclusive privilege of the Canada Post Corporation, the privatization of Atomic Energy Canada, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Employment Insurance Act.

I would like to speak specifically about part 24 of the bill, which amends the Employment Insurance Act. The Bloc Québécois called for substantial improvements to the scheme. Instead, the bill hands us the following measures: the 2010 budget closes the employment insurance account and creates a new account, the employment insurance operating account; and the accumulated employment insurance surpluses are eliminated finally and permanently, with retroactive effect to January 1, 2009.

The employment insurance surplus, amounting to more than $57 billion on March 31, 2009, will disappear for good.

That was not enough. Lifting the freeze on premium rates in 2011 as set out in the bill will not even improve the system. The government will help itself to surpluses estimated at $19 billion between 2011 and 2015. It is appalling that they will penalize the workers of Quebec and Canada like this.

Out of respect for the people of my riding of Alfred-Pellan, I will vote against this budget, which clearly does not meet their needs and in fact works against their development and progress. In fact, I would like to see all members of this House from Quebec show some solidarity at this crucial moment and oppose this bill.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 has 24 sections in it. We hear often from the opposition that this is a big bill and so on. Hundreds of pages are for the tariff relief that we are providing.

However, we are providing expenditure restraint. We are improving competition when it comes to Canada Post. We are fighting money laundering. We are improving the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada's abilities. There is a variety of things we are doing.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell me why anybody would be voting against this particular bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak at third and final reading to the jobs and economic growth act, referred to in the House as Bill C-9.

We spent quite a bit of time debating this, and I am almost as happy as most Canadians are to see this debate coming to a close so that we can move it on to the other house and actually implement all of these good measures.

The jobs and economic growth act and budget 2010 are an integral part of Canada's economic action plan. It is a positive and ambitious plan that has been successfully strengthening our economy and helping to create jobs throughout our country.

Recent job gains help illustrate that Canada's economic action plan is indeed working. May represented the eighth month, out of the past 10, of job gains. Since July 2009, Canada has created over 300,000 net new jobs.

What is more, both the OECD and the IMF have predicted that Canada's economic growth will lead the G7 by a wide margin this year. What is more, just recently, the IMF singled out Canada for praise, saying, “Canada entered the global crisis in good shape and thus the exit strategy appears less challenging than elsewhere”.

This reinforces what we have said all along. While not immune from the global recession, Canada's economy entered it from the strongest position, and Canada will exit it in the strongest position. Listen to a Toronto Sun editorial following the great announcement that over 100,000 new jobs were created last April. It said:

Our economy in April produced a record 108,700 jobs...the largest one-month increase ever in raw numbers....[T]he job growth numbers support [the] Prime Minister's contention Canada's economic recovery is among the strongest in the world....What politicians of all stripes on Parliament Hill need to remember is that for average Canadians, the economy is job one.

We agree. We acknowledge that the global recovery remains fragile. That is why our number one priority remains the economy. That is why we have been working, and will continue to, to fully implement Canada's economic action plan, which is a blueprint for creating jobs, lowering taxes, fostering economic growth, and investing in better infrastructure.

Budget 2010 and the jobs and economic growth act is one way our government is doing just that. It is staying focused on job one, the economy.

In the remainder of my time, I want to speak about the constructive and encouraging initiatives in the jobs and economic growth act. However, first I would like to highlight, for the benefit of the chamber and Canadians, how witness after witness at the finance committee, during its consideration of this important act, spoke strongly in favour of these important initiatives They were witnesses like the Canadian Apparel Federation and the 400 Canadian companies and 50,000 workers it represents. The Canadian Apparel Federation spoke glowingly of the jobs and economic growth act and the historic step within it to eliminate all tariffs on manufacturing inputs and machinery and equipment. It understood the importance of this bold move, one that will make Canada the first G20 country to establish itself as a tariff-free zone for manufacturers.

In the words of the Canadian Apparel Federation at the hearing:

[O]ur most important industrial policy issue has been the duties paid on imported raw materials. I am happy today to support the passage of Bill C-9, because it contains the elimination of these duties....In the current economic climate, this is the most effective policy at government's disposal to lower the costs of domestic manufacturing. It eliminates an unnecessary financial burden on domestic manufacturers....

That is a compelling argument.

Witnesses such as the Retail Council of Canada, and the 40,000 Canadian stores and online merchants it represents, strongly urged the committee to pass the jobs and economic growth act, especially the legislative provisions within it to monitor compliance with the code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry and to regulate the industry if necessary.

The Retail Council of Canada stated:

Merchants across Canada are following this issue closely. They commend the minister...for establishing a card payment regulatory framework and for equipping the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada with the tools it needs to monitor and enforce compliance with the code of conduct changes, changes that are both contained in Bill C-9....[W]e...applaud the fact that there are regulations that will allow the minister to in fact regulate the payment system....[T]his may have to happen sooner versus later.

What about witnesses such as the Canadian Cancer Society, which spoke in favour of the initiative in the jobs and economic growth act to help counter illegal contraband through an enhanced stamping regime for tobacco products?

As the Canadian Cancer Society stated at committee:

All members of Parliament are aware of how we have a significant illegal contraband problem in Canada, and we need solutions. We support the enhanced tax stamp regime that will be authorized with this bill....It will assist in preventing counterfeiting.

The finance committee has also heard from witnesses such as Pathways to Education Canada. The jobs and economic growth act provides $20 million for pathways, which is a unique program of early interventions and support for high school students to help them overcome the barriers they may face in pursuing post-secondary education. This community-based, volunteer-supported program provides tutoring, mentoring, counselling, and financial support to disadvantaged youth and their families. It has an established record of reducing high school dropout rates. It has a record of being effective in increasing post-secondary enrollment of students from inner-city high schools.

The $20 million in new support authorized with the passage of the jobs and economic growth act would allow Pathways to grow and would help even more disadvantaged youth.

As David Hughes, president of Pathways to Education Canada, told the committee:

[O]ur program...is lowering dropout rates of at-risk youth and helping them to make the all-important transition to post-secondary education and meaningful employment. This investment will enable Pathways...to expand its program from being a regional program to being a national one, helping us expand to 15 to 20 locations, to seven to eight provinces, and serving over 10,000 students.

The committee also heard from Genome Canada. Genome Canada is a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to developing and implementing a national strategy in genomics and proteomics research for the benefit of all Canadians.

The research performed by Genome Canada, such as genomics research, has outcomes in the areas of human health, the environment, and natural resources. Recognizing the work performed by Genome Canada, the jobs and economic growth act would invest $75 million in this organization to launch new research, an investment that Genome Canada is ready to put to work.

Indeed, when Genome Canada appeared before committee, it noted:

[W]e are proud of our track record....[T]he recent federal budget provided $75 million in additional funding to Genome Canada, for which we are thankful....We want to get these funds directly into the hands of the researchers as quickly as possible....Excellence is the only standard that Genome Canada will accept or fund.

Witnesses also appeared before the finance committee to applaud the provisions in the jobs and economic growth act that would enable credit unions to grow and remain competitive by permitting them to incorporate as federal entities, if they so choose.

We all recognize that Canada is home to a strong and vibrant credit union industry that provides financial services to millions of Canadian consumers and small businesses. It has long been argued that allowing credit unions to grow on a national scale would broaden choices for consumers by helping credit unions attract new members and improve services for existing members across provincial borders.

Indeed, that is what we heard at finance committee.

Credit Union Central of Canada presented a very convincing case. It noted that the jobs and economic growth act provided:

a good first step towards the establishment of a useful, attractive, accessible, and distinctive federal charter option for credit unions.

The president of Coast Capital Savings Credit Union, Tracy Redies, added that the act was:

—a historic milestone that will enhance the strength and stability of the credit union sector and financial services industry as a whole....It will give credit unions the chance to develop greater economies of scale and more competitive cost bases while remaining true to cooperative principles. This, in turn, will allow the development of a wider range of enhanced products and services that credit union members now expect.

Increased competition from federal credit unions will provide Canadian consumers more choice, drive innovation, and lower prices.

Finally, the finance committee heard powerful testimony from witnesses praising the government for allowing competition in the outgoing international mail marketplace. We heard evidence that this move would directly save thousands of Canadian jobs. I note that this competition has already been occurring for decades.

Representatives of the Canadian Printing Industries Association, which represents over 7,200 printing establishments that employ some 65,500 Canadians, came to committee to warn of the dire consequences of failing to pass the jobs and economic growth act in a timely manner. They said:

Canadian printers and remail companies have already seen a significant decrease in business given this industry's uncertainty over the past few years. Without this amendment, these companies stand to lose even more business as their customers will simply take their business to another country....No one is going to win: not Canada Post, not our small businesses, and not the Canadian economy.

What about the other quote that we heard from Barry Sikora? This was at committee also. Mr. Sikora is a small businessman and has been involved in the international mail industry for over 30 years. Mr. Sikora came to committee with a simple plea. He said:

—my company employed 31 people. We're not a huge corporation; we're an average business in the printing industry. Now, because of this situation, we're down to 17 employees. Many of our customers have left...they have taken their business to another country. They have forced our industry to lay off long-time employees, and that's not a pleasant thing to do....We're hoping that it will come back, but...If this doesn't pass, I'm out of business.

He is referring to the jobs and economic growth act.

For those in this chamber who would get lost in ideological and procedural debate, I ask them to remember Mr. Sikora and the hard-working Canadians his business employs. I want them to think about these employees, the jobs that would be lost and the families affected if we did not pass this act in a timely manner. We need to always keep that in perspective.

We also need to keep in mind the other positive measures in the jobs and economic growth act. I would be remiss if I did not speak briefly to a few of these measures. For instance, the act provides important tax relief to those Canadian seniors who collect U.S. social security benefits.

For background, before 1996, Canadian seniors, who received U.S. social security benefits, were required to only include 50% of those benefits when calculating their Canadian income tax. In 1996 the then-Liberal government changed the tax law to tax 85% of those social security payments, an unwelcome change for those Canadian seniors on fixed incomes.

Budget 2010 and the jobs and economic growth act reinstates the pre-1996 tax treatment for those Canadian seniors who have been in receipt of these benefits before 1996, as well as their spouses or common-law partners eligible to receive survivor benefits. This important change, which fulfills a promise that our Prime Minister made during the 2008 election campaign, was warmly welcomed. Indeed, listen to what William Thrasher of the Canadians Asking for Social Security Equality told the Windsor Star recently. He said:

We've been fighting for this for 15 years...The tax increase was a "disaster" for seniors. People were thrown out of nursing homes because they couldn't afford to live there...at least seniors will be getting a bigger portion of their social security. It's a major victory.

However, there is more in our jobs and economic growth act. As we all will recall, in 2006 our Conservative government introduced the universal child care benefit. This benefit provides $100 per month for each child under the age of six and gives working families the support and freedom to choose the best child care option for them. The jobs and economic growth act will ensure that single parents are not disadvantaged by allowing single parents to choose to include universal child care benefit payments in the income of a dependant. In most cases the dependant would not be subject to tax.

This change will ensure that single parents are not disadvantaged by their family status and will provide nearly $200 in tax relief for each child a single parent may have. The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada , like most observers, has welcomed this change. It has said:

—the government has recognized that single parent families have been unfairly penalized through an excessive tax clawback of the Universal Child Care Benefit.

There is so much more to applaud in the jobs and economic growth act, like the half a billion dollars in payments to various provinces to support the key health care and social services that they provide by ensuring no decline in their total transfers in 2010-11, money that our provincial partners are counting on receiving in a timely fashion. Indeed they put it in their budgets. There is also the modification to section 116 of the Income Tax Act to better help Canada attract foreign venture capital and the jobs that it will create. In addition, there is the important extension of the mineral exploration tax credit, a move that will help promote employment and investment growth in rural and remote communities throughout Canada.

Clearly the jobs and economic growth act will implement key measures in Canada's economic action plan to help to secure sustained recovery and create jobs. Given the importance of the jobs and economic growth act, I ask all members to give it the support it deserves and to pass this important legislation in a timely manner.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the venture capital market in Canada traditionally has been small and it continues to be small. It trucked up considerably during the recession.

I want to point out that the official magazine of Canada's Venture Capital and Private Equity Association states:

The Canadian government has listened to the financing community, understood the severity of the problem and removed the major tax barriers that have prevented critically needed international investment capital from crossing our borders.

That is a quote from the association. That is in Bill C-9. That is why members should support it.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his leadership on that committee and for his work with our colleagues across the aisle on these things.

We are doing some things on the pension side in Bill C-9 that the finance minister announced earlier in the fall. The bill would require an employer to fully fund benefits if the whole pension plan is terminated. The bill would establish a distressed pension plan workout scheme under which employers and employees and retirees could negotiate changes to plan funding. The bill would permit the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to replace an actuary if he or she is of the opinion that it is in the best interests of the members and the retirees. Finally, an administrator would be required to make additional information available to members and retirees following the termination of a pension plan.

We have heard many times, not just during this process but in the process of studying the retirement system and pension plans, that people do not have any information. The changes we are making through Bill C-9 are vital changes that would allow pensioners to have control and a say in their future retirement plans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend not only for a great speech today but for the tremendous work he does on the finance committee. Most of the members of the finance committee refer to him as the deputy, because he fills in admirably and understands the issues. He puts forward some great ideas.

I listened to his speech today, and there are a couple of things I want to highlight that may not have received enough attention. These two items were studied at finance committee, so he should be able to reflect on them. One item is pensions, or retirement income adequacy, as we are referring to it, for Canadians and future retirees. It is a very topical issue.

The second item is credit cards, which were discussed at committee. The reaction to what was heard at committee is reflected in Bill C-9. We have put in changes in relation to both retirement income adequacy and credit cards.

I wonder if the hon. member could enlighten us about some of the positive changes in Bill C-9.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very good question. It highlights the differences between Canada and the U.S., and the position we are in compared to the U.S.

The United States debt and deficit levels are completely out control. The Americans have no idea and no exit plan. The finance committee was in Washington a number of months ago. We asked them specific questions about their exit plan and their future. The response we got, whether it was from elected or unelected officials, was that they did not have a plan. That is the difference between the United States and this country.

We are seeing growth in this country. Is there potential for a second wave of the recession? It would be untruthful for me to say that there is no possibility of that happening.

We have the fundamentals here. We can see that from the growth and our job numbers. Unemployment is lower in this country than it is in the United States. When in our history has that ever happened?

We have good fundamentals. We did an excellent job of paying down $40 billion of debt before the recession hit. We have set in place the concept of being ready just in case.

That is why Bill C-9 is important. It makes a number of changes to allow us to continue along the growth path that we are on, maybe smaller than what some people thought it would be and bigger than many thought it would be. We want to maintain it so that we do not see a second wave.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand here as a member of the finance committee to talk at third reading of Bill C-9, the jobs and economic growth plan. It follows up on our economic action plan, which this government implemented over a two-year period to tackle the economic situation that this country was facing, as other countries were around the world.

It has been a very difficult economic time and we in this country have been fortunate enough to have a banking system, financial system and Conservative government vision that have paid down debt and put our House in order to be able to manage through that economic crisis. We have seen some really positive numbers over the last number of weeks, whether it was our GDP growth at 6.1% or the job creation numbers that we have seen over the last few weeks.

I think we are on the road to recovery. We are doing much better, as was even admitted by our Liberal opposition today, than most countries around the world. The OECD indicates that we are number one in terms of our ability to come out of this recession. It is the deepest recession that we have had in this country since the Great Depression. We had the foresight, vision and ability to take action and make things happen.

We were able to create jobs, generate wealth and resume the economic growth that this country needs and has been able to maintain over the last number of years. We are getting back on track and I think it is very much in light of this government's ability to see what is going to happen, take action and put the economic action plan in place.

The action plan was a two-year process for us to ensure that we kept our economy rolling. It will come to an end in March 2011 in terms of the stimulus funding and people are aware of that. People understand that it was a one-time opportunity for us to put money into the marketplace to create the long-term infrastructure to make our country a solid place to grow, live and raise a family for many years to come.

Before I really get started, it has been an honour for me to be on the finance committee over the last three to four years. To show the kind of commitment that the committee has to working on issues that are facing Canada and Canadians from an economic perspective on a daily basis, I want to congratulate three of my colleagues on the committee.

First, I want to congratulate the parliamentary secretary from Macleod. Based on a Maclean's survey, a survey done by our peers indicating who we think is the hardest-working member of Parliament, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the gentleman I work with every day, won that award and it was well deserved.

Another individual on our committee who I also want to congratulate is the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. She won the rising star award through the Maclean's survey. We in the House voted on who we thought was making a contribution, not just in Parliament but on committee and to their constituents. Both of those constituencies should be very proud of their members and I am honoured to serve on the finance committee with them.

Finally, the other person who needs some recognition is the chair of the finance committee, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, who runs an excellent committee. We often hear in the paper about some of the committees on the Hill that are not working that well, but these are big, tough issues that we deal with. He gets some recognition in the newspaper on occasion but I want to publicly do it here in the House.

We have lots of people who come to see us asking for money and having lots of suggestions. I congratulate and thank the chair of that committee for the excellent work he does on keeping us focused, for keeping an eye on the ball, for knowing the issues we are facing as a committee and for being able to deliver reports, suggestions and recommendations back through the House.

The jobs and economic growth plan that we have in Bill C-9 will come to third reading and hopefully will pass this evening and be off to the other place for its consultation and vote.

I will talk about a number of areas in it and then highlight a few that are of particular interest to me. First, it would eliminate tariffs on manufacturing inputs on machinery and equipment. We have heard often that this is a big bill. It is actually 24 sections, but one of the additional pieces is the hundreds of pages of tariffs that exist affecting business in this country every day. These are tariffs for input costs that our manufacturing sector has to pay. It has to understand that there is paperwork involved and then there is the cost of doing business.

There has been a lot of discussion and I think there will be more in the future on the productivity of Canada and where we are in comparison to our competitors around the world. We do not just compete within Canada. We need to compete on the world stage with the productivity levels of other manufacturers and other service providers around the world. Canadians need to be as productive as possible to ensure we can get the economic benefit from being a productive economy.

These hundreds and hundreds of tariffs have been and continue to be a barrier to many manufacturers, and I am not talking about large manufacturers. These are smaller organizations with 10, 15, 20, 30 employees. This burden placed on them is a job killer and prevents them from being competitive on the world market. I am glad that Bill C-9 is finally removing these barriers.

Bill C-9 would also eliminate the need for tax reporting under section 116 of the Income Tax Act for many investors by narrowing the definition of taxable Canadian property. It is technical but I will give some facts. I will go a little further on this later. We are making it easier for venture capital money to come to Canada. The venture capital marketplace in this country is very small and, for our businesses to grow and attract capital, one of the barriers is in the Income Tax Act on the paper burden for someone to invest in a Canadian company. I will go further if I have time into this issue, but it will remove that barrier.

I was not aware of this issue until relatively recently in the fall. A number of members of Parliament had a meeting with Canada's Venture Capital & Private Equity Association and it was clear that this section of the Income Tax Act was a real barrier for it to be able to attract money from other parts of the world to invest in Canadian companies. This is not a takeover. This is to get companies from one level of a being small organization, where most of the investment that has happened thus far is either from the pockets of the owners, their friends, their family or other angel investors they may have found, and move them to the next level where they can compete on a world scale and attract investment to help them to invest in people, equipment and machinery to make the best products and services so they can be the number one company in the world.

We are implementing important changes to strengthen the pension plans which were announced in the fall. Bill C-9 would implement those changes, which I will talk about later. It would authorize over $500 million in transfer protection payments. What does that mean? There have been changes to the formulas in terms of transfers to the provinces. For those who do not know, there are three basic transfers to provinces: the health transfer, the social transfer and the equalization payments. There have been some changes to the formula and we wanted to ensure the provinces were treated equitably through these changes. For some provinces, because of the formula, there was going to be a reduction in the transfer.

This government came to the plate, stood up for the provinces and said that we know there are some issues in the changes and that we will honour the amount of money the provinces received in previous years. That is what that $500 million is for.

The bill would allow for the regulation of the national payment card network and its operators. With respect to the credit card and debit card industry, the minister has been very clear that some changes have to be made. The consumer has to be respected. This bill would put in place what the minister has said is voluntary at this point, but if the voluntary program is not followed, the government will make it mandatory.

However, the Minister of Finance did not have the authority to make it mandatory. Many people do not know that. A lot of people believe that the federal government has a magic wand and it can do whatever it wants. That is really not the case. The law has to be followed and the law did not allow it to happen. Bill C-9 allows the finance minister to make mandatory any changes to credit card and debit card operations that would benefit consumers.

Another aspect I am very excited about is that Bill C-9 would provide credit unions in each province the ability to have a national charter. What does that really mean? There are a number of very successful credit unions across the country. They are all run and regulated by the provinces. The bill would allow for a broader opportunity.

Just a few minutes ago the banks were mentioned. Canadians are thankful for our banking system. Our banking system is much more robust and got us through this recession in much better shape than many other countries. However, we still believe in competition and that is why we think the credit union system can play a role in being competitive in the financial services marketplace.

Now it is not possible for credit unions to have a national charter. The bill would allow them to have a national charter so that a credit union that is successful, say, in British Columbia, could expand in other provinces. Credit unions would need permission from the provinces. It would be a partnership. It is not the federal government overruling the provincial regulations, but it is a partnership that would allow it to happen. That is included in Bill C-9.

We are doing a number of other things. My colleague spoke earlier about the extension of the mining and exploration tax credit for another year, which helps the mining industry remain competitive. A member talked about the tax fairness between single and two-parent families with respect to claiming universal child care, which is putting money in families' pockets.

We are also hearing, particularly in southern Ontario and some areas of British Columbia, about the difficulties with contraband tobacco. Bill C-9 would deal with that issue. We have come up with a new system to identify which packaging is legal tender and which packaging is not. Consumers and law authorities would be able to tell what is a legal package of cigarettes and what is illegal. Those who are producing contraband tobacco products and selling them mostly to young people would not have access to this new system and it would be possible to prosecute them based on that.

We have to take the lead on these issues in this tough economic time. I am hoping the majority votes for Bill C-9 tonight to move it to the other place and allow us to move ahead on some of these issues.

One of the issues is the freezing of allowances and salaries of parliamentarians and reducing governor in council appointments to federal institutions. For clarification, there is a whole slew of governor in council appointments available to the government. Many of them go unfilled because the positions are not needed or the organization has fulfilled its mandate in terms of what it was set up for. However, each department that makes these appointments has to budget for them and put aside Canadian taxpayers' money to fund those positions, year after year, just in case the government of the day decides to make the appointment. It cannot make the appointment if there is no financial support for the position.

Our finance minister, through Bill C-9, has removed a tremendous number of these appointments. This in turn allows the departments and the government to take that money out of funding those positions that were never going to be filled.

In the last few minutes that I have for debate I want to talk about venture capital. Our Conservative government believes that Canadians and Canadian businesses should keep their hard-earned money where it belongs and not in others' pockets.

We are committed to making Canada a great place and to creating jobs for Canadians to earn a living. It is done through private investment in companies so they can grow, create jobs and compete in the world market. That is why the jobs and economic growth bill includes a key tax reform to strengthen Canada's entrepreneurial advantage, supporting greater venture capital investments.

During the finance committee's cross-country prebudget consultations, which happen every year in the fall, we heard witness after witness stress the significance of venture capital as a key source of financing for new companies and for the growth of companies that already exist. Indeed, venture capital provides critical financing to promising pioneer start-up firms to give them the ability to introduce new technologies, invest in new capacity and create new, high quality jobs.

That is why our all-party finance committee made an important recommendation in our recent prebudget consultations. I will quote directly from the report that was brought to the House:

In the Committee’s opinion, financing is critical for organizational success....Consequently, the Committee recommends that: The federal government work with the venture capital industry to identify new sources of financing and examine the effectiveness of existing tax incentives related to financing.

I am proud of what we are doing in budget 2010. I am proud of what we are doing with the jobs and economic growth act, Bill C-9. Specifically this legislation proposes a narrow definition of the tax on Canadian property to eliminate the need for tax reporting. It does not sound like much, but it is a tax reporting system that is very burdensome to those who have venture capital to invest. Why would people invest money in a marketplace that made it difficult for them to do so?

The demand for venture capital is not just here in Canada. It is around the world. It is a global marketplace. We need to be competitive to make sure that we are able to attract people with an interest in the growth in Canada and Canadian companies, with their capital, their cash to be frank, to be able to make those investments so we can improve our productivity, improve our delivery of service, improve our delivery of products.

That is what Canadian companies want. That is what Canadian companies need. That is what this government heard and it is what this government is delivering. This will enhance the ability of Canadian businesses, including innovative high-growth companies that want to contribute to job creation and growth in this country.

I have highlighted our government's actions here today with respect to venture capital, helping families with the universal child benefit, improving and making sure that the credit card system is serving consumers, and the credit unions' ability to compete with the banks and provide competition and consumer options. This is what Bill C-9 actually does.

As a result, our Conservative government has taken unprecedented action to help Canadians through this difficult time. We are continuing to see signs of recovery. We are seeing better job numbers, strong positive GDP growth, and signs that the Canadian economy is recovering from the worst global recession since the 1930s.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Outremont for his speech. I have a question for him. Yesterday, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam introduced a bill in the House of Commons regarding employment insurance. This bill would extend the period for which sickness benefits may be paid from 15 weeks to 52 weeks, for example, in the case of Marie-Hélène Dubé, from Laval, who testified in committee, and who is struggling with her third bout of cancer. This week, I met a man in my riding who, after 22 years of work, developed a serious, long-term illness and was not entitled to employment insurance.

The Liberals and Conservatives are going to approve the write-off of that $57 billion. We must remember that the Liberals were stealing this money up until 2006, and that the Conservatives took up where they left off. Would the fund have enough money if it were not going to Bill C-9? Today, journalists are reporting that the costs were not included in this bill, and they amount to about $450 million. Would there be enough money to help workers instead of the major banks, as the government is in the process of doing?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for the excellent work he has done on this important issue because his figures are borne out by independent studies.

It is important to bear in mind that as the Conservatives go through their exercise of saying that they are great managers and look at these figures for this year's budget and so on, there are any number of little nuggets like that one that are being hidden and, again, will o be foisted upon future generations.

The example of the HST in Ontario and British Columbia is a good one. Canadians, as a whole, will be paying for what the government will have to borrow to pay that off long term.

However, let us look at the other examples, and there are many. In a study done, not by our political party but by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, an independent outside outfit,--we do not draft its studies, let us just put it that way--it calculates 200,000 jobs will be lost because, in addition to stealing the $57 billion from the employment insurance fund, which the Liberals started and which the Conservatives are now completing with Bill C-9, and because they have frozen EI contributions they are creating a hole that will start being paid in a couple of years but that hole is $15 billion which will be a terrible tax on payrolls and will take away jobs.

These great managers, who love to pretend that they finger-wag and tell other people what to do with the public pursue, are in fact the biggest big bunch of incompetent bunglers who have ever put together a budget in the history of Canada.

My colleague is right to point out once again that they are hiding the figures and that what will happen is that future generations will be stuck with an environmental bill and a financial bill the likes of which we have never seen before in this country.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, although the bill itself does not please anyone following our debates here. It is an honour to speak after the Leader of the New Democratic Party and to note a few aspects of this bill to illustrate to what extent it would be unacceptable for the House to pass it, especially since the Conservative government, as we all know, is a minority government.

My leader raised a number of points that bear repeating, namely the fact that the Conservatives, with their now legendary hypocrisy, keep saying they are a law and order government. Take Canada Post for example. The courts ruled that the activity of certain companies falls within the mandate of Canada Post and that this was a clear violation of the legislation.

These same companies have convinced the government to introduce within this omnibus bill, provisions in their favour. This is clear to the House. Instead of being punished for breaking the law and told to stop breaking it, these people have convinced the Conservative government to change the law so that they are no longer in violation of it. The government claims the legislation was the problem and not the people who were violating it. Such is the Conservatives' hypocrisy.

We also saw this with the theft from the employment insurance fund. Some $57 billion had been collected from all the employees and all the businesses in Canada for a specific purpose: to cope with the cyclical nature of unemployment in Canada. The Supreme Court ruled that by taking this $57 billion, the government was, in a way, violating the law. No matter, it will simply change the law again to no longer be in violation of it.

With impunity, those who broke the Canada Post Act are now finding justification ex post facto through a legislative amendment. With impunity, the government has shown that the law only applies to others. That the law applies equally to everyone is the very foundation for a free and democratic society. In French we call it une société de droit. In English, we call it the rule of law. We have seen that, for the Conservatives, the rule of law consists in saying “do as I say, not as I do”.

There is a direct link between another matter in Bill C-9 on the environment and the destruction of what used to be a balanced economy in Canada.

In Canada, since WWII, we have built a balanced economy with the primary sector as the engine. The makeup of our country dictated that it was the strength of our economy from the beginning. We had mines all over the country. We mined the different minerals and moved onto the forestry sector. It is our primary sector. The secondary sector is based on processing and manufacturing. It is well distributed across the country but concentrated, to a certain extent, in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario for historical reasons. Finally, in the last generation, the service sector has been growing.

The Conservatives have been destroying this balanced economy since they came to power. There is a term for the reality in Canada today. In economics, it is known as the Dutch disease. When the Netherlands discovered oil and gas resources off their coasts two generations ago, they quickly began their exploitation. At the time, the Euro was not Europe's common currency and every country had its own currency. In the Netherlands, it was the guilder. The value of this currency rose significantly, compared to other European currencies, with the result that the manufacturing sector in the Netherlands was destroyed in one generation. We learned not to do this. That is not the case for the Conservatives, who, I would remind you, continually boast about being excellent administrators and people who understand the economy.

Let us look at the facts. Last year, they posted the largest deficit in Canada's history. That is the reality.

That is not rhetoric; that is the reality of the Conservatives.

Since they came to power, they have emptied the employment insurance fund. In fact, they picked up where the Liberals left off and finished looting the EI fund. They are making it official with Bill C-9. They created some $60 billion in tax room, so it is no coincidence that Canada's richest companies received exactly $60 billion in tax cuts.

Why do I say the richest, wealthiest, most profitable companies? It is simple. Let us take the example of manufacturers in Quebec and Ontario and forest companies in B.C. Our strong loonie is a direct result of the Conservatives' work, because they imported huge numbers of U.S. dollars by exporting huge quantities of Canadian oil without internalizing environmental costs. Because the number of U.S. dollars is artificially high, the loonie is too high, which makes things more difficult for the manufacturing and forestry sectors. When a company does not turn a profit, it does not pay any tax, which means that the $60 billion in tax cuts did not benefit the companies in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, which needed them most.

Who did these tax cuts benefit? Companies like Encana, which was already making a fortune developing this country's natural resources, the oil sands, without internalizing environmental costs, and received a $500 million windfall. The government is leaving not only an environmental mess, but an economic mess for future generations.

The worst part of the whole thing is that the companies that tanked are paying the price, because if a company loses money, it does not benefit from tax cuts, but it still has to pay employment insurance premiums for all its employees. The companies most in need therefore wind up subsidizing the richest companies in Canada. That destabilizes our economy.

Before the current crisis hit, in the fall of 2008, Quebec, Ontario and the other manufacturing sectors had already lost 400,000 well-paying jobs. The government will say that that is wrong and that we can see from the figures and the statistics that other jobs are being created. Okay, but they are not factory jobs that pay $35 an hour and come with a pension. Sustainable development also means thinking about outcomes for future generations. It is not just an environmental concept, but an economic one as well.

Future generations are the ones that will pay because those people may now be working in a store for $12 an hour. I do not wish to take anything away from someone who works for $12 an hour in a store, but make no mistake, these people cannot truly provide for their families and they definitely do not have a pension plan. We are just continuing to dump our problems onto future generations.

According to OECD, Canada has the highest debt-to-financial assets ratio for households and families. That is the reality.

So when we hear the Conservatives say that this is normal and that their banks are absolutely brilliant on the global stage, we look at the facts. For the first six months of this year, the Canadian banks have set aside $5 billion for bonuses for their executives.

These same banks have made more than $19 billion in profit since the beginning of the recession, not because they are financial geniuses, but because there is a quasi-monopoly, because no one controls the simple things such as ATM fees and because no one does anything to control interest rates.

The differential that exists between the basic rate and what they are charging for mortgages, on credit cards and on lines of credit is the largest in history. It is not because our banks are financial geniuses, it is because they are abusing the system. But no one in this government is doing anything, no one is lifting a finger, to act in the public's interest. It is an outright failure, and it is entrenched in Bill C-9. However, we know the Conservative government's cynicism.

They tell themselves that it does not matter because the Liberal leader has already demonstrated his incompetence, his mismanagement and his inability to act, so they can put anything and everything into this omnibus bill. And they will say that we have no choice but to support them. The public will not soon forget. We are going to oppose Bill C-9.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-9 is not a budget implementation bill that lays its cards on the table. It is far from honest. The House of Commons has approved an 880-page Trojan Horse filled with measures that have nothing to do with the budget. The NDP called on the members to remove the most provocative measures from the bill so that the House could debate them on their merits. I am very disappointed that this House voted yesterday evening to keep the Trojan Horse whole and intact. I am disappointed that the Prime Minister ignored our call to have the courage to be accountable. I am disappointed that the leader of the official opposition did not walk the talk.

I am especially disappointed this morning with the Leader of the Opposition, who is squandering this opportunity to stop this Trojan Horse budget before it hurts Canadians. Together, we have the leverage. With the G8 and G20 leaders coming for the $1 billion extravaganza, there is no way the Prime Minister is going to force an election on top of that.

Canadians are asking the opposition parties to work together and we need to be honouring that call. At the very least, Canadians deserve clarity from their official opposition, not a maze of confusion.

Look at what has happened. In committee, the Liberals voted against the Trojan Horse budget but not in sufficient numbers to ensure it was defeated. At report stage just last night, the Liberals voted for the Trojan Horse by opposing NDP amendments to split off the most egregious elements of it for separate discussions. Then again last night, they switched their vote once more and voted against the Trojan Horse but not in sufficient numbers. The result was that the whole package was approved and stands before us in this debate now on third reading.

This is not some kind of academic exercise. Let us review what is at stake here with this bill.

This bill weakens the Environmental Assessment Act. It gives responsibility for environmental assessments to the National Energy Board, which is in bed with the energy industry and big oil. Even worse, it gives cabinet the power to forgo some assessments, even for major offshore energy projects. Could the timing be worse? The Conservatives want to give oil companies more freedom when the BP oil spill is destroying the Gulf of Mexico and Canadians want measures to prevent a similar catastrophe here.

The bill also authorizes the sale of AECL. Without debate, we are ceding Canada's control over the future of nuclear technology in this country.

At risk are 30,000 highly skilled jobs and our reputation as an innovator, especially in nuclear medicine and research. It is an obnoxious precedent. It gives the cabinet the right to sell the largest crown corporation without public debate or scrutiny and that is simply wrong.

Third, the bill furthers the privatization of Canada Post. It takes profitable overseas mail delivery business, which is essential to Canada Post's success and hands it over to private business. It weakens this vital crown corporation and sets up the slippery slope toward full privatization.

Universal public mail service is a right of citizenship in this country and has been for over a century wherever we live, just like public health care. We cannot count on a weakened privatized Canada Post to provide fair services everywhere, especially in rural areas where service is less profitable but vital to the businesses and the citizens of rural Canada.

The bill also seals the deal on raiding the EI account. The Supreme Court concluded that the government was wrong to steal the money from the EI surplus, put it into the general accounts, and give it away as corporate tax cuts to the banks and oil companies. The Supreme Court said it was wrong and so, buried in the bill is the provision to simply make it a new law that not even the Supreme Court could stop. It is obnoxious timing because we are still emerging from a recession when workers need the help from the EI fund more than ever.

EI was not there to help them when they needed it. People are falling off the EI rolls. The government celebrates but it should not be because many of those people are falling into welfare. That is why EI needs the financial support that the bill would take away. It is time to renew protection for the unemployed, not take it away.

What is going on here? Omnibus bills like this are the wrong way. They are the last refuge of a regime that is trying to hide from Canadians what it is doing and it is playing on the weakness or ambivalence or waffling of the official opposition.

There is an opportunity this afternoon to do the right thing because barring a sudden conversion by the Prime Minister before tonight's vote, something I am not holding my breath in anticipation of, Canadians will wake up tomorrow with a weaker country.

It did not need to be this way. It does not have to be this way. Tonight's vote could change that and Canadians need us to do exactly that.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Hochelaga what he thinks about the Conservatives’ attitude during questions and comments. They make speeches about Bill C-9 and then they plant questions every day in question period. The government boasts about Canada’s economic situation and compares itself to the Greeks or other governments, as if it were responsible for the relatively calm conditions here.

This is the same government, though, that in the 2008 election denied an economic crisis was imminent. Now we hear Conservatives all over the place saying we managed to survive the economic crisis thanks to all they did.

Can the hon. member tell me what they are talking about? Is it the measures to help tourism in Huntsville and Toronto by building an artificial lake and so forth to attract tourists from who knows where? What measures can the government claim to have taken, other than the $10 billion to help Ontario’s automobile industry, so that Canada would survive the crisis better than most others?

My colleague is an experienced economist. Can he tell me whether this is a result of government action or rather of the global economic situation?

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, speaking to this bill at third reading is a problem, because we get the feeling the government is going to roll right over us—you will excuse the expression—unless everyone who is really opposed to this bill is here this evening when you call for the vote, so that we can defeat this awful bill.

I would remind the House that the lockout that occurred just before the budget was brought down was announced by the Prime Minister's director of communications, Mr. Soudas, who today has become invisible, like a ghost, but who was everywhere back then. When this shadowy figure from the Prime Minister's Office locked us out, we used the time to tour Quebec, and I have a clear memory of giving a copy of the Bloc Québécois' budget document, Saisir l'occasion pour le Québec, to the Minister of Finance, his parliamentary secretary and his office.

During our tour, which lasted over a month, we sat down with 317 different organizations and nearly 400 people and we covered nearly 10,000 km all over Quebec, in the middle of winter, to ask people their opinions and find out what they wanted to see in the budget of the Government of Canada, which they support with half their tax dollars.

We suggested a number of possibilities, but we do not see any of them in Bill C-9. It would therefore be worthwhile to remind the government and other hon. members what Quebeckers want from the budget.

We divided our work into several parts. First we wanted to ensure a lasting recovery by spending $10 billion, or $9.8 billion to be more precise. At the time, we knew that Quebec was not recovering at the same pace as everywhere else and that we needed to pay attention to this type of thing. A few months later, we are still not sure that the recovery is secure and that we will not end up back in a recession or with economic woes if the slightest problem crops up.

Of that $9.8 billion, $4.2 billion was for promoting the economic development of Quebec. Indeed, we thought that if national programs could be applied across Canada, and applied specifically to Quebec, it would cost $4.2 billion, not including what we had already proposed and is still on the table, namely, loan guarantees for forestry companies.

When it comes to the budget, comparing what has been granted to one industry to what has been granted or not to another industry shows clearly that Canada is very uneven and very unfair. Almost $10 billion was invested in the automobile industry. That is in the budget documents and no one is against it. The Government of Canada is entitled to pay out that kind of money to help an industry, as former governments of Canada were entitled to create an industrial policy to develop the oil sands and develop the west. But why stop there? Why help out one sector and not another?

No policy on loans or loan guarantees for the forestry industry has materialized. There is nothing. Forestry in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, is being ignored. There is a forestry sector out west also. It is being left to fend for itself, which is unfortunate.

There were also some programs—for example, the AgriFlex program—designed to increase the income farmers should be receiving. Nothing happened. We had also recommended $5.6 billion to help people and foster lasting economic recovery.

It is very important—and a real pleasure—for MPs to return to their ridings, meet their constituents and see what problems their constituents have.

We proposed that part of the $5.6 billion be used for an updated, comprehensive employment insurance program. We recommended, for example, that coverage be increased to 60% and that there be a single, 360-hour eligibility criterion. What is happening at present is not right. Two people working for the same company may be treated differently because they do not live in exactly the same municipality. That does not make sense.

We also asked for the waiting period to be abolished. Why is there still a waiting period? I can understand that, in other times, when information was not necessarily available instantly, they had to wait two weeks to verify that the person was who they claimed to be. Now that all information is available instantly, it no longer takes two weeks or more to verify the information. Why have a waiting period? In general, people apply for employment insurance benefits because they need the money. They need money to pay the rent and buy food. For two weeks, we pretend that the person does not exist. It is still being enforced.

We also made significant proposals with regard to the guaranteed income supplement. We want it to be automatic, retroactive and increased. There is still nothing.

We also proposed a modest $65 million to help the homeless. Unfortunately, anything can happen these days. Accueil Bonneau, a residence and outreach centre in the south end of Montreal, is closed. I was a member of the board of directors for six years, and president for four years, just before I made my first foray into politics in the 1990s. Accueil Bonneau has been helping homeless people for over 100 years, without asking any questions, not even for a name, and without telling the person they will give him or her some food in two weeks, the way the government does with employment insurance. Accueil Bonneau serves 800 meals a day. The centre is closed today, in a symbolic gesture. It is the first time Accueil Bonneau has ever closed. They have been through some real storms. They survived the ice storm and snowstorms. Accueil Bonneau even blew up about 15 years ago. There was an explosion in the basement and yet, the very next day, people were serving meals. But today it is closed. Silent. And for the government across the floor, it is also total silence. Nothing. Zero.

We also asked for funding for caregivers. We also asked for funding for housing. We asked for a total of $5.6 billion to help people, and we obtained nothing.

We also proposed that the Government of Canada stop harassing the Government of Quebec. In March 2010, as part of its budget, the Quebec government included an appendix, appendix E, that tallied up what the Government of Canada owes Quebec on a regular basis. This includes the harmonization of sales taxes between Quebec City and Ottawa, for instance.

The bill before us completes the transactions involving the harmonizations requested by the provinces and compensates those provinces, including Ontario.

The Quebec sales tax has been harmonized since 1992. Six or seven successive finance ministers in Quebec have always asked for $2.2 billion. When Bill C-9 was being reviewed in committee, we asked the officials from the Department of Finance some questions. They replied that those funds had been politically blocked and were not yet available. When parties negotiate, they must be on equal footing. At present, the one with his hand on the purse strings is the Minister of Finance, the former Ontario finance minister who, along with wanting to get his hands on the Autorité des marchés financiers, is also bleeding the Government of Quebec by cutting funding.

I have another example that has to do with Hydro-Québec and Ontario's Hydro One. Are there two other companies in Canada that are more similar than these two, which both produce hydroelectricity, transport the electricity using towers and distribute the electricity using wires? Electricity is distributed from waterfalls to houses, businesses and even here. Both corporations belong to their provincial governments, that is, Ontario and Quebec. However, because of legal intricacies whereby one was divided into two entities and the other into three subsidiaries, this has cost Quebec $250 million a year since 2008.

Government officials are talking. I have a great deal of respect for them, for I have been one myself. People can talk for a long time when their mandate is not to resolve a problem. People sitting around me here today have had long careers in the union movement and know very well that when people are given the mandate to resolve an issue, they solve it. However, when their mandate is to talk, they talk. Government officials do not have the mandate to resolve the issue of the $250 million at this time.

The government put a cap on equalization. During the election campaign in 2008 in Quebec, with a stroke of the federal pen, without any consultation with the provincial governments, the government drew a line that is costing the Government of Quebec $357 million a year. There is no mention of this in the budget speech.

There is protection money, a certain insurance policy invented in 2006. Quebec was the first province to see its revenues drop. The Government of Canada said that Quebec had received too much money in recent years and therefore demanded the $2.38 billion overpayment, in installments of $238 million a year for 10 years.

The following year, other provinces found themselves in the same situation. The Government of Canada decided to include a form of protection in the equalization formula to keep payments from decreasing. Quebec went through that, paved the way for the other provinces and then asked what the Government of Canada would do for it. The government asked for $238 million. It could tell Quebec to stop paying that $238 million per year. However, the Government of Canada subtracts it from the payments it makes each year. So there are no cheques.

Since 1991, there has been a dispute between the governments of Canada and Quebec. They went to an administrative tribunal. They went to the court of appeal. The federal government lost. That represents $137 million since 1991. The Government of Canada did not go to the Supreme Court.

In Quebec, everyone said that they would accept the decisions of the administrative tribunal and the court of appeal. The deadline for going to the Supreme Court has passed and the Government of Canada is not paying. It amounts to $137 million since 1991.

During our tour, we said that the Government of Quebec should be respected. We proposed additional spending of $16.8 billion, but, at the same time, additional revenues of $18.9 billion, meaning an additional $2 billion for the government so as not to increase the deficit.

Where was this money going to come from? We had a very logical principle: ask those who have more to pay more. For example, we proposed that anyone with a taxable income of more than $150,000, which is a lot of money, pay up for a while and contribute as well. But Canada's current Minister of Finance—Ontario's former finance minister, refused and chose to protect those people.

We spoke about tax havens and banks. We know that the minister does not want to go after his banking buddies and the friends of the member for Markham—Unionville on principle. Others have weighed in however. With all due respect to our friend, I looked at what the Royal Bank of Canada had to say. In its annual report, on page 122, it says that international earnings of certain subsidiaries would be taxed only upon their repatriation to Canada. Since there will be no repatriation, there are no taxes. It also mentions that if all foreign subsidiaries’ accumulated unremitted earnings were repatriated, they would be estimated at $821 million in 2009, $920 million in 2008, and $843 million in 2007, just for Royal Bank. I did not look at what the other banks had to say. We are telling the Minister of Finance that we must go after that money—it is written here—but he does not want to.

We did the tour and made some proposals to the government, thinking this could improve things, but the government completely ignored us.

Coming back to the matter at hand, it is one thing for a 17-page budget speech to become a 451-page document, acceptably long, with all the details, the tax measures, annexes, and ways and means motions. That is the right way to do things; it makes sense. But what the government has presented us with is an 872-page bill that has 2,208 clauses, and that talks about privatizing the AECL and Canada Post, among other things. Those kinds of things would usually be found in several bills.

In conclusion, I hope that the opposition members who sit with me on the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for Markham—Unionville, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, and our good friend, who is regularly invited, the member for Willowdale, will be strong enough to urge all of their Liberal colleagues to join us in voting against this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question to do with the whole environmental aspect of the budget implementation bill. I am from British Columbia. We live in a very sensitive area. We are very concerned about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Conservative government has not ensured that the kinds of regulations to protect our waters from oil and gas drilling and from oil tankers are in place. In fact, the government has said that the 1972 moratorium on tanker traffic and oil and gas drilling has ended.

The budget implementation bill, Bill C-9, is a move toward putting in place the kind of regulations that are far more industry friendly and are far less concerned about the health and well-being of our waters.

Could the member comment on whether he sees any problems with embedding the environmental regulation within a budget implementation bill, instead of stand-alone legislation that would see fulsome debate in the House of Commons? If the legislation passed, it would be referred to a committee where we would have witnesses come forward who could talk about the impact of those environmental regulations. Then it would come back to the House for appropriate reading and debate.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill, which the Liberal Party will oppose.

I notice that the member for Burlington just a few minutes ago spoke about Canada doing relatively well compared to some other countries, and certainly that is true. Compared with, for example, Greece and other countries, Canada is doing well. The point I would make is that to the extent that we are doing better than other countries, it is despite the actions of the Conservatives. It has all to do with the legacy of the previous Liberal government.

There are two reasons why Canada is doing relatively well. First, we have relatively strong banks. Second, we have a relatively favourable fiscal position. Members should ask themselves why each of these two points is true. If they were to go back a few years, they would notice that the previous Liberal government said no to the trend toward deregulation of banks that was taking place in the U.K. and the U.S. The Conservatives of the day said to deregulate. The Liberal government also said do not. The Liberal government also said no to bank mergers, and the Conservatives of the day pushed us to allow those bank mergers.

Because the Liberals stood firm on bank deregulation and said no to bank mergers, both things the Conservatives had the opposite view on, our banks today are relatively strong and solvent.

Second is the fiscal position.

As we all know, the Liberals in the mid-nineties inherited a $43-billion Conservative deficit. We proceeded to eliminate that deficit and paid down the debt over 10 long years. The Conservatives came to power, inherited a $13-billion surplus, and frittered it away by overspending, such that we were in deficit or approaching deficit before the recession even hit. Notwithstanding Conservative mismanagement, the fiscal legacy they inherited was so strong as to leave Canada in a relatively good position compared with other countries. Yes, Canada is doing better than Greece and certain other countries, but it has nothing to do with the Conservative government and everything to do with the legacy it inherited from Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin.

I would now like to turn to a quote from the current public safety minister, when he was in opposition. It appears that he did not like bills that contained many disparate, unrelated items. Here is what he had to say:

While past practice has often demonstrated that logic is not essential to the legislative process or for the legislative provisions themselves, there is a clear logic to grouping together the diverse provisions of this bill. It is a Machiavellian logic motivated by the politics of cynicism. It is a logic that raises the spectre of the worst of the American legislative process.

I remind the House that this was said by the current public safety minister when he was in opposition.

Maybe the Liberal Party pushed the envelope a bit far in the bill on which the public safety minister was commenting, Bill C-15 at the time, but in the end, we split the bill into two distinct sections and allowed all MPs to vote their conscience. In fact, the Liberal Party split that bill despite having a majority government at the time.

Bill C-9, the bill we are currently debating, is exactly as the public safety minister once put it. This bill does have a clear logic. It is a Machiavellian logic motivated by the politics of cynicism. It is a logic that raises the spectre of the worst of the American legislative process. However, this is by no means a recent problem.

Recently, and this will appeal to those in the House who have an interest in history, I came across a paper called “The Vote”, which was published around the time of the first world war in England. One article from 1917 lamented the diminishing power of the House of Commons as the cabinet assumed more of that power.

Specifically, the article, written in 1917 in Britain, stated:

The chief cause of the diminishing power of the House was the growth of the Convention regarding every proposal brought forward by the Government as one of confidence.

The article continued:

Sixty years ago the Government frequently accepted defeat on matters of detail and continued in office, amending its proposals in accordance with the will of the House. The present habit is seriously harmful. When Members now go into the division lobby, it is not a question whether a proposal is good or bad but whether or not they shall defeat the Government.

Today, 93 years after that article was published, we have a similar, in fact, only slightly different debate in Canada. Today, there are some bills which the government accepts defeat on and does not resign, but instead the government has crammed a whole series of unrelated measures into a 972 page budget bill, which it knows is treated as a confidence measure. It wanted the debate to be about whether we would go to the polls rather than about whether the measures were good or bad for Canada. It is this kind of cynical tactic that would make the younger version of our Prime Minister turn his back on the current version.

This is one reason why the Liberal Party opposes the bill, because it has so many unrelated items crammed together into one package. However, the budget also provides a clear contrast between a Liberal approach to the Canadian economy versus the Conservative approach. Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal policy is to freeze corporate taxes going forward.

It is true that in the past, when we ran surpluses, Liberals brought down the corporate tax rate substantially. However, that does not mean at a time when Canada is already relatively competitive, we should go deeper into deficit to further cut corporate tax rates. This is why we have a clear policy, in contrast to the Conservatives, that we would freeze the corporate tax rate, thereby generating some $6 billion dollars in additional revenue. Part of the revenue would go to reduce the deficit and part of it would go to support middle-class families that live in extreme difficulty and anxiety today because of these difficult economic times.

How would we provide support to these middle-class families? Let me mention briefly four ways that we would do this.

First, post-secondary education is key to Canada's productivity, key to equality of opportunity, key to filling the jobs of tomorrow. Today, with the youth unemployment rate at something like twice the national average, young people are having increasing difficulty finding summer jobs to support their studies. We believe it is critical that the government provide support to those Canadians pursuing post-secondary education. Indeed, as our leader has said for years now, if they have the grades, they get to go. Therefore, support for post-secondary education is a top priority of this party, unlike the Conservatives, who would let middle-class families, including post-secondary students, simply fend for themselves.

A second source of anxiety, which at this time of aging population that will become increasingly an issue, is care for aging parents. We believe the Conservative government is not doing nearly enough to support those Canadians who are increasingly burdened by looking after their aging parents. By definition, as our whole society ages, this issue will become more and more important as time goes by. Rather than further cuts to corporate taxes, we believe some of that funding released should be used to support Canadians in their efforts to care for aging parents.

A third area is at the other end, not only care for aging parents, but care for young children. We have committed ourselves, as in the past, to a system of affordable early learning and child care. The previous Liberal government had implemented that plan with signed agreements with all of the provinces, only to see those agreements torn up by the present government.

The final area in which we distinguish ourselves from the Conservatives on the economic front has to do with pensions. There are significant problems with the Canadian pension system. A substantial number of Canadians fear, often with good reason, that they will have inadequate resources to support themselves and their families in their retirement years.

Strong action has to be taken by the federal government to improve our pension system and to take measures to enable Canadians to save more so they will have adequate income during their retirement years. The Conservatives are ideologically opposed to any kind of supplement to the Canada and Quebec pension plan. They do not like it.

The Prime Minister, when in opposition, spoke of privatizing the existing Canada pension plan. If that is his ideological starting point, how could we possibly expect him to support a strengthening or expansion of the Canada pension plan? I simply do not believe that it will happen. Such changes have to be done in coordination with provinces. Our proposal is that we move to create a supplementary Canada pension plan in consultation and negotiation with provincial governments.

In the recent past, two provincial governments proposed such systems, but it went nowhere. Nothing to do with the Canada pension plan ever goes anywhere without strong federal leadership, which has been totally absent in the case of the government. Under a future Liberal government, we would take the bull by the horns and work very hard to provide the federal leadership necessary, in conjunction with the provinces, to improve and strengthen the Canada pension plan.

Canadians will have a very clear choice. They can choose the Conservatives, who insist on taking corporate taxes lower and lower while failing to provide any assistance for the middle class, or they can choose us, the Liberals, who will temporarily freeze the tax rate, because there are more important priorities, and it is not a good idea to increase the deficit in order to reduce corporate tax rates. We will offer more assistance for the middle class in terms of post-secondary education, care for seniors, day care and a reform of the pension system in Canada. Too many Canadians are worried that they will not have enough resources once they retire.

We are at a crossroads. Come the next election, whenever that might be, the Conservatives will stand for further reductions in corporate taxes and leave the beleaguered middle class to fend for itself, whereas the Liberals will freeze corporate taxes at their current already competitive level and use the resources not only to address the deficit but also to address the needs, concerns and worries of middle-class Canadians in terms of post-secondary education, elder care, child care and pensions.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-9 is a very important bill that makes sure that this country keeps on the growth path that this government has created through our economic action plan. Everyone in the House has to admit that this country is doing much better economically than most countries around the world, and it is because of this government. I want to thank the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar for her hard work on the finance committee. She is doing a great job.

We are making some changes to the universal child tax benefit to allow greater fairness between single-parent and two-parent families. I would like the member to explain why that is important to Canadian families.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, all one has to do is read through the proposed legislation, to read through Bill C-9, to see that we are introducing a number of proposals that will keep Canada very competitive. Again, the Conservative government understands that Canadians expect this government to keep our economy growing and balanced, which is why we have included so many important measures in Bill C-9.

The bill contains excellent measures that restrain and focus spending. The list I went through in my speech surely should provide an excellent rationale for supporting this excellent piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe that the member would be talking about competitiveness in relation to Bill C-9, when the bill and the government have increased the air travellers security charge by 50%, making the charge the highest in the world. What this is doing, at $25 for international flights versus $5 for the Americans, is making our airlines uncompetitive vis-à-vis American airlines. The government is actually helping American airlines at Canadian airlines' expense as Canadians book with American airlines for their flights.

How in the world can the member claim that the government is keeping Canada competitive when it does things like this?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, our Conservative government understands that Canadians expect this government to keep our economy growing and balanced. Canadians understand that the economic action plan is helping to secure our country's economic recovery. It is helping to encourage growth and to create jobs.

Bill C-9 contains excellent measures that restrain and focus spending. If the member would like a reason to support this legislation, then perhaps he would like to know that Bill C-9 proposes many good things. For example, it proposes to regulate national payment card networks and their operators, if necessary; to enable credit unions to incorporate federally and operate as banks; to streamline environmental assessments for infrastructure projects; to increase competition in telecommunications by removing existing restrictions on foreign ownership of Canadian satellites; and to stimulate the mining industry, as I mentioned in my speech, by extending the mineral exploration tax credit for just one year.

This list surely provides an excellent rationale for supporting this important piece of legislation.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think the real issue here, and what is most important to Canadians, is that they see that our government is delivering on a two-year plan, Canada's economic action plan. It is a plan that is working. It is a plan that is without doubt a measured and powerful response to an extraordinary challenge. Our government is moving to implement the remaining stimulus measures in Canada's economic action plan to help secure our country's economic recovery, to encourage growth, and to create jobs.

This legislation contains measures to restrain and focus spending, to create a more competitive environment for business, and to help ensure tax fairness for Canadian families. The jobs and economic growth act aims to contribute to Canada's advantage now and in the future.

I could go on, but I believe that all of the proposed changes I just mentioned are great reasons to support Bill C-9.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 6:44 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motions at report stage of Bill C-9.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Groups Nos. 1 and 2.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, June 3, 2010, all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of Bill C-9 shall be put forthwith, without further debate or amendment.

The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the parliamentary secretary told the House that everything was going well and that according to the OECD, Canada has had a major economic recovery, which means more revenue for the government. When the government has more revenue, it should be able to provide more support to those who need it most. The government is responsible for redistributing our collective wealth. It needs to provide more support to the unemployed and improve postal services instead of introducing Bill C-9, an omnibus bill that attempts to slip in reduced access to services. The government could be providing more services to the public, but it is doing the opposite.

I would like my colleague to say a few words about the Conservatives' philosophy. They are spending $1 billion on three days of security in Toronto, but they are not giving a dime to support the unemployed, seniors and the less fortunate in our society. What is more, they are not investing anything in the environment, which is supposed to be a top priority for the G8 and the G20.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government does not want to split the bill to take out Canada Post and the AECL because it knows it will lose that debate. It has already lost it twice.

As far as remailers are concerned, as the critic for the Liberal Party for the post office, she knows full well that there are remailers existing in Canada that are doing it illegally.

Will the member support the NDP motion when it comes time to vote on this bill and defeat Bill C-9 so we can bring back a real budget that excludes all of the heinous issues that the Conservatives have put in this bill?

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Okanagan—Shuswap said that the government was attempting to legitimize remailers. Obviously, they were existing illegally and by imposing them into the budget bill does not really legalize them, but it does not make it right either. We know that Bill C-9 supercedes an upper court decision that confirmed Canada Post Corporation's exclusive privilege.

We know as well that deregulation will lead to compromised service in rural areas and in some urban areas as they close outlets. It will lead to lost jobs and increased costs. The government tell us that there is a service charter in place, a moratorium on closings in rural areas, so we should not worry about it. However, we know that if it had really meant it, it would have legislated the moratorium. Therefore, it is as worthless as the paper it is written on.

I do not even want to go toward AECL, which the member also referenced. This is proprietary technology that all Canadians should be proud of and a barnburner sale is going to take place. It will be the Avro Arrow of our generation.

As the member said, why is the government not willing to sever out these portions of the bill? Why is the government not willing to open up debate on deregulation and privatization to full disclosure and fulsome and mindful debate? Why will it not sever out remailers and AECL for a full debate?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of splitting Bill C-9, the government's latest Trojan horse bill.

Once again, the two core issues at hand are transparency and accountability. It seems that every time we turn around, we find this secretive Conservative government trying to sneak things past Canadians. It is almost as if it is allergic to transparency and accountability. Shine the light and the government will run for cover.

This allergy is quite severe. The Conservatives have sneaked into their budget implementation bill clauses that would permit them to sell Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for a mere pittance and weaken Canada Post's ability to provide universal affordable service to Canadians.

On the first issue, the sale of AECL, it is important to note that while the government is busy bragging about its supposed fiscal prowess, it wants to sell a publicly owned corporation, which has benefited from $22 billion of public investment, for possibly a few hundred million dollars. It is the Mulroney era all over again, ballooning deficits, mismanagement and poor public policy. Once again, secrecy surrounds this issue. We need public consultation and we certainly need more substantive debate on the merits or risks of selling these crown corporations.

I call on my Liberal and Bloc colleagues to support the NDP in an attempt to remove these heinous elements from Bill C-9. A budget bill should be about the budget, point final, as we say in French. Why is the government so opposed to acting in the best interests of Canadians? We have seen this behaviour when it comes to foreign investment in Canada as well.

That is why the NDP proposed three key ways of strengthening the Investment Canada Act: one, lowering the threshold for public review; two, holding public hearings in affected communities when a Canadian company is being sold; and three, publishing the reasons for the government's decision to approve a takeover, as well as the conditions that a foreign company must meet in order to get federal approval.

The decision to sell AECL cannot be taken lightly. We are talking about nuclear technology. As signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, we have committed to do our part in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel. We have also committed to ensuring nuclear technology does not get into the wrong hands. We know that India is a nuclear superpower today, in part, because it bought several nuclear reactors from us and used that technology to develop nuclear weapons.

Surely, keeping AECL as a crown corporation would give Canada greater control over how and what we do with civil nuclear technology. Should we not have a more substantive public debate on this issue? We believe that the risk of selling this corporation warrants much more debate and separate legislation.

The second element noteworthy of discussion is the removal of Canada Post's exclusive privilege to collect, transmit and deliver international letters. Denis Lemelin, president, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, stated the issue perfectly when he presented to the Standing Committee on Finance on May 11. He said:

In Canada, letter mail is regulated for a reason. Canada Post has an exclusive privilege to handle letters so that it is able to generate enough money to provide affordable postal service to everyone, no matter where they live in our huge country. This privilege includes both domestic and international letters.

We know that Canada Post is already forgoing revenues to illegally operating international remailers. If we erode Canada Post's exclusive privilege with respect to international mail, there is no doubt the remailing business will grow in Canada and Canada Post will lose more of its international letter business.

A significant portion of my riding of Nickel Belt is made up of dispersed rural communities. Each community is rich in its cultural makeup and traditions. Each community is a gem. I am so honoured to represent these communities. My riding is a perfect representation of Canada as a whole. We have so few people relative to the size of our geography and, as a result, there is a cost to ensure that all Canadians have relatively equal access to mail service.

Canada Post serves a purpose that we deem important to us and to our communities. The government's move to undermine Canada Post's exclusivity in the area of international letters is the beginning of the deregulation of Canada Post. It is betraying the wishes of Canadians and it is jeopardizing that corporation's fiscal capacity to deliver mail remotely at a reasonable cost.

In addition, the government's own strategic review of Canada Post found that there was virtually no support for deregulation. The December 2008 “Strategic Review of the Canada Post Corporation: Report of the Advisory Panel to the Minister” noted:

There appears to be little public support for the privatization or deregulation of Canada Post, and considerable if not unanimous support for maintaining a quality, affordable universal service for all Canadians and communities.

In fact, municipalities were especially adamant in their opposition to deregulation. Five hundred and forty-three of the 653 municipalities that made submissions during the strategic review of Canada Post said that they opposed deregulation. Another 26 municipalities said that they were concerned. Only one municipality supported deregulation.

Municipalities oppose deregulation because they understand the nature of our country. Rural and remote parts of our country account for over 90% of our land mass but only one-fifth of our population. We have a unique characteristic in that we need to equip our public postal corporation with the fiscal capacity to serve these regions at a fair cost to the citizens.

Here we have an instance where the company does not want it, the workers do not want it, Canadians do not want it and even municipalities do not want it. What does the government do? It sides with the remailers and their lobbyists. It does not have the gumption to bring it in a stand-alone bill. It sneaks it into the budget bill. What a disgrace. It can still do the right thing and split this bill. It is not too late.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am glad he raised the issue of employment insurance. He says that Bill C-9 would close the old employment insurance account and would clarify some provisions. It is possible that the government could raise employment insurance premiums over the next while by 35%.

I would like to know what happened to the people who were unable to qualify for EI and the measures by which they could benefit from in an economic downturn. The Conservatives decided to extend the weeks entitlement at the end of the benefit period. The problem with the people who could not qualify. It was as if the government was trying to create EI benefits for the least amount of people possible to qualify. It like starting at ground zero and trying to make our way up, but not too far, as long as there is a cap on it. I do not see how that is becoming generous within the EI system.

We were in a situation where those people could not qualify at that time because the government did not create benefits for them. The problem with that is during the next downturn, that will not happen.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech on Bill C-9. As he said, the Liberals and the Conservatives have co-operated to some extent to deal with the crisis that has been going on for the past year.

Does my colleague believe that the Conservatives are going a bit too far with Bill C-9? With this omnibus bill, they are trying to privatize Canada Post and blatantly steal money from the unemployed.

The Conservatives are saying that there is a surplus and that the economy is healthy. If there is an economic surplus, the government could provide more support for seniors, the poor and workers. It does not have to privatize Canada Post. It could improve postal services and restore the services that have been cut in recent years.

Why do the Liberals not stand up and vote against this bill and send the Conservatives packing, instead of supporting them as they are now doing?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad he brought this up. Within the bill is the air travellers security charge and the onerous expense placed on individual travellers.

One of my favourite moments of how we get caught up in a bind and we go back on our own word was when debated the proposed levy from CDs onto MP3s. The Conservatives called it the iPod tax, but that is not true. The member for Peterborough said, eloquently, that it did not matter what we called it. He said that we could call it a fee, or a levy, but it was a tax, and a tax was a tax was a tax.

However, what is in Bill C-9? An air travellers security charge. Is it a levy by another name? Is it a fee by another name? No. According to the member for Peterborough, a tax is a tax is a tax, and this one is really big, as my hon. colleague pointed out.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

No, please, Madam Speaker, I would implore my colleagues to hold their applause until the end. I want to talk about my Conservative colleagues.

I am honoured to stand here today to talk about this particular piece of legislation, but I want to put this into context as to where we have been over the last little while. It is called the jobs and economic growth act, but by another name, we call it the budget implementation act.

Just a couple of years ago, regarding the budget implementation bill, there were certain details regarding fiscal payments equalization regarding my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I remember the common expression at the time was that the devil is in the details. There lies the devil, and in the budget implementation act at the time, there was something in there that was not transmitted prior to that. Now the theme has carried on over and over again.

I will begin with one example that is relevant from this morning. On the front page of today's Globe and Mail the headline states:

Tories to launch plans for telecom shakeup

The article talks about some of the details of the impending announcement next week and states:

The government is expected to launch consultations on scaling back foreign-inv2estment limits--changes that could shake up the future of Canada’s $41 billion telecom industry. Telecom sector sources anticipate the process could be kicked off as early as Monday.

Therein lies a piece of legislation that will be debated, that will be talked about for quite some time, witnesses called, maybe in excess of 50 witnesses at that time. Here we are at the budget implementation process or, as it is being called, jobs and economic growth act, and it is included here. Within the over 800 pages, we find that there is a section about amending the Telecommunications Act to allow foreign satellite carriers to be considered a common carrier.

It is the process that already has begun without telegraphing as such, and again we go back to the devil in the details, except now the Conservatives have become more brazen about doing this by allowing certain subjects and certain headings, and talking about initiatives that they propose over the next little while. They say that there have been over 50 witnesses, but as my hon. colleagues from Mississauga—Streetsville and Mississauga South also pointed out, we could have called in at least 50 or more witnesses on each and every subject that we see here.

My hon. colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville talked about AECL and did it rather passionately. She talked about a fire sale of assets. If we think about it, that is exactly what will happen. We have this wonderful entity that is truly a Canadian entity that is about to be sold off. The only thing the Conservatives forgot to mention is that if we call within 10 minutes, they will give us a peeling knife as well.

There are so many things in here that could be described as slipping under the cover of night and stealth by operation. Let me just bring up a few of these issues in the House. The first one and the biggest one, and I will get to that later just to give members a heads up: Employment Insurance Act changes, that is really something; GST and financial services; as I mentioned, AECL; medical expense tax credits; softwood lumber; and pensions.

Here is what is being proposed in this particular implementation about pensions, and this is what it says, “Increases the maximum insolvency ratio for a pension plan from 110% to 125%, allowing for more overfunding”.

How generous is that? To a certain degree, it is a measure by which we will make an improvement, but here is another measure.

Just a few days ago we voted on a private member's bill in the House that talked about bankruptcy and insolvency. That is the issue where the Conservatives are going to throw in pensions. That is what we have to talk about, topics such as bankruptcy and insolvency for the sake of pension security.

Right now, given the downturn that we have just had, when the stocks went down, a lot of the securities, for example, the pension that is very popular in my riding regarding AbitibiBowater retirees, lost 30% of their value, and yet not a word about this as to how this situation could be dealt with.

Nortel was in the same situation. We had all these private pensions that were losing value and the government never brought in the vision by which how we were going to address this in the near future. The only passing comment was at the very beginning when our beloved Prime Minister said, “It's a good time to buy”.

Again, I go back to, if we call within the next 10 minutes we might even get a better deal on another piece of stock. But here we have what I thought was going to be a little bit of vision if we go beyond what has already been telegraphed when it comes to pensions, and we did not see it.

Remailers is another big situation, as my colleague from Mississauga South pointed out. We could have had 100 witnesses come and speak about that issue alone, which is a fundamental change in how we do business here in this country.

Regarding environmental assessments, my colleagues from the NDP have talked about that quite a bit and I wholeheartedly agree with them in this particular case. There have been some changes that were asked for. Here is the one little tidbit I am going to put out to the Conservatives that I agree with. I have received a lot of feedback about these environmental assessments from municipalities and from the province. However, do not take this sort of thing and slip it under the radar as the government has been trying to do.

I think a fulsome debate about this would have been warranted because there is a balancing act here. We do not want to be bogged down in red tape when it comes to infrastructure, and I agree, but at the same time we certainly do not want to look past our own responsibilities for ensuring that we have a clean environment.

Interest rates for over-contributions to the Canada Revenue Agency are also in this bill, certainly something that could trigger a fulsome debate in the House.

Finally, if we are talking about the intent of the bill and all that is in this omnibus piece of legislation, I want to point out to the Conservatives how they may want to at times practice what they used to preach.

There was a situation in 2005, and I remind my hon. colleague from northern Alberta because he was not here at the time. We had a budget debate in the House and I remember we had signed a huge agreement regarding the Atlantic accord, but there were changes in legislation that needed to be made to put it forward and ensure it came into force. To do that it was part of the budget implementation act at the time.

Trust me, because I was there, and I remember my two Conservative colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador as they vehemently, and I mean vehemently, argued against including this change within the budget. The words that they used were “under cover of night, under the radar, slipping it in at the last moment”. These are all the words that I just brought out, so really I am being repetitious for the Conservatives. I am using their own argument. My goodness, I could probably qualify to be their spokesperson, although I would have to get a minister to represent me, but that is beside the point.

In this situation, if we start practising this way of dealing with legislation, where everything is put into one omnibus bill, what happens to the debate in the House? I enjoy debating in the House. I enjoy coming here because that is what we are paid to do, but yet, if we try to undermine it each and every time by undermining the process by which we debate, then we will find ourselves in a great deal of trouble.

We are in a minority Parliament and in this case we must behave responsibly for our constituents and for Canadians in general. To do that, this runs counter to what we are here for in this minority Parliament. It is almost like we want to just keep wedging each other to the extreme.

By coming out with these issues and clashing over them without any way of providing debate among the parties, it has undermined Parliament in a minority situation. In 2006, when I was elected to a minority Parliament, I thought we may even find ourselves in a level of maturity that would have increased in Parliament. Would that not be a novel idea?

However, in some instances, there were some flashes of brilliances, not only from us but everybody in the House, where we actually came to an agreement. We decided in a responsible manner to govern the country expediently given the times. We had just come out of a recession.

However, expedience is not at the price of debate. We have so many things jammed into Bill C-9 that it is untenable.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and support a stronger Canadian economy through the jobs and economic growth act, Bill C-9. Indeed, that is why I am opposing the delay motions introduced by the NDP.

The jobs and economic growth act and budget 2010 are an integral part of Canada's economic action plan that has been successfully strengthening our economy and helping to create jobs. Recent job gains illustrate that Canada's economic action plan is working. The month of May represents eight straight months of job gains in the past 10 months. Since July 2009, Canada has created over 300,000 new jobs. Both the OECD and the IMF have predicted that Canada's economic growth will lead the G7 by a wide margin this year.

The jobs and economic growth act helps continue that focus on the economy. My remarks today will centre on two sections of part 22 of this important bill. Part 22 outlines key investments to help bolster our economy for today and tomorrow; specifically, support for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation and Genome Canada.

First, the jobs and economic growth act invests in the Canadian Youth Business Foundation. Since taking office in 2006, this government has been committed to supporting Canadian businesses and entrepreneurship. Let us be clear. When businesses succeed, Canadians succeed. Businesses create jobs, generate prosperity and serve as the lifeblood of the Canadian economy.

However, it is not enough to support the business leaders of today. In order to maintain the quality of life that Canadians enjoy, we need to invest in the business leaders of tomorrow. This is even more important given the uncertain global economic times. Canada's economic action plan recognizes the importance of encouraging the entrepreneurial spirit of Canada's youth, taking targeted measures to encourage youth and create jobs while securing our long-term economic growth.

Year one of Canada's economic action plan invested $10 million in the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, a not-for-profit organization that provides financial support and mentorship to young Canadians who want to start their own businesses. The Canadian Youth Business Foundation has taken a unique and innovative approach to support young entrepreneurs. The foundation assists in matching young motivated Canadians with experienced volunteer business mentors and provides them with access to the capital they need to get their ideas off the ground.

This unique approach has helped more than 3,500 young entrepreneurs create more than 16,900 jobs since the Canadian Youth Business Foundation was founded in 1996. Given this impact, it is not surprising that the foundation was awarded top honour at the Global Entrepreneurship Congress this year. As well, the Canadian Youth Business Foundation is helping engage young Canadians in the G20 meetings that our government is hosting this June in Toronto.

The Canadian Youth Business Foundation is organizing a G20 youth entrepreneur summit, which will allow young Canadians the opportunity to meet with successful entrepreneurs, prominent business leaders and government officials and participate in identifying key actions that governments can take to unleash the potential of our youth. Entrepreneurship in all G20 countries is of great importance.

Hosting the G20 this June allows Canada the opportunity to show leadership on the world stage as member nations define the path forward after the largest global recession since the second world war. I am encouraged to hear that our leaders of tomorrow will make their voices heard as we host the world in Toronto.

Given the foundation's success to date, I am happy to note that the jobs and economic growth act builds on our investment in year one of Canada's economic action plan by providing an additional $10 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation. This support will enable an estimated 500 new Canadian businesses to launch over the next year, generating approximately 2,500 new jobs and $63 million in revenues within three years.

New funding for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation announced in budget 2010 will help young entrepreneurs like Jessica Williamson, who, with the help of foundation support and mentor Al Norman, opened the doors of Hoopla Clothing, a retail activewear store in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, with resounding success.

The Canadian Youth Business Foundation is supporting young entrepreneurs like Jessica, who have great potential to generate innovative ideas in Canada's communities from coast to coast, in addition to serving as role models for young people and inspiring them to consider entrepreneurship as a career option. Clearly, this investment in the Canadian Youth Business Foundation is one that will pay dividends now and in the future.

The jobs and economic growth act also invests in Genome Canada. Science and technology have been and continue to be fundamental priorities of this government. As we move toward an ever more global economy, it is clear that research, innovation and highly qualified people will be the key to Canada's future economic prosperity. This government's long-term economic plan, “Advantage Canada”, recognizes the need to create the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world right here in Canada.

Our long-term science and technology strategy, “Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada's Advantage”, further outlined our plan to make Canada a world leader in science and technology through significant investments in people, knowledge and entrepreneurship. To date, this government has backed its words with action. Through budgets 2006, 2007 and 2008, our government has provided an additional $2.2 billion in new funding for science and technology initiatives between 2005-06 and 2009-10.

Canada's economic action plan built on these investments by providing an unprecedented $4.9 billion in additional funding for research infrastructure, research, highly skilled people and commercialization. This unprecedented investment in science and technology explains why Canada ranks first among the G7 countries in terms of expenditures on research and development in the higher education sector as a share of our economy. This is an achievement that all Canadians can be proud of.

However, this government is not content to rest on its laurels. Budget 2010 continues the momentum of previous budgets, providing over $1.4 billion in new investments to support science and technology in Canada.

Genome Canada is one beneficiary of this significant new investment. Genome Canada is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to developing and implementing a national strategy in genomics and proteomics research for the benefit of all Canadians. In other words, Genome Canada is decoding the language of our genes, giving researchers a better understanding about the foundation of life.

The research performed by Genome Canada, such as genomics research, has outcomes in the areas of human health, the environment and natural resources. Genome Canada has received significant support from our government. This funding has supported over 130 large-scale collaborative projects among academic, private sector, government and international partners.

Recognizing the work performed by Genome Canada, year two of Canada's economic action plan through the jobs and economic growth act is investing $75 million—

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member knows I am the runner-up this year, so I am going to get a chance to get my speech.

But I congratulate him on the honour that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance received this week. He has a good speaking voice, too.

In any event, in this bill we know there are some items that were not pre-disclosed. It is an 880-page bill.

That bill went to committee, but if that bill includes a number of items that are not included or not part of the mandate or the discipline of the members who are at that committee, how could they possibly give it the due diligence? How could they possibly give it the attention? It is like having a dozen serious, detailed pieces of legislation all put into one bill and treating it as if it were one. That means the whole process of second reading, referral to committee and hearing of witnesses, report stage, third reading, all of these things, are done once. Yet in the budget implementation bill, there are items that in themselves could have been a separate bill and would have required substantial debate within the House at second reading, substantial review and due diligence activity at committee to ask the tough questions of the government, as well as the making of amendments at report stage, and then, of course, the rest of the legislative process.

The government has preempted that. It has preempted that process by including these pieces of legislation.

One of the big changes we have, as I referred to in a question earlier, is significant changes to the rules, the laws of Canada, as they relate to environmental assessments. Our environment committee would have liked to have had an opportunity to call experts and Canadians and to promote public participation in terms of significant environmental issues. Buried in Bill C-9 are provisions that would preempt the five-year review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

That is a legislative review. It is something that we do very often.

As a matter fact, I have one coming to my ethics committee, hopefully early in the fall. It is a legislated, mandated review of the Lobbying Act.

These are important pieces of legislation and they are to be reviewed to ensure that they continue to provide the representation of the public interest.

Bill C-9 also allows the minister to dictate the scope of environmental assessments. It leaves it up to the minister, delegated authority, effectively, that the minister can truncate the scope of work that would be done. Environmental assessments are done because Canadians have said we need to know what will be the consequences of a variety of initiatives or projects that may take place.

This now gives the authority to the minister to limit the scope and the number of environmental assessments that will take place. Does it paint a picture? It is going to weaken the public participation.

We always talk about the importance of representing our constituents. Yet the government, through this ploy of an omnibus bill and throwing this in and not allowing the full amount of debate, has destroyed the opportunities that Canadians have to deal with important issues such as the environment.

The government does not have the environment as a priority. It thought that Kyoto was a socialist plot trying to transfer money from the rich to the poor. It embarrassed us at Copenhagen. It has no priorities and no plan on the environment, yet it is going further to weaken the legislative tools and the rights of Canadians with regard the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

That is not accountable. By burying it in this bill, it is not transparent. It is not plain, it is not open, it is not clear, it is not concise, it is not correct. It is wrong. The government boasts about accountability but does it with its fingers crossed behind its back. It does not want to be accountable.

As a matter of fact, the government is even ordering witnesses not to appear before committees, who have been summoned under the law to appear before those committees. It is telling them not to appear, because it does not want the committee and Canadians to hear what witnesses have to say about the obstruction of the Government of Canada in terms of the release of public information under the Access to Information Act.

Is that accountability? No. It is not accountable. In fact, it is promoting secrecy. It is promoting, “I'm doing it our way and we are not going to tell anybody anything”. This is the kind of attitude that the government has shown.

There are many other examples. We have Canada Post Corporation. One of the changes that is going to happen as a consequence of Bill C-9 is that buried in it is a little clause that is going to change the Canada Post Corporation Act to say that the exclusive privilege referred to in subsection 14(1), which is the privilege of Canada Post to collect and deliver the mail, does not apply to letters intended for delivery to an addressee outside of Canada.

Can we imagine the impact of that? Can we fathom the reason that the government would bury this amendment in a budget implementation bill?

Is there more? Of course there is.

How about Atomic Energy of Canada Limited? Its offices are located in the Sheridan Park research centre, a couple of hundred yards behind my home. It employs a very large number of engineers, technicians and experts. They work on projects, whether they be related to Candu or other reactors where we are dealing with the production of medical isotopes or whatever. Somehow the government believes it can take pieces out of AECL; it can privatize it; it can sell it off.

We do not have the confidence. The government is saying by this bill and how it has handled AECL that it does not care about AECL anymore. It does not care about how we are going to provide for medical isotopes. It does not care about the reputation of the extraordinary technological knowledge, experience and expertise we have in Candu reactors and AECL's future.

All the government cares about is that it can sell off an asset and get some capital injected by someone else, not by the government. Why? It is because it has destroyed the fiscal position of the country.

The Conservative government inherited a $13 billion surplus from the prior government in 2006, and now it has driven it down to a $50 billion deficit. It is going to go higher and unemployment is still going to go higher, notwithstanding the recent reports.

This is a government that is scrambling with the lamest of approaches to try to capitalize on asset sales or on disposing of other rights or authorities of the government, passing on future profits for cash today so that it can say it is getting the deficit down.

The bill should be defeated because the government has not been accountable.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at third reading on Bill C-9.

This is the budget implementation bill. Canadians would think that the budget implementation bill deals with items that were in the budget and in the throne speech. That is not exactly true. In fact, it is the basis of concern of a lot of parliamentarians and Canadians that buried in the budget implementation bill are a substantial number of significant items that have just been added to it. What the government has done, in fact, is to avoid its obligation to be accountable, to be open, to be transparent.

I remember giving a speech to a parliamentary forum in which I tried to define accountability. I try to apply this in most of the work that I see in the House, to see whether accountability has been achieved. I define accountability to say that one is accountable when one has explained or justified one's decisions or actions in a manner that is true, full and plain.

I do not believe the government has been accountable in Bill C-9. The budget implementation bill is really an omnibus bill, because it includes in it changes to an awful lot of pieces of legislation and acts in Canada that were never included in the throne speech, the budget speech, or in fact, in the budget document itself.

Why would the government do that? In my view, it is to seek to be unaccountable, to be less than transparent, to be less than open--

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-9 includes provisions that would change the laws of the land with regard to the environment.

Bill C-9 would pre-empt the five-year review that we were going to do of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It also would allow the minister to dictate the scope of environmental assessments rather than allowing for the normal assessment process. It also would weaken the participation of the public in efforts to protect our environment.

Would the hon. member advise the House why he believes this weakening of our environmental laws in Canada is in the public interest?

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 2.

Employment Insurance

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' penchant for stealing money from workers is outrageous. Among the plethora of bills that it would amend, budget Bill C-9 would wipe out the $57 billion that the Conservative government owes to the employment insurance fund. It used that $57 billion to pay down the deficit caused by its own poor management of public funds.

In addition, this government will increase employment insurance benefits by 15¢ in January 2011. That money will not go to improve the current system but to reimburse what the Conservatives have pillaged from the employment insurance fund.

The Conservatives are making the unemployed pay for their deficit. They are taking advantage of the fact that this omnibus bill, Bill C-9, is a confidence vote, and they have filled it with all sorts of reforms and measures. They know that the Liberals will never dare oppose it and trigger an election.

But we in the Bloc Québécois will side with workers and oppose Bill C-9.

Canada Post

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

Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals as their accomplices, the Conservatives are threatening the viability of the postal service by including a thousand and one reforms in Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

Among other things, Bill C-9 contains a deregulation project to put an end to Canada Post's monopoly on international remailing.

The Conservative government is trying to fool the public by slipping this deregulation plan into an 800-page omnibus budget implementation bill. They are trying to privatize this corporation on the sly, without the public even realizing it.

The government is opening the door to the complete deregulation of Canada Post. The citizens of Berthier—Maskinongé and all of Quebec are opposed to this process.

I implore the Liberal members not to support this Conservative bill. They must all rise and vote against Bill C-9 to maintain universal, accessible postal service.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having sat on several committees where that member is the chair, I encourage you to consider that the member is not quite aware all the time what actually constitutes a point of order. In this case he is clearly wrong about calling a point of order. The Rick Hansen Foundation is specifically a part of our budget implementation bill and I will get to that. The member apparently has not read the budget, but I am going to tie this in for him.

This year the Rick Hansen Foundation is celebrating its 25th anniversary of the Man in Motion World Tour. To date, the Rick Hansen Foundation has raised over $200 million to address spinal cord injury in Canada.

Mr. Hansen continues to push toward finding a cure for spinal cord injury believing we are closer than ever. This government shares Mr. Hansen's vision. This is the tie-in for the member for Mississauga South, who will want to pay attention.

In year two of Canada's economic action plan, through the jobs and economic growth act, there is an investment of $13.5 million over three years in the Rick Hansen Foundation to strengthen spinal cord injury research and care in Canada. This funding will support leadership, operations and programs at the foundation as well as formalize and launch the Rick Hansen Institute, which is part of the budget.

The launch of the new Rick Hansen Institute is the centrepiece of the 25th anniversary campaign. This world-class institute will build on previous successes and federal support to strengthen Canada's international leadership in the field.

Planned activities include: expanding the existing spinal cord injury registry to include critical data from other countries and networks; supporting groundbreaking research including a study examining whether the spinal cord can be repaired by implanting cells from elsewhere in the body; establishing a global clinical trials network to accelerate the validation and implementation of emerging care and treatment strategies; and hosting a conference that will bring the world's foremost experts together to share best practices.

In short the institute will represent the next step in Rick Hansen's unrelenting quest to find new ways to improve lives and help find a cure for spinal cord injuries.

This investment, which is in the current budget bill, Bill C-9, also furthers the government's science and technology strategy by helping to build and sustain Canada's international research leadership in health and related life sciences and technologies.

This new funding provided in Bill C-9 will also support the foundation's efforts to raise awareness during the 25th anniversary campaign. This partnership will allow Rick Hansen to tell his story to a new generation of Canadians, inspiring them to make a difference.

Our government is proud to support the Rick Hansen Foundation, the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Man in Motion World Tour and the new Rick Hansen Institute. Investments such as this will not only cement our position as a world leader in health research but also have a real impact on the health and quality of life of Canadians across the country.

I have an uncle who has a severe spinal cord injury that he received in the workplace. This type of research is very meaningful to families. I can speak on his behalf in saying that this is something he supports emphatically.

Second and finally, the jobs and economic growth act invests in pathways to education. Our government has been committed to ensuring that Canadians reach their full potential, creating highly qualified people and the ideas that our economy needs to thrive.

Canada has one of the highest post-secondary participation rates in the world. However, a gap continues to exist between the post-secondary participation rates of youth from lower income backgrounds and those from higher income backgrounds. We do not accept that. Research shows that many of the barriers to participation are not financial and that some youth need other supports to reach their goals.

Our government is committed to ensuring that all Canadians have the opportunity to undertake post-secondary studies regardless of their background. With this aim the jobs and economic growth act provides $20 million for pathways to education Canada.

Pathways to education Canada is a unique program of early intervention and support for high school students that aims to help students overcome the barriers they may face in pursuing post-secondary education. This community-based volunteer supported program provides tutoring, mentoring, counselling and financial support to disadvantaged youth and to their families. It has an established record of reducing high school drop-out rates and increasing post-secondary enrolment of students from inner city high schools.

The new funding announced in budget 2010 will allow pathways to education Canada to partner with the private sector, other governments, and non-governmental organizations, and work with the communities to provide support to more disadvantaged youth in more communities. Every Canadian deserves the chance to reach his or her full potential and budget 2010, the jobs and economic growth act, is a big step in making this possible.

The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations praised budget 2010, the same budget which the NDP is delaying and stalling. The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations said the budget is “making intelligent investments to help students find their way into post-secondary education”. They also had special praise for our government's investment into the pathways to education program. They said:

$20 million for the Pathways to Education program is a valuable investment in "early intervention" that many researchers believe can help Canadians that have not historically attended post-secondary education in high numbers to attend college or university - low-income Canadians, recent immigrants, aboriginal Canadians, and youth whose parents attained low levels of education.

Through all of these measures and others, our government has created a budget that responds to the needs of our times while setting out the goals that our long-term prosperity demands. The global economy appeared to have stabilized in mid-2009 after undergoing a deep and synchronized recession. I think all members would acknowledge that it was the worst financial crisis seen since the 1930s.

However, with support from the extraordinary measures in Canada's economic action plan, the Canadian economy has started to recover. I mentioned earlier in a question that just this week Statistics Canada reported that there was growth of 6.1% in our GDP during the first quarter. That is outstanding. Just this morning Statistics Canada reported that 24,700 jobs were created in the month of May. These are encouraging signs. We have seen job creation in eight of the past 10 months.

This is what Bill C-9, the jobs and economic growth act, our budget 2010 implementation bill, is all about. I cannot for the life of me understand what is happening with the NDP. We must continue to provide the steady guidance that has allowed Canada to continue on the right track to recovery. I urge all members to continue to support the government in this work that is so vital to the people of Canada and their continued prosperity.

I ask that all members oppose the delay tactics that we see before the House today, get behind Canada, get behind their constituents and get behind the recovery. Let us all work together for a brighter future for this country.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the issue of relevance.

We are speaking about Bill C-9. The member is reflecting on the Olympics and the people in the Olympics. As much as I agree with his sentiments about the great games we had, we should really be speaking to Bill C-9.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Bloc member on his speech. I have a question for him about Canada Post, since he spoke extensively about the corporation. The Conservative government has already tried to make changes several times, with Bill C-14 and Bill C-44. This time, it included the changes in and Bill C-9, in this massive volume.

I would like the Bloc member to tell us what he thinks will happen to Canada Post if Bill C-9 is passed by the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable interest, but also considerable concern that I rise once again today to speak to Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures. This enormous 880-page bill, with its more than 2,200 clauses, contains many different measures. I wonder if anyone has actually read this entire document, which has a lot to hide from the people. That is what I intend to speak out against during my remarks today.

Some might think that this bill contains only budget-related measures, but that is not the case. The Conservatives introduced a bill that is a catch-all for various measures and legislative actions that will make major changes to other laws, many of which have nothing to do with the budget. This will affect all Quebeckers.

It is important for Quebeckers to be aware that the Conservatives have the support of the Liberals despite the fact that I urged them to vote against this budget so we could rescue things like the Canada Post Corporation and recover the $57 billion in workers' and unemployed workers' money that has been misappropriated. That money will simply disappear if this bill is passed. I do not believe that the Liberals really intend to stand up and vote against this bill. Once again, true to form, they will act against the interests of working men and women, of Quebeckers and of society's poorest by supporting the Conservatives.

I believe that some Liberal members will vote against the bill, but there will not be enough of them to really register their dissatisfaction with Bill C-9. They tell the House that they are against this bill. They take part in the debates and ask questions, but when voting time comes, they do not show up. That is unfortunate because they know that this omnibus budget, Bill C-9, includes measures that will really affect the quality of life of Quebeckers and all Canadians.

The Conservatives know this. When I first came to the House, I noticed that, after a speech by an NDP member, they were laughing. This bill will privatize certain areas of Canada Post's activities and they are not taking seriously the harm that this will cause. We often say that the government is giving the profits to the private sector and the losses to the public sector. With this bill, that is what will happen to Canada Post, as well as to the unemployed, to our workers and to people who pay into employment insurance. Both workers and employers—who have been swindled, or robbed, of over $57 billion over the past few years—could see this practice continue if the bill passes.

Bill C-9 will permit letter exporters to collect letters in Canada and transport and deliver them abroad.

I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance tell us about Moya Greene, who, he says, supported the initiative proposed in Bill C-9.

However, when that Canada Post representative testified before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, she said that Canada Post has already lost $80 million so far because of that particular kind of privatization. If this bill passes, it is estimated that another $50 million in revenues will be lost if international remailing is allowed. That is a lot of money for Canada Post to lose.

What happens when Canada Post loses revenue? Inevitably, if Canada Post starts losing revenue, it will have to cut services.

So how will it cut services? My riding of Berthier—Maskinongé is mainly rural and when revenues decrease, Canada Post services are cut. It is usually rural areas where services are cut first.

And how are they cut? When the Liberals were in power, several post offices in my riding were closed. There is now a moratorium on post office closures, but several were closed then, including the offices in Saint-Édouard and Saint-Sévère. Those are some of the municipalities in my riding where post offices were closed.

At the time, people organized and demanded that their post offices be kept open, but the Liberals just said they could not afford to meet those needs and had to cut services. So Canada Post services were cut in these rural communities.

If Canada Post's revenue is reduced by $50 million, then postal service in rural communities will be cut again, unfortunately. Major urban centres receive far more mail and, according to a Canada Post study, urban postal service is often more profitable. This means that it often does not pay for Canada Post to deliver mail door to door in rural areas.

Yet rural residents pay tax and contribute to society, and they need services just like urban dwellers. The people of Quebec are very worried that this bill will mean the loss of rural mail delivery.

Maureen Green clearly stated that the corporation had already lost $80 million in revenue in recent years and would lose a further $50 million with this bill. That will mean the gradual privatization of Canada Post. It will be increasingly difficult for people to get their mail. They will have to make a considerable effort or go to another town, sometimes 15 or 20 kilometres away, to pick up a parcel. The government is going to do this to people who are 80, 85 and 90 years old.

I would like to come back to the issue of this bill and the employment insurance fund. The government took money from the unemployed and, with this bill, it is wiping out the $57 billion debt it owes them.

At the same time, even though it has a $57 billion surplus and is forecasting surpluses of $15 billion to $20 billion in the near future, this government has the nerve to vote against measures to improve employment insurance in general and eliminate the waiting period. It is continuing to build up a surplus in the employment insurance fund while reducing access to EI benefits.

It is shameful.

In closing, I would like to say a word about environmental assessment. How will the government be able to provide nuclear oversight if it further privatizes Atomic Energy of Canada Limited? The stakes are very high. If the companies the government creates become political party backers, how can they really provide more oversight and control over nuclear operations?

Those are my concerns. I would add that it is shameful, and to sit here and watch as this bill—

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I might remind all hon. members that we are actually here to debate Bill C-9. The HST for any province is not referred to in this bill.

We treat all provinces equally. The previous government offered some provinces several years back the opportunity to harmonize their sales tax. They knew it was good for business, so they accepted that offer. The offer has remained open because this government respects provincial jurisdiction and it respects treating every province the same. Those questions are for the Premier of British Columbia and I would encourage that hon. member to address those questions to him.

We have heard many comments in this House about pensions. It is critical and time sensitive that we get this legislation passed because we have made improvements to the federally regulated private pension plans in the bill. We need this done by valuation day at the end of June. We need to have this bill passed to protect people's pensions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the parliamentary secretary's speech and I heard two elements in it that were so ridiculous that I must come back to them. He talked about tariff reductions. I certainly hope he has read the bill, because the Conservatives have a tendency not to read the bills that are before the House and it is the NDP that catches them on it.

The Conservatives have imposed a softwood lumber tariff, a self-imposed tax, on softwood communities across the country. Tens of thousands of jobs have been lost as a result of their irresponsible and incompetent softwood lumber sell-out. I just want to ask him how much of an increase that will be. We know the answer in this corner of the House, which is about a 10% increase, but I would like to hear it from his own mouth.

My second question concerns the HST, to which British Columbia has said no. We have had a massive petition campaign. Eighty-five provincial ridings have all said no to it. A referendum was held which the Conservatives have refused to recognize. They refuse to say on the record that it will withdraw the hated HST imposed on British Columbia.

Since Bill C-9 also has an increase and spreads the HST, could the parliamentary secretary reply to this question for once and for all: Will Conservatives respect the will of the people of British Columbia and say no to the HST?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to stand in strong support of the jobs and economic growth act, as well as in support of Canada's continued economic recovery.

Like my Conservative colleagues, I completely oppose the NDP's attempt to delay and threaten the jobs and economic growth act, which is a key component of Canada's economic action plan.

As demonstrated again this morning, Canada's economic action plan is working. Canada's economy is getting stronger. Each month, more and more Canadians, who only a year ago spent restless nights worrying about finding jobs, are now findings jobs and waking up to brighter mornings and, indeed, brighter futures after hearing the great words, “You got the job”.

I know the NDP likes to talk down the Canadian economy, businesses and workers as it preaches its doom and gloom economic defeatism, but the NDP needs to open its collective eyes. We have seen over a quarter of a million net new jobs created in this last year. We have seen job gains every month this year. Canada had record job growth in April. We saw Canada's economy, in the first quarter of 2010, roar ahead with 6.1% growth, the strongest quarterly rate of economic growth in a decade, as well as in the G7.

Both the OECD and the IMF are predicting our economic growth will lead all G7 countries both this year and next. Hope has replaced fear, the fear that we saw a year ago. Optimism has replaced pessimism. Canada is on the right track. If members of the NDP do not want to believe me, they should listen to what the OECD had to say about our country's economy. It stated, “I think Canada looks good - it shines, actually, Canada could even be considered a safe haven”.

Nevertheless, the global recovery is fragile and that is why Parliament's overriding priority must be fully implementing Canada's economic action plan, a blueprint to help create jobs, lower taxes and foster growth for an even brighter tomorrow. We cannot stop moving forward. We cannot delay Canada's economic action plan any longer, but the NDP's procedural delaying tactics would do just that.

We have debated the jobs and economic growth act in Parliament for nearly three months. We have heard over 50 speeches to date. We heard from over 50 witnesses in the finance committee. In that time, we heard some wild allegations. We heard some members criticize the act as far as being too ambitious as an 880-page document.

What is clear is that those members complaining about the size of the act have actually not even looked at it. If they had, they would soon realize that the action to make Canada a tariff-free zone for manufacturing makes up over one-half of the entire document, or 52% of the pages in this act, due to technical and legal requirements.

I know the protectionist NDP members voted against making Canada a tariff-free zone for our manufacturers and it irritates them that we are eliminating so many job-killing tariffs, but I am proud our Conservative government is making Canada a tariff-free zone for manufacturers in the G20. This will cut costs and paperwork for our manufacturers. This will make Canadian-made products more competitive here and abroad. This will create jobs for Canadians for years to come.

While the NDP may not like it, I am proud to stand behind the over 450 pages in this act that delete the tariffs exclusively dedicated to supporting manufacturers and the Canadians that they employ.

We have also heard some members, spurred by biased special interest groups, complain about a provision in the act that would literally save small businesses and the thousands of people they employ. These are the ones involved in the remailing industry across Canada.

I want to now take a moment to set the record straight so there are no misunderstandings. It is nonsense to suggest that this is about privatizing Canada Post. That is not this government's intention. If the NDP members do not believe me, they should listen to Canada Post CEO, Moya Greene, herself. She recently told a parliamentary committee:

However, I want to make it clear that the bill does not take away the exclusive privilege. It applies only to a tiny segment of the mail.

Private sector remailers, mainly small businesses, have been operating and competing with Canada Post for decades. Due to legal wrangling and recent court decisions, these small businesses are now threatened without quick passage of this act.

This is about saving small businesses and saving thousands of jobs, and nothing more.

We had the honour at the finance committee of hearing from Barry Sikora. Mr. Sikora is one of those small businessmen who have been involved in the international mail industry for decades. He has been employing people for decades and his business has been contributing to local communities for decades. He had a simple plea:

...my company employed 31 people. We're not a huge corporation; we're an average business in the printing industry. Now, because of this situation, we're down to 17 employees. Many of our customers have left us, and they have not gone to Canada Post for their foreign mail delivery needs; they have taken their business to another country. They have forced our industry to lay off long-time employees, and that's not a pleasant thing to do.

If this doesn't pass [the jobs and economic growth act], I'm out of business.

The NDP can wail, heckle and yell all they want over there but those are the Canadians for whom we are trying to protect their jobs. I do not care if the NDP members are not in touch with Canadians or with small businesses in this country but the least they can do is keep their mouths shut while we try to support them.

For those members who talk about delaying and defeating this act, I want them to go to classicimpressions.ca and click on the “about us” tab. They should look at the faces of those people who Mr. Sikora employs and whose jobs are at risk. Their futures demand that the NDP comes to its senses.

What is more, I will put in perspective what else is at risk in this act if it is not passed or if it is delayed: $500 million in transfer protection payments to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; $75 million to Genome Canada; $20 million for Pathways to Education to support disadvantaged youth; $13.5 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation; legislation to enforce debit and credit card industry code of conduct, vital for retailers and small businesses, again, in Canada; key income tax changes to attract foreign investment into Canada's venture capital and private equity industry; key reforms to federally regulated pension plans in Canada, such as requiring an employer to fully fund pension benefits if a pension plan is terminated; and many more.

The NDP delaying tactic would put at risk all of those measures, measures urgently needed to ensure that Canada's economic recovery continues. Canadians do not want that to happen. The risks are too high.

We need to work together as parliamentarians to ensure this act is adopted and adopted quickly for the benefit of our economy and the jobs of Canadians.

I therefore urge all members to support Bill C-9 and oppose the NDP's tactics to delay this passage.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the Canada Post Act there is a provision which refers to the exclusive privilege of Canada Post.

Bill C-9 introduces an amendment which says that the exclusive privilege would not apply to letters intended for delivery to an address outside of Canada. This is commonly referred to as the remailer issue that the member talked about.

Although there is a moratorium on rural post office closures, moratoriums are at the discretion of the government, and I believe that rural post offices would be at risk because of this change. I also believe that because of the contracting, the contracting of even urban postal outlets would further impair Canada Post.

I wonder if the member believes that this change would in fact impair, not help, Canada Post.

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

Mr. Speaker, we want a public discussion and we want to debate that issue here in Parliament. We do not want it stuck and buried in an 880-page omnibus bill, which is what the Conservatives are doing. Not only that, but they bring in a closure motion. When they were Reform Party members a number of years ago, they were outraged at the Liberals bringing in closure in the House. They said they would never do it. So we see their principles are absolutely gone. They are bringing in closure when they said they would not.

They are sneaking this privatization of AECL through Bill C-9. They do not even have the courage to introduce it as a separate bill. They are not sharing this information with Parliament. They are not willing to have debate here in Parliament on that issue. This is just typical and another example of how the government operates in an environment of secrecy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for perhaps the last time on Bill C-9. The bill, as we have pointed out numerous times, is 880 pages long, which is quite excessive even for the government.

Governments in the past have resorted to omnibus bills to bring in measures that are largely unpopular. Measures they cannot get through any other way, they have stuck them in omnibus bills in the past, but this one will probably never be beaten because I have never seen one of this size, 880 pages. The government has thrown in all sorts of measures that it cannot get through.

The best example of that would be the issue of the post office remailers. The government has tried to get the bill through as Bill C-14. It failed. It tried Bill C-44. It failed again.

Now that it sees a weakness in the Liberal official opposition, it has decided to go for broke and throw everything into this vegetable soup essentially and bury the remailer issue in there, which is going to be the beginning of a deregulation process of Canada Post.

To combat this attempt by the government, we have tried to delete a number of the objectionable parts of the bill. As such, the amendments have been grouped into two different groupings.

We have so far dealt with Group No. 1, which is the air travellers security charges, environmental assessment, and EI funding. Now we are now dealing with the Canada Post issue, which I just spoke about, and the fire sale of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in Group No. 2.

In terms of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL, it is the largest crown corporation. This in itself, as I think everyone would agree, would merit a separate bill because this particular crown corporation has had over $22 billion put into building the company. There is a critical mass of expertise.

The government is bent, we believe, on selling and privatizing AECL probably to an American firm, and just at a time when the nuclear industry is starting to become popular again. In some parts of the world there are over 100 reactors being initiated on a global basis. This industry in Canada is well known as a world leader in this area.

As much as I do not condone the expansion of nuclear development because of all the associated problems with it and the timeline to get it up and running, we have Ontario interested in nuclear as well as Saskatchewan and I believe Alberta. Is the timing not perfect for a free enterprise Conservative government to take a company that we have put $22 billion into and basically sell it off at fire sale prices to the private sector? That is just typical of the way the Conservative government operates.

We have spoken at length about the remailers at Canada Post and where the government is headed with Canada Post.

The government announced last year that it was going to do an inventory of government assets. It was going to look at selling some of the assets, particularly looking at the deficit of $56 billion.

This is a perfect opportunity for the Conservatives to start assessing the asset base of the government and selling off buildings, the CBC, and other assets that the government owns.

We are really looking at neo-Reaganites and Thatcherites in reality. The Minister of Immigration claps at that. This is what a minority Conservative government is doing. Imagine what would happen if these guys had a majority government. They would not even have fire sales, they would just give the assets away, maybe even pay their friends to take the assets.

However, we find it very disturbing that in an environment where we had a worldwide recession on our hands, the banks of this country still managed to post a $15.9 billion profit. What does the government do? It rewards them with a reduction in corporate taxes trying to race to the bottom, trying to get down to 15%, so they will be at least 10 points below the United States.

The bank presidents are still at the trough. The president of the Royal Bank is earning $10.4 million a year and what do the Conservatives give to Canadians? They raise the air travellers tax by 50%, making it the highest in the world. This at a time when the Americans are charging a $5 tax. So we are going to be sending our travellers over to American airlines. Is that smart economics? But that is the Conservative government.

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 2.

Report stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-9 and to the Group No. 2 deletions that the NDP alone has been attempting to have deleted from the bill.

To answer the Bloc member's question, we in the NDP recognize that we cannot effect changes to legislation in Parliament without the co-operation of the other two opposition parties. Therefore, it makes sense that if it takes a proposal or an amendment to get the Liberals to support it, we would be prepared to do that.

However, having said that, we have no intention of voting for the bill even if we were to get the deletions that we were looking for because, once again, the bill is not an honest attempt at a budget implementation bill. It is well-known that if we want to implement the provisions of the budget, as the member for Mississauga South has indicated, we should at least talk about the budget or at least mention it in the throne speech.

What the Conservatives have done here, recognizing that the Liberals are the weak link in the chain here, is decided in a minority situation to ram all this stuff into a bill that is basically like vegetable soup and throw in the issue of the remailers, the issue of selling AECL and the environmental issues and serve it up in an 880-page omnibus bill and hope for the best. They are basically challenging the Liberals to vote against them and have an election over it. That is not the way we should be running Parliament.

The Conservatives presented the post office remailers as a government bill on two occasions and they ran into a wall. Even the Liberals said no when they brought in the remailer issue on Bill C-14 and Bill C-44 over the last couple of years. The brain trust of the Conservative government saw a way to get the budget implementation bill through so it threw in a bunch of things that did not apply.

Now we have the government's very weak defence today of saying that we have had so many days to discuss the bill and that it brought in an omnibus bill because the Liberals did it before. In other words, two wrongs make a right. Just because the Conservatives can point to and attack the member for Mississauga South on the basis that he was in the House when the Liberal Party was in power and it did the same thing that--

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

Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised to see the NDP member from Outremont try to add a new measure on oil or oil drilling to the bill in an attempt to entice the Liberals to vote in favour of the bill. This quite simply means that with such a measure, the NDP would also be prepared to support Bill C-9, knowing full well that some of the measures are unacceptable.

I did not understand what the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Outremont, was trying to do. He wanted to add a measure, apparently to try to mollify the Liberals to get Bill C-9 passed. I am trying to understand, but I still do not get it.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Canada Post remailer issue is a smoking gun in Bill C-9 because it, like the sale of AECL, especially does not belong in Bill C-9. The evidence of that is the fact that the government itself introduced the remailer issue in Bill C-14 and Bill C-44 in the last couple of years.

I applaud the member for his analysis of the bill. I want to ask him why he thinks the Liberals should be able to claim that they are sympathetic to this issue, when in fact they will not be supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9.

I have before me this bill, which is called a bill to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures. I have it in hand and I know that everyone is familiar with it.

It is a very large bill with 880 pages and more than 2,200 clauses. Those who are watching us might think that such a large bill is meant to improve things for Canadians in terms of taxes. It is called a budget implementation bill, but on the contrary, it is a Conservative scheme for pushing through a significant portion of their policies—their right-wing philosophy of which I will provide some examples—knowing full well that the official opposition, the Liberal Party, will back down. Thus, we already know that some members will be absent. They say they are against the bill when they take part in the debate, but when the time comes to vote, they will back down. The Conservatives know this very well. That is why they decided, after four years as a minority government, to seek passage of unpopular measures in bulk that they could not get passed in separate bills.

It is important that Quebeckers and Canadians watching us understand this: the Conservative Party has included unpopular measures in this bill, measures that would otherwise not get passed.

I will take as an example part 15 of the bill, on the Canada Post Corporation Act, on page 568. Clause 1885 has one paragraph:

1885. Section 15 of the Canada Post Corporation Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The exclusive privilege referred to in subsection 14(1) does not apply to letters intended for delivery to an addressee outside Canada.

This change was part of Bill C-44, introduced by the Conservative government on June 17, 2009. That bill went to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, of which I am a member. The debates were so serious that, after prorogation, the Conservatives decided not to bring back this bill, which would have made changes to the Canada Post Corporation. The Conservatives decided not to bring it back, because changes in the exclusive privilege of Canada Post will reduce its revenues.

As a Quebec sovereignist, I believe that one day, we will have our own country. We will control our postal service, but until that happens, there is one agency, the Canada Post Corporation, that delivers mail in all regions of Canada. Not a single member in this House would dare say that postal services are not important. It is the only service that the Government of Canada provides to the public through a crown corporation, Canada Post. It affects every single citizen, and these services are provided every day. It is the only service left for the public, simply because the remaining public services are provided by other levels of government. Municipalities provide a significant number, as do the provinces. The only service that the Government of Canada provides to the public is the postal service.

When the revenues of Canada Post are cut, its services are also cut. That is what we heard in committee, even before the first version of the bill, when remailers came up with an idea, and lost their case in the courts. These remailers were, and still are, operating.

When they lost in court, they brought their request to us. The president of Canada Post came to tell us why the corporation was suing the remailing companies it had tolerated for 20 years. It was because Canada Post lost approximately $80 million in 2007, and the losses were not stopping.

It is important that Quebeckers and Canadians, and even members of the House, fully understand what remailing is. Companies offer to collect a large business's mail and send it to clients overseas, outside of Canada. Canada Post has tolerated remailing for a long time. Obviously, these companies have grown and are continuing to grow. They have found all sorts of ways to collect mail here and send it from elsewhere. They ship mail in containers and then mail it from overseas, in countries where the costs are significantly lower than in Canada, which leads to financial losses for Canada Post.

Remailing companies came to realize that as long as they were collecting international mail from businesses, they could suggest to these businesses that they collect and send all of their mail. When Canada Post realized that remailing companies were signing mail collection contracts with all of the large organizations—universities and all of the major health networks—it realized that it was losing significant revenue.

In order to stay afloat, Canada Post has to cut services. There is a reason why, in the past three or four years, Canada Post has been closing post offices, trying to reduce the number of rural routes and installing group mailboxes instead of offering home delivery.

I do not think that a single member of this House would dare debate this issue. The Conservatives have decided to hide this measure in their omnibus bill, Bill C-9. We must never forget that Canada Post was the first major Canadian corporation. The famous Royal Mail has always been delivered ever since there was mail. The largest union in Canada is the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. It makes sense because the corporation delivers mail to every home.

The Conservative Party is destroying this service. This bill will take away its exclusive privilege. Canada Post won in court because the onus was on the companies to prove that they were obeying the law. Bill C-9 will take away that exclusive privilege and remailers will be able to collect mail.

What the government and the minister are telling us is that remailers will only be able to collect mail destined for foreign countries. If they collect mail distributed in Canada, it will be up to Canada Post to prove it. We can imagine the money Canada Post will have to spend to prove that private businesses are not collecting only international mail.

The companies knew what they were doing when they asked for the end of the exclusive privilege. Their problem was that they had to prove in court that they were not collecting mail. Now, Canada Post will have to prove it. What does that mean? I can say right now that Canada Post plans on cutting its spending by $250 million over the next two years. That means that services will be cut in rural areas in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

With the Bloc Québécois, I will be voting against Bill C-9 because I do not want to be responsible for ending the provision of service to the entire population. Every citizen pays taxes, whether they live in a rural or urban area. Everyone has the right to postal service in all parts of Quebec and Canada. I do not want to be the one to vote to eliminate postal service in rural areas.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I happen to have Bill C-9 right here. It is over 800 pages long.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a little competition in this House about who can speak loudest and most eloquently, and I think the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore is in the running.

I know that he actually read, unlike everybody else on the government side, the 880 pages of the bill. I would like him to use some of his experience, some of his expertise, to help the government members opposite answer one very simple question, lest they fall prey to the accusation that he suggested already, which is that the government side is a group of tax-and-squander members.

Will he tell us, to help the Conservatives out, because they are in need of assistance, what page in the government's action plan and budget includes the $3.2 billion tax on air travellers in this country?

Second, will he also refer them to the page in that action plan/budget plan, Bill C-9, that shows where the $550 million bribe to the State of Michigan Legislature is located so that we can know how the bridge is going to be built?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my party to denounce the government's actions on Bill C-9 and what it tries to do.

Let me provide a bit of historical background. I know you are fairly new member of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, but there are some members of Parliament on the Conservative side that have memories of this place.

I remember in 1997 when Preston Manning and the Reform Party said that under no circumstances would they invoke closure on government legislation if they were in government. The Liberals, from 1997 until 2006, brought in closure on important debate 58 times.

Every time, the Conservatives, led by members like Monte Solberg, stood in their places and went absolutely bananas on the Liberal Party. Mr. Solberg was right. Mr. Solberg and the Reform Party of Canada were absolutely correct in their objection to closure on such important legislation. What do we get today? We get closure from the same party that said it would never do that.

We heard the President of the Treasury Board say that we had 17 days of debate on this legislation. It is over 800 pages. I guarantee the President of the Treasury Board has not read all 800 pages because not one member of Parliament in the House can honestly say he or she has read the entire legislation.

However, I can assure everyone of this much. I have tried for five years to get a one-page bill on national tartan day through the House with no success. Yet the government wants to rush through 800 pages of complicated legislation in 17 days.

My hon. colleague from the Liberal Party who just spoke is absolutely correct. The subject of AECL is of such grave importance to the Canadian people that this should be a stand-alone debate so there can be proper debate in the House and in committee with proper witnesses, as well as a complete and fair analysis of what this would mean.

It is so typical of the Conservatives, who have learned very well from the Liberal Party, to throw all the junk into one pile. I am surprised they did not include their dry cleaning in the bill because literally everything else is in it. I am sure when the Auditor General gets her chance, she will review their dry cleaning expenditures.

We fear that AECL will be sold for a song to some private enterprise. Years from now, heaven forbid, if something happens at AECL, who will be left holding the bag? It is certainly not the company. It is going to run away and hide. It will people of Canada who will have to clean up this mess. This is the type of debate we should have on a stand-alone basis.

Then there is Canada Post. My father was a proud letter carrier in Division L in Marpole in Vancouver for many years. He was proud to be a letter carrier. I know many people across the country who work for Canada Post and treat their careers very well. Canada Post is one of the last vestiges we have of Canada from coast to coast to coast.

I have had the opportunity of living in British Columbia, Yukon and now in Nova Scotia and one thing is clear. Canada Post is in most communities across the country. The issue of remailings will take millions of dollars from Canada Post revenue. By the way, it has been mandated that any profits have to be returned to general revenues. We have known this for many years.

This will put a death knell in the Canada Post operations and eventually lead to the privatization of Canada Post, which I never thought in my life I would ever see. Eventually, so typical of their philosophy, Conservatives will privatize anything that has “Canada” on it.

Where did the Conservatives learn to do this? The Liberal Party of Canada. If flight services can be privatized into NAV Canada, then literally anything else can be privatized. What is next? Will Parks Canada will be privatized? Will Correctional Service Canada be privatized? Will the supply chain to the military be privatized? What is left?

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

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the Bloc member's participation in the debate today on Bill C-9 and we decry the government's attempt at closure when it is clearly incorrect in its analysis of where the Canadian people are at. The Canadian people will never accept the idea that it should be able to throw everything in the kitchen sink into a budget implementation bill, including things like the post office remailers, which have nothing to do with it.

I want to draw attention again to the air travellers security charge. While the government is reducing corporation taxes to the big banks and other profitable corporations to 15%, as it says, to be competitive to with the Americans, it is increasing the air travellers security charge by 50%, making ours the highest in the world. This will continue to drive Canadian passengers to American carriers.

What does the member think the government is trying to do in supporting American carriers over Canadian carriers?

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they are trying to gag us with an undemocratic vote. We on this side of the House will stand firm until the last minute, and we will make sure that this bill does not pass. Despite the fact that some members opposite are behaving like clowns, we will remain serious and ensure that this unbelievable omnibus bill, Bill C-9, that they have unjustifiably tried to put everything into, does not pass.

Earlier, when we were examining the motion to limit debate, I said that what was happening was undemocratic. This bill contains more than 2,200 clauses and close to 800 pages. Earlier, we tried to delete part 3 because it was, for all intents and purposes, a tax increase disguised as an air travellers security charge. I hope that there will be enough members from the official opposition in the House to delete part 3 when we vote on Group No. 1. They claim to be against this bill, but they are not present when we vote.

Group No. 1 deals with the funding program for the National Energy Board. However, there is no mention of it in the budget. This group also deals with part 20, which covers amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Earlier, we were told that it has nothing to do with the budget. Members from the Bloc and NDP easily demonstrated that this boiled down to a stalling tactic.

Finally, it is shameful to see that one part of Bill C-9, with its amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, deals with a portion of the budget that merely confirms the theft of more than $50 billion by the official opposition when it was in power. Today, there are not enough of these members to ensure that the majority in the House and voters from Quebec and the other provinces are able to assert their rights. Not enough Liberals showed up to allow us to continue debating amendments to the Employment Insurance Act.

The government is condoning the fact that some $50 billion was siphoned out of the employment insurance fund. At the same time, Bill C-9 condones the planned theft, over the next four years, of employee and employer contributions amounting to nearly $20 billion. They are going to take money out every year, just like the official opposition did when it was in power.

The amendments in Group No. 2 concern parts 15 and 18 of Bill C-9, whose scope, thickness and weight we saw earlier. Part 15 would restrict Canada Post's exclusive privilege. The government is using this omnibus bill to withdraw a crown corporation's exclusive privilege to a monopoly in its sector. That kind of thing should not be introduced in an omnibus bill. An accountable and courageous government would have the courage to stand up and tell people that it plans to restrict the Canada Post Corporation's privilege. The Conservatives have the right to think they are right, and we have the right to think they are not.

But the main reason we are against this kind of omnibus bill is that the government is using the budget bill as a disguise and saying that, by the way, it wants to take away the Canada Post Corporation's exclusive privilege.

I would rather have a calm discussion—which is my usual way of doing things—in the House with parliamentarians about whether or not we should take away one of the Canada Post Corporation's exclusive privileges. That is something we need to talk about. In fact, we are here in Parliament to talk about things and then vote on them. In the current situation, if parliamentarians have the courage of their convictions and oppose something, it will not usually pass. But that is not what is happening now, because they are trying to ram this through. They are telling us that we had better accept it or else. They are trying to move it through as though it were a letter in the mail.

The second item in Group No. 2 that we want to remove from Bill C-9—and we agree with our NDP colleagues on this—is the privatization of Atomic Energy of Canada. That kind of thing is way out of bounds in terms of parliamentary procedure. Privatizing a company is a major and serious issue. This involves industrial and science policy because it is about Atomic Energy of Canada. That is something we need to talk about.

Once again, it should be debated openly. We should know why the department and the corporation have hired financial advisors, how much privatization will cost, what they hope to achieve by privatizing the corporation, how Atomic Energy of Canada has performed and how the privatized entity is expected to perform. The government has the right to privatize, but it should first have the House's consent. It has the right to say that we have an asset. Nowhere does it say that we have to keep an asset forever. The government can set economic policy or, in this case, scientific policy and say that this is where we are at. It may be a good idea, but we do not know.

The committee had the opportunity—I know because I was there—to meet with people from the department, not people from the corporation, and ask them what was going on. They answered us in bureaucratese of the finest quality. The people were very eloquent and used big words, but said nothing. They said it will be the policy of the government. The public servants who were there were very good at their jobs, because their job was to say nothing. They were very good at talking a lot, yet saying nothing.

As a new parliamentarian, I would like to come here and talk with the president of the corporation, the board and the Minister of Finance so that they can tell us that they are thinking of selling the corporation, that in return they will receive shares and money and that the money will help pay down the deficit or will be directed elsewhere. But we are being kept in the dark. I cannot ask these questions. Yet for anyone who has ever sold assets, it is interesting to know how the new entity will perform, what the future will hold and what will happen to the corporation's research and contracts. Will the contracts be sold? Will they be liquidated? What will happen to them?

That is why we on this side of the House will be voting in favour of our NDP colleagues' motions in Group No. 2, which would delete parts of Bill C-9.

We hope the Liberals will all be here to vote as a block with us.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 2.

Bill C-9--Time Allocation Motion

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some important things to point out.

My friend from the Bloc Québécois also made mention of the thickness of the bill. Just the item that deals with benefits for the manufacturing sector alone accounts for 52% of that bill, just one item alone. Let us not exaggerate and measure a bill by its thickness, just like one does not measure a book by its cover.

There have been many examples of omnibus legislation before in the chamber. I simply cited one of the more recent ones in 2005.

My friend just mentioned his concern about AECL. If he is really concerned about it, he knows it is essential that Bill C-9 be passed as quickly as possible to give some certainty to Canada's nuclear industry. I have a quote by Neil Alexander, president of the Organization of CANDU Industries, a fairly significant and well-renowned person in the nuclear industry. He stated, “we support the language in Bill C-9 and encourage all parties to ensure that AECL is restructured as quickly as possible”.

If he is being serious and he is concerned about AECL, there is AECL asking that we please move this through. Therefore, please do it.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's partial recall but total recall would be a little more helpful.

What happened in 2005, unlike the litany of witnesses, meetings and the number of speeches that have taken place already on Bill C-9, was that the finance committee only considered the Liberal budget bill for two meetings and only one non-governmental witness appeared before the bill passed without amendment.

Yes, there was a pretty good reason for some concerns to be raised but this bill at this time has had 70 days of consideration, 50 speeches and many witnesses at the finance committee meetings. That is very different from how the Liberals rammed through their bill in 2005.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the minister's comments. I would like to go back to one of the points he made several years ago in 2005 when we were in government. He talked about the payments that were to be made to both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador at that time.

He talked about the fact that the Liberals had done that before. However, if we are going to talk about hypocrisy, let us look at the facts. I distinctly remember that the Atlantic accord at the time was couched within the budget and the Conservatives vehemently opposed it. This brought language to the House, and I remember the words, that this was done under cover of night, that it was a stealth operation and that it was very irresponsible to do it this way.

Today, however, we find ourselves in the last few weeks in the same situation. The implementation of the budget in 2005 did not go near all the topics being cover in this particular bill, Bill C-9, an implementation bill.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, we are open to debate but I would encourage my hon. friend to add factuality to the debate. That would help and it would help people understand it, instead of using the types of words that she is using, trying to indicate that there is some kind of unsolicited or unrequired velocity to this moving through.

Bill C-9 has been before the chamber for 70 days. We have heard 50 speeches and the finance committee had nearly 10 meetings on it with over 50 witnesses.

The member said that she was proud of the fact that the NDP are holding the bill up. Is she proud of the fact that her party is holding up important revisions to people's pensions and proud of the fact that it is holding up transfers to Nova Scotia of $250 million, to New Brunswick of $80 million, to Newfoundland and Labrador of $8.4 million? How about pathways to education, an important $20 million program for disadvantaged youth? Is she proud that her party is holding up those programs?

She talked about 60 amendments. Members of her party did not bring one of those amendments to committee, so she can say 6,000. What does that say about a party when its members think they are bringing forward something salient for people to consider and they did not bring one of those amendments to committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question. Bill C-9 is what is known as an omnibus bill. They have included measures that were presented to the House of Commons in bills, but these bills were not passed.

They have plundered more than $57 billion from the employment insurance fund, and Bill C-9 would erase that debt. How can the minister tell Quebeckers that the employment insurance fund will accumulate billions more in surpluses over the coming years and still oppose measures—measures such as eliminating the waiting period and establishing the number of hours worked at 360—that would improve the employment insurance system? And in the meantime 50% of people who need employment insurance are not eligible?

How can the minister vote against these measures and, at the same time, plunder more than $57 billion from the employment insurance fund? They will erase the debt and continue to raid the employment insurance fund for years to come. I would like to hear the minister's comments on that.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we put this in context. My hon. friend mentioned that Canadians expect certain things and we definitely live up to that expectation.

Bill C-9 was introduced on March 29 for review by Parliament. It has already been in this chamber for 70 days. There have been over 50 speeches, which we appreciate. Finance committee has already had 10 meetings on this bill. It has heard from over 50 witnesses, but we are here and we are still debating it.

It is also important to remember that there are reasons, very important reasons, this legislation needs to move through and become law by June 30. We have to recall that once we are through the process here in the House of Commons then the bill also goes through the same legislative process in the Senate: second reading, referral to the Senate national finance committee, report stage, third reading. This bill still has a considerable distance to go and yet it is being delayed.

Canadians need to know what is at stake here. On one item alone, there are amendments that are required in order to put in place regulations to implement reforms that were announced by the government in October 2009, that were targeted at Canadians who are members of pension plans. These amendments require, for instance, an employer to fully fund benefits if the whole of the pension plan is terminated. They establish a distressed pension plan workout scheme and allow the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to replace an actuary. These have to come into force and royal assent given by June 30 because actuarial evaluations for federally regulated pension plans are required to be filed within six months of the end of the year. That makes it June 30 for those to be filed by December 31. Pension plans are at stake.

I will conclude by saying it is not uncommon at all to use this process of bringing in other legislation. Just one of many examples is that in 2005, the previous Liberal government in its last budget bill, Bill C-43, had over 20 different parts and legislation as varied as the Auditor General of Canada Act, the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada Act, the Broadcasting Act, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Department of Public Works Act, Canada Post Corporation Act, Employment Insurance Act. I could on and on.

I do not want to use the word “hypocrisy” and I will not, but that member supported that bill in 2005 which had a whole lot of important legislation integrated into it. That is what we are asking for here and not to put pension plans of Canadians at risk right across the country.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-9, the issue for many Canadians and certainly many members of the House is that the bill incorporates a number of legislative items which were not in the budget speech and not in the budget document itself but now appear in the budget implementation bill. I would note, for instance, the matter to do with AECL, the matter to do with the environmental assessment act, the matter to do with the air travellers security charge and some other items that have been raised in debate.

How does the minister explain to Canadians that there would be legislation slipped into a budget implementation bill which, had the items been dealt with separately, there would have been the appropriate level of due diligence able to be conducted by members of Parliament?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite a number of questions and I hope I have them all. My hon. colleague, the opposition House leader, says they are good questions. Indeed, they are very good questions and I appreciate him posing those questions today. I will go first to the business before the House and then I will get to his other questions.

We will continue today debating the report stage of Bill C-9, the jobs and economic growth act. As I said on Tuesday, Canadians are expecting this bill to pass before we rise for the summer.

I pointed out some of the consequences of not adopting Bill C-9 by the summer. Payments would not be authorized for over $500 million in transfer protection to our provinces. Bill C-9 also authorizes appropriation of $75 million for Genome Canada, $20 million for Pathways to Education Canada to provide support for disadvantaged youth, $10 million for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, and $13.5 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation. These payments and many others cannot be made until Bill C-9 receives royal assent.

This process, I would remind the House, began on March 3, some three months ago, when the Minister of Finance delivered his budget. We debated the budget on March 5, 8, 9 and 10. On March 24, we adopted the ways and means motion required to introduce the jobs and economic growth act.

The bill was introduced on March 29. It was debated for five days at second reading and finally referred to the Standing Committee on Finance on April 19. The committee reported it back on May 14 without amendment. The opposition had almost a month to offer up amendments but reported the bill back without amendments.

This is the fourth sitting day that we have been debating report stage. The opposition and particularly, I would contend, the NDP have had the opportunity to raise their concerns. However, I want to point out a Speaker's ruling from April 14, 1987 in which he addressed this issue. He stated:

It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view. Sooner or later every issue must be decided and the decision will be taken

I would also like to quote House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 210, which states:

it remains true that parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure that there is a balance between the government's need to get its business through the House, and the opposition's responsibility to debate that business without completely immobilizing the proceedings of the House.

Following Bill C-9 today, we will call Bill C-10, Senate term limits, and Bill S-2, the sex offender registry legislation.

Beginning tomorrow, if necessary, we will continue with Bill C-9, followed by Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

Next week we will continue with the business from this week, with priority given to Bill C-9 and Bill C-2. In addition to the bills just mentioned, the government will call for debate on Bill C-22, protecting children from online sexual exploitation, Bill C-23, eliminating pardons for serious crime, and Bill C-24, first nations certainty of title. As usual, the government will give priority consideration to any bills reported back from committee or received from the Senate.

Thursday, June 10, shall be an allotted day. That was an additional question that my hon. colleague, the official opposition House leader, asked during his customary Thursday question.

The other thing he noted was a date for an important take note debate dealing with multiple sclerosis. That date has not been set yet, but there have been consultations between myself and my counterparts, the House leaders from all three opposition parties, and I am sure that we can arrive at a suitable date in the very near future.

On the issue of committee witnesses and that we are blocking other people, I would be interested to know who those other people are that we are blocking. I am not aware of any. I have said repeatedly in the House of Commons over the last week or so that we intend to uphold the principle of fundamental value of Parliament, which is ministerial accountability.

Our ministers have been appearing and will continue to appear at the standing committees. It is my contention and I would ask any Canadian who is interested in viewing, and in some cases where there is no video record, reading the Hansard of standing committees to see the types of questions and antics that the combined opposition coalition is resorting to.

In most cases, we had our very junior people. These are young people. They are people who are probably about the same age or perhaps even younger than my children. These young people are dragged before the standing committees. The opposition subjects them to abuse and intimidation tactics.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, although amendments are an important part of the legislative process, my amendments today would be superfluous if the government had not dumped a number of non-budget items into Bill C-9. However, it did, so I am moving an amendment to delete all sections from C-9 that deal with Canada Post.

As I said, these clauses should never have been in the bill in the first place, and the government knows that. In fact, it made two previous attempts to pass changes to Canada Post in stand-alone legislation. Neither of those attempts, however, succeeded. Instead of respecting the will of Parliament, the Conservatives buried these changes deep within the almost 900-page budget bill, hoping that no one would notice. Well, New Democrats noticed.

In fact, I was the first person to raise the issue in this House. But more important, the 45,000 member of CUPW and Canadian families noticed, and they have been fighting the issue ever since.

Denis Lemelin, the president of CUPW, appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance and clearly explained the impact the proposed changes would have on postal rates and postal service in this country.

I think it is worth repeating some of the more salient points here, because clearly, the government did not listen the first time.

Mr. Lemelin said:

CUPW would like to urge this committee to give this very small part of Bill C-9 a very large amount of attention as it amounts to partial deregulation of our public post office. In Canada, letter mail is regulated for a reason. Canada Post has an exclusive privilege to handle letters so that it is able to generate enough money to provide affordable postal service to everyone, no matter where they live in our huge country. This privilege includes both domestic and international letters. We believe it will become increasingly difficult for Canada Post to provide universal postal service if the government erodes the very mechanism that funds this service—the exclusive privilege.

Canada Post’s exclusive privilege to handle letters has received remarkably little attention over the years. But international mailers, who are currently carrying international letters in violation of the law, have recently taken issue with this privilege and waged a campaign to undermine our post office’s right to handle international letters. Canada Post estimates that international mailers siphon off $60 million to $80 million per year in business. Its concerns with remailers have grown as the international mail business has grown and as remailers have unfairly competed for international mail by exploiting the two-tier terminal dues system adopted by the Universal Postal Union in 1999.

It is our understanding that Canada Post attempted to address its concerns with international mailers through negotiations and finally through legal action against two of the largest companies, Spring and Key Mail. One ruling by the Court of Appeal for Ontario stressed the importance of the exclusive privilege in serving rural and remote communities and noted that international mailers such as Spring Canada are not required to bear the high cost of providing services to the more remote regions of Canada. The corporation won this legal challenge all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

After this victory, a coalition of private Canadian and international mail companies, called the Canadian International Mail Association (CIMA), hired a lobbyist in an attempt to convince parliamentarians to remove international letters from Canada Post’s exclusive privilege to handle letters. The government initially defended the importance of the exclusive privilege but it was not long before it started to reconsider its position, presumably because of the CIMA lobby. Nevertheless, the government did promise, in a letter to CUPW, that no changes to Canada Post's exclusive privilege would be considered without thorough policy analysis. We would like to point out that, to date, there has been no serious review or thorough policy analysis of the international mail issue or the impact of removing international letters from Canada Post’s exclusive privilege.

The government’s recent strategic review of Canada Post did not look at these issues. Unfortunately, this did not stop the review’s advisory panel from recommending against deregulation of letter mail, with the exception of international letters. It simply doesn’t make sense to be proposing legislation before you look at the relevant issues. The proposed legislation doesn’t make much sense either. Canada Post’s letter mail volumes declined for the first time in 2008 and again in 2009. The corporation clearly needs international letters as a source of revenue to maintain and improve public postal service. Furthermore, most people in this country are opposed to deregulation of Canada Post. They do not support eroding or eliminating Canada Post's exclusive privilege.

Close to 70% of people oppose postal deregulation according to a 2008 Ipsos Reid poll.

Even the government's strategic review of Canada Post found that there is virtually no support for deregulation. The report from this review states:

There appears to be little public support for the privatization or deregulation of Canada Post, and considerable if not unanimous support for the maintenance of a quality, affordable universal service for all Canadians and communities.

Of course, there is one group that supports partial deregulation of Canada Post, and that group appears to have the ear of the government. International mailers want international letters removed from the corporation's exclusive privilege. They have argued that the English version of the Canada Post Corporation Act currently allows them to handle these letters.

In other words, remailers have argued that the French version of the Canada Post Corporation Act should carry no weight and that the English version should prevail. This argument has been rejected by the courts.

Remailers have also argued that Canada Post's legal action against remailers will effectively kill thousands of Canadian jobs and that they should be allowed to continue to do business to save these jobs. An examination of the evidence indicates that there may be a few hundred jobs at risk, not thousands.

While we take the responsibility of job loss very seriously, we do not think exclusive privilege should be sacrificed to save the jobs of businesses operating in violation of the law, and there may be alternative ways of dealing with the issue of jobs.

Those were the critical points made in the presentation by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers on part 15 of the budget implementation bill.

Our public postal service provides universal and affordable services to all Canadians. It is our role as Canadians and as legislators to preserve this capacity and to prevent the erosion of a service provided to all Canadians, no matter where they live, where they work, or where they do business.

It is precisely because this is an issue of national importance that the Canadian Labour Congress, representing 3.2 million workers in Canada, also intervened on this matter.

Hassan Yussuff, secretary-treasurer of the CLC, appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance and reminded members that as an employer, the postal service offers many job opportunities, many of which are in rural areas and are occupied by women. Canada Post is often one of the few potential employers for women in rural communities. He also said:

To say the least, it is strange for a government to change a law that will have a negative impact on Canadians just because those who are breaking it don't like it and are eager to siphon off even more profits. Don't we count on our governments to enforce our laws?

It is even stranger that the government is attempting to push the legislation through without a thorough review. What's the rush when there is so much at stake?

We do not believe that Canadians want to see the destruction of their postal service. They want a sustainable public post office and reliable, affordable mail delivery. There is no reason to jeopardize a good service that provides good value to Canadians, just because of a desire to satisfy the powerful lobbyists.

We are urging the government to immediately withdraw or sever part 15 of Bill C-9 and reaffirm its support for the exclusive privilege and public ownership of Canada Post.

It is time for members of the House to take a firm stand on this issue. In particular, I hope that the Liberals will find the courage of their convictions. On the one hand, they make eloquent speeches about supporting CUPW in its campaign, but thus far, whenever push has come to shove, they have shown up in insufficient numbers to defeat the government's proposal. It is not too late. I encourage all members to do the right thing and vote in favour of deleting part 15 from Bill C-9.

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

Madam Speaker, people watching this debate over the last several days want to know where the government and Liberal speakers are on this bill.

As a matter of fact, we have an 880-page grab bag, Bill C-9, an omnibus bill, and we do not have the appropriate minister listening to the debate so we can ask questions. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform was here for Bill C-10. The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism was here for his bill and, not only did he listen to the debate, but actually asked the first question, which was appreciated by the House.

We want to know where the finance minister is, why he is not listening to the debates and why he is not here to answer questions on this 880-page bill.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the overview of the poison pills that indeed have been before us in the House in previous bills and are indeed in Bill C-9. The member is absolutely correct to bring forward the whole sense that this is a deliberate attempt by the government to continually push legislation that it really does not want to have debated as individual bills, that it incorporates into large omnibus sections and then rams them through with, I must admit that my colleague is correct, the help and complicity of the Liberals who either refuse to come or straight out vote for and allow legislation to pass the House that they then complain about after they have let it go.

If we are going to debate legislation in an honest way for all Canadians, we have to have that legislation before us so we can scrutinize it, so we can help perhaps make it better; or perhaps we should defeat it, depending on what it happens to be.

At all turns, we should have that opportunity. Legislation that is critical to Canadians should not be lumped together.

I know my hon. colleague ran out of time. She is right that there is so much to do and say about the bill. It is almost 900 pages long and there are pieces in it that need to be debated. Obviously that is what we try to do with our amendments.

I know the member wanted to continue on about the $57 billion that was absconded with by both the previous Liberal government and the Conservative government and why she thinks it should be given back to workers.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to this chance to speak to Bill C-9, although I must say quite candidly that I find the bill very troubling.

I am proud to speak today to the amendments to this bill brought forward by the member for Hamilton Mountain. It is very clear that this bill must be amended. It is unconscionable that the government would continue to include in its budget implementation bills the kinds of things that are objectionable not just to the members of this House, but to the people of Canada. I welcome the amendments, and I do hope that, despite their incredible silence, members of the opposition will support these amendments.

I want to start with an observation. The Conservative government claims to be the government of accountability, yet it has proven time and time again that it is anything but. Rather than putting forward individual bills dealing with many of the issues that face this country, the government instead elects to hide issues in its bills. We call these poison pills, and there are a number of poison pills in this budget implementation bill.

Before I speak about the poison pills in Bill C-9, I want to take a few minutes to review the poison pills of the past, because in budget after budget we have seen these poison pills.

The first one that I want to speak about is pay equity. The House will remember that the changes to pay equity were slipped into a budget implementation bill. The government, and the government before it, could have and should have used the 2004 pay equity commission report, an incredible and solid report, to create a pay equity bill that actually worked for the women of this country. Instead, the government chose to put in its place the excuse for pay equity that came forward in its budget implementation bill that stripped away the right of women to be considered as worthy of equal pay for work of equal value.

The government called it the equitable compensation bill or something like that, but the truth is that it was far from equitable. It basically told women that they would have to negotiate at the collective bargaining table whether they deserved equal pay for work of equal value. That is not acceptable.

Pay equity is a human right; it is not something that can be negotiated away. In these troubled times when negotiations are very difficult, it only stands to reason that if issues of women in the workforce are not regarded or taken as seriously as some other issues, such as dental benefits or long-term health benefits, that human right could be negotiated away.

The government is saying to women across this country that it is lovely that they make up 52% of the population and do contribute to the economy, but when it comes to equal pay for work of equal value, when it comes to their human rights, it is just not interested. The government perpetrated this sham on the women of Canada, and that is not the end of the things it has done to the women of Canada.

The Conservative government cancelled the court challenges program. It removed equality from the mandate of the status of women department. The Conservatives did put back the word, because there was a great outcry across the country, but they did not put back the spirit of equality, because they have continued with their draconian measures against women's groups across this country that advocate for women, that stand up for women in regard to the issues that they and their families face.

The Conservatives have also removed research from the mandate of the status of women department. That research was absolutely integral to providing the kind of intelligent policy that would guide us to real equality. Members may have noticed that I used the term “intelligent policy”. That is something that we do not have and are not likely going to see.

Even more to the point, the Conservatives underfunded or defunded groups that were the least bit critical. I am thinking of two: the National Association of Women and the Law and the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. Why? Because those two groups had the audacity to hold the government and the previous government to account in regard to our CEDAW obligations.

Members will recall that in 1982 this country signed the covenant on the elimination of discrimination against women. This country signed it and this country pledged that it would do something positive for women. This country would make sure that aboriginal women were given opportunities in regard to education and housing and were protected from violence, and infact, that all Canadian women were protected from violence and that women had economic security and the opportunity in regard to pay equity, child care and housing.

All of these things are in CEDAW, and this country signed it in 1982. In the nearly 30 years since that agreement was signed, nothing has been done in terms of advancing women. We do not have a universal housing policy. In fact, we have 1.2 million Canadians who are under-housed, homeless or living in unsafe conditions, Canadians who are living in these unsafe and unacceptable conditions with their children.

We have no national child care program. Since 1984, this Parliament in its various incarnations, whether it was the Mulroney government, the Chrétien government or the Martin government, promised the women of this country that there would be a national child care program, but we do not have one. It is 2010 and there is nothing in sight in terms of how we are going to address the real needs of young families in this country, women being the primary caregivers.

These groups that advocated for women had to be shut down and silenced. The women in this country had to be put on the back burner, as it were, because the government had another agenda. I am saying now and I do believe these words will ring true, the women of Canada will not forget what the government has done to them, nor will they forget that the Liberals aided and abetted in this disgusting behaviour towards the women of Canada.

There were other poison pills, such as immigration changes in Bill C-50. Those immigration changes made it virtually impossible for family reunification. They chose very carefully. They gave the minister the ability to determine who could come into this country. Even if people had been approved, even if they were on a waiting list, if they came from Southeast Asia, if they came from the Middle East, if they came from certain African countries, they were removed from the list because the minister said they were not any longer acceptable. So people who were waiting, who had fulfilled all of their obligations, who would have made wonderful Canadian citizens were told, “Sorry, too bad, you cannot be reunited with your families, because the minister says so”.

Imagine that in a democracy. It is absolutely unthinkable. Of course, the list goes on and on, but I want to address some of the issues in Bill C-9 and the fact that it has a number of poison pills too.

First of all, we have the tax grab such as the airline security tax. That is something that is profoundly concerning. The government claims and claims it shrilly, and claims it at every question period and with all kinds of bravado, that they are the government of tax cuts. That is ludicrous. Conservatives are most certainly not the government of tax cuts. If we look at the HST and what is perpetrated against Canadians, they are the government of tax grabs.

Let us go down the list. In regard to the emptying of the employment insurance account, that $57 billion belongs to the people of this country, who put that money in so that families could be secure in the event of a downturn in the economy. Conservatives are waiving that money and taking it away.

They like to blame it on the Liberals and they are very good at blaming everything on the Liberals, but the truth is that they have done nothing in terms of making sure that Canadian families are safe and secure. They are taking that money away and it is supposed to be for Canadians.

I have much more to say, but I will wait for the questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-9, the government's bloated budget implementation bill, but it is of great concern to me. We in the NDP are speaking out regarding Bill C-9. The Liberals are notable in their silence; they are missing in inaction.

This bill is the culmination of a really disturbing trend. It is a trend that previous Liberal governments started and the Conservative government is taking to dizzying new heights. All thoughtful Canadians and all thoughtful parliamentarians should be disturbed by Bill C-9 and the process that surrounds it.

That trend is to American-style junk legislation. Everything including the kitchen sink is stuffed into an omnibus budget bill and then it is rammed through without giving members a chance to deliberate and decide on crucial issues independently and without giving Canadians a chance to see what the government is doing.

There is an entire year's legislative agenda in one massive 902 page omnibus monster. Everything unrelated to the budget is in the bill. Let me go through a list of just a few.

For example, the government is granting itself new powers to gut environmental assessments. Let us be clear on what this is about. It is about granting the Minister of the Environment the unilateral authority to be the judge, jury and executioner of entire ecosystems, to tear down the checks built into our system and scrap assessments so it can steamroll ahead with unscrutinized controversial mines and tar sands expansion projects.

We know this is the plot the Conservatives have cooked up because, to quote from the March 14, 2009 issue of the Globe and Mail:

A leaked government document outlining the proposed changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act indicates [the] Environment Minister...has asked for a bill “overhauling” the legislation as soon as possible.

Under the new system, the government should “expect to capture perhaps 200-300 projects per year,” the document states. That would represent a more than 95 per cent drop from the roughly 6,000 federal environmental assessments that currently take place each year.

We have seen this before with the gutting of the Navigable Waters Protection Act last year in Bill C-10. Then the official opposition rolled over on changes that gave the transport minister unprecedented powers to define entire classes of development projects on heritage waterways so they no longer need environmental assessments. These powers are not balanced by any public consultation or by transparent disclosure or by parliamentary review.

We saw this in 2008, when regressive immigration reforms were hidden in the budget, and in the 2009 budget which included provisions that denied women in the public service the right to go to the Human Rights Commission to fight for the pay equity they deserve.

Here we are a year later with another bill that goes much, much further in this wrong-headed direction. This bill also introduces an air travel tax as I am sure the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is aware. It is not surprising that the government would be hiding the security tax hike any way that it can, including inside this bloated bill. This tax is the highest in the world. It wants to be seen as the government that does not tax people. Is that ever a myth. The truth is it does.

Far beyond this tax on air travel, the government has introduced the hated sales tax this year. The finance minister signed the provinces up for it, buried the legislation for it in the budget, and rammed it through this House in an incredible 48 hours.

Earlier this week I was with first nations constituents in Red Rock, Ontario in my riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North. They are very angry about the HST and the violation of their treaty rights. They were not consulted before it was imposed on everybody, including them. We know that often our first nations communities are among the most disadvantaged in our society, and they are worried about the impact the HST is going to have on them.

I have heard no end about this hated sales tax from many of my constituents, many of whom have lost their jobs and are struggling with the cost of living as it is. Then Conservatives and Liberals team up to hit them with the HST, one of the largest sales tax hikes in Canadian history and debate is shut down in the House to get it through.

Let us not forget something else that is in Bill C-9, and that is a huge payroll tax increase. Starting at the end of this year, Conservatives are going to hit workers and employers alike with the maximum EI premium hike allowed under the law, and the maximum payroll tax hike the year after that, and again the year after that, and repeated every year for the foreseeable future.

This tax on work is ridiculous when we consider that there was lots of money in the employment insurance fund, over $57 billion in surplus, way more than enough. But the government raided that money, happily spent it on tax breaks for big oil and big banks and decided to raise payroll taxes to make up for the shortfall. This would cause quite an uproar on its own, but the government is trying to bury it deep inside this huge bill.

Today we are dealing with a motion that would rescind clauses in Bill C-9 dealing with the sale of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the privatization of Canada Post mail delivery services. Neither of these things has much to do with actual budgetary measures or a budget. They can and must be debated and decisions made on their own merit.

However, the Prime Minister does not believe in debate. He does not believe in discussion. He does not believe in accountability and he does not seem to believe in democracy.

I would like to talk a bit about Canada Post and the provisions concealed in Bill C-9 that continue the deregulation of our national letter carrier. The government knows it would never be able to pass a bill in the House to do that, so it is taking bites out of Canada Post operations using budgetary bills instead.

What the provisions in Bill C-9 do is to remove the exclusive legal privilege of Canada Post to deliver international mail and to allow foreign national postal services and private companies to take over one of the few profitable revenue streams that Canada Post has, a stream on which the company depends to help offset the costs of our local and rural mail delivery.

Canada Post has been fighting this battle for the last 10 years or more. Several companies, many of which are surrogates of national post administrations, have been collecting letter mail in Canada and bringing it to their countries where it is processed and remailed abroad, creating jobs there and not here in Canada.

Canada Post has tried to resolve this issue diplomatically through the Universal Postal Union and by negotiating directly with the violating remailers. When they still would not respect the law, Canada Post took them to court and it won every time.

Our own member for Ottawa Centre, when he was critic for this file in 2006, wrote to the government expressing concern about changes to Canada Post's exclusive privilege without public consultation and asking for a full debate and a real vote in Parliament. Instead of giving us that debate, that discussion and the vote that New Democrats asked for, the government four years later is doing exactly the opposite.

Instead of backing up our national postal service and supporting it, the government has chosen to help foreign remail raiders poach Canadian letter mail instead. Bill C-9 would make that poaching legal forever.

This threatens the long-term viability of Canada Post itself as a universal service to Canadians. By crippling Canada Post's revenue, the government is attempting to achieve through the back door what it knows it cannot achieve through open and transparent debate on the issue.

What do we have here? We have a massive omnibus bill that needs to be split up so that we can have proper debates and allow democracy to function. As it is, parliamentarians are expected to carefully pore through 2,200 legal clauses and debate the ramifications at only seven debate sessions in the House and even fewer in committee. The House finance committee passed all 2,200 clauses without amendment in just one day. Maybe that is just the point: we are not supposed to carefully study Bill C-9's 23 sections and debate over 2,000 clauses.

If the mission of Parliament is to scrutinize the government, doing legislation this way is nothing but a way to avoid scrutiny. It is the so-called accountability government using yet another gimmick to once again avoid accountability.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague from Outremont that, like myself and the members for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, La Pointe-de-l'Île and Pontiac, he was a minister in the National Assembly of Quebec, and thus at the service of Quebeckers.

I would like to know—and I would have added another “pre” to pre-Keynesian—what he thinks of the Quebec members who are aiding and abetting passage of a bill such as Bill C-9, which he has properly called an omnibus bill.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I have the honour of speaking to our fellow citizens about Bill C-9, and also about the process that brought this omnibus bill, with its range of issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget, before the House.

As Montesquieu so aptly put it, the public nature of our laws helps to guarantee our freedoms. But the title of this bill tells people nothing about what it contains. The Conservatives included a series of measures in Bill C-9 because they know perfectly well that the Liberals are now so weak with their current leader that they do not even dare stand up to vote against this bill even though it contains measures that will cripple the environmental assessment process in this country and allow the sale of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to foreign interests. Measures in this bill will overturn court rulings, such as the one concerning Canada Post.

The title of a bill is part of that bill, and the courts have always said that the people have the right to know what we are doing. Saying that this is a budget bill that deals only with public finances is nothing but a lie. It is a lie to the House and to the people. The government does not have the right to introduce a so-called budget bill that includes all of these other measures, but that is exactly what the Conservatives are doing. The fact that they are a minority government is unusual in our society. This is the third minority government in a row. They are learning how to deal with a situation in which they always need a dance partner.

I want to focus on one aspect of Bill C-9 that is particularly important to me and that really worries me: the environment. I was Quebec's environment minister for several years, and during that time, I realized that one of Canada's biggest problems is its failure to strictly enforce environmental laws.

A team led by David Boyd at the University of Victoria in British Columbia published an excellent book in 2002 or 2003 called Unnatural Law. This book clearly demonstrates that what Canada needs is not necessarily new laws or regulations, but the political will to enforce them.

I sometimes surprise environmentalists when I say, based on my experience as environment minister, that the vast majority of businesses obey environmental laws. That is a fact. First, the vast majority of businesses obey the law. Second, the vast majority of businesses care about their image, and the environment is part of that. Third, breaking the law, any law, is very bad for a business's balance sheet, and therefore the shareholders' equity.

So, the trick is not to find lawyers who can get around the law. The trick these days, and we have seen this with BP in the Gulf of Mexico, is to try to change the legislation. How did BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico become the worst disaster of all time? Why were there no safety mechanisms in place, even though they are well known and installing them is relatively simple, albeit costly for the business?

British Petroleum managed to convince the environmental and energy regulators in the U.S. to remove the obligation to drill a lateral relief well that would be relieve the main well in the event of an accident. That is the trick for big corporations.

Thus, they stop at nothing to have legislation changed here in Canada. They are going to find it too expensive to drill in the Arctic, the next frontier they have their eyes on. They say it would have cost them too much to drill relief wells off Newfoundland and Labrador, where Chevron is drilling even deeper.

They are making a major gain with Bill C-9, because the bill will give responsibility for environmental assessments to the National Energy Board, which has no experience or expertise in this area. The board of directors of the Calgary-based NEB is made up mainly of people from the oil industry, as we can discover on its website.

In regulation theory, there is an expression used to describe this situation. It is regulatory capture. In other words, the regulatory authority, whose role is ordinarily to enforce strict standards and protect the public and the environment, is part of the sector it is charged with regulating and therefore tends to look at problems in the same way as the companies it is called on to regulate. This is an absolutely classic situation, and it is one of the two major problems in regulation and legislation.

The other problem is regulatory lag, which means that there is always a time lag in regulation. By the time the Goldman Sachs of the world come up with a new financial product and the government figures it out and tries to regulate it, it is too late. The companies are busy coming up with the next product, so that there is always a time lag.

But regulatory capture—being locked into seeing things in a certain way because of the sector one is in—is the mistake the government is making with Bill C-9. It is giving the National Energy Board responsibility for environmental assessment, which is a very important step. This means that from now on, there will be no real environmental assessment per se in Canada. The industry and its cronies at the National Energy Board will be calling the shots. Not only is this a tragedy like the one that is unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, but it is a tragedy for future generations.

The government stood up with us this week to vote for a motion made by my colleague from Alberta—a very experienced environmental lawyer—calling on the government to ensure that Canada has the strongest rules in the world.

Yesterday, I was very concerned to hear the Minister of Natural Resources say that the work was already being done by the National Energy Board.

That is the situation in Canada. Since the Conservatives came to power, they have scooped $57 billion from the employment insurance fund to create enough room to give tax cuts to the wealthiest corporations. If a company did not make a profit, it did not pay taxes and therefore a tax cut was of no benefit. Who got the most money? More than $1 billion went to the banks and several billion dollars went to the oil industry.

A company like EnCana got almost $1 billion in tax cuts because the Conservatives would rather tax ordinary citizens than ask corporations to pay their fair share. The oil companies and the Conservatives are kindred spirits. It is not pre-Keynesian economics, it is Precambrian economics. The government is even going so far as to say that companies should no longer be taxed at all. Why make companies pay their fair share?

In the meantime, these same companies are on the move. British Petroleum, which has been making headlines lately, has operations in 130 different countries and has more than 3,500 subsidiaries. It does not pay taxes because, like all major corporations, it moves its money around very quickly from one place to another and takes advantage of the different tax rules in each place. In developing countries where BP has operations—and developed ones as well—are losing revenue that could help their development.

Accounting tricks and today's rapidly fluctuating markets around the world make it possible for these companies to avoid paying their taxes.

In environmental, social and economic terms, we are in crisis and that is why this omnibus bill is an abomination. We are going to stand up and vote against it.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, I thank my colleagues in the NDP caucus for speaking out so forcefully and consistently on Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

I wish I could say that we are joined by other members of the House as this debate continues, but it looks like we are pretty well alone, which is very unfortunate. I think of the speech that was made by the member for Toronto—Danforth a couple of days ago on Bill C-9 when he appealed to the official opposition and other members to speak out against the bill because it was a travesty. It is an almost 900 page bill. The process of what is unfolding is something, as parliamentarians, we should all be saying that we do not agree with and we are going to ensure that the bill does not go through.

We have seen the government use the 2010 budget to bring in a budget implementation bill. Under that bill, we are calling it the Trojan horse. It rams through all kinds of other significant public policy measures to do with the environment, with taxes, with privatization. The government is using the cover of a budget bill hoping no one will notice. The NDP wants everyone to notice what is taking place because this is an affront to democratic process.

On the bill itself, as many other NDP members have pointed out, we are completely opposed to many of the provisions in the bill. For example, we are opposed to the 50% increase in airline taxes for security. We are also opposed to the fact that the budget bill contains an enormous public policy issue of the divestiture of AECL, which allows for the sale of all or any part of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. It is a major issue that should be before the House in a separate bill and debated. Yet it is being rammed through as part of a budget bill. Once it is gone, it is gone and nothing can be done about it. We should all be up in arms and incredibly concerned about this.

There are other provisions in the bill. Probably one of the most significant ones for us is the tax shift from corporations on to ordinary Canadians.

Today I met with representatives of Food Banks Canada. It is so important to get that sense of reality of what is going on in local communities and what is happening to people across the country. They told me that every month 800,000 Canadians relied on food banks. The percentage of people relying on food banks increased 18% from 2008 to 2009. From 2009 to 2010, it is another 11% increase. They know that about 20% of people who use food banks either work or recently worked.

I bring this forward because it is relevant to this massive shift in taxation from corporations on to ordinary people. Because of the program that the Liberal government started, and now escalated by the Conservative government, we have a massive erosion of corporate taxes.

We believe in fair and progressive taxation. We believe everyone should pay their fair share. However, with this tax shift, by 2014, we will see a loss of $60 billion in revenue. It does not take anyone with a math degree to figure out that the loss of this amount of money will impact the kinds of services that can be provided, whether it is for health care, social programs, EI or whatever it is for the kinds of things we need to do to help unemployed workers. We see people having to rely more and more on food banks, and that is what is at the core of the budget. That is what is so wrong about it.

We also know that over the next four years the Conservative government will take in more than $19 billion than it needs to deal with EI. We know the employment insurance program is not paid for by the government. It is paid for by employers and employees. The government takes the money through the premiums. What is the government going to do? It is going to rake in billions more than is needed and then use it to pay for the corporate tax cuts. This is an outrage and we strenuously object to it.

There are also provisions in the budget bill that relate to the HST. As someone from British Columbia, there is a sense of outrage about the HST and the way it has been foisted upon the people there. The Conservative government and the Liberal government in British Columbia are working hand in glove with each other to put this on the people of B.C. The response from people has been absolutely incredible.

We have seen the most historic grassroots initiative take place, where people are signing petitions. They are saying, no, that the governments are not going to do this, that they are not going to run roughshod over democratic practice, negotiate a deal a few days after an election, not tell people about it and think they can get away with it.

This part of the budget bill as well as the tax shift is very much related to what is going on in my province. People are so angry over the Liberal and Conservative members of Parliament from B.C. who did absolutely nothing to stand up for their constituents and say that the HST was a bad tax and that it would come at the wrong time.

There are two other issues with which I want to deal. One is on the environment front.

One of the enormous issues in Bill C-9 is the budget is overwhelmingly negative on the environmental front. There are no provisions to fight climate change. There is no plan to create green jobs, something we have advocated for very strongly in our caucus. We have laid out detailed plans about how we need to move to a greener economy. Instead this budget focuses on facilitating and accelerating the extraction of oil and gas.

In a very dramatic move, it guts environmental protection by taking environmental assessments for energy projects away from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and giving that responsibility to the National Energy Board or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Both bodies, particularly the National Energy Board, as we just heard from my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, are very pro-industry. They are loaded with people who have a vested interest in seeing greater extraction of oil and gas.

It is quite shocking to see that this significant policy change on the environment, on regulations, on environmental assessment is in the budget implementation bill. The consequences of that will be felt for years and decades to come. This is one reason for the amendments before us today. We are at report stage of the bill and the proposed amendments would delete all those aspects from it. We think they have no place in a budget bill.

They should be debated separately. Members of the House should be able to look at those provisions in terms of natural resources and energy and how those assessments are done. If the government wants to change and weaken the procedures in place, then let it have the guts and the courage to do it as a separate legislation. Let it be willing to stand the test of putting that legislation before the House and then seeing whether it has the support to get it through. To do it through a budget bill is unconscionable.

I will focus briefly on the issue of housing. I, along with other members, have worked very hard for in my community for this. One thing that disturbs me very deeply is we rally saw no provisions for an ongoing housing program in the budget.

Over four million Canadians are living in housing insecurity. Up to 300,000 people are homeless in communities across the country. We would think this would be a major priority. It certainly takes us back to the statistics that I read from Food Banks Canada. Yet there is nothing in the budget that addresses this fundamental human right in our society, the right to safe, appropriate, affordable and accessible housing. I have a bill before the House, Bill C-304, that would compel the government to initiate and develop a national housing strategy.

A core requirement of a budget is to ensure people have adequate housing and incomes, whether it is through increasing the Canada pension plan, the guaranteed income supplement or OAS. Those are the fundamentals. Yet everything in the budget is getting away from that and giving greater breaks to corporations. We find that unacceptable and will vote against it.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his intervention on Bill C-9. He has articulated very admirably what we see wrong with an omnibus bill that takes a collection of things that really are non-budget related and makes them part of a budget.

I know that he comes from Sudbury, an area that is experiencing a difficult strike at a foreign multinational corporation that does not respect workers.

I wonder what his position would be on whether we should have seen in the budget not only the restoration of the $57 billion in the EI account, but indeed, as one other private member's bill has called for, employment insurance benefits for those who are involved in prolonged labour disputes. Does he see that if we saw restored in the budget what really is budget money—that $57 billion from the EI account—it could have helped those workers in Sudbury who have been on strike for nearly a year?

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

Madam Speaker, as the member has ably pointed out, Bill C-9 is going to remove the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency from reviewing all the energy projects and will substitute the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. We know that this is a body, basically, of self-regulation. Not only are six of the board's members long-time veterans of the private oil and gas industry, the board gets all its funding from the companies it regulates. Clearly, it is almost a conflict. Approximately 90% of the National Energy Board's total expenditures are recovered from the companies it regulates. Think of that in terms of what is happening in the Gulf right now, where we are finding that they are almost bereft of any kind of real regulation.

The Conservatives hand-picked 10 of the 12 members of the board. They are hoping to bypass the oversight of major industrial projects, which would have consequences for generations to come. As I indicated, the disaster that is unfolding in the Gulf is clearly tied to the fact that there is not proper oversight and there are not proper regulations in force. The industry is basically self-regulated. This is what happens any time industries regulate themselves.

Does the member have any further comments to make on these points?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand up today to support the set of amendments to Bill C-9 brought forward by my colleague from Hamilton Mountain.

I would like to reiterate that we in the NDP find it disheartening that the government would include so many policies in its budget document that would never be passed had they been introduced as stand-alone legislation. If the government were serious about its desire to be more transparent and accountable, it would not have attached these policies to the budget.

One of the most objectionable policies hidden in this budget relates to the current environmental assessment process. In keeping with our party's concerns about the oil sands, the measures contained within Bill C-9 are very worrisome. If passed, the bill would exempt certain federally funded infrastructure projects from environmental assessment, which goes well beyond efforts by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to streamline the environmental assessment process.

It also allows the Minister of the Environment to dictate the scope of environmental assessments. It weakens public participation, and it enables the removal of assessments of energy projects from the Environmental Assessment Agency and moves them to the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

The notion of saddling our children and our grandchildren with debt is regrettable. That we should also bequeath them an environmental liability on their natural heritage through this process is reprehensible.

That our Conservative minority government should, with the complicity of the Liberal Party, seek to make environmental protection a matter of ministerial discretion is a demonstration of the worst sort of shortsightedness. The notion that to help make building projects shovel ready we should make the application of environmental law optional is something that no elected official will ever be able to justify.

Eighteen months ago, the Conservatives came out with their now infamous economic and fiscal update. Within this update they gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which had been in place for 100 years, and our Liberal colleagues supported them.

Now the Conservatives are trying to finish what they started by doing away with environmental assessments for most projects that receive federal funding. Several provinces have rather weak legislation and no way to conduct real inspections and/or assessments. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was the only way some provinces could have assessments done.

Last Friday we debated a motion brought forward by the member for Edmonton—Strathcona that called for a review of all laws, regulations, and policies related to deepwater oil and gas drilling. It followed the disaster that is currently ongoing in the Gulf of Mexico. This disaster shows exactly why environmental assessment is so vitally important.

All too often it is impossible to stop permanent or long-lasting environmental degradation once spills or other events have taken place. What this means is very simple. As difficult as it is to stop all environmental disasters, it is much easier to fight these causes than it is to try to rectify the catastrophic consequences.

Sometimes the consequences of environmental damage are not as visible as those images we are currently seeing from the Gulf of Mexico. In many ways, these consequences are even more dangerous. They are slowly poisoning our environment without the global calls for action that we see today. If we do not have a thorough environmental assessment system in place, we have no way to stop these disasters from taking place.

We live in a democratic society, but these provisions erode any notion of accountable government. Environmental assessments will exist only at the whim of the Minister of the Environment.

As the Minister of the Environment is able to dictate the scope of any environmental assessment, the minister can effectively kill any assessment by narrowing, broadening, or changing the scope of the assessment to such a degree as to make the assessment meaningless. The view of anyone who stands opposed to a project can be ruled out of scope, meaning that the government can simply silence the critics of any development.

There is also the worrying provision to move the assessment of energy projects from the Environmental Assessment Agency to the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The mandate of the Environmental Assessment Agency is, according to its website, and I quote:

To provide Canadians with high-quality federal environmental assessments that contribute to informed decision making in support of sustainable development.

Why would the government want to move environmental assessments away from an agency whose sole purpose is to carry them out? If the government is worried about duplicating work between agencies and departments, surely it should have the Environmental Assessment Agency, with all the skills, tools, and resources it has, carry out the assessments for the National Energy Board and the Nuclear Safety Commission. Where is the efficiency in trying to duplicate these roles at the National Energy Board and the Nuclear Safety Commission? The only possible explanation I can see for moving these assessments is to weaken them by passing them on to agencies whose mandates are not so explicitly related to environmental assessment.

Looking forward, people can count on Canada's New Democrats to continue working against the false dichotomy that claims that we cannot stimulate the economy while we also protect the environment. After all, $1 billion invested in Obama-style green infrastructure creates twice as many jobs as $1 billion spent on tax cuts and injects $2 billion into the broader economy.

The NDP has long called for investment in renewable energy and support for public transport, policies that would add value to our communities, protect the environment, and create new jobs. However, the government simply is not interested. This is the same shortsighted view of the economy that left the government cutting the eco-energy retrofit program. This program encouraged people to increase the energy efficiency of their homes while it sustained and created new jobs. When we think about the whole economic cycle, these jobs increased the tax base and lowered the amount the government had to pay in social welfare, so the program had a positive effect on the economy as a whole. Yet the program was quietly cancelled just before Easter weekend. The government was clearly hoping that the cancellation would be missed by the media and the Canadian public.

Environmental protection is a duty we owe to future generations. I have two young daughters, Trinity, who is six, and Thea, who is two, and I certainly do not want to have to tell them or their children that I stood by and watched as the government decimated Canada's environmental assessment procedures.

If parliamentarians do not stand up to ensure that this measure does not sneak through in the budget, who will? Rest assured, the New Democrats will continue to do so.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, who further makes light of just how shameful the removal of environmental assessment is and how truly this has no place in a budget bill. It is extremely destructive when it comes to how we are moving forward.

I just want to note that there is hope here. There is the ability of the opposition to stand united in its opposition to Bill C-9, to listen to our calls, and to stand up and say that these poison pills have no room in this budget bill. They have nothing to do with this budget bill. They have everything to do with weakening our country and taking away from the well-being of Canadians, and we have to oppose it.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the many things that Bill C-9 would do is remove the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency from reviewing energy projects and instead substituting the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. This would remove a review of major industrial projects from an agency that is dedicated to environmental protection and instead hand it job over to an industry-friendly board. That is typical of Conservative governments, not only here but anywhere in the world.

The NEB does not have the experience necessary to conduct proper public consultations and environmental assessments. Of the over 300 staff at the board, only a few dozen work on environmental issues. When the NEB held hearings about lifting the same-season relief well policy, only written submissions were accepted. No public hearings or consultations took place. With the exception of a single Inuit group, the board only heard from the big oil companies.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency was specifically designed and set up to conduct reviews of projects that may have serious consequences. The Conservatives are trying to fast-track the expansion of the tar sands and building oil pipelines by handing over the oversight to the industry-friendly NEB. This is classic Conservative thinking; let the industry regulate itself.

I would like to ask the member whether she has any further comments on these observations.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today, a day where spirits certainly are a lot calmer than they were yesterday. We certainly got the attention of Canadians and exposed, in many ways, the sorry state of debate, not just in the House but also in our committees and the point that has reached.

It is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Churchill in northern Manitoba and to speak, as a member of the New Democratic Party, to why we need to oppose Bill C-9 and to the absolutely critical reason that we need to put a stop to the government's destructive agenda for Canada.

I speak as a member of Parliament representing my constituency. I have the honour of being one of the youngest members of Parliament in the House and in history as well. In many ways, that is a testament to where I come from, which is a part of Canada that is very young. Northern Canada is known as being the youngest part of our country, which is very much the same as where I come from. What comes hand in hand with that is the idea that we need to be looking out for that young population, which is my generation and the next generation.

Today I would like to speak to Bill C-9 in terms of how it stands against my generation and the improvement of the quality of life for my generation. It truly takes away the benefits, supports, the spirit of co-operation for which Canada is so well-known and the system that has truly made Canada one of the best countries in the world in which to live.

We are slipping and we have been slipping for years in a downward direction that started in the mid-nineties under the direction of the federal finance minister of the time, Paul Martin, who systematically decided to pay off the debt of this country on the backs of all Canadians, but mostly Canadians who, in many ways, were living not just on the margins of society, but who we needed to ensure had the support of our social safety net, whether it was women's organizations, aboriginal organizations, programming when it came to employment insurance or, quite frankly, when it came to health care or post-secondary education.

All of those areas suffered as a result of those cuts, and we have never recovered. In fact, it has become worse. While there has been Band-Aid solutions, a project here, a project there, that social safety net upon which Canada was built, the social safety net that made Canada what it was, certainly after the second world war, began to be broken apart piece by piece.

What we are seeing with the government and with Bill C-9 is the continued erosion of that safety net and, if anything, a speeding up of that process, a move to deregulate, a move to privatize with such vigour, and all of that hidden in a discussion about the budget in the budget.

Many of my colleagues have stood in the House to talk about that exact piece. The Conservatives must know that these are poisonous pills and, for that reason, have stuck them into this larger framework, the budgetary framework, when they are measures that have nothing to do with the budget, quite frankly, and have everything to do with taking away from our country and giving benefit to, one would presume, some of their friends. That tells a sad story when it comes to the future that my generation has to look forward to.

When it comes to our future, Bill C-9 is destructive in many ways. We have stood in the House to speak to many of them but I want to point to the ones that I believe are absolutely critical and have a direct impact on my generation as well.

One of the top issues that young people in Canada are concerned about today is the environment. We have been shamed around the world by the government's lack of leadership when it comes to the environment and dealing with climate change. Here we have yet one more step in that direction, something that I know concerns many people my age, and that is the removal of environmental assessments and deregulation when it comes to looking ahead at federally funded infrastructure projects.

If we do not have the federal government looking out for sustainable infrastructure development, respect for the environment and consultation with appropriate groups, including first nations, aboriginal people and peoples living in the area, who will look after it? Where is that leadership?

I will move on to employment insurance. I have been told by grandparents, elders and seniors across Canada. They remember the days when unemployment insurance, which became employment insurance, was not a system that existed or a system that people could count on when they needed it most. The development of that program, a fundamental piece of our social safety net, was eroded by the Liberals starting in the 1990s and continues to be eroded under the current government.

The employment insurance account was emptied after holding a surplus of $57 billion. This insurance fund was what workers across Canada put their blood, sweat, hard work and money into to have that peace of mind and support when times were tough. The money was taken away previously by the Liberals and it continues to be mandated in such a way today. Where is the money going? It is going toward corporate tax cuts for the oil and gas industry and the banks. Those are the dollars of the hard-working Canadians who the government claims to speak out for. It looks like theft to me.

Another item is the privatization of important institutions across our country, such as AECL. I had the honour of stopping in Winnipeg last weekend for a mine rescue competition. I met with individuals working with AECL in southern Manitoba and we talked about their concerns, the future of AECL and what will happen. I talked with people who, as a result of reduced programming, will be losing their jobs, good paying government jobs, jobs that have the safety record in a very dangerous industry.

Here we have a government that is willing to sell off AECL at the worst possible time for a bargain basement price. It is an institution in our country that must be regulated and supported by government.

I want to speak to the actions in terms of the softwood lumber industry which is being sold off in many ways. The government's softwood sellout deal, as we call it back home, has deeply impacted my region. Communities like The Pas, Opaskwayak Cree Nation, Wabowden and communities all across northern Manitoba depend on forestry. These measures in the budget have nothing to do with budgetary measures. The interest owed to corporations is being lowered by 2% but, most important, an export tariff on softwood lumber products for Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan is being raised by 10%

Many of these mills are non-existent, but many of them are operating at bare bones and yet these industries are being asked to deal with this increased tariff. People in my communities, who have been asked to make so many concession, are being asked to put up with this because their government is unwilling to stand up and protect them.

One area that I find to be the most disturbing and perhaps the saddest in terms of its completely shameless positioning in this budget is the significant measure to privatize Canada Post and remove its legal monopoly on outgoing international letters, or the remailer program.

Canada Post, as are many crown corporations that we are so proud of, is a corporation that Canadians depend on. While we talk every day about average Canadians, it is these kinds of crown corporations and these kinds of programs that we need to protect. That is why we call on--

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for an excellent speech on Bill C-9.

He talked about tax havens. I guess it points to the power of one individual. When a low-level computer worker, two years ago, in a Liechtenstein bank, rose up and sold a computer diskette with the information of thousands of tax evaders to the German government, the Canadian government got onto this, and guess what? Now across Canada we have these tax evaders running to Revenue Canada locations to take advantage of our tax amnesty.

The current government is so tough on tax havens and tax evaders that it says to people, “Go ahead and put your money in the tax havens, because if we catch you, all you have to do is go down to Revenue Canada and take advantage of our amnesty and pay the tax and you're scot-free”.

That is our tough approach.

I would like to ask the member if he has any comments on that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity on behalf of my constituents of Winnipeg Centre to enter into the debate on Bill C-9 at report stage amendments.

I think it is important to put in perspective what we are doing here at this point in time on Bill C-9 and on behalf of the people I represent.

We should remind Canadians that this is the point in the legislative process where the government of the day comes to Parliament to ask permission to spend the taxpayers' money in a certain way. The government introduces its budget, and then, by virtue of a budget implementation bill, the government outlines the detailed way in which it intends to spend that budget.

The government comes to Parliament for our permission, and it needs our permission to go ahead. This is why there is the urgency with Bill C-9. This is why the government is going to put time allocation on the debate, if it can, to ram this thing through by the end of June when Parliament adjourns for the summer recess.

Technically, the government does not have permission to spend the money it proposes to spend. It is coming to us. I wish the government would show a little bit more humility when it comes to us, because it does not even have a majority. It cannot force anything in this Parliament. It needs the co-operation of the members on this side of the House to get permission to spend that money.

A lot of Canadians would like to believe that members of Parliament could work together in between elections to paddle our canoe in the same direction, as it were, to do what is best for the country. I think if people sought it, they would find a fair amount of goodwill in the House towards that, because we all recognize we have been going through difficult economic times. The opposition parties did not try to interfere, block or stop the massive stimulus spending. We accepted that this was what was going on in the world.

What is mean-spirited about this and what is wrong with the way the Conservatives are handling this is that rather than seeking the co-operation of the House for the implementation of the budget this year, they tried to insert a bunch of things that do not properly belong in a budget implementation bill. Canadians should understand that.

It is deceit of the highest order to ram this bill through. For the necessary spending, or at least giving permission for the government to spend, they are including a bunch things that do not belong here. It is a very American-style thing to do. Those of us who are observers of politics in other countries will recognize this as earmarking, as they call it in the United States, where a budget bill will start out at, say, 30 pages, and by the time every senator adds their special spending bill that they trade their support for, it will be 200 pages long. There will be all kinds of irrelevant additional material rammed into that bill.

This is what is happening here today. In terms of implementation of the budget, I do not think there would be great opposition to some parts of the bill. We are clearly against other things that deserve debate. However, there are some things that clearly should not be in this bill at all, and that is what speaker after speaker on the part of the NDP have been trying to point out.

I know the people in my riding would be disappointed in a number of the aspects of this budget implementation bill. In its current form, it does not deserve our support. Any opposition member worth his or her salt would vote against this bill.

My colleague from Hamilton is exactly right in saying that we should not only be opposed to this bill, we should be willing to stand in our place and be opposed to this bill and be counted in our opposition to this bill.

Believe me, we will be counting the heads on those vacant benches over there when it comes time to vote against this bill. It is unworthy of our support. Never mind the merits of the bill or the faults of the bill, by principle we should be voting against this bill because it sets a dangerous precedent that they are trying to insert a number of things that clearly do not belong here.

In the brief time I had to research the part 1 amendments, I counted up a number of tax grabs in Bill C-9, the current budget implementation bill, that should be of grave concern as well. They are clearly contrary to what the Conservative government would have us believe, that they are all about tax cuts and not tax grabs.

Clearly, a lot of these measures are tax grabs in no uncertain terms, yet the Conservatives have left opportunities for revenue without any comment at all. For instance, a budget implementation bill or a budget itself is the opportunity to finally plug the outrageous tax loopholes that exist for offshore tax havens. This is money left on the table that the Minister of Finance does not see fit to pick up and put in his pocket.

I cannot understand it, because I used to hear Conservative MPs, when they were in opposition, rail about the outrageous tax havens, rail against the former prime minister, Paul Martin, for shielding a lot of his assets in offshore tax havens with his 13 shell companies to hide the profits of Canada Steamship Lines, but they have not taken any active steps to deal with this.

I forget what the chartered accountants call it, but it has a fancy name in terms of hiring a tax avoidance lawyer; “tax-motivated expatriation”, those are the words I was groping for. It sounds like a legitimate move that a tax consultant would advise. In the cocktail party circuit, it almost sounds respectable. For people to say they are going to take part in some tax-motivated expatriation almost sounds as though they are going on a holiday to some warm country. In actual fact, it is a sleazy tax-cheating loophole that the Conservatives are afraid to close because it is their friends who avail themselves of it. So they do not want to offend their friends.

In the U.S., an estimated $100 billion a year in revenue is lost through its tax haven regime. Other experts have taken that money down with our economy and it would be a minimum of $7 billion per year of lost revenue that our tax havens are costing the taxpayer. So as we are offloading this tax burden with tax grabs from ordinary Canadians, we are leaving this money on the table. It is incomprehensible to me and it is contrary to what we were led to believe about the policies of the Conservatives.

The other thing that should be pointed out, and again the people in my riding of Winnipeg Centre deserve to know that someone is raising this in the House of Commons, is the very valid and legitimate point that my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona made, that the current round of corporate tax cuts that the Conservatives have not only contemplated but are implementing are going to cost the general revenues in the neighbourhood of $7 billion to $10 billion. I have heard as high as $15 billion. We do not have that money. That is money we have to borrow. We are going to be borrowing money to give to already profitable corporations in terms of yet another handout. This is what is incomprehensible to ordinary Canadians.

It is not as though we are giving a struggling industry some kind of helping hand up. That is one thing. We can talk about whether that is corporate welfare, but we are not opposed.

For instance, if it were the shipbuilding industry and we wanted Canada to get back into shipbuilding, some kind of help to get the industry back on its feet can be justified, but the already most profitable industries, the oil industry, as well as the big banks who are showing record profits, are now going to get another gratuitous handout of up to $15 billion of money we do not have. So we are going to be raising taxes of ordinary Canadians to give a handout to the banks who in turn gouge those ordinary Canadians and have both hands in their pockets.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the mindset of anyone who would craft a financial instrument such as Bill C-9. It should be rejected, it should be opposed, and every member of the New Democratic Party can be counted on to oppose the bill and send it back where it came from for a complete rewrite, I would hope.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague from the Liberal Party is simple. She says in her final wrap-up of her speech that she does not support Bill C-9. I assume if one does not support it, one will vote against it. Certainly the members of the NDP will vote against it.

Is my colleague speaking on behalf of her party, or is she, as in individual, going to vote against it? Will enough Liberal Party members vote for the bill so it will pass? Will the rest of her party share her conviction that Bill C-9 is not worthy of the support of Parliament and vote against it as a group, or will they leave a bunch of their members at home again or tell them to leave the chamber when it comes time to vote?

On the opposition benches, we all need to know what the Liberal Party will do about Bill C-9. Will it force the government to split it? Will it vote against it at the report stage, knowing that this may mean an end to the Conservative rule of our country?

What are her colleagues going to do about voting on the bill?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-9.

I will start by talking about a visitor who came to Parliament a few weeks ago, Dr. Jane Goodall, and her remarks. Dr. Goodall is a world renowned primatologist and also a leader in thinking about the kind of world we want for the future. In her remarks she said that some say we inherit the earth and the world from our parents and some say we borrow it from our children. Dr. Goodall is concerned that we are stealing from the next generation because borrowing with no plans to repay is in fact stealing. I share her view that it is time we get together and start to pay back to ensure we create a better world for future generations.

Bill C-9 raises questions for me on issues such as the economy, the environment and democracy and whether we are stealing from future generations in the provisions contained in the budget implementation bill. There certainly is stealth in the bill and I will talk about that in my section on democracy. Major changes are hidden in it in such a way that we are unable to properly debate them. They should be in separate legislation.

Let me start my comments with the economy. This is another budget that borrows significant funds and the funds will need to be repaid in the future. This means the government is borrowing from the future. Are there proper plans for repaying these funds, which would indicate that the government is borrowing and not stealing?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has raised questions about the competency of the Conservative government in terms of its financial projects and plans, as he has done repeatedly over the past several years. He has publicly stated that Bill C-9 falls short in its assertion that the books will be balanced in five years. He estimates that the government's budget predictions are inaccurate and off by about $10 billion. Mr. Page said that the government's budgetary assumptions were “not a prudent basis for fiscal planning”. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is bringing to light the fact that the government has failed to build in a cushion for the unexpected and failed to plan for tomorrow.

More than being concerned about weakness in the planning, I have huge concerns about the government's priorities. As was brought to light in the budget implementation bill, ideological cuts have been made to women's groups, to poverty alleviation groups and to very important education groups. What we see as the government's priority is its millions of dollars, and some assessments say over $100 million, in self-serving advertising paid by the taxpayer to promote the government's fiscal management. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is a more neutral commentator on plans and budgets.

There are five new tax increases in the budget. When I pointed this out to my constituents, they were very surprised. The Conservatives' expensive advertising campaign by no means suggests transparency with respect to these new tax increases, including $15 billion in payroll taxes, which are counterproductive and aggressive.

Is this budget stealing from the future or are we investing in the future? I am concerned about the funds that are being spent on the upcoming international meetings. Less than six months before these meetings, the venue for the G20 was changed. It is going to cost over $1 billion for a few days of meetings.

I know others have compared the spending for the summits with the spending on the Olympic Games, but it is not only 17 days of Olympic Games. There are also nine days of Paralympic Games, with heads of state and VIP to be secured and protected. To spend over $1 billion on these few days of meetings at a time when budgets are being cut for very important social issues and other issues is a huge mismanagement of public funds.

With respect to the environment, this budget continues the inaction on climate. Unfortunately, there are cuts to the eco-energy home retrofit program that brought homeowners and families into reducing the footprint of their households. There are cuts to climate science. Gordon McBean, the chair of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, sums up the effect of budget 2010 on climate change research as follows:

Budget 2010 is basically the nightmare scenario for scientists across the country – our community is gutted.

Are we borrowing from our future generations or are we stealing from them? That is really the question that came to mind as I looked at the provisions in the budget. It weakens the federal oversight of the environment. It removes from the environment department the power to assess environmental projects and moves it into other organizations that have worse records in terms of public participation. It gives the minister power which he or she should not have, because ministers are subject to lobbying.

On the Gulf of Mexico oil leak, we see the ministers deferring to other regulatory bodies and not taking responsibility for answering whether we have strong enough regulations. They are being very evasive on the questions on oil tankers in the Pacific north coast, giving us a range of different answers designed to confuse. It is clear the government is paving the way for that super tanker on our vulnerable Pacific north coast, which we should never allow.

Last, I wanted to touch on democracy. I know some of the other speakers have been eloquent on the issue of combining a lot of different, non-linked policy and legislative changes in an omnibus bill. The Prime Minister commented on this a number of years ago. In 1994 he asked for a ruling to split a budget implementation bill, saying that it was becoming standard practice with governments to bring in omnibus legislation following every budget under what might be called the kitchen sink approach. He described that as improper and said it should be ruled out of order. That was referring to a bill of 20 pages.

What the Prime Minister is putting in front of the House is 900 pages. It is a far larger kitchen sink with far more in it. The hypocrisy is unfortunate. Democracy is impacted when Parliament does not have the opportunity to debate substantive changes around Canada Post, AECL and environmental assessment. This should be 14 different bills according to senior members of the Senate.

This is an abuse. Unfortunately, it is a corruption of Parliament. It brings me back to my question. Are we stealing from future generations? When we undermine democracy, we undermine the role of Parliament. I do not support Bill C-9. It is a very poor example of statespersonship. It is an unfortunate undermining of the Canadian confidence, both economically and environmentally. The government's priority should be to protect and strengthen our democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the time I will have to speak to Bill C-9.

However, before I speak to Bill C-9, I would like to point out that in game three of the Stanley Cup finals last night, the winning goal was scored by none other than Claude Giroux from Hearst. We are very proud of him.

I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak to the Conservatives' budget implementation bill, Bill C-9. Given that I have only 10 minutes to speak to this unbelievably huge bill, which is hardly enough time to detail all of the significant flaws and errors in judgment present within this 800 page document, I will give the simplified version of what is fundamentally wrong with the government's budgetary plan.

First, I would like to speak to the nature of the bill itself. To put it simply, the bill resembles some of the overly political, opportunistic, pork laden legislation that was the hallmark of the Bush administration. With over 800 pages, 23 separate sections and over 2,000 individual clauses, Bill C-9 has easily become one of the largest pieces of individual legislation ever to pass through these halls.

The sweeping nature of Bill C-9 could perhaps be a little easier to swallow if it were not filled with amendments that seem almost completely out of place in a budget bill. Perhaps that was the plan that the Conservatives wanted to present all along; a bill so massive that it becomes almost impossible to scrutinize in its entirety, something that they expect we, as members of Parliament, would not take the time to scrutinize and simply rubber stamp through.

The people of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing did not elect me to rubber stamp anything. They elected me to represent their interests and the bill is not in their best interests.

I will take some time to speak specifically to part 20 of the bill, which would amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to give the Minister of the Environment the authority to forgo environmental assessment of federally funded infrastructure projects. I am a steadfast believer that appropriate environmental assessment, now more than ever, is vital in ensuring our natural environment does not take a back seat to handful of special interests who seem to believe that a larger profit margin is more important than preventing an environmental disaster.

This authority should not be given to any single individual. This is particularly dear to me because I actually live in an area and represent an area that has a couple of Great Lakes, lots of rivers and lots of lakes.

The government never misses an opportunity to take away the power of everyday Canadians in order to please those select few special interest groups that it listens to. Who are these special interest groups? Big oil is a good example. We just have to look at the big oil spill with regard to BP. We are quite worried about what will happen here in Canada.

What are the big oil companies getting in this budget? What about corporate tax breaks or perhaps the gutting of Canada's environmental assessment regulations? Those are two examples of the way that the interests of the government's friends win out over the interests of Canadians.

There is a reason environmental assessment is so important. I am certain that the majority of people sitting here today have had a chance to catch the news at some point in the past month or so. Again I will talk about that oil disaster.

The disaster off of the Gulf of Mexico has been monumental. It stands as one of the greatest environmental tragedies of all time. Many argue that the simple drilling of a relief well, which is a standard practice of offshore oil drilling, could have kept the disaster under wraps.

What are we hearing now? We are hearing claims from BP that a relief well is currently being drilled but that it will likely not be finished until some time in August. I realize there will be some contention on this argument, but I will wrap up my thoughts on part 20 of Bill C-9. It is barely what should be considered a budgetary matter. It should given an appropriate forum for discussion in its own right. It should not be part of the bill whatsoever.

The next issue I would like to discuss is part 18 of Bill C-9. The summary of part 18 states that it authorizes the taking of a number of measures with respect to the reorganization and divestiture of all or any part of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. businesses.

The Conservative government seems confident that selling off Canadian firms and resources is the best way to ensure economic growth in this country. Sure, a few high profile individuals may make a quick buck, but what about the people on the front line, the workers?

Many people within my riding, and particularly those living just outside of my riding in Sudbury, know all too well the damage a sell-off of our companies and resources can be. Just last week a rally was held here in front of Parliament Hill by the United Steelworkers Union, Local 6500. The hard-working men and women of Vale mine have been on the picket line for almost a year now fighting to retain the fair pay and benefits for which they have fought for over a century to gain.

What will happen to the AECL workers if their company gets sold from under their feet, thanks to an amendment that has been crammed into a beast of a budget? Will they end up getting laid off? Will they lose their benefits? Will they be replaced by a cheaper workforce?

I would call on the government to remove part 18 from the budget bill so we, as elected officials, can take the appropriate time to fully discuss how this deal would affect working Canadians. I wish I had more time to debate the nature of this sell-off but my time is short and there is more, I feel, that is needed to be discussed here.

I will now detail some concerns I have with part 15 of the bill. In my riding, we are very worried about the weakening of Canada Post. Again we see the mantra of business first and are being told that a company can provide overseas service more efficiently and make a profit at the same time. How is that possible? To us, this is merely coded language that adds up to paying workers less and demanding that they do more. Efficiency is a good and desirable thing but hoarding wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people is not.

Increasing the workload stress in job security of the people who actually perform the work so investor can siphon off profits is not the best way to perform this service. Worse, if this is a way for Canada Post to make a few bucks, why would we want them to get rid of it? We need to allow Canada Post to make money so that it can afford to provide postal service to the people of Canada.

There is a situation right now in Constance Lake that I would like to share with the House. In Constance Lake, which is a first nation community, residents have lost their Canada Post outlet. For approximately the past one and a half years, residents have had to make an 80 kilometre round trip detour to Hearst simply to mail a letter. Luckily for Constance Lake, a Canada Post outlet is in the process of being rebuilt, because we have pushed for this, both Constance Lake and myself and the CUPW workers, but this is just an example of the concerns that have been echoed by the rural people living in my riding. Many other communities live with the fear of losing their postal outlets. People in towns like Moonbeam wonder if they are next when the Canada Post axe falls. Chapleau has also approached me on this before.

If Canada Post loses more revenue by cutting out its international mail revenues, how can it provide anything but less service? How is that efficient?

I wish I had another hour to speak to some of the issues I have with the bill. I call on my colleagues throughout the House of Commons to push to have this bill stripped down to its core. Many portions of the bill are out of place. I realize it is part of the Conservative agenda to slide things past the Canadian people without giving them or us, as elected officials, the time it takes to adequately examine the consequences of what is transpiring here.

I would like to finish by quoting one of the Conservatives' own senators, Lowell Murray, but I see my time is up so I will have to do it later.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the report stage debate on Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. We are debating the first group of report stage amendments tabled by the New Democrats. I am pleased to say that I seconded all 62 of the amendments the New Democrats proposed to this legislation.

Why did we propose those amendments? We are very concerned about the scope of this bill and the huge size of this piece of this legislation. It includes many issues that should have been debated separately in their own pieces of legislation so that Parliament could give them the kind of scrutiny they deserve.

This is not a small issue for us, as members can tell. It is not often that an opposition party puts forward that many report stage amendments to a piece of legislation, but we feel very strongly that the government is doing something shifty. It is doing something that is inappropriate with this legislation by putting forward this monster bill of well over 800 pages, almost 900 pages, that includes all kinds of issues that should have been proposed, and in the past have even been proposed, as separate pieces of legislation.

This seems to me to be an abandonment of the Conservatives' commitment to accountability and transparency. They came into government claiming that they were going to change things around. They were going to do things differently than the previous government on any number of matters.

One of them we might have expected the Conservatives to take to heart was not proposing this kind of legislation. This is more American-style legislation. We all know of bills in the United States that have a title in one area that have a whole bunch of other measures attached and embedded into them. For instance, a defence bill could have a farm measure included in it. That is the system the Americans have come up with and I think it puzzles most of us here in Canada. It does not seem to be an appropriate way of giving appropriate scrutiny to many issues. That is the kind of bill we have before us today.

Bill C-9 is a huge piece of legislation that includes topics that range from the privatization of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, changes to the mandate of Canada Post, the ultimate depletion of the EI fund, the increase in the security tax that we pay when we fly on airlines, changes to the HST initiative, changes to the softwood lumber tariffs, and changes to environmental assessment in Canada.

Each one of those things and many others in the bill deserve their own piece of legislation. In the past the Conservatives have even proposed legislation separately on some of those issues. The Canada Post issue is one of them. In earlier sessions of this Parliament and the previous Parliament, there was a separate bill dealing with these changes to Canada Post where that issue could get the scrutiny it deserves.

We are standing firm that this is a change in the practices of this House. It is going down a road that we think is totally improper. We think it abandons the Conservatives' commitment once again to accountability and transparency. It is clear that is long gone.

We have seen it in their failure to live up to commitments around access to information and the terrible report card they got, particularly the ministry of foreign affairs for compliance with access to information requests. It was so bad that the Information Commissioner had to invent a new category. It did not fit in her scale of failure and she had to invent a red alert category, saying it was so bad in that department.

We have seen it in the Conservatives' failure and their refusal for such a long time to provide Parliament with access to documents around the Afghan detainee issue, and the concerns that people Canada had captured were being tortured when they were in the custody of Afghan authorities.

We have seen it in the denial of Conservatives to allow their political staff to appear before parliamentary committees and provide information that parliamentary committees need. We have seen it in the actions of cabinet ministers coming uninvited to parliamentary committees and demanding to be heard when they are not on the agenda of committees, disrupting committees and turning those committees into places of total chaos.

None of this goes to an agenda of openness, transparency and accountability. It all dramatically undoes that. It is the exact opposite of those kinds of things.

One of the specific aspects that I want to talk about particularly in this bill is the environmental assessment component. What it amounts to is the gutting of the environmental assessment process that we have in Canada. This bill would exempt certain federally funded infrastructure projects from environmental assessment, going well beyond what was even recommended by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to streamline the environmental assessment process.

We all know that environmental assessment is a complicated issue in Canada. It is a process that has the involvement of many jurisdictions. We all want to make sure that we have an efficient and effective process, but we want to make sure that we have a process, a process that works and that offers protection to the environment and to Canadians.

This proposal before us embedded deeply in this bill would say that the building Canada fund, the green infrastructure fund, the recreational infrastructure fund, the border infrastructure fund, the municipal rural infrastructure fund, none of these would have the same requirements around environmental assessment that they currently do.

This bill would also pre-empt a review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act which is to go to committee this month for a scheduled five-year review. Here we are currently debating a piece of legislation that would change that existing legislation that was scheduled to be reviewed by Parliament where we could come up with suggestions for changes that needed to be made, where the government could present its suggestions for changes that should be made to that legislation. Why is it deeply embedded in this budget bill?

The bill would also allow the Minister of the Environment to dictate the scope of environmental assessments. This new concept called scoping allows for ministerial discretion to appoint someone to decide what should and should not fall within the scope of an environmental assessment. It could mean, for instance, the road leading to the mine needs to be assessed but not the mine itself, or vice versa. There is a huge opening here for discretion and for a deterioration of the kind of environmental assessment process that we currently have.

It also means that the bill would also weaken public participation in terms of environmental assessment processes by making certain exemptions for public notification. It would also contain the first steps to take away energy assessment programs from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and give them to the National Energy Board.

These changes are of great concern to people in my riding because these kinds of environmental assessments are crucial to issues that happened in my riding. Burnaby—Douglas is home to the only refinery on the west coast of Canada, the Chevron refinery. That refinery is on the shore of Burrard Inlet. It has been there for almost 60 years. It is also surrounded by residential neighbourhoods. I am sure members can understand that a refinery placed in an environmentally sensitive location is a very serious issue. A refinery that is in a residential neighbourhood is also a very serious issue. Over many years there have been many processes developed for the refinery to work with people who live in that neighbourhood, people who are affected directly by it, environmentalists, and first nations communities that live directly across Burrard Inlet from the Chevron refinery.

Right now we are going through a crisis at that refinery where there is a leak happening. So far about 50 litres of what the refinery calls an oily substance have leaked out of the boundaries of the refinery. The substance has shown up in the ditch running along the Canadian Pacific Railway right-of-way and on the foreshore of Burrard Inlet. Officials do not seem to know what this substance is. They do not seem to know where it is coming from. Many concerns are being raised by folks in the neighbourhood, and rightly so, about this situation.

This is a situation where we need to have effective environmental legislation, where we need to have effective environmental oversight. People depend on that. We all know that we use the products that come out of that refinery, but we also want to make sure that we are mitigating any of the damage the refinery causes to the environment and to the neighbourhood. We are seeing an example right now in Burnaby—Douglas of why that is absolutely crucial. Be assured that the people of Burnaby--Douglas, the people of the Burnaby Heights and Capitol Hill neighbourhoods are going to be keeping a close eye on the situation to ensure it is fully determined as to why the leak is being caused, that the cause is fixed and that the cleanup happens completely and that it never happens again. This is crucial to our neighbourhood, our environment, to Burrard Inlet and to the surrounding area.

People in Burnaby—Douglas do not want any weakening of environmental assessments. That is why this piece of the legislation should be debated separately here in this Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. He just talked about three more elements, which we cannot address in a 10-minute speech. The Conservatives are trying to impose closure on Bill C-9 when there are so many different ramifications from this monster bill that they have thrown in.

He has raised three important questions. I want to raise one more, since I did not have time to do that in the six minutes: They are raising the export tariff on softwood lumber products for Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. This is one of the worst of the very bad legislation that the Conservatives have brought in. We knew the softwood lumber sellout would cost tens of thousands of jobs. We knew it would close dozens of mills right across the country.

Again, because they are so embarrassed that their softwood lumber sellout was even worse than anticipated and predicted, we now have an export tariff tucked into this monster bill that is going to hit the softwood communities that have already been hard hit by the appalling irresponsibility and incompetence of the government on softwood lumber. In four provinces, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, there will be a 10% export tariff rate.

That is going to kill the thousands of jobs that have managed to survive the Conservative meddling in softwood lumber thus far. Now we see that they have tucked it into the bill. So the member's question is absolutely appropriate. We could be going on for days and days exposing the many ramifications of this toxic bill.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my colleague covered this in the first part of his speech. I think we just got the final six minutes of it. He talked about the monster bill, just how large this is and all it encompasses, and he has a valid point. However, I want to talk about something that is lacking in this bill: the issue of pension security.

Earlier, the House endorsed the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act changes that were brought forward by his party. Most of the House certainly supported that, so maybe he can comment on that. Perhaps that was lacking in Bill C-9.

Also, they talked about foreign companies and foreign ownership into telecom. Perhaps he would like to comment on that as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I was forced to stop a couple of days ago on this issue of Bill C-9 because of the adjournment of debate at the time, I referred to this bill as the Godzilla bill, because this was a monstrous series of elements that were all brought together into one bill, completely improperly.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, we are seeing progressively a government trying to shift what has been a democratic entity, the House of Commons, one where there is debate on specific issues and bills normally are tied to specific issues, to the kind of case where there is a very clear manipulation of parliamentary procedure.

Here we have a series of bills, environmental bills, bills that sell off other large chunks of Canada and what belongs in common to the Canadian public and do a whole series of other things, such as increase HST levies that certainly in my province of British Columbia, British Columbians have been strongly objecting to. It does this all in one bill. It just throws it all together.

We talked at that time about how Godzilla runs roughshod over individuals, and this bill certainly does that. It destroys institutions and buildings, primarily buildings in Godzilla's case, primarily institutions in the government's case. We also mentioned that the one exception to the difference between the government's monster bill, the Godzilla bill, and Godzilla himself or herself, is that Godzilla at least had some concerns about the dumping of toxic wastes, for those who followed the Godzilla movies. In this case, with the removal of the environmental assessment process, we see that the government has even less concern for the environment than the monster that I spoke of.

This monster bill is totally inappropriate. Why did the government do this? We know full well. We have seen strong objections in British Columbia to the HST. The government wanted to tuck in the increase in HST on financial services because it is hoping that somehow British Columbians will not find out, of course forgetting that there is strong representation in this corner of the House from British Columbia with NDP MPs who have stood up and raised this issue. That is partly why we have now reached the threshold for a referendum on the HST in British Columbia in all 85 ridings. That is cause for celebration.

British Columbians right across B.C., from the Peace River to the lower mainland to Vancouver Island to the Kootenays, are saying that they want to be able to publicly rebuke both the federal Conservative government and the B.C. Liberal government for their secretive, dishonest attempt to bring in the HST, but the government is still trying.

For British Columbians who may have voted Conservative in the past, I believe they certainly will be questioning that vote in the future, because in this very secretive, dishonest way, the federal Conservatives are moving to hike and add the HST onto even more elements around financial services. It is unbelievable. When British Columbians are speaking out unanimously right across the province in every single one of the 85 provincial ridings, that means every single one of the federal ridings, including the ridings that are represented by Conservatives and Liberals who voted for the HST.

For the Conservatives to try to hide this in the budget implementation bill is profoundly dishonest, and that is why they are going to get a kicking in the next election, whenever that comes. British Columbians are not going to forget about this. British Columbians are certainly not going to forgive and forget a government that routinely has been ignoring B.C. and then trying to impose types of actions that British Columbians have very clearly said they do not want.

There has not been a single Conservative MP from British Columbia who has been willing to stand up and say, “We were wrong to try to impose this on British Columbians”. There has not been a single Conservative MP from British Columbia who has stood up and said, “Now that the referendum is coming, now that British Columbians are saying no to the HST, we apologize for doing this”. It would be great just to have the one B.C. Conservative or Liberal MP stand up and say, “We are sorry we did this to you. We were wrong. We apologize. We should not have brought the HST in. We should not, in this massive budget bill, try to increase the HST. We apologize to British Columbians”.

I await that day when a B.C. Conservative MP or a B.C. Liberal MP will actually stand up and apologize for what they have done.

That is just one of the egregious aspects. The other is the whole issue of gutting the environmental assessment process. What planet are these Conservatives on? We are looking at a disaster of monumental ramifications in the Gulf of Mexico that has not been resolved, and they are saying they want to remove environmental assessment and regulations.

They are suggesting that we just go up to the Arctic Ocean and drill anywhere, with no more environmental process, no more environmental assessment, that we just go anywhere and take any risks. British Columbians and other Canadians profoundly reject Bill C-9 and its dishonest pretensions. That is why, in this corner of the House, we are saying the bill needs to be divided up so we can—

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Lake of the Woods and Rainy River Basins

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for bringing forward this very important motion. It is an excellent initiative, and I will be supporting it. I do have to take a little umbrage when he said, “a riding of unparalleled beauty”. I know he realizes Yukon is the most beautiful riding in the country.

Should the hon. member be fighting against the changes in Bill C-9, which would reduce the environmental assessment rigour? If a project with these relaxed regulations would get through, it could affect Lake of the Woods negatively and no one on any side of the House would want that.

Bill C-9--Notice of time allocation

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance that I rise to advise you that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-9, the jobs and economic growth act.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are expecting this bill to pass before we rise for the summer. Some of the consequences of our not adopting Bill C-9 by the summer are that payments will not be authorized for over $500 million in transfer protection to the provinces. Bill C-9 also authorizes appropriation of $75 million for Genome Canada, $20 million for Pathways to Education Canada to provide support to disadvantaged youth, $10 million for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation and $13.5 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation. These payments and many others cannot be made until Bill C-9 receives royal assent.

Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the said stages.

Bill C-9

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to reiterate how important Bill C-9 is. We had good news just yesterday. The GDP grew by 6.1% in the first quarter. Why is that? It is because this Conservative government put in an economic action plan last year and part two this year. We are trying to get money out to Canadians to save jobs and build new jobs, and the opposition does nothing but stand in the way of that.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives were the opposition, they criticized the Liberals for stealing from the employment insurance fund. With Bill C-9, the Conservatives are getting ready to condone this theft by wiping the slate clean and simply erasing the $57 billion belonging to contributors.

Does the government realize that Bill C-9 condones looting the employment insurance fund, something the Conservatives criticized when they were the opposition?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Yes, with their Liberal allies the Conservatives got it through, Mr. Speaker, but the NDP stood and voted against it.

Last year the Conservatives and their faithful Liberal servants joined forces to scrap Canada's 100-year-old Navigable Waters Protection Act. This year, they are teaming up again and future generations will pay the price because meaningful environmental assessment will be a thing of the past.

Yesterday the Minister of the Environment stated that he was reducing environmental assessment because that is what everyone has been asking for.

If the minister truly believes that Canadians want less environmental protection, why does he not have the courage to remove environmental assessments from Bill C-9, the dumpster bill, and submit it to a vote?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to comment on Bill C-9, a bill that has actually gone through an all party committee of the House that sent it back here for third reading and without amendments.

We have had nearly three months to debate it. There are some very critical pieces in this bill. For example, many provinces have already budgeted for the $500 million in increased transfer payments that they require to balance their budgets.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the C-9 dumpster bill includes provisions on a whole range of subjects that have nothing to do with the budget. Among other things, the Conservatives are proposing to sign off on the theft of $57 billion from the employment insurance fund initiated by the Liberals.

If the government thinks that Canadians agree that it is a good idea to steal employment insurance contributions in order to afford tax cuts for BP and the Royal Bank, then why does it not have the courage to remove this component from Bill C-9 and put it to a separate vote in the House?

Natural Resources--Main Estimates, 2010-11

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Chair, that is false. The National Energy Board has environmental procedures that must be respected. I refer my colleague once again to the Canada Oil and Gas Drilling and Production Regulations, which include many conditions. In the past, the board has conducted environmental assessments that may have overlapped those of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Our Bill C-9 aims to clarify the entire process to make it more user friendly, but more importantly, to better protect the environment. The public will have greater access to any assessments the board conducts.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Chair, at the very least, can the minister tell us whether any Canadian companies are in a position to buy AECL?

My second question is about the minister's commitments concerning isotope supply. We know that Bill C-9 does not provide any supply guarantees whatsoever. People, sick people in particular, are worried.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak to the report stage of Bill C-9, the budget implementation act. This act may more properly be called the Godzilla act because it is a monster act.

The government has taken a budget implementation act and it has thrown in everything but the kitchen sink to make this monstrous, multi-headed act that it is now trying to bring through the House. Fortunately, in this corner of the House we in the NDP do not stand for bullying and we do not stand for these kinds of incredibly dishonest tactics. We are fighting this and bringing forward amendments that will split things off so that we do not have the Godzilla act in front of us.

As members know, Godzilla is a mythical creature in Japanese movies. At least we thought he was mythical until we saw the Prime Minister at work. Godzilla used to run roughshod over people. These report stage amendments address that running roughshod over people. Coupled in Bill C-9 is the removal of $57 billion in employment insurance moneys that are properly owed to the unemployed workers of this country, the Canadians who paid into the fund.

The government is taking out the EI surplus and basically legalizing that theft. One has to wonder what the Conservatives did to replace that. They gave us the HST. In British Columbia, a record number of British Columbians are signing the referendum initiative. That is something that I believe British Columbians and many people in Ontario simply do not accept.

The other thing that Godzilla did was to be very destructive of institutions and buildings. What we see in the Godzilla act of 2010, Bill C-9, are things like Canada Post and the AECL offered up. They are fine Canadian institutions that are being slowly destroyed by the Conservative government. However, the one thing I should say in Godzilla's defence is that he came out of the sea because of the toxic wastes that were being dumped in the ocean. In this case, I think Godzilla was much more environmentally inclined than the government.

In this Godzilla act, Bill C-9, we see environmental assessment being gutted. That is fundamentally important. People around the world are focused on what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico. We have countries moving forward and saying that we have to tighten our environmental policies and the procedures to ensure this kind of thing never happens again.

What do the Conservatives do? They weaken the environmental assessment process, not strengthen it, in reaction to one of the greatest environmental and ecological catastrophes in human history. They are moving to phase out the kind of important environmental assessments that protect our environment and Canadians. It is absolutely ridiculous.

We are bringing these report stage amendments forward because this Godzilla act needs to be pulled apart so that Parliament can vote in an appropriate fashion on each and every aspect of this Conservative hidden plan that it has tried to introduce with this monster legislation.

I know I will be speaking more on this later in the week but I will add that the idea that this HST would be imposed when British Columbians are saying no and up the taxes that are paid under the softwood lumber sellout is particularly reprehensible to British Columbians—

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I will confess that I am not an economist, nor am I an expert in financial matters. However, I do understand, from my own experience and from listening to my constituents, the difficulty that they are facing. All of them are heading toward a structural deficit in their life that they have never seen before.

I would suggest that the government needs to get real about what it is that we are facing. There are some things that it could do. We are inviting the Liberal Party caucus members to join us in challenging the government in away that does not allow it to take advantage of the road we are on.

I believe we do have some vehicles that we could use to manage this debt and deficit and to restructure our economy in Canada that would be way better than what is being proposed in Bill C-9.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to continue to challenge the government regarding its approach to the difficult times we individual families and workers are facing. At the outset, I am alarmed at what seems to be a lack of understanding by the government to what is happening out there, the real challenges we are facing in the economy both nationally and globally.

I suppose it should not surprise me. When the government introduced its action plan back in November of 2008, an action plan that almost brought the House down and might have led to a better, more progressive government holding fort in the country, it did not understand either the depth and breadth of the recession we were in and that it had to deal with, so it brought nothing forward. It prorogued the House, as it has a habit of doing, and then brought forward a plan in January of the following year.

I am surprised that Conservatives have not learned anything. They are not doing as so many other countries are doing, which is looking realistically at what is going on in the economy and in their communities.

Let us look for a second at what is happening in the world. We are now looking at the kind of debt that we have not seen, I would guess, probably for centuries in this world. Every country is struggling with what has happened in the last year and a half, trying to come to terms with it and put in place programs and plans to restructure their economies. They are looking at some pretty significant and frightening levels of debt.

For example, this year Portugal is facing an equivalent of 8.8% of its GDP in debt. For Spain, the figure is 10.4%. In Ireland, the Celtic Tiger many will remember, is looking at a debt of 12.2% of GDP. These are staggering numbers. Yet, because of the global nature of the way the economy works these days and that we have bought into in such a significant way, we are affected and will be affected by this.

If there is in fact, as some economists are predicting, a second dip to this recession, we will be affected. We will have to take action. I wonder, because I do not see it, if Bill C-9 situates us as a country to deal with this very difficult reality. When we put that together with what has happened in our communities and to the families and workers we represent, I would challenge the government to rethink what is before us and the proposals it has put forward.

For example, we are in a time when we should be restructuring and reworking our own domestic economy, not talking about free trade as if nothing happened last year or the year before, as if it is just business as usual. In fact, we should be going back to our communities, going back to that which helped us to become one of the strongest countries in the world and, I would suggest, has situated us to deal with the recession in a more stable and better way than many other jurisdictions have dealt with it.

Believe it or not, some Canadians are running out of EI, if they qualified in the first place. Some of those people are getting work, but it is work at much lower wages, so their standard of living and their ability to look after themselves and their families is in jeopardy. People who have already run out of EI are having to resort to living on welfare.

When the stimulus runs out, as it will in a big hurry, as is indicated in the budget, even the few jobs that now exist, which are paying less than the industrial jobs people had before the recession, will also be gone and we will have more people on unemployment.

I will go back to the point I made earlier. As countries around the world were running up serious debt, many Canadians had no choice but to deal with our very difficult economy. Many are facing the challenges of paying bills, paying rent and feeding their children. Some have gone into debt in a major way. As they have struggled with the difficult challenges, many have maxed out their credit cards and their lines of credit and have used up every bit of credit that is available to them. Now they are at a point where they have to deal with that.

I remember back in the middle of the recession attending a meeting in Sault Ste. Marie. An economist from Export Canada talked about the nature of the recession coming at us. He said that it was like a Tsunami, it would come in waves. He described three of the waves that had already hit, and we all identified with that. However, the wave that concerns me most is the one we are still waiting for, and in some instances it has already hit.

Those folks who have worked hard all their lives and have taken advantage of opportunities in their communities to put bread on the table and earn a decent living have maxed out their credit. Now they will have to default on that. Imagine what will happen when the stimulus money runs out, the jobs it created disappear and the economy still has not recovered and hundreds of thousands of people are unable to find jobs and start to default on their loans and credit. What do we do then? How do we respond to that? How do we help those folks? How do we restructure the financial world institutions that will be impacted in such a major way? It is the backing up of a system that I think we will have a very difficult time managing.

On a global level, countries will find it very difficult to deal with the rising amount of debt, together with much of our industry that is struggling at the moment with massive debt. Individuals and families will no longer be able to deal with the debt they have run up in order to keep body and soul together.

Short of Bill C-9, and I do not see anything in it that indicates any preparedness or even understanding of that reality coming at us, what does the government propose to do when that next wave, that next Tsunami hits, and we find ourselves at the beginning of what some economists have predicted that second dip?

I hope we will hear from the government at some point over the next few days just what its plans are.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, all members of Parliament here in the House of Commons were elected to represent the constituents in their ridings. Representation can and, I believe, should take two forms.

First, we are elected to be the voice of our constituents and represent their interests here in Ottawa. Our constituents write to us, call us and send us emails. They tell us how they feel about certain issues. They chat with us at the farmers' market or at different community events, and they share their perspectives with us.

We have an obligation to take that feedback. We represent our constituents by bringing those perspectives, thoughts and opinions here. It helps guide us in how we vote, what we say in debates, and how we shape the policies of our parties as well as our government.

However, we are also elected to represent ideas and perspectives of our own, to take leadership on issues, to take positions, and to make decisions about the policies facing our country and our citizens. We are elected to take thoughtful and informed positions and even sometimes unpopular positions.

There is a tension here between what the individual constituents are saying and the mandate upon which an MP was elected to move forward. With respect to this budget and this budget speech, I would like to raise thoughts and ideas that come from individual constituents as well as perspectives of my own and perspectives of the NDP. Interestingly enough, the three are very much aligned.

Like many members of Parliament, I solicit feedback from my constituents with mail-back cards that are attached to my MP mail-outs and newsletters. I have a pretty engaged constituency. I am always thrilled to see a stack of cards in my office with feedback that my constituents want to share with me. I would like to share some of their responses with my colleagues here in the House. It is specifically feedback that I received regarding 2010 budget.

Tim Hosford wrote to me. He said, “Megan, we need a law to protect our pensions. As for the economy, we need to continue to put money into it, allocate monies for education and we need a plan for the next 10 years”. A plan sounds like a good idea.

Halifax has the highest density of students of any city in Canada. It is often reflected in comments that I receive in my office. For example, Dustin Joldersma wrote, “University students!!! Make it easier to get student loans, for example, part-time students should be able to get student loans. Also making cuts to foreign aid is not an answer. Government and universities cannot overlook part-time students”.

Another constituent named Burton Coutts wrote that the Prime Minister is “giving us the worst government in my lifetime and I am 87. Recent priorities are return of money to cancelled and reduced women and children's issues, also CIDA and KAIROS, and it appears his cohorts want to cut funding for birth control and abortions here and in countries where women and children are at risk”.

Alan Matte provided great feedback on pharmacare that was pretty straightforward. J. Scott wrote to me and said, “A priority long overdue is better health care. More doctors available for faster and better service. More help to nurses in hospitals, better emergency service--”

M.T. Lynden from my riding has a really great list. It is a pretty big list, starting with free education. The letter continues, “It's important that everyone can access education, regardless of their income. University students often end up with a large debt. Interest should not be charged on their student loans, neither provincially nor federally...and health: dental and medication coverage...for those who don't have a benefits plan”.

That is a little snapshot of the mood of my riding. I am proud to stand here in this great House and share that feedback with my colleagues.

I would like to pick up on the last issue that came through in a couple of letters from my constituents: the issue of health care. As we heard, it is something that my constituents care quite a bit about. We keep hearing from the government about the need to cut spending, the need to trim the fat, and the need to tighten our belts.

However, the government and this budget fail to realize that while spending on health is growing, we can get a handle on health costs if we just turn the corner and start focusing on what Tommy Douglas referred to as phase two of his health care vision. We could actually control and reduce our costs when it comes to health spending.

Tommy Douglas described his original vision for health care. He described Canada as a country “where all can live free from fear, free from crippling debts when we fall ill”. We have seen a lot of that vision implemented since he established medicare in Saskatchewan half a century or so ago, but that vision is eroding due to a lack of leadership, a lack of vision, and neglect. It is time for us to move ahead with a new vision that is suited to our times and that is phase two.

Phase one was universal public insurance for physician and hospital care.

Phase two has two components. First, to extend medicare to cover services that are increasingly delivered outside of a hospital, services that have become an integral part of our modern health care system, such as home care, long-term care, community care, drug therapy, and initiatives that address the social determinants of health. Again, this is about prevention. This is about reducing our costs.

Dennis Raphael, a professor at York University, put out an excellent report on the social determinants of health. The social determinants of health are a better indication of what one's level of health is going to be and how long one will live as compared to the kind of treatment one will get. We could actually save a lot of money by focusing on social determinants of health and things like home care.

The other component of phase two is managing health care better. Let us make better use of health human resources, wait list management, team practice, integration of services, sharing of best practices, evidence-based practice and other innovations.

I am looking forward to the report coming from the health committee about health human resources. The committee heard some amazing testimony about innovative ways to look at exactly how we can manage health care better, how we can make better use of health human resources and save money, and start controlling our health care costs, but perhaps more important, making sure that Canadians are healthy, happy, and doing well in our communities.

I have spoken before in this House about what I see as the failures of this budget, specifically its failure to seize opportunities in the world of science, technology and innovation. The last time I spoke to this bill that was the focus of my speech, particularly in the world of the green economy of the future. This lack of vision carries through the budget. It is not just the failure to grasp science, technology and innovation. It goes right through the budget on all kinds of issues, including health care.

The only vision that I see here is the sell off of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, gutting environmental protection, and killing successful projects like eco-energy renewables. That is quite the vision.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives put together a very well researched alternative federal budget and it has a vision in its alternative budget, a vision for health care, something that is missing from this budget. It says that, “Canada's public health care system is a fundamental pillar of our society, and it must be strengthened, especially in the wake of devastation caused by the economic crisis”. Its alternative budget says, “It's time to launch serious discussions with the provinces and territories to cost share pharmacare between the federal and provincial government and employers--”

The centre proposes a royal commission on the establishment and financing of a public drug plan, and funding the pharmacare of low income Canadians.

It also calls for a restoration of federal cash payments for extended health services, including nursing home intermediate care services, adult residential care services, home care services, and outpatient health care services.

It also talks about working with professional regulatory bodies, health care unions, and immigrant rights organizations to facilitate the recognition of international education.

Its plan calls for funding of post-secondary education in health programs, looking at health human resource strategies, innovative strategies.

This is a real plan. It is an alternative federal budget that actually has a vision for health care. It is a vision that is notably absent from Bill C-9 and it is not a bill that I can support.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to stand to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation act, because it gives me an opportunity to speak about what I think are two very critical issues in the public governance field. The first is the question of sound, appropriate public policy in government. The second issue, which I think is just as important, has to do with two different visions of an economic development model in this country, one from the government and one from the New Democrats. I would like to point out that I think Bill C-9 highlights this very critical difference for Canadians.

I want to start, first, with the question of sound public policy and the question of accountability and sound budgeting practices.

The bill that has been tabled is approximately 880 pages long. It is what is called an omnibus bill. For any Canadians who might be watching right now, that means that the government has taken items that are normally part of a budget and has added to them legislative proposals on a wide variety of other subjects that are not typically part of a budget bill.

I would respectfully suggest to all my colleagues and to all Canadians that this is an inappropriate practice, and there are some solid reasons for that.

First and foremost is one of respecting the democratic process. When a budget is tabled in the House, of course, members of Parliament debate the items in that budget and determine the proper and appropriate economic blueprint for the year ahead, which is what Canadians have sent them to do. That includes raising revenue and spending revenue and other measures that have to do with the running of our country, fiscally and economically. In order to debate that budget properly, we need to have subjects in that budget that lend themselves to that debate.

When a government, such as the one here, throws into that budgetary process items that have no business being in that budget, it cripples the debate, and it causes parliamentarians to have to vote on items that are not budgetary in nature. We cannot then have a proper, full debate on issues that are very important.

In some ways, I think Bill C-9 is a classic example of one of the major problems of the current government, which is that it has a fundamental disrespect for Parliament and a fundamental disrespect for the institutions of government in this country.

Of course, this is not the first time the current government has illustrated this disrespect. It has prorogued Parliament twice when it has found it inappropriate or uncomfortable to debate the issues Canadians send us here to debate. It has used the budget process before to engage in this kind of inappropriate behaviour.

We all remember back in 2008 that the current government used the budgetary process as a political attack--a political attack on the public service, a political attack on pay equity, a political attack on women, and a political attack on political parties--by trying to ram through a budget in the fall of 2008 that was as much an aggressive document of political ideology as it was one of sound budget.

I want to highlight for Canadians a couple of those inappropriate measures in this budget, and there are many. These are some of the more egregious ones.

First, the current government has seen fit to put in provisions that would seriously and significantly impair the environmental assessment process at the federal level in this country. They are in the budget. Now, Canadians might ask what an environmental assessment process has to do with a budget. If Canadians asked that question, they would be asking an astute question that I think exists on this side of the House, which the government does not seem to want to answer.

I want to briefly summarize this environmental assessment process. It exempts certain federally funded infrastructure projects from environmental assessments, period. It pre-empts a review of the environmental review process in June 2010. It allows the Minister of the Environment to dictate the scope of environmental assessments. It weakens public participation. It enables the removal of the assessment of energy projects from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and transfers that jurisdiction to the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Let me repeat that. It takes the review of energy projects away from an environmental assessment tribunal and has the projects reviewed by energy agencies. I think Canadians would find that shocking, particularly because, as we speak, there is an oil well in the Gulf of Mexico that is gushing millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It is creating what will no doubt be a century of environmental degradation and devastation. Why? It is coming out that there were weak regulatory and oversight procedures in the United States. In other words, the fox was in the henhouse.

Canadians, North Americans, and citizens of our world, I would argue, want projects to be analyzed in terms of their environmental sustainability and worth. That is not done by the very agencies whose job it is to try to pass those energy projects. It is a clear conflict of interest.

This budget also includes the privatization of part of the business of Canada Post. One might ask what that has to do with the budget. Why is there any place in this budget for a provision that would send the international mail provision of Canada Post off to the private sector? Again, it is because what the government wants to do is put ideological and political measures into the budgetary process to try to have them passed as a confidence measure. Government members know, as all Canadians know, that the Liberal opposition in this country will pass anything to avoid an election. That is putting narrow political partisan interests ahead of good public policy, and I think it is lamentable.

I want to talk about the budget from a straight budgetary point of view, because there are a lot of bad measures on their own in this budget. For instance, as has been spoken about, $57 billion of EI premiums have been taken from workers and employers in this country—

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 is a travesty of the democratic process in the House. I know I am not supposed to use the term “hypocrisy” when I am speaking of individual members, but I think I am allowed to do that when I am speaking of the government as a whole. This bill really fits that category.

I have stood in the House repeatedly challenging the government to use omnibus crime bills as opposed to, as it is wont to do repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, individual bills on crime, and of course, taking advantage of all the publicity that it gets, which I find quite repulsive, trotting out victims in each one of these areas just so it can have a photo opportunity.

When we look at the number of crime bills we have had and how many of those could have been incorporated into omnibus bills and then referred to the justice committee where they could have had thorough review, investigations and expert witnesses coming in, hearing from the general public on legislation of that kind, it could have done that in a very efficient way as opposed to what we have seen with regard to the numerous bills we have had. We just had another one today. Bill C-30 came through today. Again, it is a classic example where it could be easily combined with a half dozen other bills that are either outstanding or we know are coming from the government.

Instead of having to waste a great deal of time and debate in the House, we could have had reasonable debate and sent it over to the justice committee where it would have been properly investigated and then come back to the House for further debate and either passage or rejection.

We have seen that pattern by the government repeatedly since it first came to office. Then what we have seen, both in last year's budget and even more so in this year's budget, is an attempt on the government's part to justify that, for efficiency purposes, we should have an omnibus bill.

We have heard from any number of other members the number of provisions, and I am going to come back to this, in this bill that really at their essence have nothing to do with budgetary matters and have everything to do with other serious public policy issues that should be given their due attention as opposed to what has happened with the bill.

When we juxtapose those two positions, all of these crime bills coming through not in the form of omnibus bills, which they should be, and then throwing into a budget bill, which is what Bill C-9 should be, all sorts of other public policy issues that should not be there, it is inevitable to see the inconsistency in those two positions, and as I said in my opening remarks, the shameful way that democracy is being thwarted in this type of approach by the government.

Again, it is not the first time it has done it. It certainly did it quite extensively in last year's budget with the budget implementation bill, but it has gone even significantly further in this one.

We may say, if we have had a reasonable amount of debate on it, is it not justified? As we know, in fact it is not. Any number of those other issues that have been injected into Bill C-9, into this budget implementation bill, are not issues that would call for the government to fail should the provisions not go through the House, whereas the budget bill, as we all know, is a matter of confidence and the government does come down if the vote is against it.

We know that the official opposition is running scared from the government and is not prepared to bring the government down on major policy issues. The government is using that to its advantage with the fear that the Liberals have of having to face the electorate. So the Liberals are certainly guilty to a significant degree when we see these types of bills coming through, because they are being intimidated, they are being bullied, and they are succumbing to that intimidation and bullying by the Conservative government. That again is not a healthy democracy to be functioning within.

That process is bad for democracy and it is bad for good public policy, and let me go to that now. A number of these provisions that have been incorporated into Bill C-9 clearly should not be there, should be stand-alone bills.

Let me deal with the environmental assessment provisions that are in here. The provision in Bill C-9 should be a separate bill. It should be in front of the environment committee, where members of that committee are thoroughly knowledgeable of the necessities we have in this country for environmental assessments. Those committee members have thorough knowledge of what is required with regard to environmental assessments at the national level in this country. They have the ability to thoroughly review the legislation to determine whether in fact it is adequate.

As I think everyone in the House knows, we are opposed to the policy position the government has taken in this regard. Moving the assessments out of the environment department into natural resources, providing almost absolute discretion to the minister as to when assessments are to take place, is clearly not good public policy. It stands out in these circumstances with what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico, the concerns we have of the government being quite willing to be overly friendly with the oil and gas industry, willing to bend the rules. We have seen recently, and I am sure this would have gone through but for what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, a request by the oil and gas industry to further loosen the rules generally with regard to exploration, but specifically with regard to exploration and drilling offshore. That request had been made. But for the Gulf of Mexico, I am quite convinced the government would have been prepared to move on it.

If this bill goes through as is, what will happen is that provision will surface at some point in the future. The government again will be receptive to that kind of approach, claims of poverty by the oil and gas industry that they cannot afford to do full assessments, they cannot afford to meet higher standards, and the government will cave in and allow them to do whatever they want to do. That has certainly been the history, whether it is in Alberta in the oil sands or any number of other places across the country where the oil and gas industry has had its way and we have seen the consequences. That is the kind of abuse that this kind of legislation allows for.

With regard to the other provisions, the provision that is always of particular concern, given the community that I come from, is the stripping out of the $57 billion in the fund that was supposed to be there to take care of workers when they were faced with high levels of chronic unemployment. Stripping that out is something that always stands, in a community such as Windsor—Tecumseh where the labour community is very conscious of that having happened, first under the Liberals and now being finalized under the Conservatives. That bill should be a separate bill. That provision should be a separate provision and we should be voting on it separately so that it is very clear as to who is prepared to stand up in this country to protect workers when they are in that difficulty.

The final point I want to make is what is not in the bill, around pensions. Again, in the community I come from, we have taken some major hits on private pensions going down, on the Canada pension and the OAS not being sufficient to take care of people in their retirement. We owe them that obligation. We have set out in very clear form some of the alternatives that could be followed. None of that is in the bill and is another reason that we are adamantly opposed to it.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite amazed that my Conservative colleagues actually got my point, that wrecking the environment should not have anything to do with a budget bill, but that is precisely what they are doing. They are taking the environmental assessment on energy projects, oil and gas, from the environmental assessment agencies. They then give the responsibility over to the industry-friendly National Energy Board, or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Let me explain the connections between the National Energy Board, the oil industry and the government. The National Energy Board does not have the experience necessary to conduct proper public consultations and environmental assessments. In fact, about 90% of the board's total expenditure is recovered from the companies it regulates under the National Energy Board.

That is like asking someone like BP to decide on whether its oil drilling is safe or not. In fact, 90% of the National Energy Board's expenditures come from the companies it is supposed to regulate. How could that possibly be done? The companies cannot be asked to regulate themselves. The government is supposed to regulate the projects that come in front of it.

Not only are six of the board members longtime veterans of the private oil and gas industry, on top of that, the Conservatives have hand-picked 10 out of the 12 members on the board. Sometimes the board only takes written submissions. There are no public hearings or consultations. Who did the board choose to hear from on one of the projects, the same-season relief well policy? It heard mostly from the big oil companies. No wonder, they are funded by them.

Of the 300 staff at the National Energy Board, only a few dozen of them work on environmental issues. They do not have the expertise. They are not designed to do environmental assessment. It is not their job, yet they are now given the responsibility to look at all our energy projects. It will take away the environmental protection role that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is supposed to have. It is set up, under the environment minister, to conduct reviews of projects that may have serious consequences.

When there is an oil leak, whether it is diesel, oil or deep-sea drilling, oil has huge environmental consequences as do nuclear projects. This move is anti-democratic and bad for the environment.

Part of the budget bill has cancelled the eco-energy renewable power program, a project that was quite popular. Now it is gone. After increasing some money for Environment Canada, there will be a $53 million cut.

Also most unacceptable in the bill is the selling of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. That will have serious consequences. Last year's spending on AECL ended up being more than double what was budgeted, raising questions about what the final figure would be this year. Embedding the sale of AECL in the budget bill makes absolutely no sense.

The other element I want to talk about is the whole Canada Post situation. I have met with quite a few of the postal workers in my riding. My riding actually has four postal stations in its vicinity. The workers are extremely worried that their jobs are on the line. The bill would remove Canada Post's monopoly on outgoing international letters, which means that it would earn less, for example, when they needed to deliver mail to rural Canada. Canada Post runs itself like a business and if it loses this monopoly on international letters, it will earn less and other mail service across Canada will suffer.

This proposal is identical to what was proposed in Bill C-14 and Bill C-44. These two bills were defeated in the House. What the government has done is totally undemocratic. It brought back the bill that it was unable to pass and put it into this enormous Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, in all types of areas that have nothing to do with the budget.

We ask all members of Parliament, who are not Conservative, to stand and vote against the bill.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely my point. Environmental assessment has nothing to do with the budget bill. Why is it in Bill C-9? I am glad the parliamentary secretary noticed that environmental assessment really should not have anything to do with the budget. While he—

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this bill.

We call it a bill but it is a Trojan Horse. Buried inside this budget bill are a series of measures that the government could simply not have passed had it not put them in the budget bill.

We have a golden opportunity to open up this Trojan Horse and take out the nefarious legislation that is within it and to move ahead with the consideration of those important proposals but it will require the government to split out these pieces of legislation so we can deal with them separately. I would like to address why that is so important. I think the government should do exactly this.

I would like the leader of the official opposition to behave like a real opposition leader and use his power to prevent the Prime Minister from sneaking major legislative changes through by hiding them in this budget bill. Passing bills on the sly like this is a last-resort strategy for a government trying to make changes that do not have unanimous approval. Knowing that Canadians would not support each of these changes individually, the Conservatives tried to sneak them into its budget bill.

Some of the most disturbing changes in Bill C-9 are those to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act giving the Minister of the Environment the power to determine the scope of environmental assessments and to turn responsibility for reviewing power generation proposals over to the National Energy Board, which has close ties to the business sector. This bill includes a hodge-podge of unrelated elements and looks a lot like American budget bills, which tend to include hundreds of clauses added as a result of political manoeuvring.

Some of the most significant provisions buried in the Prime Minister's budget bill are: authorization to sell Atomic Energy of Canada Limited without any public debate or scrutiny; a measure to privatize Canada Post that takes away the crown corporation's exclusive international remailing privilege; and approval for having cleaned out the employment insurance fund, which had a surplus of $57 billion in contributions from employees and employers over the past 10 years. That was one of the largest thefts in this country's history.

We hope that the Leader of the Opposition will stand up for his convictions and vote against the measures in Bill C-9. It is important that he do so.

I want to speak a little further about some of the key elements that are buried in the budget bill. We can agree or disagree with some of these budget measures, but buried in this bill are projects and initiatives that the government could simply never pass through the House of Commons any other way.

The first that we want to discuss here today is the gutting of our environmental assessment process. The environmental assessment process for major projects including major energy projects is absolutely vital. We do not have to look any further than the crisis that is unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico right now to see why an environmental assessment is so important for major projects.

Yet, what is the government proposing to do? The government is proposing to give to the Minister of the Environment, without any accountability to Parliament, the power to simply waive any environmental assessment requirements and to ask the National Energy Board, for heaven's sake, to conduct the environmental assessment such as it might deem fit.

This is exactly the reverse of what our friends the Americans are doing as they realize when there is one agency responsible for getting approvals that ultimately generate revenue to government, that generate business for business, that are related to energy projects, that it has an exclusive focus and jurisdiction, that what is needed is a separate set of eyes and a separate process to deal with the environmental consequences, dangers and issues that can arise from an environmental project, particularly of a major magnitude.

Why empower the minister to limit environmental assessments at a time when Canadians and our neighbours to the south as well are asking governments to be more vigilant when it comes to environmental assessment, not less? This bill will open up greater risk for our Canadian environment and we could see the same kind of disaster unfolding in Canada on one of our coastlines or even in the Arctic as we are seeing unfold in the United States.

Mark my words, I do not want this to come true. I do not want this to be a prediction of something that is actually going to happen. I want us in this chamber to take responsibility to ensure that it does not happen, that it never happens, and that it could not happen here.

That is why I am calling on my colleagues in the other parties of the opposition to stand up and be counted. In fact, I would call on them to stand up and speak because I notice that even though this is a vitally important bill and even though there have been pronouncements on the part of both of the other opposition parties that they oppose some of these measures like the weakening of our environmental assessment process, we find that they are not willing to stand up and speak.

It is only New Democrats now, according to the list we have before us, who are prepared to keep fighting the bill. I call on my colleagues in the opposition, on the opposition leader, and the leader of Bloc Québécois to ensure that the members of Parliament from those parties are speaking to this issue and are standing up for Canadians when it comes to the environment. It is time for us to do our job.

Furthermore, I call upon them to bring their members to the House when the vote comes and to ensure there are sufficient numbers in the House to defeat this clause so that we can protect environmental assessment in Canada.

Some would say, “Oh, that would mean that it would take us into an election”. An election is not going to happen on top of the G8 and G20. Why not? Because the Prime Minister has already spent $1.2 billion to have these international guests come to ensure he can have his photo opportunity. There is no way that an election is going to happen on top of that.

It is time for the opposition parties to use the leverage and power that we have, and that Canadians sent us here to use in order to ensure that the government is kept under control. Conservatives think the opposition is weak. They think the opposition is unwilling to stand up to them.

Prove them wrong, that is what I say to my colleagues in the opposition. Let us stop the gutting of environmental laws here in Canada.

I could make exactly the same case when it comes to another element of the budget bill. This has to do with the sale of AECL.

AECL is a very important public enterprise. If it were to be debated here, I doubt very much there would be support of this chamber for it to be sold off, especially in tough economic times and without any sense of what would happen, in terms of environmental protection, not to mention the future of the jobs.

It is an obnoxious precedent being set here by the government. I call on the opposition parties to stand up and fight.

It also argues that we should privatize Canada Post. That is the wrong direction to go when we are talking about an essential public service. Taking profitable overseas mail distribution and turning it over to big companies that compete with Canada Post would undermine the ability of our public post service to do the job that Canadians expect it to do, and have expected it to do for many decades. It is a vital corporation.

In closing, I call on my colleagues from the opposition parties to understand that we have a key historic moment here to use the leverage given to us by 62% of Canadians who did not vote for the current government to put a stop to what it is trying to do in this budget bill.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Citizenship and Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, after that very crude, wrong-headed attempt by the Conservatives to shut down yet another debate, I welcome the opportunity to actually raise a question on the issue at hand.

We can hear the reaction from the Conservatives. This is what they do. They take blunt instruments and try to brutally beat people into submission.

On the issue of Bill C-9, it is completely inappropriate what they have done with the monster bill in 24 different areas.

We have the third report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that the member for Trinity—Spadina has brought forward, thankfully. The issue, of course, is the issue of respecting diversity.

We have a government that does not respect diversity. It has cut and slashed all funding for organizations that support the rights of gay Canadians. In every single place, what it has done is slash funding. Now we see the citizenship guide that completely eliminates any reference to the many contributions of gay, lesbian, and transsexual Canadians.

We have people who come to Canada, and that presence, that history, and those immense contributions are simply erased by the government in a very mean-spirited way.

I want to ask the member for Trinity—Spadina if she sees this as a systematic attempt by the government to completely eradicate the contributions made by gay Canadians by eliminating references to gay rights, equal marriage, and the history of gay Canadians. Does the member see this as a strategy that the government employs to try to eliminate that respect for diversity on which Canada was founded?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that ruling. I thought that there should be at least an hour of discussion on this matter before a motion such as that was moved.

I will attempt to answer that question, rhetorical though it is.

It is important that we deal with this citizenship guide. Why? It is because the first batch of the citizenship guide has been printed. There probably will be a reprint of the guide quite soon.

It is such a basic issue of fundamental rights. Right now, in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sexual orientation is included. How is it possible that it is not in our citizenship guide? I think it is a priority. It is important that the House have a comment and issue a position on whether it believes that gay rights should be in the citizenship guide. That is why I raised that as a motion.

To try to answer the question the member has raised, I have no idea why environmental assessment, for example, is in Bill C-9 and whether it pre-empts a review of the environmental review process. Bill C-9, the budget bill, has all sorts of things in it that are not connected with the budget, such as the sale of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. or Canada Post, and so on.

Therefore, we should continue the discussion on this very important issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina for raising a very relevant topic today, but with all due respect, I do not think we want to diminish the importance of this report.

We need to recognize that at hand is Bill C-9, which we were debating, the bill entitled leading the way on jobs and growth. That has seized all the members of the House and should, because there are a number of important issues in that bill that we need to get done immediately. I would suggest that all hon. members would be willing to continue with that hon. member's debate once we get the bill passed through the House.

Therefore, I move that the debate be now adjourned.

Bill C-9

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government buried major policy changes in the budget hoping to ram them through unnoticed with the rest of its agenda.

This American-style approach is bad for democracy and goes against the transparency the government pretends is so important to it.

The Liberals are no better. They are all talk and no action when it comes to opposing Bill C-9.

We are calling upon both parties to do the right thing for Canadians by pulling these sections out of the budget. If the government really believes that these changes have public support, then it can reintroduce them as stand-alone bills if it must.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member talked briefly about Fisheries and Oceans and how a lack of funding is certainly a problem that has existed for quite some time.

I was wondering if he could paint a picture of what was overlooked in this particular budget. We talked about eco-certification and an office therein, but I was wondering if he would also talk about what else should be in it. Since he is the fisheries critic for the New Democratic Party, I was wondering what else he would like to tell us was overlooked in this Bill C-9 budget.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my disappointment with the budget implementation bill.

In this time of economic uncertainty, the government has seen fit to ram through changes to legislation in the budget implementation bill rather than to follow an established democratic process. In our parliamentary democracy, it is customary for government to bring forward changes it wants to make here in the House and then to allow debate for hon. members, the representatives of the people, on their behalf.

The government chose to go another route. It chose to hide substantive policy changes in the implementation of this budget. As members know, this amounts to a kind of democratic blackmail. That is not only undemocratic, it is just plain wrong.

In what has become a disturbing pattern, the government has again, this year, incorporated into its budget implementation bill major changes to environmental safeguards.

Last year's budget bill took a slice out of the federal duty to assess the environmental impact of projects that could have potential impacts on the navigable waters of Canada. It moved to exempt all federal stimulus-funded projects from any assessment previously triggered by waterways impacts and those for which the federal contribution was under $10 million. The beautiful province of British Columbia, my province, has hundreds of rivers, and this change puts them in serious danger.

These are just the sorts of changes Canadians want to see their representatives in this House discuss. That debate is completely eliminated when the government pushes through legislation in the background of a budget implementation bill.

This year's budget bill, however, swings an axe at a crucial environmental law, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The axe cuts deeply. What is most disturbing about the process by which this law is being eviscerated is that Parliament has moved that a review of the law be undertaken this year and that recommendations for reform be made. The review is already slated to come before the parliamentary committee on environment and sustainable development within weeks.

The government has chosen to short-circuit this process. Instead of hearing and considering the views of interested stakeholders and other concerned parties, it has chosen to fast-track the changes through this budget bill.

Bill C-9 transfers reviews of major energy projects from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The effect is the diminishment of public representation. Neither the NEB nor the CNSC are equipped to conduct community consultations, nor do either have previous experience with these sorts of projects.

It also removes from the public clear access to intervenor funds that would allow groups and individuals to make themselves heard, and it lessens the requirements to consider environmental factors when proceeding with a project.

Second, and this is most troubling, the Minister of the Environment will be empowered to narrow the scope of any environmental assessment, which sets a dangerous precedent. This means that at the discretion of the minister, a project can be approved based on an assessment of only part of its overall environmental impact.

In January of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the government failed to follow federal laws by scoping the Red Chris mine in northern B.C. to exclude the mine and the mill in order to avoid a comprehensive assessment and public input. What Bill C-9 therefore means to do is remove from the public any recourse for requiring consultation.

In addition, Bill C-9 removes one of the key triggers for a federal assessment, and that is federal spending. The limit for federal spending that would require an assessment is all but completely removed. Almost all federal stimulus funding projects would be exempted.

The bill will exempt from environmental assessment all projects falling under the building Canada fund, the green infrastructure fund, the recreation infrastructure fund, the border infrastructure fund, the municipal rural infrastructure fund, and many more. Such projects range from transmission lines running thousands of kilometres to road extensions, new bridges, and interchanges.

The New Democrat motion to enable the finance committee to split the bill provides the opportunity to defer study and the vote on the environmental reform measures until the environment committee review has been completed, which is a matter of only a few short months. Regrettably, the government manoeuvred to prevent this constructive solution from proceeding. Addressing long-term environmental or health impacts should not be shunted aside for short-term political gain from fast-tracked project approvals.

Ultimately, it is Canadians who will pay the cost. With these changes, one has to wonder what the future holds for the Enbridge pipeline project. Having just presented the proposal last week, will it be subject to the scrutiny and public consultation that is so needed, or will the minister narrow the scope and allow 225 oil tankers to sail along our coast every year? The people of northern British Columbia want to be consulted, and Bill C-9 effectively silences them.

I know that my time runs short, so let me be brief by saying that the budget still has many shortcomings. It has yet to fund a national transit strategy. In my riding, the Evergreen Line is desperately in need of funds so that it can be completed. In fact, it has not even been built. This is a project that was promised over two decades ago, and we are still waiting for the funds to complete it.

The budget invests over $1 billion in a three-day event instead of putting much-needed police officers on the streets in every Canadian community. There is no money for a real, affordable housing strategy in this country. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans remains underfunded, under-resourced, and understaffed.

I hope that all hon. members will support the motion brought forward by my hon. colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona and will vote these measures out of Bill C-9.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and debate this particular set of amendments to Bill C-9, the budget bill proposed by the Government of Canada. Quite clearly, we have heard the debate about the nature of this bill being the large omnibus type that the government has favoured in order to put forward very radical changes to Canadian society without the proper input of the parliamentary process, the committees and all of the things that could make any of these things more justifiable, if they are justifiable, in the minds of Canadians.

That is exactly what is going on here today. We are trying to achieve some of the things that were set out here in Parliament to accomplish. As our leader of the New Democratic Party has stated in the challenge he has put down to the other opposition parties, this is not likely the time that the government will call the tune and go to a potential election over these issues.

This is a good time to stand up for Canadians to try to make Parliament work, just as we have tried to make Parliament work with the Afghan detainee issue and a number of those types of issues that focused on how the process should be accomplished and how we should work within the House.

Here we are with another one of those issues. How does Parliament work? How should Parliament work in a minority situation?

In a minority situation, major changes to legislation should be available to the opposition parties and the public to understand completely and not be put forward in this very subversive fashion. It subverts the purpose of Parliament and puts it on an incorrect course. That is why we are all standing up here today and that is what we are working on.

I want to spend a little time on my particular subject, which is the question of aviation security. I am the transport critic for our party and, within the transport committee, a major study on aviation security is going on right now which started back in the days of prorogation. In the depths of winter, I organized a forum on aviation security, which the Liberal Party promptly joined into, and it had a great deal of success. It then moved on to looking at the issue within the committee.

Quite clearly, aviation security should be addressed in all its details before any additional charges are put on our aviation industry and then through to the customer. The aviation industry world-wide is under stress. Within Canada, most of the major carriers have had great difficulty and have lost money consistently over many years. This industry is not healthy. It has had to face up to many severe challenges. This industry supports the economics of Canada and of the world to a great degree with the movement of passengers and freight at a rapid pace around the world. When this industry is under stress, the result is very apparent within the economy. We saw that quite clearly with the volcanic ash cloud descending over Europe and the result of that within the economy of Europe. It was very carefully measured.

We saw that as well at Christmastime with the tremendous overreaction to a security incident in the United States that affected hundreds of millions of people in terms of the reuniting of families and all the things that go along with that. When we look at doing things to the aviation industry, we need to be very careful, which is why we are doing a review right now on aviation security. Most of the experts agree that the knee-jerk reaction we have had to aviation security since 9/11 has to be reviewed. It has to be taken into account.

Transport Canada officials have stated that once they put in place aviation security requirements, they have a very difficult time when they are redundant. They cannot get rid of them and what we see are ever-escalating levels of security costs and no particular review.

I have a fine example of that. Since 9/11, we have very secure, locked cockpit doors, which has taken out some of the threats that we might have had before 9/11 without any requirement for aviation security. Therefore, the threat to aviation has changed and yet the security proceedings have not changed.

With this air travellers' security charge in the bill, it would increase the revenue the government is generating from aviation security without addressing the issues of aviation security and the costs. The charge would add a penalty on to Canadian flyers for something that is not appropriate within the system. It would be far more expensive than most other countries in the world and would leave our aviation industry at a disadvantage. This, of course, would take money out of the taxpayers' pockets and put it into the general revenues of the Government of Canada. In many cases this looks to be considerably more than the cost of aviation security in the country as a whole, even though our aviation security system desperately needs the renovation.

The government has talked about reviewing aviation security to get rid of some of the parts that do not work so well, while at the same time raising the air transport service security charge. This was done not to pay for the costs of this service. This was done to raise more revenue for the government. That is pretty clear when we look at this and that is why this needs further review. Just as the government wants to review aviation security and just as the transport committee is engaged in a study on aviation security right now, we need to do that work before we put extra charges on our already ailing aviation industry. This has been said over and over again.

What we have here is a crass attempt to hide a tax somewhere in the system to add more revenue to the government that does not want to stand up and admit that over the course of the next five years it will have to raise more revenue for government in order to deal with the massive deficit. This is hypocritical and, in real terms to our industry, is rather stupid. What we have is a stupid, hypocritical action here with the air travellers' security charge.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech and especially the spirit of his speech about how much is contained within this bill that it is almost like so much is being brought in under the cover of night. This stealth way of doing it is essentially irresponsible for any legislature to turn its back on this.

I would like to ask the member a question about some of the issues. He mentioned EI and talked about many other issues, but Canada Post will also be a major issue with remailers.

I commend the member for the comments he made that these bills standing alone would give it a fulsome debate in the House. Whether it is a minority or not, it does not matter. What matters is that each would receive a full hearing by all members of the House duly elected by their constituents.

In this particular situation, I will give one prime example that I feel is very important and that is the issue of telecoms. The bill would amend the Telecommunications Act to allow foreign satellite carriers to be considered a common carrier. That is an amazing policy shift that is contained within Bill C-9. It should be a stand alone bill.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has comments about that particular issue and others that he may have missed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South touched on a number of areas in Bill C-9 where the government is improperly bringing initiatives through the door of this omnibus bill.

I want to go back to the area of security charges. We know that in the United States the international air security charge is $5. In Canada, the international air security charge ranges as high as $25. That is a huge variation. I think Canadians could understand that if the tax money were being used for safety issues it may be justified. However, we know that the revenues collected far exceed the money spent on security.

What is the government using the money for and why did it increase this tax 50%? That is a huge increase at a time when the government says that it is reducing taxes on Canadians. It is doing the opposite.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-9. It is a budget implementation bill and it is a very extensive bill.

It has some interesting aspects to it that have created even more problems than simply the fact that the Conservatives are projecting, in the budget, in excess of a $50 billion surplus.

Bill C-9 is an omnibus bill. Canadians should know that an omnibus bill is one which does many things all in the same package. Normally we would see those in terms of justice legislation, where there are three or four proposed changes to the Criminal Code. They are all changes that have to do with one existing piece of legislation, but relate to different aspects of it.

In this particular case, we have an omnibus bill that does not deal with one other act of Parliament. It in fact deals with a number of acts. It is quite unusual. Theoretically, a government, after winning an election, could walk in here, table a budget which not only laid out the budgetary measures for the session, but it could also put into that budget implementation bill every other promise it had made in an election whether it related to the budget or not.

That is exactly what has happened here. We have a case now where inside the budget implementation bill, Bill C-9, and there is a big debate among parliamentarians and Canadians at large who follow this, there are initiatives which were never mentioned in the budget speech, were not in the budget itself, and which are substantive changes to existing legislation.

They include the privatization of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL. My home backs onto their offices in the Sheridan research centre. A lot of my constituents are engineers and work there. This is causing great grief.

When I went to the briefing on Bill C-9 with the ministerial staff and had an opportunity to ask some questions about this, they were not very many answers, just “We are doing this, this and this”. The policy rationale was never there.

People are asking why we want to privatize AECL and get into public-private arrangements? They want to know if it is going to do something to the integrity of the R and D of AECL, whatever remains. They want to know what it is going to do to the whole model. This problem of AECL has been with us for a long time. This decision of the government to go forward with these discussions has caused great difficulty.

If we had a bill that came forward that called for the privatization of certain aspects and parts of a division of AECL, there would have been substantial debates in this House. There would have been substantial expert witnesses called to comment on the proposal in that bill. There would have been rigorous due diligence done with regard to virtually every aspect of the bill.

When we take a subject matter like that and put it into a budget implementation bill, it is that one big, large omnibus budget implementation bill that is being debated in the House, and reviewed and studied in committee.

It goes to the finance committee. I know the members on the committee. They are excellent colleagues. However, I do not think that they have the expertise in the area of atomic energy. I do not know how they could possibly discuss it. In fact, the people who were coming before committee to talk about it only had a couple of hours to make their case.

If it were a stand-alone bill, it would have had probably a dozen hours or so at second reading. It would have had substantive committee witnesses. It would have had third reading. It would have gone to the Senate. The rigour with which we handle legislation here is very significant, but that has been denied to that aspect.

That is not the only one. There are significant changes to the Environmental Protection Act. There are significant changes which would say that we will have a situation where we can waive the requirement for environmental assessments on major projects if there are certain circumstances in place, like time, where we have to have something done quickly. I remember asking questions of one of the hon. members about putting economic priorities ahead of environmental priorities, and the member quite correctly said we have to look at both. Good environmental policy is good economic policy. The reverse is also true.

We have a significant challenge before us in terms of greenhouse gases, climate change, and preparing ourselves to do our share to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our country, but when we start playing around with the Environmental Assessment Act, all of a sudden that seems to fly in the face of social and public responsibility. Canadians have already very clearly said how they feel about us doing our share, and after the government embarrassed Canadians at Copenhagen, it is no wonder they are concerned about things like this.

Members have also mentioned the airline tax. The EI fund also, when I was at the briefing with the officials, was just glossed over. I asked the question of the officials there about how it would operate. I did ascertain that there was to be some $2 billion put in as seed money for the administrative part, but that this new separate agency was to be responsible for the operations of employment insurance in Canada. All of the premiums collected from today's workers would go into the fund, and all of the benefits would come out.

Here we are in severe economic difficulty with record unemployment, and it will even rise. It will rise even greater than it is today. We have been operating at a deficit. There has been a deficit there. When I spoke to the Auditor General last, she assured me that the operations of this stand-alone agency will be accounted for in the determination of surplus or deficit of the Government of Canada in terms of its operations of the program, notwithstanding that it is a separate bank account again out there.

I think what annoys all of the opposition parties is the notional surplus, the $57 billion of premiums that were collected in excess of benefits required to be paid out, which were built up over a dozen years of surpluses because Canada's economy was booming, and the lowest unemployment in our history had been achieved. That $57 billion represents a liability to Canadians. It represents a matter of either return the premiums to those who paid them or improve programs that would then be affordable.

The government did neither of them, despite all of the interventions and all of the initiatives of members of Parliament. The Conservatives have summarily said it will disappear. It is basically another indication that the government has refused to be open, transparent, and accountable to Canadians on yet another area of significant public interest.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right that there have been a large number of private members' initiatives. We know they require royal recommendations and we also know that the Conservative government would certainly not grant them. This reflects the mood of the House, which is extremely important, because the mood of the House reflects the mood of the people.

We have not had a recession since 1993, and no one predicted that, even when the U.S. went into recession. Under the rules of the game, the EI fund was to withhold two years of surplus to pay for a recession and the balance was to be returned by reduced premiums or improved programs, and I think everybody understands that. The real key now is that the obligation to do that will be eliminated by Bill C-9 because that liability will be summarily taken away. The cash will continue to flow whether there is a surplus or a deficit in EI operations, but that liability will be wiped off the books.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I do not know whether it is as distracting to you, Mr. Speaker, but I am bothered by people talking in the House.

I will use the example of employment insurance. Since I arrived in the House six years ago, the name of the employment insurance fund has changed four times. When the name is changed so many times, it is because, like anyone who wants to misuse and take funds that do not belong to them, the government is trying to use subterfuge to justify taking this money. Over the last 14 years, a surplus of more than $57 billion has accumulated and been misappropriated from the employment insurance fund. Only employees and employers contribute to this fund, and the surplus that accumulated was misappropriated through cuts to employment insurance benefits. The precise amount taken was $57,170,000,356.

When the Conservative budget was passed in 2008, just two years ago, the name of the employment insurance fund was changed and the Employment Insurance Financing Board was created. That was the third time the name has been changed in order to give this power to the administrators and to be able to continue quietly dipping into the EI fund, to create a separate fund, we were told. A separate fund was not created and it continued accumulating surpluses to be used for other purposes. In this year's budget—and as Bill C-9 is now proposing—this separate fund will henceforth be called the employment insurance account and it will be a separate management account, we are told.

This is when we, as parliamentarians, must intervene. We cannot condone such a thing because, for one thing, that money is not the government's to use for anything other than EI benefits.

For another thing, this constitutes an economic crime that affects the people who need this money, which belongs to them, that is, workers and their employers.

This time, we would have expected the government to present measures to restore the employment insurance system. Not only did it fail to do that, but it is creating the new EI fund. It is thus making sure that it will continue accumulating surpluses so that between 2012 and 2015, another $19 billion will be plundered and used for other purposes.

How could this money be used? Obviously, it could be used to make sure that people who lose their jobs can receive benefits. Some 56% of people who lose their jobs cannot receive employment insurance benefits. The government has made the eligibility requirements so strict that most unemployed workers do not qualify.

We have introduced Bill C-308, standing in my name, which if passed would mean that people applying for employment insurance are presumed to be acting in good faith. Right now the government requires those applying for EI to prove their good faith, which is absolutely reprehensible. When a person loses their job it is an undeniable fact. We also know whether the person has accumulated enough hours. Nevertheless, all sorts of measures are used to prevent people from getting employment insurance.

We want the qualifying period to be 360 hours for everyone and the rate of weekly benefits to be increased to 60% from the current 55%, for an improvement of 5%. It is not a lot, but for people who are receiving very little, it is something.

The measure raising the number of weeks of benefits to 50 should be made permanent. Just a little over a year ago, the government set the number of weeks of benefits at 50 weeks instead of 45, but that measure comes to an end in the fall. It will have to become permanent.

The most appropriate measure would be to have a comprehensive plan to return the money removed. The $57 billion that was taken from the employment insurance fund should be put back. With that money and almost no increase in contributions we could improve employment insurance benefits for workers who have the misfortune of losing their job.

Not only is the government not planning to return the money it removed, but it is planning to continue misappropriating money from the fund. I am calling on my colleagues, whom I believe to be sincere when they make the same arguments we do, the opposition colleagues in particular, to be in the House, when the time comes to vote on Bill C-9, and put their money where their mouth is by voting against the bill.

Of course, there is one party that says we need not go to an election over this. But when should we go to an election? When measures do not help people then we should go to an election in order to have a debate over what is good for the people. They should quit hiding their heads in the sand.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

This bill is not palatable because it seeks to introduce in an extraordinary way a number of measures that the government wishes to avoid submitting for debate in the House of Commons. Look at the number of measures included in Bill C-9. It touches on 42 different budget items. These measures truly seek to make significant changes in a large number of areas and should be debated.

The bill touches on relations with other countries, tax issues, relations with various organizations, seniors' issues, and so forth. It touches on everything, and in a way that I would say is undemocratic. This is probably the most undemocratic bill I have ever seen in the House, because it seeks to introduce measures that are unacceptable to the public and the groups targeted. I will focus on one of those groups: people who have the misfortune of losing their jobs.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments with regard to the EI fund.

It is concerning, but I think the member may have misspoken. In fact, it was during the Brian Mulroney years that the Auditor General told the government that since the EI program was operating at a deficit, that deficit had to be included in the consolidated revenue fund on an annual basis so that it was reflecting the program performance of the entire government. It used to be a separate bank account, and then it was rolled in.

That means that when the Liberals took over in 1993 and eliminated the $42 billion deficit that was passed over, 10 years of surpluses started.

The point is that the change was made was at a time when there were deficits. When there were surpluses, we had EI premiums going down each and every year.

However, this year, under Bill C-9, the government in fact is eliminating the liability to employers and employees that they are entitled to, either by premium reductions or by improvement in programs.

I just thought the member would be interested in knowing a bit of the factual history.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, the NDP, for a long period of time, has been calling upon the government to turn away from its agenda of tax breaks for the big corporations. In the throne speech, in the budget and now in Bill C-9, the government had choices to make and these choices should have been to favour the needs of Canadians. I believe the government had the option to stop the reckless de-funding of the government by way of corporate tax breaks that have taken away the fiscal capacity of the government.

On two occasions, the NDP has provided motions to the House concerning the needs of seniors and in Bill C-9 we do not see a response to either one of those bills. Our motions during the last Parliament set out the original seniors charter that recognized older Canadians are not only creative and active, but they are valued members of our society. The seniors charter would have enshrined the right of every senior in Canada to income security, accessible and affordable housing, wellness through health promotion and preventive care, health care through secure and publicly accessible health care, dental care, home care, palliative care, geriatric care and, of course, pharmacare. All of those things were laid out in the charter more than two years ago, again, a road map for the government as it moved forward and made plans for the future of seniors in this country.

In June of last year we set out another road map for the retirement security of seniors. It proposed an immediate increase of $700 million to GIS to help those seniors who live below the low income cutoff. They seem like nice words, “low income cutoff”, but those are seniors who live in poverty and there is no other word for it.

We also proposed a doubling of the CPP because today in Canada 63% of working Canadians have no pension and no savings and we must prepare them for the future. Doubling CPP over the next 40 years would ensure they have dignity in their retirement years. We also proposed in the same motion a national pension insurance plan paid for by the sponsors. Our motion was adopted unanimously by the House, so we were encouraged that perhaps the government was about to respond and give real consideration to the future of our seniors.

The government could have chosen to follow the will of Parliament on these two motions but what did it do? It chose the banks and the big oil and gas companies over the seniors of this country.

Throughout the winter of 2008-09, our party looked at the situation of pensions and we held round tables. As members have heard me report to the House before, as the critic for the NDP for seniors and pensions, I travelled to 31 communities asking seniors what they needed. They all took us back to the same discussion that we have been having about retirement income security.

Through the member for Outremont, we moved a motion to have the finance committee do studies on the pensions of Canadians and we have had people from all walks of life come before us.

My point is that, as a party, we have been out there for over a year on pensions and doing the due diligence that is important to this issue. However, as I said a moment ago, with Bill C-9, the government has confirmed its support for the tax breaks for the big corporations and the banks. It has taken $15 billion a year out of the fiscal capacity of the government to do those things that Canadians want done.

While the NDP has been saying that we should stop corporate tax breaks, I find it ironic that members of the Liberal Party rise in this House and talk about stopping these corporate tax breaks when they promoted them for years. This deathbed conversion happened following their conference in Montreal in February. Literally for years the leader of the NDP, the member for Toronto—Danforth, has been calling for the cessation of these particular tax breaks.

Many people in my riding of Hamilton East--Stoney Creek have raised concerns with me regarding Bill C-9 when they hear how broad, comprehensive and how large it is and the things contained in it. They wonder what it is all about, why it is such an omnibus bill and why it is necessary.

I know it sounds strange to some people to think that the NDP actually has conversations with the good folks in the financial services sector but we certainly do and they are really concerned about the sudden proposition that GST will be retroactive on commissions paid for their financial services. They are concerned about what it will do to the costs in their particular sector.

Hamilton is well known across this country as a working town with a lot of good, strong, healthy unions and a lot of working people who have contributed to the EI fund all of their working lives and have had the good fortune of never having had to use it. These people have heard the stories of how under the Liberal administration $57 billion went into the black hole of the budget and was paid down on the debt. They were counting on the Conservative government to do something about that. What happened in Bill C-9 just confirms the government's abuse of trust that took place under the Liberal government.

There is a grave sense in Hamilton East--Stoney Creek that the Conservative government is reckless when they hear about the astounding $1 billion for the G8 and G20 conferences. Our riding is a very diverse community and people are well aware of the number of new Canadians who are in this country. Good Muslims and good Sikhs are their neighbours and they do not fear these people. Is it fear that has driven the government to take hundreds of times the cost of other countries for this, and there is no other word for it, boondoggle? Security will amount to $1 billion. I note that there has been conversation about the Auditor General taking a look at these expenses. I would suggest that they be looked at before the money is spent.

The good citizens of Hamilton East--Stoney Creek lived through the Mike Harris years of government. They are starting to look upon the federal government as a Mike Harris-style government that is prepared to sell off anything and everything. Members may recall that the Mike Harris government in Ontario sold off the ETR Highway 407. We just need to look at the value that highway could have offered the government financially during this time.

Canadians are concerned about the potential sell-off of Atomic Energy of Canada, which the Conservatives seem prepared to sell-off for a quick buck.

I want to mention something significant, which I have said in this House before. Writer, Kris Kristofferson, said in one of his songs, The Law is for Protection of the People. Bill C-9 proposes to remove environmental assessments and proposes to give the scope of the assessments to the minister. Even if we are satisfied with the minister who is in the House today, we do not know who future ministers will be so we do not know what their competency will be in this area. The government is prepared to give up Canada Post's right on outgoing letters. What will be next within Canada Post or within the CBC? What else will come up for sale?

The Canadian people trust their government to protect their interests. I would suggest to all parties in this House that this is the time to take those items out of this bill that are problematic, items such as those that deal with the environment, AECL and others, and deal with them separately.

The House resumed from May 27, consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canada Post Corporation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise to support Bill C-509. I want to congratulate the member for sticking with it, so to speak, having introduced this bill evidently three times over four and a half years. I have known the member for Brandon—Souris now for quite a number of years. He is certainly a very hard worker and is looking out for the interests of his constituents in this case.

I see an interesting opportunity here for us to simply let this bill go to committee at the end of the first hour. I personally see no reason why we would want to use up House time for a second hour of debate on this particular bill when we are all in agreement. We are 100% in agreement on what he is trying to accomplish here.

I also find a slight contradiction, perhaps, in the member's party. On the one hand, the member is presenting a bill supporting a continued reduction in a subsidy for the delivery of library books, but on the other hand, his government is supporting hiving off remailers to the private sector and doing it through the budget implementation bill, Bill C-9.

I know there are people in his caucus who have an ideological problem with this because they would see a role here for the private sector. This would be a prime opportunity to have the private sector do private deliveries of library books. I am sure that there is a huge divergence of opinion in his caucus about this. We happen to align ourselves with him against the neanderthals in his caucus who would want to privatize this service, assuming that they are there. I am assuming that the argument has been made or would be made in that caucus.

Having said that, we are 100% behind him in his efforts to make certain that we stop the decline in rural areas, the decline in the north and the decline in the inner cities because of closures of not only bank branches, which have certainly happened over the last number of years, but certainly libraries as well. The member knows that, in the city of Winnipeg, we have had the closure of some branches in the poorer areas of our city, which has caused a huge public backlash.

People have organized and tried to stop the closure of the libraries. There has been a move toward large recreation centres in urban environments and then perhaps in rural environments as well. When there is a move to these larger centres, then there is a closing of the smaller centres. That disadvantages poorer people because the richer people can afford to get in the car and drive to the recreation centre in the next town or a few blocks down, or they can afford to drive to the library in the next town or suburb.

However, if one is living on a fixed income or social assistance and does not have a car to get around, then basically one is disenfranchised from the recreation centres or library facilities. That is not something we want to do. We want to try to reverse that. This has been an ongoing problem for the last 20, 30 or 40 years. Provincial governments have been trying to deal with it to keep people in the small towns, on the land, in the rural areas, and in the north.

I see this as just another battle that we have to engage in to stop or slow down the closure of small facilities and the driving out of business of these small libraries.

I have a question about the costs and the member knows that.

The member has mentioned that the Ottawa Regional Library would perhaps save $70,000 per year on its mailing costs. He has also indicated that currently it is paying a factor of say $3 and the new rate, if Canada Post had its way, would be to jump it to $12. It would be multiplied by a factor of four, and I think the member would agree with that calculation.

If we take the Ottawa Regional Library, we would be looking at an increase of $70,000. If we multiply that for the 2,000 libraries across the country, we are talking about a huge increase. Perhaps the Ottawa Regional Library can come up with the difference, but the small libraries in the small towns across the country will be unable to do that.

What the member has proposed is something with which we can all agree. However, it is a much bigger picture that he is addressing. This goes far beyond the whole issue of subsidizing the transfer of library books back and forth from the libraries to the people who use the books.

The library book rate is a Canada Post service has been around since 1939, as the member indicated. It has provided a reduced rate for mailing library books between libraries and from libraries to their users. Canada Post recently has announced that the current library book rates will remain unchanged to 2010.

What we are seeing is the libraries are going one year at a time, so the member is left hanging not knowing what is going to happen. This system has worked well since 1939. The issue is if “it ain't broke, why fix it?” What is to fix? I am amazed the member cannot get the financial information that he needs.

Canada Post is not privatized yet. Surely, there is a way to get some freedom of information from it to determine just how big the numbers are. However, after four years, he still has to surmise as to what sort of effect this will have on each and every library, which is why he has said that the cost for the Ottawa Regional Library is plus $70,000 a year. However, he really does not know what the total effect will be. It may be even worse than what he thinks.

We are talking about over 2,000 libraries actively using the library book rate and over one million Canadians benefiting from it annually. It is an indispensable part of the service delivered by Canada's not-for-profit academic school and special libraries.

The library book rate is not a government program and it is not currently financially supported by the federal government. The members of the library community in all constituencies continue to be concerned about its sustainability.

Given that Canada Post is a crown corporation with a mandate to generate a dividend for its shareholder, which is the government, the rate contributes to the public policy goals of literacy, lifelong learning and inclusion of vibrant rural and remote communities.

This is where we get into the intangibles. We start looking at parallels like the closure of the prison farms. The government is looking at it as a dollars and cents question, but not looking at the total effect of the prisoner getting up at 6 a.m., milking cows and communicating with nature and with the animals and taking care of the animals.

The government takes that out of the equation, as with this. It takes the fact out of the equation, that this is a much bigger issue than just dollars and cents. It is the effect that we have when people cannot get library books, when people have disabilities, visual impairments and cannot get facilities from their library. The member has also expanded this list to include DVDs and other things.

This is a good bill and we support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-509, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (library materials), introduced by my colleague from Brandon—Souris, particularly since this is an emergency.

There is a persistent rumour going around inter-library loan networks, including the network in Quebec, that Canada Post is planning to increase its rates. Canada Post operates as a business and has problems of its own. Bill C-9 would take away its exclusive international remailing privilege, so Canada Post will likely face revenue losses. The Conservative government chose to adopt this strategy. It chose to take away Canada Post's exclusive remailing privilege. It was a political choice, but public libraries should not have to pay the price.

I believe my Conservative colleague from Brandon—Souris has a good grasp of the situation. He is very keen on this bill. Earlier, I suggested that he try to have it passed at report stage. I know he wants the committee to look at the bill, discuss it and have Canada Post come and explain where it will get the money. That is why I suggested we pass the bill quickly.

If Canada Post has revenue problems, it should discuss them directly with the government. It is not this service that is depriving Canada Post of revenue, because the corporation already offers reduced rates for inter-library loans and for individuals who also want to provide this service. This service is already in place, so it cannot cause a loss of revenue. The reduced rate has been in place for decades. The cause of Canada Post's revenue losses lies elsewhere. I do not want the committee to focus on Canada Post's lost revenue and kill a bill that is urgently needed.

Sometimes, we discuss things that can divide us. Some governments choose to govern that way. But a bill like the one before us is not divisive. I have not heard the NDP critics, but I am sure they will support this measure. It needs to be passed very quickly.

As our Conservative colleague from Brandon—Souris said, he has been working on this for over four years. He is introducing his bill for the third time. I hope the third time is the charm. I can offer him the Bloc Québécois' support to pass the bill at all stages. He can talk about this with his House leader in order to avoid a debate with Canada Post Corporation, which currently has problems with some of the government's other policies. I would not want this measure to be jeopardized.

I know the president of Quebec's library network quite well because she is also president of the Outaouais library network. She is the mayor of Plaisance in my riding. She is the reeve of the RCM of Papineau. I had the opportunity to talk to her about this possibility of increased transportation costs. These organizations are often run by volunteers. This is a highly important issue. They prepare an annual budget and every year she talks to me to find out what is going on with Canada Post. It is hard to give her an answer because Canada Post is a crown corporation that manages its operations independently. This corporation is governed by federal legislation. If we order it, through this bill, to maintain the current rate, it would be required to do so. I believe this is the right approach.

The hon. members will have gathered that we will be supporting wholeheartedly Bill C-509 which is before us, first because it maintains the current reduced-rate service, and second because this rate would apply to all audiovisual materials in the future.

My colleague from Brandon—Souris is a visionary. New technologies have been developed, and the public should have more and more opportunities to use them. Having the reduced rate apply to audiovisual materials would be a good way to encourage communities.

The member for Brandon—Souris talked about the significant savings that could be made by the Ottawa Library. That is right, and that goes to show the magnitude of the problem. I have heard a $75,000 figure mentioned; that is a lot of money.

Just think of the thousands of dollars that small communities could save. Public libraries in our communities in Quebec and Canada are often run by volunteers who manage funds received from generous donors.

Municipalities contribute to the network as best they can within their means. Money does not grow on trees. I believe that this bill will have an impact on all regions of Quebec and Canada. It does not matter how thick the bill is. A bill can be quite modest in length, but that does not mean that it will have a modest impact on communities.

Bill C-509 provides for a reduced postage rate for all library materials from books to audio-visual material. This is critical to the development—perhaps even to the survival—of all communities.

At the very least, libraries have to be able to offer a borrowing service for people who often do not have the means to buy these materials themselves. This is a good way to encourage parents, children and seniors to read.

This is an excellent social measure, and I would like to congratulate my Conservative colleague once again for having introduced it. I can assure him of the Bloc Québécois' support because all Quebec communities need this kind of justifiable measure.

I give him our support so that this bill will pass at all report stages because we do not want it to disappear should an election, prorogation or something else happen. Once again, we will support Bill C-509.

Opposition Motion--Oil and Gas Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely right. With the changes in Bill C-9, Canada is trying to achieve some harmony with the United States. The decision was made that an energy board would assess drilling projects of this kind. However, the U.S. experience has shown that this was a mistake.

Transferring the environmental assessment process for oil projects from the environmental field to the energy field might open the door to favouritism. The thing to do, therefore, is to backtrack and ensure that oil projects are not assessed by the National Energy Board, but instead by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which will be able to carry out studies and assessments in cooperation with the provinces.

As we suggested even before disaster struck on April 20, the proposed changes to transfer that responsibility to the National Energy Board are a serious mistake. That board should be off limits to oil companies, especially where applications for drilling permits are concerned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this opposition day debate on a topic I feel is important. It is important to discuss this issue, because it is a terrible ecological disaster. The motion is very timely, and calls on parliamentarians to make a commitment about projects that could be carried out here, in the Beaufort Sea or in the waters off the coast of Greenland.

I will read the motion:

That this House notes the horror with which Canadians observe the ecological disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico and their call for action to prevent such an event in Canada, and therefore calls on the government immediately to conduct a thorough review and revision of all relevant federal laws, regulations and policies regarding the development of unconventional sources of oil and gas, including oil sands, deepwater oil and gas recovery, and shale gas, through a transparent process and the broadest possible consultation with all interested stakeholders to ensure Canada has the strongest environmental and safety rules in the world, and to report to the House for appropriate action.

This lengthy motion is important because it is to some extent the result of the incident that happened on April 20, 2010, in the Gulf of Mexico. The Deepwater Horizon oil platform exploded, causing an environmental disaster. According to the company, some 800,000 litres of oil are spilling into the gulf every day. That is a lot of oil. That is the company's estimate, although according to certain American government teams that have been assessing the situation, it could be nearly twice that amount. This ecological disaster is even worse than the infamous Exxon Valdez spill in the north.

This disaster, which is already affecting many ecosystems in the United States, will have very serious environmental impacts on wetlands. That is one appalling aspect of this incident, along with the economic repercussions. That is what people are now realizing. Despite everything, this ecological disaster does serve to raise awareness.

There are moratoriums on fishing, market losses and considerable revenue losses affecting fishers, along with all the ensuing human tragedies. We realize that an ecological disaster not only leads to the loss of ecosystems, the pollution of certain wetlands and the loss or endangerment of certain species, but it also causes economic losses. Today we need to demonstrate that an ecological disaster can also deal a serious economic blow. Fishers in Louisiana are beginning to realize the scope of the disaster.

On this side of the border, no one predicted this disaster. The government has been weakening environmental standards for the past five years. It is easy for the official opposition to accuse the Conservative government of being too lenient and authorizing exploratory drilling.

The truth is that the previous government, the Liberal government, was the first to weaken environmental standards. On March 26, 2005, without having held a public debate on the issue, the environment minister at the time, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, published a regulatory amendment in the Canada Gazette that some considered to be cosmetic and unimportant. His amendment sought to change the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act so that exploratory offshore drilling projects could get away with a screening type assessment and would no longer be required to undergo a comprehensive study. The purpose of the amendment was to remove exploratory drilling projects from the consultation process, thereby denying all stakeholders the opportunity to comment.

The Bloc Québécois reacted because we are in touch with the people. We toured all regions of Quebec in 2005, especially those along the St. Lawrence. We eventually got to the Îles de la Madeleine, where groups told us about the federal government's proposed regulatory amendment to make environmental assessment regulations more lenient.

The people of Îles de la Madeleine told us to take a close look at the regulatory amendment because it would have posed a danger to them. They asked us to intervene. We met with groups such as Attention Fragiles and the Îles de la Madeleine preservation society. They asked us to intervene.

On April 25, 2005, we wrote to the Minister of the Environment to say that “the purpose of this proposed regulatory amendment is to change the type of environmental assessment of the first exploratory drilling project in an offshore area”.

We told the then-minister that he “knew that exploratory drilling projects were being planned for the Gulf. If the regulatory amendment passes, sites like Old Harry, Cape Ray and others off the coast of Nova Scotia identified for exploratory drilling would be subject to a screening type assessment instead of a comprehensive study”.

We reminded him that “the renewable resources in that area were critical to the tourism and fishing economy in the Gaspé and Îles de la Madeleine region”. We intervened.

What did the environment department say in a statement attached to the proposed regulation change? Here is what it said: “—the environmental effects of offshore exploratory drilling are, in general, minor, localized, short in duration and reversible”.

That was the department's reasoning for its regulatory changes. It said that the environmental effects of offshore exploratory drilling were, in general, minor, localized, short in duration and reversible.

But that is not what we have been seeing lately, and it is not true of the April 20 catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Liberal Party made the first wave of changes that weakened the environmental assessment regulatory regime. The Conservatives picked up where the Liberals left off and, in a more wide-ranging bill, also changed the environmental assessment rules, so that future oil projects would not come under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, but the National Energy Board. That is another big mistake by the federal government: shifting responsibility for environmental assessments from government institutions whose mission is to protect the environment to organizations with an economic focus that serve the oil industry.

We criticized this decision by the government long before the April 20 catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. We still believe that the environmental impact of drilling projects should be assessed by the people whose job it is to protect the environment, not the people who are responsible for increasing oil production. That is how the federal government thinks.

There are three threats on the horizon. I will identify three types of projects. The first is a drilling project in Newfoundland that got under way a few weeks ago, 430 kilometres from St. John's. The goal is to drill 2,600 kilometres below sea level, which is a kilometre further than the project in the Gulf of Mexico where the catastrophe occurred on April 20.

In other words, because of the Liberal government's changes, this exploratory drilling in Newfoundland was not subject to a thorough assessment, but a simple screening. If the regulatory amendment had not been made in 2005, this project in Newfoundland would have been subject to a thorough assessment and public consultations where stakeholders, scientists and people concerned about the environment could have proposed a number of risk scenarios with regard to the exploratory drilling. Because of the Liberal changes, this project in Newfoundland was not subject to a thorough assessment. That is the first risk.

Last week, when officials appeared before the parliamentary committee we asked them a number of questions. Oil drilling occurs in Canada, including in Orphan Basin. We asked the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board what the timeframe would be in the event of an accident like the one on April 20 in the Gulf of Mexico. What would be the monitoring plan? What would they do? What could we expect? The board's spokesperson, Sean Kelly, told us that a platform would have to be sent from the Gulf of Mexico to be able to drill a relief well at such depths and that it would take at least 11 days for the platform to arrive. According to another analyst, it would take four to five months to drill a relief well. We know what that means. Someone decides to drill at 2,600 km below sea level, which is deeper than the oil well in the Gulf of Mexico and if there were a similar accident, a platform would have to come from the Gulf of Mexico. It would take 11 days for the machine to arrive and five months before the drilling was complete.

Then, the government told us not to worry, that everything was fine, and that it was all in our heads. They said that there was no risk, and that people on the Îles de la Madeleine and Canadians do not need to worry. That is what the government calls an emergency plan. That is completely unacceptable. The government has been making decisions with its eyes closed since 2005. First, it was the Liberals, and those who went along with them without changing the regulations, and then it was the Conservatives, who slipped amendments into Bill C-9.

If an accident were to happen, someone would have to assume the ministerial responsibility. Ministers in this House would have to take responsibility if ever there were an accident off Newfoundland or elsewhere offshore.

We are calling on the government to come to its senses and amend the regulations to ensure that this type of drilling is subject to comprehensive studies and that consultations are held. The public and experts have a right to be heard. On this side of the House, we believe that we must learn from the environmental disaster of April 20, although the government does not seem to agree.

The government has always said that it is important to harmonize with the United States. But President Obama declared a moratorium and wants to create an independent commission to assess the situation. He does not want to move forward until they have examined the issue. Here, our government is agreeing to continue oil drilling off Newfoundland. Plus, it continues to be in favour of calls for tender from oil companies for the Beaufort Sea. In 2007, the government sold the rights to explore three parcels in the Beaufort Sea for about $50 million to oil companies, including Exxon. And in 2008, it sold BP the rights to drill oil wells 700 metres below sea level.

The government is telling us that no drilling will take place before 2014, and that is true. However, we need to understand the signals that we have been getting in parliamentary committee lately. Representatives from BP came to see parliamentarians and were unable to say if it would be possible to clean up the mess if an accident were to occur in Canada's north. They did not know if they would be able to clean up after a disaster. The representative from BP did not have enough information to respond to the questions.

What is more, since it is costly to operate during the off season, from the start of December until spring, oil companies have asked to drill the northern Canadian relief wells later, after drilling activity has begun. They have asked an economically driven, non-environmental organization to give them an exemption from drilling relief wells because it costs too much. What costs too much? Will it cost BP too much to clean up the mess from April 20?

The oil industry is pressuring us to weaken—some would say relax—environmental standards once again and give breaks to and create loopholes for an industry, which is completely unacceptable.

I will take advantage of the fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is here to remind him that next week, from June 9 to 11, there will be an important Arctic Council meeting. Canada is expected to take a leadership role there. Drilling will begin this summer in Greenland, which is very close to Canada. They hope to drill in Baffin Bay, near the mouth of Lancaster Sound, near where the government wants to establish a marine conservation area, at the boundary of Canada's territory.

There will be risks for Canada and Quebec. Greenland is far away, but it does not seem so far when you look at the devastation in the Gulf of Mexico.

We are hoping to see some Canadian leadership to ensure that we have the means necessary to prevent a disaster like the one on April 20 from ever happening in Canada.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand tonight on behalf of the people of Timmins--James Bay to speak to Bill C-9 and to set the record very clearly on what we are discussing here.

This is not a normal budget implementation bill where in the past we would debate whether we supported a certain vision of the government going forward. Of course, under a budget bill, this is a matter of confidence. What we are discussing tonight is the abuse of parliamentary process. When we look at the Conservative government, we are looking at a government whose only track record is abuse of public process and abuse of parliamentary process.

We could go through the issues of prorogation where it ran legislation. not once but twice. through the House and then flushed that legislation down the toilet because it was politically inconvenient to have to answer questions in the House of Commons, and then had to start the whole process over again, a completely staggering waste of taxpayer dollars.

We see the culture of secrecy that surrounds the PMO and all the offices of Parliament now and the inability of the public, the media and politicians to get answers from the government. We see it in the government's decision to create a manual to subvert the work of parliamentary committees, monkeywrenching committees so that work could not be done. This was handed out to the committee chairs to subvert the work of Parliament.

Now we see other examples of abuse of office. We see the industry minister, a minister of the Crown who is there to represent the interests of Canada on the international stage, acting like a cheap ShamWow salesman for some cleaning products in his riding. When that guy did not have a seat, would anybody have paid him to sell cleaning products? I do not think so. Maybe they would have hired him as a floor cleaner but not to sell cleaning products, yet he is standing there in front of a camera saying that he represents the Government of Canada and he is hocking products for buddies of his. This is a staggering abuse of the public process.

How does that tie into this bill? The government has taken numerous issues that should be scrutinized by the public and slipped them into the budget. It has insisted that we pass it right away or it will force an election. It will huff and puff and blow the House down if it does not get its way.

I am showing the people back home how big this budget bill is and telling them about all the hidden booby prizes that are left within this budget. One example is the decision to slip the HST into the bill to force it down the throat of senior citizens and people on fixed incomes in British Columbia and Ontario without debate. The government did not allow any hearings on this.

We see the decision, not surprising from a government that has become little more than the government of the tar sands, to strip more environmental assessment protections away from the Canadian public and from the environment. It does not have the guts to bring it into the House in a standard bill. No, it slips it into a budget bill and says that it is a matter of confidence.

We see the plan to sell off the AECL, our nuclear power agency, on the private market. Maybe it will get 10¢ on the dollar, who knows? That is a staggering decision to take but, again, it is not willing to bring this before the public. It just wants to slip it in and hide it away. It is an abuse of process.

Another serious issue is the destabilization of Canada Post that is under way with its privatization efforts. I represent a region that is larger than the United Kingdom. Mail is essential and mail has become more and more challenged over the years as more and more people are going online. For mail service in rural areas to survive, we need the balance and the income, and the income that it relies upon is being cut up, divided off and sold off to the private sector.

Another issue is softwood lumber. This is the government that sold out community after community to get a quick deal with the Bush Republicans, who are very much like the Conservative Party. Now we see another plan to raise lumber tariffs in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan by 10%. Our sawmills are staggering, what is left of them. They are barely able to keep going. Most of them are shut and the government is going to slip another 10% cost on that.

This is process after process of abuse. I am very shocked that what the government would do at the height of a recession is raid the EI fund and steal $57 billion from the EI fund. That is not the government's money. This is money that was paid by Canadian workers as an insurance fund.

The government has bled red ink throughout the recession. Why? It is because it gave one corporate tax break after another. There was no fiscal prudence. The government came in with a surplus and immediately started giving it away in massive corporate tax cuts. For the folks back home, to get one of these tax breaks one has to be profitable. Who was making money in the recession? The banks and the big oil companies were making money so they got the lion's share of these tax breaks.

Further and further we see this country slipping into the red and what does the government do? It decides to take it off the backs of working families. In some areas, up to 60% of the people who pay into EI are not even allowed to collect it. $57 billion of the EI fund is being stolen from workers, money that could retrain families and that could be used to help our people in communities who have been hit hard by the economy.

Just this past month, 1,000 jobs were lost in my riding. We not only lost the jobs but we also lost all the refining capacity of Ontario in copper and zinc, thanks, in large part, to the government's lack of a national vision in terms of dealing with companies like XStrata and Vale Inco. We now have 1,000 workers in Timmins who have been laid off or have lost their jobs permanently because of the government's boneheaded mismanagement of the base metal industries in Canada.

Now, just as these workers are needing EI, the government is shutting down the EI processing centres across Ontario. It is not doing this publicly. It is doing it in secret. When we ask the Minister of Human Resources a straightforward, straight-up question about why she is choosing, at this time in a recession, to shut 15 of the 18 EI processing centres in Ontario, she says that we are fearmongering. She cannot even stand up and say what her own department is doing. She cannot own up.

Those are the things that are being slipped through and hidden away from people. We see right now the EI processing operations in Owen Sound, Orillia, Kenora, Belleville, North Bay, Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie, Ottawa, Brantford, Etobicoke, Barrie, Peterborough, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, Thunder Bay, Kitchener and Oshawa. It reads like a bus route to nowhere. All of these offices are being closed by the government at a time when access to EI processing is needed.

Why is it closing these centres? It is because it never did believe in maintaining a balance. The minister herself said that she did not want people to get fair benefits when they are unemployed because that might stop them from leaving the province and going to Fort McMurray to work in the tar sands.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is another intriguing provision in Bill C-9, and it relates to deregulating Canada Post's monopoly. This is the second time the Conservatives have raised this issue in Parliament, and they were not successful the first time. So they are incorporating it into a budget bill.

Why does the Bloc Québécois member think that they have included this issue in this bill? Is it because their friends are waiting in the wings, wanting to buy up a piece of Canada Post?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Bloc Québécois member on his speech. Bill C-9 contains a clause on the environment that allows the Minister of the Environment to establish the scope of environmental assessments.

What does the Bloc member think about that clause? Does he think it belongs in a budget bill?

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are at report stage for Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. The Bloc Québécois obviously voted against this Conservative budget at second reading because, once again, it does not meet the economic, social, environmental and financial needs of Quebec.

Nevertheless, with the complicity of the Liberal opposition, the bill was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance for thorough study.

What I find grievous is that the bill goes against two unanimous votes of the National Assembly of Quebec. We must remember that the Quebec nation was recognized, here in the House, and that this Prime Minister promised that there would be open federalism.

Quebec's unanimous request to the government for $2.2 billion in financial compensation for harmonizing the sales tax was met with refusal even though agreements totalling $6.86 billion were signed with five other provinces .

What can we say about the government's desire to meddle in the jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec by creating its national securities commission, even though Quebec voted unanimously against it? Quebec's entire financial sector is mobilizing against this power grab. An editorial in La Presse, a paper owned by the Power Corporation and dedicated to defending federalism in Quebec, stated: “The expression 'predatory federalism' is overused but that is what this comes down to.”

What I find appalling is that the government is using this bill to make significant amendments to other laws. It does not have the courage to introduce and defend these amendments by introducing separate bills according to our democratic parliamentary rules.

At report stage, the NDP is proposing amendments in order to remove six parts of this bill. It makes sense and it is important that we support these amendments.

In the few minutes available to them, the witnesses that we heard in committee told us that they were dismayed by the lack of consideration given to such important matters as Canada Post's exclusive privilege, the privatization of AECL, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Employment Insurance Act.

Part 15 of the bill is entitled Canada Post Corporation Act, and it would allow Canada Post's competitors to collect mail in Canada and Quebec and ship it abroad. The fact that this measure is included in the bill shows the insidious way the Conservative government works and how it wants to completely deregulate the crown corporation.

The Bloc Québécois is strongly opposed to privatizing Canada Post, even partially. This crown corporation must remain a public agency and maintain universal services with uniform rates throughout Canada.

Many Quebeckers are concerned about part 18, which would privatize Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. There are no assurances in part 18 that the federal government will keep doing its duty and providing a supply of medical isotopes. The federal government must keep looking for suppliers of medical isotopes.

Part 24 of the bill amends the Employment Insurance Act. The Bloc Québécois called for substantial improvements to the system, including increasing the program's wage replacement rate to 60% of maximum insurable earnings, eliminating the waiting period, standardizing the qualification requirements at 360 hours of work, basing benefits on the 12 best weeks of insurable earnings and making self-employed workers eligible for regular benefits.

More generally, the government should submit a plan for reimbursing the funds diverted to its own accounts from the employment insurance fund. It should also drop its obvious intention to loot this fund once again; the fund does not belong to the government.

Instead, the current bill imposes the following measures.

The Conservatives' 2008 budget created a new crown corporation, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, reporting to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

This board's duties included administering a separate bank account. Any annual surpluses in the employment insurance fund were supposed to be retained and invested until needed to cover the costs of the program.

Budget 2010 closes the board's separate bank account, the EI account, and creates a new one, the employment insurance operating account.

The government is permanently eliminating the accumulated surplus in the EI account, effective retroactively to January 1, 2009.

This account will therefore no longer exist and will be replaced by the employment insurance operating account, which will start from zero. Magically, the EI surplus, which amounted to more than $57 billion on March 31, 2009, according to the Public Accounts of Canada for 2008-09, will disappear for good. I should point out that the money came from employers' and employees' contributions.

That part of the bill absolutely must be removed. It would be scandalous to penalize workers in Quebec and Canada like that.

The Bloc Québécois has a number of reservations about other provisions in the Conservatives' budget implementation bill.

For example, with respect to part 1 of the bill, which covers tax measures for individuals and corporations, the Bloc Québécois is particularly concerned about corporate tax strategies, specifically those involving tax havens.

We must eliminate access to tax havens. The six big Canadian banks reported net profits of $5.3 billion in the first quarter of 2010. That is all very well, but why should they continue to avoid billions in taxes thanks to their subsidiaries in tax havens? The Bloc Québécois wants to eliminate this practice and make the banks pay their fair share of taxes.

Companies use tax havens to evade taxes too. According to the Auditor General's data, companies save up to $600 million per year by doing business in tax havens.

The Bloc Québécois is calling on the government to walk the walk instead of proposing pseudo-solutions made up of nothing but words.

Still on the subject of banking, the Bloc Québécois has serious reservations about Ottawa's centralizing agenda with respect to credit unions.

Part 17 of the bill would amend the Bank Act to enable credit unions to incorporate as banks. This measure amends the Bank Act to create a framework allowing credit unions to incorporate as banks. The model is based on the framework applicable to other federally regulated financial institutions.

Although it is presented as optional, the Bloc Québécois is concerned that the amendment might actually reflect the government's hidden agenda to force credit unions to come under federal jurisdiction.

Once again, the federal government is demonstrating its desire to centralize power and decision-making at Quebec's expense.

The Bloc Québécois will therefore support the amendments proposed by the NDP, but the rest of the bill will still be unacceptable to Quebec.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about a clause in Bill C-9, one that is completely unrelated to anything budgetary. It is the clause that moves to privatize Canada Post, specifically the removal of Canada Post's legal monopoly on outgoing international letters or the remailer program.

My colleague from Elmwood—Transcona and I come from the same province. Both of us, as well as our other colleagues in the NDP, are concerned about other ways in which Canada Post is being privatized, for example, the closure of one of the four national call centres in Winnipeg, leading to the loss of dozens of jobs. The government has refused to do anything about it. We are clearly seeing a move by the government to chip away at an institution that we are so proud of as Canadians, an institution that provides a vital service, which is that of connecting us, of sharing communication.

Could I hear my colleague's thoughts on the injustice, and that is the privatization of Canada Post?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C-9. The bill has now come out of committee and our party has had to introduce several motions to attempt to make deletions to the bill. The bill is so massive, at 880 pages, it must be a record, certainly by weight.

We have 60 some motions covered by these resolutions. The other members who have spoken today have essentially explained how and why the bill has come to us the way it has. It has been quite a number of years since I can recall a similar approach being taken by a government, which takes me back to 1889-90 in a minority government in Manitoba when the Filmon Conservatives did similar omnibus bills over a two year period, I believe. Not only did we have the budget implementation measures put into a bill, but we had extra items thrown in. One was the privatization of a business in Brandon that had absolutely nothing to do with the bill at hand.

If we fast forward to the present, this is the type of frustration with which the members of the House are dealing. The government has taken not only the budget implementation act, which we all agree is something that should be dealt with, but it has thrown in many extra measures, which rightly belong as separate legislation.

The best example of this is the issue of the Canada Post remailers. The government over the last two years, or perhaps longer, has attempted to get Bill C-14 and Bill C-44 through Parliament, which would remove Canada Post's legal monopoly on outgoing international letters. This is the thin edge of the wedge to start to privatize Canada Post.

The government introduced that bill as two separate bill numbers in past years, brought it into a minority Parliament and found the opposition so strong that it could not get it through. Therefore, the government has taken that legislation and added into this omnibus bill.

The government has added in the sale of AECL, which the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has rightfully pointed out has cost the Canadian taxpayers perhaps $22 billion in subsidies over its history. At the present time, nuclear looks like it is making a comeback. As the member indicated, we are looking at perhaps 120 new nuclear builds around the world. What the government is attempting to do is sell off this crown corporation, probably at fire sale rates and probably to foreign investors and American investors. They will then buy an asset, at a fire sale price, paid for by the Canadian taxpayer and will make a success of the company by building nuclear plants around the world.

This is what is being suggested. The fact is this element of Bill C-9 does not belong there. This is rightfully a subject for a different bill, a different day and a totally different subject for debate.

We want the Canadian people to understand what is going on here. A government that cannot get its way one way simply circumvents the process and attempts to bring it in through an omnibus bill.

After the second prorogation of the House, the opposition parties attempted to bring in motions and resolutions to put some qualifications on any future prorogations by the Prime Minister. It is high time the House adopt some rules on when the Prime Minister can prorogue the House.

Likewise, there should be some attempt made by parties to come up with some guidelines that the government should be able to follow for budget implementation legislation such as this. An independent panel of people, or an independent group of people, or any of our constituents, and I think my colleague, the member for Sudbury, would probably agree with me, will know the difference between what should be in a budget implementation bill and what is in this 880-page omnibus bill.

The privatization of Canada Post and the selling of AECL have absolutely nothing to do with traditional budget implementation. We only have to look at the environmental assessment issues. Our member from Edmonton spoke to this yesterday. The government is weakening the environmental assessment regulations. Once again, if it cannot get something through the House, it goes around to the back door.

It would take hours to deal with all of the issues in the bill, but I will talk for a couple of minutes about the taxation policy of the government. The government is reducing taxes on corporations, particularly on the banks. It is reducing the corporate tax rate to 15% at a time when it is already lower than the United States. It is doing it at a time when the banks made $15 billion in 2009. It is doing it at a time when the presidents of those banks made up to $10 million a year.

We have the highest paid CEOs in Canada. Gordon Nixon of the Royal Bank and Edmund Clark of the Toronto-Dominion Bank were granted about $10.4 million in 2009. The CEO of CIBC was granted $6.2 million. All of these presidents are in the stratosphere in terms of salaries.

What is the government doing while this is happening? It is sneaking through a huge increase in air travel taxes being paid by all air travellers in Canada. In fact, the increases are going up 50% on security fees paid on flights.

Representatives of the Air Transport Association of Canada, an organization that the government is very familiar with, provided testimony regarding the bill. The observations they made are these. In 2008, only two years ago, ATAC conducted a survey which ranked the security fees charged by governments and airports worldwide. Guess what it found? Canada's security charges, just two years ago, were the second highest in the world. Only the Netherlands was higher.

Guess what the government did? It increased those same taxes by 50%. After this tax announced in February, the Canadian security charges will be the highest in the world, having increased by 52% from $17 to $25 U.S. In the U.S. the charge is only $5.

For a government that wants to be competitive with the United States, it has just made itself uncompetitive. Its taxes are much higher.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you.

Sometimes the government imposes a number of things on us at the same time in parliamentary terms. The committee's two vice-chairs had to be in the House speaking on Bill C-9. That's why you sometimes see this round table.

I'd like to ask Mr. Béland my first question.

On page 4 of your brief, you say: “While CPP is fiscally sound for the predictable future, this is not the case of QPP, which should face real fiscal challenges starting in the 2040s, and perhaps even earlier.” You say that the QPP “should face” challenges, which, in my view, is a little too affirmative. I would have said that it “might” face challenges. I note a reference in one of your endnotes entitled “Débâcle à la Caisse: Que faire avec le Régime de rentes du Québec?”

You know that the Quebec Pension Plan is managed by the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, where the pensions are deposited. The caisse makes investments, as its name suggests. Yes, there has been a collapse. Some have even said debacle.

In view of the fact that the new administration of the caisse seems to be managing its risks in a more appropriate manner, aren't you trying to scare people somewhat by saying that the Quebec Pension Plan will be facing enormous challenges starting in 2040?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who is doing an excellent job. Bill C-9 has a full chapter on Canada Post and the removal of its exclusive privilege over letters for delivery outside Canada.

The president of Canada Post, who I just heard is leaving her job, told the committee that, in 2007, Canada Post lost $80 million because of these businesses. They were freely dipping into and encroaching on the exclusive privilege of Canada Post, even though they did not have the right. We can only imagine the massive amounts of money that Canada Post will lose if this bill passes.

I know that my colleague is very sensitive to the loss in revenues for Canada Post, because lost revenues lead to lost services. In rural regions, like my riding and the communities my colleague serves, there are concerns. Is my colleague worried about this bill that puts an end to Canada Post's exclusive privilege over international mail?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his presentation today on Bill C-9. In Canada the banks made $15.9 billion in 2009. We have a government that is bent on reducing corporate taxation to as low as 15% over the next three years. And all the while that has been happening, the bank presidents are earning as high as $10.4 million a year. While this is going on, we have in this omnibus bill increases to the air security tax, which is going to be paid by all Canadians. Those airport security taxes are going up by 50% making them and Canada the highest tax jurisdiction in the world, exceeding Holland which was the highest up until last year.

Would the member comment on how it is the government can get away with saying it is reducing taxes when it is actually increasing taxes for the vast majority of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a particular interest in taking part in the debate today on Bill C-9 at report stage and the amendments that have been proposed. This bill would implement various initiatives the Conservative government included in its March 4 budget.

As many of my Bloc Québécois colleagues have already said, we are opposed to this bill for many reasons.

The measures in this budget do not meet Quebeckers' needs. None of the major priorities of our region and Quebec as a whole—improving employment insurance and the guaranteed income supplement, helping our manufacturing and forestry industries, harmonizing the QST with the GST and introducing a real plan to help the furniture industry, which is going through its share of problems—is addressed in this budget.

We also oppose Bill C-9 because it is blatantly undemocratic. It is an omnibus bill, as a number of speakers have pointed out. It includes the privatization of Canada Post, for example, and measures that have nothing to do with a budget. Our finance critic mentioned that in his speech. The bill contains a number of things that have never even been discussed by the Standing Committee on Finance.

The government is trying to put measures in the bill that the House would not approve otherwise. The Conservatives know that the Liberals, who are weak politically, will support them. The Conservatives will be able to implement these measures and ram them down Quebeckers' and Canadians' throats.

Among the many amendments we are discussing today, I would like to talk about part 24 of Bill C-9.

This part closes the separate Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board's account and opens a new account called the employment insurance operating account. It eliminates, once and for all, the surplus accumulated thanks to unemployed workers who kept contributing as the government tightened access to employment insurance. Employers and employees contributed over $57 billion to the employment insurance fund. This omnibus bill eliminates for all time the accumulated surplus and starts over at zero. That is a real shame.

Once again, we proposed numerous initiatives to support unemployed workers, from eliminating the waiting period to improving the system. At the height of the economic crisis, 50% of the population did not even have access to EI. During that time, huge surpluses were building up in the employment insurance fund. This theft from the people of Canada and Quebec is sanctioned in Bill C-9, an omnibus bill.

Unemployed workers do not have access to employment insurance, and the government got billions of dollars out of them to finance other measures. Those workers paid taxes. They contributed to the government's treasury. That same government found another way to attack the poorest members of society by stealing money from the employment insurance fund.

As I explained, the government wants the middle class and workers to foot the bill for the deficit, while banks, oil companies and the rich get off scot free. It gives tax breaks to banks that hide huge amounts of money in tax shelters. It gives tax breaks to oil companies and, as we know, it supported the auto industry while neglecting Quebec's unemployed workers and its forestry and manufacturing industries.

Unfortunately, the budget implementation act officially sanctions the federal government's embezzlement of money from the employment insurance fund, which started when the Liberal Party was in power in the 1990s. Embezzlement is exactly what it was. The government took money held in reserve for unemployed workers, money contributed by employers and employees, and put it in another fund to be spent elsewhere. That is what I call embezzlement. Over the course of 14 years, they stole $57 billion. That is shameful. I am appalled.

Since 2004, the Bloc Québécois has been fighting here in this House to improve the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. That is another example of how the government stealing money, from seniors in that case. They have taken money from the unemployed. They refused to improve the employment insurance program. They have refused to use the guaranteed income supplement to support the seniors who did not receive this supplement for a number of years. Those seniors are not being reimbursed. The government always manages to support the banks and the rich to the detriment of the poorest in our society. That is what is happening in this House and it is shameful.

It is as though the 14 years of misappropriation never happened, thanks to this omnibus legislation. The debt is erased. They took $57 billion from the unemployed and now they turn the page. They act as though nothing happened. It is shameful. It is like a magic trick. We know that the Liberals' weakness means that they will vote with the Conservatives and support this bill. But they will still have to live with their guilt because they also dipped into the fund. The Liberals and Conservatives will erase it all in the hope that people will have forgotten in a couple of years. But the Bloc Québécois will not forget. We will continue to denounce this Conservative government manoeuvre, which was supported by the Liberals, to misappropriate money from the employment insurance fund.

It is unbelievable if you think about it. They want to pretend the misappropriation of $57 billion never happened and on top of that, help themselves to more money in the future, because the EI fund is accumulating another surplus with employers' and employees' premiums. Additional surpluses of $19 billion are expected for the next three years. With that money alone, we could resolve the issue of the two-week waiting period for unemployed workers. In my riding, over 4,000 people have signed a petition on this issue, calling on the government to eliminate the two-week waiting period. We could improve the employment insurance system and make it more accessible for all workers.

But, no, what we see here instead is more of the same old story. The government stole $57 billion from unemployed workers. It is going to help itself to another $19 billion from them over the next few years and will do nothing to improve the employment insurance system to allow workers to live more comfortably in a difficult situation, because many workers are losing their jobs. The government is still misappropriating money from the fund.

The Bloc Québécois would like the government to present a plan to pay back the money it misappropriated from the EI fund.

We call on the government to improve the employment insurance system, help unemployed workers and stimulate the economy. If we help the unemployed, people who are temporarily out of work could continue buying goods, paying their rent or mortgage and making car payments. They could continue paying their bills and supporting their families. This is good for the economy, for families and for many other things.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just now I heard a common refrain. I would have liked to have asked the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, whose riding is next to mine, a question. I was thrilled by my Liberal neighbour, who ended his speech by stating that he will vote against it for such and such a reason. I am certain that he will be there to vote against this bill. I did not have time to ask him why all members of his party will not be there to vote against this bill. He tells me they will be there. I hope they will have the courage to show up and to do as Bloc members do, to stand up and tell the House what they think. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague who is vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, as am I.

As for the amendments proposed by our colleague from Outremont and his party, I take this opportunity to denounce Bill C-9 as unparliamentary. I had the honour of serving my fellow citizens at the National Assembly of Quebec fifteen years ago. Adopting budgets, presenting amendments, sitting on parliamentary committees is all part of the British tradition of the National Assembly and of this Parliament.

There used to be two major speeches in a parliamentary year: the throne speech and the budget speech. The budget speech was read and then there would be a myriad of laws sponsored by the Department of Revenue, Natural Resources and other laws that implemented what the finance minister had set out in his budget speech. There might be a specific bill to increase or decrease the sales tax. Or a bill to create a business tax, or various taxes, charges, and other economic measures. That was done properly by parliament, bill after bill, parliamentary committee after parliamentary committee. There was time to address questions to public servants, heads of crown corporations or ministers such as the Minister of Revenue, the Minister of Energy, and ministers with this type of expertise.

Today, we are dealing with an omnibus bill. There are thousands of clauses in its 887 pages. They have thrown in everything, including the kitchen sink. This bill contains items that were not even mentioned in the budget speech. We have never seen them. They have appeared from nowhere and suddenly are found in the budget implementation bill.

Some changes were proposed by the NDP. It would delete part 3 because it does not agree with this section that increases the air travellers security charge. There is an increase in the charge. This government says it never increases taxes, but there are proposals and parts of legislation that mention increasing charges. The Conservatives are either naive or incompetent. I will leave that up to them. This charge is for “air travellers security”. However, there is no travellers protection fund. The government will take the money and put it in the consolidated revenue fund. If money is ever needed for traveller protection, it will just be taken from the fund and given to whoever needs it. I fail to see how one equates with the other.

It is the same as with other parts. There are motions to delete part 24, which amends the Employment Insurance Act. Our colleague from Acadie—Bathurst gave a very fine speech on this. I asked him some questions and his answers were clear and to the point. He said that this was stealing—those are his words—and I agree with him. Again, what is the government doing? It is increasing the costs and shifting the burden to the employers and employees, and decreasing benefits as much as possible. But its bottom line does not suffer. These proposed amendments should be referred to a standing committee that is equipped to study these types of issues.

Then there is an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which includes an exception for federally funded infrastructure projects. That is quite a mouthful and nothing is very clear. All this was included in an omnibus bill.

Let us not forget the National Energy Board. What does this have to do with the Standing Committee on Finance or with a budget bill? That is why we agree with the NDP that these practically unreadable parts of the bill should be deleted.

The Speaker ruled that we would study the bill in two parts because the other two parts deal with Canada Post and Atomic Energy Canada, two crown corporations that are unrelated to program budgets, revenues, taxes and charges. However, we will look at this later and we will say that we are in favour of removing this type of thing because it is unrelated.

I listened closely to the Conservative members opposite who came to oppose deleting certain parts, as the NDP is proposing. I have seen these members a bit in the House, but I have never seen them at the Standing Committee on Finance. Where were they? I do not know.

Parliamentary functions need to be taken seriously. We have to know what we are talking about. We cannot come here and read a speech that we have never seen before that was written by someone else. We have to have the confidence to state our opinions because we are competent enough to do so.

What we have seen today is shameful from a parliamentary standpoint. Members are reading speeches and quoting people. They quoted someone today that they have never seen or heard because they were not at the Standing Committee on Finance. But we were there. We were forced to study the issue when we felt that it should have been studied elsewhere.

The Bloc Québécois, which continues to work hard to defend Quebec's interests and to do its parliamentary job well, will vote in favour of the amendments put forward by the NDP. Once again, I hope that all of the Liberal Party members will hear the heartfelt appeal from the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and will vote against this infamous budget.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 is an abuse of the public. The government is forcing through major changes without giving the public even a chance to sense what is happening. Nowhere is it clearer than with the $57 billion that is being stolen from the EI fund.

The government cannot be honest with the public and neither can the Minister of Human Resources. When we asked the minister about her plan to shut down 15 of the 18 EI processing centres across Ontario, she could not even stand in the House and give an honest answer.

However, we know that Owen Sound, Orillia, Kenora, Belleville, North Bay, Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie, Brantford, Etobicoke, Barrie, Peterborough, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, Thunder Bay, Kitchener and Oshawa centres are being closed. Why are they being closed? Because the government is stealing the money from EI. It is running out of money because it is giving $1.7 billion in corporate tax cuts.

Why is the government unable to give an honest answer to Canadian workers? Why can is the minister not stand in the House and explain what she is doing by robbing workers of access to EI, robbing them of the kind of processing for their EI claims, which they need at this time of recession?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in this afternoon's debate on Bill C-9 concerning the government's budget.

We have amendments to part 24, which changes the Employment Insurance Act by establishing an account in the accounts of Canada to be known as the employment insurance operating account and closing the employment insurance account and removing it from the accounts of Canada. It also repeals sections 76 and 80 of that act and makes consequential amendments in relation to the creation of the new account. This part also makes technical amendments to clarify provisions of the Budget Implementation Act, 2008 and the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act that deal with the board.

As members will recall, in 1986, the Auditor General said that the employment insurance account should be integrated into the government's consolidated revenue fund. At the time, the government, companies and employees were contributing money to the employment insurance fund.

In 1988, after the employment insurance fund was integrated into the consolidated revenue fund, the Mulroney government started to chip away at employment insurance.

As I recall, that is when things started to change. Brian Mulroney's Conservative government was in power, and the Liberals were the official opposition. I remember that in 1989, in one of the papers—this is not the first time I have brought this up in the House—my predecessor, Doug Young, who was his party's employment insurance critic at the time, urged all New Brunswickers to fight changes to employment insurance because such changes would be disastrous for New Brunswick. That is why I said this is not the first time I have talked about this issue. I want to remind the House about the Liberals' attitude at the time.

In the spring of 1993—even at the end of winter that year—Jean Chrétien was the opposition leader. He then became prime minister. He sent a letter to a group of women in Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec, who were working to stop changes to employment insurance. As opposition leader, Jean Chrétien wrote that the government should not take action against victims, people and workers. He wrote that the government should focus on economic development. The country needed economic development to create jobs for people.

To everyone's great surprise, when the Liberals were elected in the fall of 1993, they continued along the same course. We cannot say they were any worse than the Conservatives because the Conservatives had begun employment insurance reform. We do not know how far they would have gone. The Liberals had taken over the ship. They had taken over the tiller and started focusing on employment insurance. They also started thinking that what was in place was not so bad. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had agreed to the Auditor General's recommendation to put the money into the consolidated revenue fund. The Liberals realized that this gave them more money and that employment insurance contributions gave them more money.

The Conservative government had increased premiums to roughly $3.08 or $3.20 for every $100 and the employer paid 1.3 or 1.5 times that amount. In other words, this represented roughly $8. It was a cash cow.

Money was coming in and cuts were being made to employment insurance. The worst cuts came in 1996: the number of hours to qualify was increased to 910; 420 hours were required in areas where the unemployment rate was greater than 13%; new entrants had to accumulate 910 hours; 700 hours were required in areas with low unemployment; 700 hours were required for a person who was sick or disabled to be granted special leave; 700 hours were required for maternity and parental leave. So much money was flowing into the employment insurance fund that it could not be ignored. The federal government was running a $565 billion deficit. It reduced the deficit by $92 billion, $57 billion of which came from the employment insurance fund.

Paul Martin, who was the finance minister at the time, told Canadians to tighten their belts to eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt. He robbed the employment insurance fund to pay down the debt and achieve a zero deficit.

At the time, the Conservatives, who make up the new Conservative government, condemned the theft from the employment insurance fund. Surprise, surprise, they returned to power in 2006 and this continued on into 2010. Now, they have presented Bill C-9, which is some 900 pages about the budget, and in which the government legalizes this theft from the employment insurance fund. That is what is going on here. By creating this new board, by creating a new fund and putting only $2 billion in it, the government is legalizing the biggest national and federal theft in the history of Canada.

I am calling it a theft, because workers pay employment insurance premiums out of their paycheques as security in case they lose their jobs. It is not meant to be used to pay down the government's debt. Now, people are in need.

We have just been through a serious economic crisis. Some people have used up their employment insurance benefits and do not have a job. We could increase the number of benefit weeks. We could base the calculation on the best 12 weeks instead of the best 14 weeks. We could eliminate the divisor of 14, which would give the best 12 weeks. We could also increase benefits from 55% to 60%. We could give these workers a chance.

In other countries, like France, for example, workers receive 75% of their income. When I brought up the idea of increasing the amount people receive, when we asked the government to increase the number of weeks, all the Conservative government could think to say was that if we were to do that, people would work 10 weeks and would receive 52 weeks of employment insurance benefits. They would work only 360 hours and would receive EI the rest of the year. The Conservatives have no faith in Canadian workers. That is the problem. They have no faith in our fellow citizens.

I asked a member of the French national assembly if paying benefits of up to 75% of wages made people want to receive employment insurance benefits rather than work. His response was altogether different. He said that he truly believes in workers and citizens, and added that they are very hard-working and that they want to work. They pay into the employment insurance program, which protects them in the event they lose their jobs. He added that if these workers want to pay themselves a wage while they are unemployed, it is good for the economy and good for everyone. It is good for the regions and it is good for small and medium-sized businesses. When a citizen receives benefits, he does not take off the next morning for a sunny spot such as Florida.

Instead, he goes grocery shopping. He buys something, or pays his bills. It is good for our economy, for our local economy.

It is unfortunate to see that the government has included all sorts of things in Bill C-9. And the first thing it will say is that we voted against it, that we voted against the huge monster it has created. We cannot support this omnibus Bill C-9.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his presentation on Bill C-9, an 880 page omnibus bill, which is very rare in politics but not so rare when dealing with this particular Parliament and the present government.

While I do not agree with the nuclear option, the fact is that we have interests in nuclear development in Saskatchewan and in Ontario, and worldwide there is a big demand for nuclear power. Therefore, at a time when the future is looking rosy for the nuclear industry, why in the world would a government want to sell off the largest crown corporation in the country, a corporation in which we have invested $22 billion in subsidies in its history? In some ways it seems like a repeat almost of the Avro Arrow of the Diefenbaker years.

I would like to know what the member's comments would be on those observations.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what the opposition members should be doing is their job. Our job, when we see irresponsibility and an unaccountable government, is to stand up and oppose that on behalf of Canadians who sent us here to do this.

We saw the Liberals at committee sneak one of their members out the back door to ensure that the vote would pass to allow Bill C-9 to come back to the House. We suspect that the same thing will happen here when the final vote on this outrageous bill comes.

We have seen this pattern of shutting down committees through the monkey-wrench manual the Conservatives produced. We saw it on the Afghan detainee documents. We saw it with the government's abuse of prorogation, shutting down the entire Parliament when questions arose that the government did not like.

Just the other day we finally had it confirmed where the Conservatives learned it from. They justified this bill, this outrageous abuse of democracy, by saying that the Liberals did it. They learned too well at the feet of the Liberals when they were in power and said that they did not like all the debate business, the discussions, the counterpoints and the views so they just rammed things through. That is not a lesson the Conservatives should have learned from the previous government and they should unlearn it quickly.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it is seven minutes. We are always in a deficit of time here, particularly when dealing with something as outrageous and undemocratic as what we have contained in these near 900 pages of Bill C-9.

I say undemocratic because within this Trojan Horse of a bill, the government has conspired to lump in just about everything it found to be too distasteful to see the light of day. Rather than have a fair debate about each of these important measures, and there are two or three that are actually laudable but the vast majority are not, the government has decided to make a Trojan Horse, an omnibus bill in which everything is crammed, and then point the gun of an election at the opposition to force a vote on something that probably many members in the official opposition, the Liberals, find distasteful as well, but will obviously cave into once the vote actually comes, because that has become a call-in response from the government almost since time immemorial. The government suggests something, the Liberal Party says that it does not like it, the government dares it to go to an election, and the Liberal Party gets out of the way as fast as it can and votes with the government again. It is a coalition by default and by any other name and function.

I will list for Canadians what is in this bill that we find so outrageous. One thing on the list is the sale of AECL. Yesterday 130 workers from AECL were here in Parliament, in the galleries watching the debate, demanding some sort of fairness. What struck me most in meeting with the workers after question period was how abandoned they felt by their government that would not even allow a fair and free democratic vote on the idea of selling their corporation. It is the largest crown corporation in Canada. It has received more money than any other crown corporation in history, some $22 billion of Canadian taxpayer dollars. The legislation says that when the government seeks to sell it, it must bring it before Parliament in a separate bill.

What did the government do? It went around the rules and the legislation and rammed it into Bill C-9 so there can be no debate about the sale of AECL. There can be no bringing of witnesses to hear whether it is a good thing for Canadians or this is in fact a fire sale of a crown asset.

The government, of course, will not get that $22 billion back. It will get far less, but maybe what is worse is that with no debate, no discussion and no evidence, the government presents nothing about the likely brain drain of the experts who work around AECL to competitors who do not support the Candu reactor system. This was expressed clearly by the workers who were here recently. What are they going to do and who will do the upkeep on the Candus that Canada currently has on the books? That is just one piece of this outrageous and offensive bill.

Another piece of the bill is the raising of airport security taxes. This is from a government that says that it is into lowering taxes while at the same time it increases them. If raising taxes for the travelling public were not enough, it is also seeking to finish off the completion of the hated HST for Ontario and British Columbia, thereby putting it on any duties or any transactions that Canadians have when dealing with brokers. Buying mutual funds will now see further taxation from the government.

Is there any debate allowed about this? Is there any free and standing vote on this particular issue? Of course not, because it is a take-it-or-leave-it bill. It is 900 pages of a threat from the government, 900 pages saying to the Parliament of Canada and the people of Canada that if we do not like the idea of selling AECL without a debate, that is too bad for us, if we do not like an increase in taxes when buying a plane ticket, that is tough for us, and if we do not like the HST in Ontario or British Columbia, that is tough.

We see that type of political arrogance even within British Columbia right now. We are finding out today that every provincial riding in British Columbia have signed up enough citizens to a petition to revoke the HST. What is the arrogant response from the government and that in British Columbia? They do not care. They simply do not care about the functioning of democracy.

We have recall legislation in British Columbia that allows citizens to stand up, and it is a very high threshold, a very high bar to achieve, and British Columbians appear to be achieving it. Now that they have gone through all that work and all the volunteers out canvassing, and I am one of them who goes out and asks people to sign on, we find out that the government does not care about something called democracy, it does not care about representation and our voice mattering because it will ram the HST through anyway with no debate, no discussion, no voice for common people.

It has often been said that the best disinfectant is sunlight and we believe that to be very true when it comes to Bill C-9. We New Democrats have a proposition. With Democrat built right into our name, we like democracy. We like the idea of debate and free votes. We have said that we should take out the parts that need to be taken out and then have a debate about them. We implore other members in this House to see the wisdom of having a fair and free discussion on the elements of this bill.

Ramming everything it could think of into 900 pages of one bill and then making an election threat is not an accountable, transparent and humble government. That is a government that says that the will of the people matters little or not at all. That is disastrous, not just for the political fortunes of its party, which concerns me not, but for the fundamentals of how this place is meant to operate, which is that when we have a debate about something, we put it in legislation and bring it before the House. The government could do that with any of these pieces that it feels so proud of that it has to hide behind in Bill C-9.

We have simply said that, whether it comes to employment insurance, environmental protections, the National Energy Board, the airport tax, the HST and all of the other things rammed into this bill, the government must do the right thing and separate them out.

My last point is around the National Energy Board.

At a time when we are seeing a disaster taking place in the gulf, the President of the United States today saying that deregulation had failed them, that companies monitoring themselves was a bad idea, we see in Bill C-9 that the government is moving in the opposite direction, moving to more deregulation. It would give the Minister of the Environment the divine powers to decide what, if any, projects in the country get an environmental assessment at all. The minister can simply, by writ, decide that there is no environmental risk posed, in his or her own fictional or imaginary world, and, therefore, no environmental assessment happens.

We have learned that we need environmental protections, not just to save the environment but also to protect the communities and the economies on which we rely. This is not an economy versus environment debate and the government needs to realize that. It should allow the breakage of this bill, allow it to be separated so we can have a true and honest discussion, with witnesses and evidence, and allow the vote to stand freely and fairly. That is what a democratic government should do and that is what the government should do.

The House resumed from May 26 consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also well aware of the rules, and the rules for the Thursday question require a very succinct question about the upcoming agenda of the government, and the government House leader is supposed to be bound by those same rules as I understand them. On this side of the House at least, we always want to respect the rules of the House of Commons.

To be very brief in my response, I think I have answered that question repeatedly. We will not allow our political staff to be dragged before standing committees where the opposition coalition holds a majority of members and be subjected to the type of abuse we have seen. On behalf of those staff, I would point out that anyone who wants to research this issue can find it in the Hansard of the standing committees. Many of those meetings were televised. Members can see the type of abuse that opposition members of Parliament subjected those staff members to. Many of these staff members are very young people, oftentimes in their mid to late twenties. To be subjected to that type of abuse is completely shameful. It is intolerable and unacceptable. Our ministers will assume their responsibilities yet again and will be appearing at committees when there are questions to be asked of their departments and their staff. So I hope I have put that to rest.

On another issue I have raised a couple of times in question period, when it has come up, is the absolute hypocrisy of the Liberal Party in asking these types of questions of staff members and yet filibustering the government operations committee to prevent their own member of Parliament, the MP for Scarborough—Rouge River, from testifying and answering valid questions about his connection with a law firm that advertised on its website that the member could make “valuable contributions to [its] clients includ[ing] acting for foreign and offshore organizations in obtaining operating licenses, securing regulatory and governmental approvals for mergers and acquisitions, reviewing policies and conduct of Canadian Security Intelligence Services”—I repeat, “Security Intelligence Services”, Mr. Speaker—[and] advising bodies on international issues regarding cross border tax collection”. And it goes on and on about the services the member could provide in the form of lobbying. Yet the member was prevented from testifying today by the Liberal members on that committee, who wanted to filibuster.

This is a member of Parliament and it is the same standing committee that is supposedly looking into the alleged lobbying issues of a former member of Parliament, who has appeared at that committee and testified. At least he had the courage to do that, which is more than the member for Scarborough—Rouge River has done.

On the issue we are supposed to be discussing, the agenda looking forward to the next week of the House of Commons, today we will resume the debate on the report stage motions on Bill C-9, Jobs and Economic Growth Act. As we heard in question period, that is the much anticipated budget bill of the government.

This evening in committee of the whole, we will consider the estimates for the Department of National Defence.

Tomorrow will be an allotted day.

Next week, if necessary, we will continue the debate on Bill C-9, followed by debate on Bill C-23, Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act. We will have as backup bills, Bill C-10, Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits) and Bill S-2, Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act.

As I mentioned in reply to the Thursday question last week, Monday, May 31 has been designated as the day to consider the main estimates of the Department of Natural Resources in committee of the whole.

Finally, Tuesday, June 1, shall be an allotted day.

Motions in Amendment

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-9, but unfortunately we are looking at nearly 900 pages that represent a travesty of justice, and a basic and fundamental attack on the democratic principles on which this place is built.

We find within these pages what some have called a Trojan Horse of a bill. We find everything in the way of a laundry list that the Conservatives want to move through but cannot, in part because they keep shutting down the House and killing their own legislation, and partly because the measures rammed into this bill are unpopular. The Conservatives have threatened an election and have told Canadians to just stick it. They have not provided the option of a democratic and open debate about some of the most fundamental things in front of us.

We know that in this cloak of secrecy the government is going to be raising taxes for the travelling public at airports. It is seeking to gut environmental legislation, which my hon. colleague from Edmonton so eloquently spoke of just recently.

The government is seeking in an omnibus format to cobble together whatever it has at hand to give the Minister of the Environment discretionary, almost divine powers, to decide what deserves an environmental assessment and what does not. Somehow he will know in advance what is going to cause environmental damage and what will not, ignoring the fact that the idea behind an environmental assessment is the understanding of what the damage may or may not be. That is why we put the criteria in there in the first place.

We are paying for industrial projects that went wrong years ago: old mines, abandoned oil shafts. We said that we would learn from all of these things, that we would take account of all of these things before we built, so we would know what the effects would actually be on the environment.

What is in the budget affects real lives and has real consequences for our country. It is a shame and a sham that the government pretends to be accountable, pretends to care about the principles of democracy, while on the other hand does this.

Just recently, more than 130 workers from AECL came to this place to be recognized, to ask government members if they would be allowed a free and democratic debate and vote on the sale of AECL, Canada's largest crown corporation, and into which the Canadian public has put more than $22 billion over the years. Instead, where do we find the sale of AECL? We find it buried in the pages of this Trojan Horse, buried in this omnibus bill. We are allowed no debate, no discussion. There is no democracy from the government.

I sat with those 130 workers after question period. I talked to them and listened to their questions. They are worried, concerned, fearful, and most of all, they disbelieve that a government that ran on such principles as transparency and accountability and the fundamentals of democracy could be so opposed to them in practise. Words do not match the actual actions of the government.

It is often said that the best disinfectant is sun light. We need to bring this out in to the light. That is why New Democrats are proposing today to split this bill, expose it, have the debate, have the parliamentary discussion, and bring democracy back to the House of Commons.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my two colleagues who talked about Bill C-9. It is clear that this is an omnibus bill in which we find a million completely different elements lumped together that should each be presented individually. When my colleague talked about security taxes, she pointed out—quite well in fact—the unbelievable number of unanswered questions in this bill.

My colleague who just spoke raised some extremely controversial things in this bill that need to be thoroughly examined. However, they are tucked into a bill that has to do with the budget, which automatically requires a confidence vote. For that reason, many people will hesitate to vote against it. In short, the bill might not be good, but it will be hard to vote against. That is not so for us, but it may be for others.

Is this not completely anti-democratic? Should the elected members not have enough room to manoeuvre and the necessary information to determine the value of the bill? Could my colleague say a few words about that?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the presentation by the officials on Bill C-9, the question was raised about whether there was a move that would place economic objectives ahead of environmental objectives. That point was raised in the context that the provisions in Bill C-9 would permit the currently required environmental assessments to be waived or not be done simply because of the timing of other economic activity going on that the government would like to have proceed. That is what spawned the question about whether this was an issue where economic priorities trumped environmental priorities, and it is very troubling to me.

I am not sure what it says about government accountability, transparency, openness, public consultation, due process and matters like due diligence that we are required to have, but it would appear to me that the member's arguments are quite valid. I would be interested to know whether she feels there has been due diligence in the finance committee by members of Parliament.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to ask for the deletion of part 19 and part 20 of Bill C-9. Those make up our Motions Nos. 16 to 18 and 19 to 38.

I bring forward this motion for the deletion of those parts of the bill for twofold reasons, which I have spoken to previously in the House. The twofold reasons are both for process of the making of law in this nation and on the substantive measures.

We have heard from Canadians from community to community and ocean to ocean opposing this measure. We have heard it from farm communities, environmental organizations and a long list of first nations organizations. They are absolutely appalled that for the second time the government has chosen, through a budget bill, to make substantive changes to the long-treasured Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

There was absolutely no consultation in advance, despite the fact that for almost three decades the government has had in place a regulatory advisory committee on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This group has not even been convened for a year and a half, so the government chose to completely ignore a long-established committee, actually established by the Conservatives, and chose to do it through a budget bill to make it a non-confidence vote. It then referred the matter to the wrong committee, not that many members of the finance committee are not fully capable of reviewing any statute. However, as the House is well advised, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act already requires by law that it be reviewed at a set date, and that matter is already scheduled before the parliamentary committee on environment and sustainable development.

The government made a decision to completely short-circuit public consultation, violate its own legal provisions and show complete disrespect for the committee that had already made itself apprised of the matter and was trying to move forward as expeditiously as possible. Why is that? It is because this act has been before the parliamentary committee on environment and sustainable development before. Therefore, to ensure a consistent review, it made sense, since the committee looked at the act at its inception, to give it the opportunity to continuously do the review and to accord the opportunity to any stakeholder from industry, the public or the first nations to come forward and give their opinions on the proposed amendments.

First and foremost, Canadians have come out strongly in the same way they did in last year's budget bill, where the government emasculated the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Last time, it took a knife to federal environmental law. This time, it took an axe. It swung an axe on an act that all Canadians, from industry, provincial governments, territorial governments, first nations governments, environmental organizations, community-based organizations, farm organizations and fishery organizations, have had a say for many years in developing what they consider to be a strong act, which governments after governments have lauded around the world.

In one fell swoop, the government decided to go against due process, against the democratic process, which the government is bound by and committed to under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, to provide advance notice and an opportunity to comment by any person in North America to any new environmental law policy. It completely ignored a document it is bound by.

The government talks all the time about how it is working in common with North America and how we should look at things in North America and yet it has completely violated the very agreement it has signed and decided just to throw it into a budget bill.

I have had submissions from a number of people. The finance committee heard submissions from a number of people across the country castigating the government for doing this and asking that the finance committee move these measures over to the environment committee.

As far as substance, what is done in this bill is absolutely reprehensible. Contrary to what the minister has firmly asserted in the House, equal rights are not provided to the public who may have concerns and want to intervene in the review of major projects.

In part 19, the National Energy Board and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act are given the discretion to think about whether they might provide participant funding if somebody asks. That completely goes against what is provided for in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act where, if they are going ahead with a comprehensive review, they must provide intervenor funding. That is not equal treatment under the law. It is giving lesser rights to those who are dealing with major nuclear facilities and major oil and gas activity.

On the substantive measures, the government has taken the Supreme Court of Canada ruling and completely undermined it by giving the Minister of the Environment total discretion to decide to narrow the scope of the review of a project. This goes against the understanding around the world of why we do environmental assessments and, if we are doing a comprehensive review, why we need to look at the whole scope of a project. It unilaterally gives complete discretion to the minister to decide to narrow the scope, overturning the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

What this part of Bill C-9 would also do is exempt a vast number of projects that would be funded by Infrastructure Canada before the government even undertakes the process of deciding whether there will be any significant environmental impacts. It gives a little option to the minister after the fact to say that maybe the minister will unexempt the exemption if he or she find there are significant environmental impacts, but how would the minister to do that if he or she has already exempted them all.

Huge concerns have been raised about this project. I want to share with the House some of the testimony by the people who have come before the finance committee to object to this matter being reviewed by the finance committee and being put through in the budget bill.

Mrs. Arlene Kwasniak, who is a respected environmental law scholar at the University of Calgary law school, said:

I would like to suggest that there has been a recent demise in consultations having to do with the CEAA and an avoidance of the legislative requirement for consultations for substantive changes.

...this provision opens the door for uneven and unfair application of the CEAA. There are no statutory conditions governing the exercise of the minister's discretion....

In the Speech from the Throne and the budget bill this year, the government said that the very reason it was going to streamline environmental regulation and environmental assessments was to provide legal certainty and we have these legal scholars saying that the last thing the bill would do is provide legal certainty.

Mr. Richard Lindgren, counsel for the Canadian Environmental Law Association, said:

Based on our experience and our public interest perspective, we have very serious and fundamental concerns about the Bill C-9 proposals to amend CEAA. [...] CELA objects to the process that's being used to enact these amendments. In our opinion, proposed changes to CEAA should not be buried in a budget bill. Instead, any proposed amendments to the act should be brought forward and proceeded with as stand-alone legislation that's subject to full parliamentary debate and meaningful public consultation, neither of which has occurred in this case to this point.

The second objection was the timing of the proposed amendments. He goes on to describe it and said:

As the committee is aware, these amendments have been introduced just as the mandatory seven-year review of CEAA is about to commence.

I could also quote from the letter from Mr. Ron Plain, the Aamjiwnaang First Nation and about 20 other first nations from across the country. They are requesting that the government withdraw part 20 of Bill C-9 which deals with CEAA until they have engaged in a meaningful consultation process to address first nations interests in maintaining a rigorous environmental assessment process federally that will ensure proper consultation and accommodation of their constitutionally protected interests.

They wish to stress that the lack of consultation on Bill C-9 to date is inconsistent with article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which requires:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples...to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

They state that many industrial and infrastructure projects impact aboriginal interests and, given that the federal government has a fiduciary relationship with first nations people, it is questionable that the government would seek power to scope industrial projects narrowly and to entirely exempt infrastructure projects without first consulting aboriginal peoples. The honour of the Crown's duty needs to be fulfilled through a meaningful consultation process on this critical portion of Bill C-9 before it is enacted.

All of those people have said that they want to have these provisions removed from the budget bill.

Even the Senate committee, which reviewed this bill, recommended that the government not do this kind of process a second time, that budget bills should deal with financial matters and that they should not be the mechanism for dealing with substantive major amendments to federal laws. That was also endorsed by a majority recommendation of the parliamentary finance committee on reviewing the last bill.

It is critical that the House support my motion to separate out and delete parts 19 and 20 so we can have a proper review in consultation with all affected groups.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for trying to deal with a whole grouping of report stage motions.

The point here and I am sure we are going to hear a lot about it, is that the budget implementation bill, Bill C-9, includes a large number of items which were not in the budget speech nor in the budget document itself. There were some concerns expressed at the presentation the finance officials gave on Bill C-9. The air travellers security charge was one as was the elimination of the need for environmental assessments. The one that caught my eye, and I know the finance committee looked at it, deals with the possibility of privatizing some of AECL's assets.

In addition to the concerns regarding the air travellers security charge which the member has very legitimately raised, I wonder whether she could inform the House of approximately how many items in Bill C-9 are add-ons or have been slipped in outside of what was presented to the House in the budget. Were these items given due consideration at the finance committee when Bill C-9 was being considered?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motions before us today. Mr. Speaker, as you just read out, there are 62 motions and now I find myself in the position where 49 of them are grouped into one slot of debate. I only have 10 minutes to speak this afternoon, so I will restrict my speech to two clauses in particular, clauses 96 and 97 of the bill, and I will let my colleagues speak to some of the others.

Clauses 96 and 97 of Bill C-9 before us today must be deleted because they pave the way for a massive increase in the air travellers security charge, the ATSC. Together they form just one of six pieces of business that have absolutely no place in this bill.

The omnibus budget bill is almost 900 pages long. It includes 24 parts with more than 2,200 sections. It is subject to one debate at second reading, another at third reading in each house, plus scrutiny by only one committee in each house. Those limitations mean that members of this House cannot possibly do justice to the varied, far-reaching and fundamental changes proposed in this legislation.

The inescapable conclusion is that the government is trying to bury deep in its budget legislation all manner of nefarious, unwise and unpopular pet projects. In bundling these unrelated measures into just one bill, the government's propensity to stifle debate and silence its critics reaches a new low. The huge and indefensible increases to the air travellers security charge included in this omnibus bill is another example of bad public policy being rushed through the House with as little scrutiny as possible.

Canada's security charge was extraordinarily high even before this proposed increase. In 2008 the Air Transport Association of Canada conducted a survey to rank the security fees charged by 175 governments at airports worldwide and found that Canada's security charge was the second highest, second only to that in the Netherlands. It is widely believed that with these increases we will have the dubious distinction of having the highest costs in the world and yet there is absolutely no evidence that we will be any safer.

The international fee alone is set to increase a whopping 52%, from $17 to $25.91. In the United States, the international security charge is $5. It is a simple question. On what basis can the government justify imposing the highest costs in the world on Canadian air travellers? What can possibly justify a 50% increase in the air travellers security charge when the existing tax is already yielding a surplus?

Let me add that while it seems clear the existing security charge yields a surplus, we cannot know for certain what is happening to those tax dollars because the audited information that Canadians are entitled to is simply not available. The last report by the Auditor General on the security charge dates back to 2004-05. The lack of accountability for taxpayer dollars is unacceptable.

However, the Air Transport Association of Canada has conducted its own study in the absence of audited information. Let me quote from ATAC president and CEO John McKenna's recent testimony before the Standing Committee on Finance:

We looked at the numbers supplied by CATSA [the Canadian Air Transportation Security Agency] and Statistics Canada.

Our estimates are based on the 48 million passengers screened by CATSA in 89 Canadian airports during fiscal year 2008-09. The numbers put forth by CATSA concur with Statistics Canada reports of 108 million passengers emplaned or deplaned during calendar year 2008, with some 54 million departing passengers, CATSA's clientele. Statistics Canada indicates that 62.9% of these passengers were on domestic flights, 19.5% were on transborder flights, and 17.6% were on international flights.

Based on these numbers, it becomes a simple exercise to estimate the revenues generated by the ATSC [the air travellers security charge]. The spreadsheet that we handed out suggests that revenues generated by the ATSC well exceed CATSA appropriation, even before the increase [in the ATSC]. Based on these calculations, [what the ATSC collected in 2008-09] more than $70 million was retained as general revenue by the Government of Canada and not used to fund CATSA.

Once the increases in the ATSC have been factored in, and considering the budget allocation for CATSA of $1.5 billion over the next five years, the revenues generated by the ATSC will produce an annual surplus of over $330 million.

That is 330 million taxpayers' dollars every year for five years quite unaccounted for.

Where is the surplus? Is the surplus being quietly moved to general revenue? Why is the government imposing a massive tax hike on the travelling public when the fund is already in surplus? How does the government intend to spend the burgeoning surplus it is now asking Canadians to finance? Is the government seriously trying to tell Canadians that it has delivered a no new taxes budget when it in fact includes a massive and unnecessary tax increase for the travelling public?

CATSA is responsible for implementing new security measures but does not do any threat assessment whatsoever. That is the purview of either the RCMP or CSIS. How much of the security charge generated revenues go to Transport Canada? How much goes to the RCMP or CSIS? Canadians have a right to know. As the Air Transport Association of Canada pointed out to the Standing Committee on Finance, Canadians do not need more layers of security; they need more effective security, better security.

Is the government simply going to increase the security charge every time a security loophole is discovered, or is it going to make air travel safer for Canadians by taking a comprehensive look at security procedures? Will security measures simply accumulate, or will the government look to developing and implementing a more efficient single step screening process aimed at improving security, reducing the number of screening stages and the time and personnel required to process passengers?

Anyone who has travelled by air knows that the inefficiency of current security practices is a serious problem, but the government continues to take a piecemeal approach to security, adding ad hoc security measures in response to isolated incidents. New Democrats believe that Canadian aviation security planning should include a comprehensive security assessment that is informed by past incidents but also looks forward. We must identify sensitive areas that could be subject to attack and implement proper security measures and response procedures to address these threats.

We must review our response systems and airport architectural design to allow security to efficiently and effectively deal with security threats with a lesser impact on airport operations.

We must develop better coordination and information sharing between intelligence agencies and airport security that would allow security personnel to actively search for potential threats and prepare response scenarios while at the same time protecting privacy rights.

Canadians want the government to develop a security system that truly protects travellers, that is designed specifically for the Canadian context, and that reflects our own needs in light of the security threat in this country.

As well, CATSA's performance must be measured against agencies that perform the same work in other jurisdictions. How does CATSA's performance stack up from an economic perspective? Are we getting value for our money? If we are, how does the government know that? What evidence has been gathered to evaluate CATSA's performance and where can the public get that information? Where is the public review of CATSA and its finances that the government promised last year?

Rather than visit massive tax increases on Canadian travellers for little or no discernible benefit, the government would have been well advised to support the private member's bill introduced by my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. The act to provide certain rights to air passengers included a passengers' bill of rights and introduced measures on compensation for over-booked flights, unreasonable tarmac delays, cancelled flights, the concern for late and misplaced luggage, and addressed all-inclusive pricing by airline companies in their advertising.

The legislation was inspired by a European Union law where overbookings have dropped significantly. Air Canada is already operating under the European laws for its flights in Europe. Why should an Air Canada customer receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

The bill of rights would have ensured that passengers were kept informed of flight changes, whether they were delays or cancellations. The new rules would have been posted in the airports, and airlines would have had to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation.

These are the types of changes Canadian consumers want from their government. Instead, we have a tax hike with no commensurate increase in safety, security or convenience.

The government is asking us to approve a massive tax increase when it promised there would be none. The government offers no rationale for that increase, no explanation of why we should move from the second highest cost security charge jurisdiction on the planet to the first. There appears to be a huge surplus in the security charge fund, but we cannot be sure exactly how much, where it goes, or how it is spent.

Canadians have no idea whether the agency responsible for their safety operates efficiently or effectively. Canadians are being asked to pay more with no indication of better service. All this is buried in a budget bill that, because of the government's almost paranoid fear of scrutiny, will not see the oversight and review that Canadians need and want.

It is for all of those reasons that I was proud, on behalf of the entire NDP caucus, to move the deletion of all sections in Bill C-9 that deal with the air travellers security charge.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Foreign Investment

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is for sure: everyone agrees that AECL needs to be restructured now so that we can ensure the viability of the nuclear industry in Canada and abroad, and so that we can share our expertise and create high-level jobs. We must also take fewer financial risks for taxpayers. That is why we are looking for strategic investments.

I urge the opposition to pass Bill C-9 so that we can do this right.

An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in the background information we received from the department, the following was said:

The NCC must manage its properties in accordance with principles of responsible environmental stewardship.

The government talks about that quite a bit. Bill C-9 talks about streamlining the environmental processes and vetting projects through environmental screenings; but in this particular situation, is that going to change in the next little while? Does the master plan look after that? Is he not concerned about that?

I know he has spoken passionately about this issue for quite some time. The government seems to be talking a lot about it, but there does not seem to be a lot of meat to it. I was wondering if the hon. member could address that.

Furthermore, although it is said that that the 50-year plan will be renewed every 10 years and be tabled in the House, does the hon. member not think that we should also vet that plan in some formalized debate?

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona on his speech. He is quite involved in a number of different bills. However, I missed part of his presentation.

Since we are talking about Bill C-15, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident, I would like to ask him whether he touched on Bill C-9, on budget implementation. If not, I would like him to say a few words about it.

Since that is an omnibus bill, the sale of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited assets also just happens to be included in it. Tendering has begun on the sale of AECL's reactor business. I wonder whether the hon. member has studied this issue within the bill we are currently studying, in terms of liability. Are we sure that liability for the reactors will be transferred to the potential buyer? What are his thoughts on this?

Finance

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act. The committee examined the bill and has agreed to report it without amendment.

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2010

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member has pointed out some very important realities in her question. First and foremost is that we have a government that runs away. It runs away from its obligations when faced with any kind of situation. It prorogues and leaves the members of Parliament without the forum in which to discuss the kind of issues our country is facing.

In terms of Bill C-9 and the tax loopholes, I do not believe the government has any interest at all in closing those loopholes. In fact, I would say these loopholes have been deliberately created for the very people who support the government, who go to fundraisers for the government and who manage to support it in terms of the election and re-election campaigns. These are the very loopholes that undermine and eat away at our ability as a nation to do things for the people of this nation, which they deserve.

If we look at budget 2010, and I hope I can remember this accurately, currently corporations account for about $27 billion in taxes, and individuals, ordinary men and women, the people who work hard every day, pay $116.7 billion in taxes. By 2015, corporations will be up to something like $29 billion and the people of Canada, those hardworking individuals, will be paying $156 billion in individual taxes.

This is hardly fair. This is hardly the kind of tax system we should have. We need fair taxes. We need to abandon the practices of the past where we saw a Liberal prime minister, Paul Martin, give $100 billion in tax giveaways to profitable corporations and the current government give away $60 billion and in fact, in January 2010, an additional $1.5 billion in largesse.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague, who pointed out that Bill S-3 is a large bill, and that we must examine it thoroughly. I remind members of the initiatives that were introduced by the government, for example, in Bill C-9. The government opened loopholes in the Income Tax Act to allow corporations that are not registered in Canada to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. The Bloc Québécois also introduced a number of initiatives to combat tax evasion. Every time, something happened in Parliament, with prorogations or elections, and our bills died on the order paper. The Bloc Québécois also tabled some provisions to combat tax evasion that were not passed by the House.

I would like the member to share with us some real solutions for combatting tax evasion.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to hear my colleague from Winnipeg talk about the implications of tax policy, with having done so much research on it, because those implications affect so much of what we do in this place, primarily the government's ability and willingness to collect taxes fairly across the country. Are there special understandings within the political class here, the cabinet, and those families that can even afford to even consider things like tax havens?

I suspect that most Canadians watching this have not contemplated with their families around the dinner table what to do with their tax haven structures this year. Most Canadians are struggling to make ends meet and pay their fair share of taxes, and are willing to do so, but it is when they hear stories of the excessively rich families in Canada making a certain amount of money, wanting to avoid taxes and then skipping town, essentially.

Some of these same folks end up getting a little pin on their lapels or the Order of Canada from prime ministers for their great and dutiful work for Canadians. The irony and the hypocrisy in that alone smacks so hard against Canadian values.

Bill S-3 is a bill that has come forward from the Senate. It is great to know that every once in a while the senators rouse themselves from their afternoon naps and produce something. However, it is a bill that does not necessarily mean a lot in its particulars but, in general, has implications for all of us.

In Bill S-3, as my friend from Winnipeg said, the government quite intentionally included a country that may cause problems, because it is trying to do a free trade deal with Colombia right now and now it is slipping it into this taxation bill. It is striking to me and to others why these three particular countries are locked together and why it is of interest to the government to include such diverse economies together into one piece, but the government has chosen to do that so we must work with that.

The issue that is in front of us is how to deal with this bill. The NDP has suggested, quite rightly, that the bill should be split, that it should be broken up into its contingent parts so we can deal with each reality on its own. The government at this point has refused that, but let us look at the pattern of how the government operates when it comes to making legislation and the role of the government.

Right now at the finance committee, members are dealing with Bill C-9, which, by all measures and accounts, is a Trojan Horse bill. It is supposed to be a budget bill but it is an omnibus bill, which means that it includes a whole bunch of different pieces. The government has included things like raising airport taxes and the selling off of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the largest crown corporation in this country. It is the nuclear industry. It has also included a watering down of environmental regulations on, of all things, the oil and gas industry, which is quite ironic to think about doing that right now. All of these things are embedded into a piece of legislation that is meant to be a budget bill, a finance bill. That is a cynical form of politics. It is a form of politics that says that it does not want to debate these things on their merits.

Let us just take one of those pieces as an example, the selling of AECL. Canadians, over the 50 years of this crown corporation existing, have put somewhere north of $21 billion into it to develop the nuclear industry here in Canada, both on the energy side and creating isotopes. That is a lot of money. What else could have been done with $21 billion? However, here we are and the money has been put in.

It actually says in legislation that was crafted in this place that in order to sell or break up AECL, the government must bring a bill before the House for debate. That makes sense. That is reasonable. That is what every other country around the world does. However, rather than debate the sale of AECL or how to break it up, or any of these other things, the government instead has slipped it into a budget bill and has said that it is a matter of confidence.

It also tacked in this thing about raising taxes at airports. This is from a government that is constantly claiming that it is cutting taxes. It is becoming laughable because at the same time it is raising them, like the HST.

I am a member from British Columbia and I was just at our first farmers' market in Terrace, B.C. this weekend. I manned the HST booth for a couple of hours and heard from constituents in British Columbia how frustrated they are that when they flick on the evening news they hear Conservative minister after minister talk about their glorious tax cuts, when they know in British Columbia and in Ontario that they are moving the HST onto the backs of hard-working families who will pay more taxes.

It was a tax that was brought in by a British Columbia premier who promised not to do it. The Conservatives pretend they had nothing to do with it, forgetting that their fingerprints are all over a $1.6 billion bribe that they sent to Ontario. The government took $1.5 billion from taxpayers to bribe another level of government to raise taxes on those same taxpayers. This is the way the Conservative government cuts taxes.

It is unbelievable that those guys can still walk upright and claim the high moral ground on taxation when they took $1.5 billion and slipped it into a budget bill to raise taxes in British Columbia and another $3.5 billion or so to Ontario. That is remarkable.

What is remarkable is that the folks who were coming up to us at this farmers market were from all political persuasions. Folks from across the political spectrum were saying that whether it was this type of tax or another type of tax, the process stunk. They were signing a petition so a free and fair vote could be held in British Columbia to decide things.

Bill S-3 is another effort at talking about things without actually doing anything. We have asked for evidence from the government about the effect of these treaties. The government has signed, I believe, 87 agreements. The Conservatives think they are great free traders because they have signed these agreements. They say that they are fantastic, thereby implying that something actually has changed in the world.

It must have cost a lot of money to print 87 treaties, never mind sending negotiators all over the world to make these things happen. These things are not free. We have invested in these things. We are asking for a return on our investment.

We want to know what has changed in tax policy. Have we caught those folks who take their money offshore to a tax haven? Have we recovered any funds from the people who have earned their money from investments by Canadians and then skipped town before the bill is due? The government has not provided any evidence.

This leads one to some suspicions. This is again the portrayal of action without anything actually changing. This is a level of government of which people are growing increasingly tired. If the government is going to do something, then it should do it.

I come from a remote rural part of northern British Columbia. When somebody says he or she is going to do something, often it is a handshake and the agreement is made. Then we go forth and do it.

To set up all these agreements with no evidence as to whether they work or not, or which kind work better for which situation, is governance by a certain ideology rather than governance by any kind of thoughtfulness and debate.

With this bill, the government is lumping three countries together so it can get the numbers up. It is signing more treaties, all the while refusing a fundamental principle of trade, which has been evolving, growing and maturing around the world for the last 50 years.

That is the counter to the free trade ideology. We can trade with other partner countries but we have to do it fairly. Everybody knows that nothing is free in this world. Even the terminology free trade must sound good, it must mean good things. However, when we ask about fair trade, when we ask about trade that is on good terms with our trading partners, that would improve working standards, that would take care of the environment, that would ensure we do not support regimes that we would never tolerate here, the government is silent. It is not interested in those types of trade agreements, and we see that with Colombia.

Our member for Burnaby—New Westminster has been pushing hard to get some sort of review of the human rights situation in Colombia. He has made some progress with members after a massive campaign involving thousands of Canadians. They would like to know that their trading partners are living up to some sort of standards, some sort of requirement, for the privilege of trading.

That is how trade works. It is a privileged status. It is not a right. Countries do not trade with each other based on any fundamental rights. Countries trade as a privilege. It is the same with operating a business. It is not a right to operate a business in Canada. It is a privilege. One has to follow certain rules and those rules cannot be broken.

If someone ducks out on taxes, the government comes after that individual, and rightly so, except for a particular class of Canadians. When we get into the billions of dollars, suddenly a whole new set of rules apply. People go to what is called a tax haven, and tax havens, as has been described earlier today, are set up by countries that have a skeleton of a banking sector. They are often islands. They are often very small countries, sometimes democratic, sometimes not. The list of prestigious Canadian families who have their money socked away in these tax havens is astounding.

We see it time and time again, whether it is Liberal or Conservative governments. A little private meeting goes on and Revenue Canada says that is all right. We saw it with a former prime minister, for goodness sake, who got caught evading taxes. It was Brian Mulroney, a Conservative. Those folks used to know him, then they pretended they did not him and now they know him again, I think. What did he do once he got caught. He cut a deal with Revenue Canada. If he paid back a portion of those taxes, it would be satisfied.

I wonder if the government offers that same deal to the average hard-working Canadian taxpayers. If they are having a hard time this year or last year paying their taxes, Revenue Canada will cut them a deal and they will only pay 50%. Of course not. The system would not work that way.

However, when we move up into this upper echelon, if it is a Brian Mulroney, or a Bronfman, or somebody who has some connections to this place, they can cut deals with the government to pay half of the taxes they actually owe. How does that make any sense? How can those guys call themselves fiscally conservative if, at the same time, they allow tax avoidance to go on? How can they be running deficits while, at the same time, taxes owed to the good people of Canada are not paid. The only reason is because there are connections, there is the familiarity, there is a need to have some sort of comfort with certain Canadians who are of a certain wealth.

On the agreements with countries, we hope, as Canadians, that our presence in the world, our ability to connect with other countries is for a betterment of the world. We do not go forth, whether it is through military or diplomacy or trade, hoping to make the world a worse place. Part of our underlying belief as Canadians is that we have accomplished something in our country that is, as some have said, a country that works well in practice but not in theory. We want to be a symbol and an example on certain issues, particularly, for other countries struggling to establish a democratic rule of law, struggling to establish women's rights and rights for minorities, rights for the gay-lesbian community. Canadians feel okay with promoting those things overseas. We hope we do that through our diplomatic core and our military, from time to time.

However, when we look at the free trade ideology coming from the government, all these other issues get short shrift. One wonders if the government even believes that trade is a mechanism and a vehicle for promoting human rights and environmental standards around the world. Conversely, and I think this is much closer to the reality for those guys. The very nature and vision of the role of Canada, the very vision of Canada promoted by the Conservative government is not one that supports human rights. It is not one that supports environmental protection or the rights of first nations people. The reason I can make that strong statement is there is so much proof that the government does not mind cutting access to women's programs. The government does not seem to mind cutting back funding for certain groups that it does not like if their ideology is not right. It does not mind watering down environmental regulations on the oil and gas industry. In fact, the government suggests the oil and gas industry can regulate itself, which might be better.

In committee this morning we heard that our national regulator that governs oil and gas for most of the country, with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, had said that it was no good to have these regulations any more, that we should just be goal-oriented in our rules. Let us not have rules, in fact. Let us just have guidelines. Would it be a good idea to just have goal-oriented guidelines for driving regulations or for the safety of our homes and our streets? Of course not. We put regulations in place.

As my father-in-law, who works for a compensation board in British Columbia, says that a lot of the rules and regulations that govern industry for workers' safety are written blood. What he means is those rules were not invented out of nowhere. They were often invented after there had been an accident. In his case, workers' safety, somebody died, or somebody was hurt seriously. They realized they had to change the rules guiding construction, or a certain industry. The had to make them stronger so people could go to work knowing they would come home at the end of the day. That is the principle from where regulations and rules come. There is not a little office of people sitting around Ottawa, not that I am aware of, who make up rules for the sake of it. We make up rules and regulations so they enable good practice to flourish, so they give people a fair opportunity earn a decent buck to be social citizens. There is a social licence to operate that is buried within it.

However, when it comes to the regulations, the government promotes a Canada that does not necessarily belive in this, that industry can self-regulate. If we look to the Gulf of Mexico right now, we see what happens when an industry is given more self-regulation.

This does not always happen in one shot. It happens over time. There is a creep, they call it. It creeps edge by edge. We saw it in the stock market in the U.S. and in Canada. We put rules and guidelines in place to try to contain some of the greed that would be rampant in any stock market, because it is a profitable place to make money. We put those in place because not everybody was very ethical. Some traders want to bend and break rules and rip off their investors. In American, it was the Glass-Steagall act. In Canada, we had a bunch of other stuff, but the creep happened.

Bit by bit, the Americans eroded some of their guidelines. They eroded the rules and decided to do outcome-based guidelines. The outcome-based guideline for the stock market is to make money. If people keep making money, that is all right, but they will not be guided. The invisible hand of the free market will save them at the end of the day.

The marketplace is a magical thing. It can bring billions of dollars into new technology, ideas that spur innovation and that ambition can be allowed to flourish. However, it needs to have some rules and some sort of containment so people who try to do the right thing are rewarded and those who are crooks are thrown in jail. We take away all those regulations and they make guidelines. We make goal-oriented objectives and we get what we get, which is the worst of the worst are able to manipulate the system to their best abilities and make money in unethical ways.

Now we move to trade in Bill S-3, the bill from the Senate. We need to have these tax deals so people are not double taxed. That is a very fine principle. It is something we can support. Then we look at all the existing tax haven countries. Has the government signed any treaties with those countries, the places where people actually set up tax havens?

I have not known Turkey to be a great and rampant source of tax havens for the wealthy and rich around the globe, because it is not. We have the list of the places that are. Transparency International runs a list of the most corrupt regimes every year. Some of those are also the regimes where these tax havens exist. All one has to do is pay somebody off to not pay any taxes in the country, to never have to declare it and to have one board member.

Former Prime Minister Martin ran his whole shipping company under different flags of convenience. Why are they convenient? Because if people have shipping companies like the former Prime Minister of Canada did and they do not want to follow Canadian, American or European law, they fly them under the flags of some backwater African country, which has no rules or regulations for shipping. Therefore, they do not have to stand by any labour or environmental laws because they have this convenient flag flying over their ships.

The problem with the government's ideology on this is it also applies a flag of convenience to its trade policy. It uses trade in a convenient way to accomplish only a very narrow band of things. There are those of us who believe strongly that trade with a country can be an opening of a conversation about improving the conditions for people on both sides of the deal, both Canada and the country with which we are trading.

There is some evidence that this has happened around the world. In the last 25 years, we have seen steady improvements for the lowest-income people across the globe in some regions. However, it is false to think that this just happens naturally and that it is some byproduct that will happen no matter what we do. Very strong evidence exists to show this is the case.

We traded with Iraq during the entire Saddam Hussein regime. We bought its oil. The Americans bought its oil. We did not put a single stipulation in place. We had to drive furiously at a previous Conservative government to get a proper regime set up against South Africa when apartheid existed. We had to make the moral implication. The argument against any trade sanctions against South Africa was that free trade had to reign. That was the most fundamental principle. If we just traded with South Africa, it would eventually let apartheid dissipate.

Of course that was never going to happen. It would still be there today if the world did not get together and say that, as part of human trade, we would insist on human rights. As part of our trade with South Africa, to buy its resources and products, we would insist that it also treated all its citizens with some level of dignity. It was a good moment for the world when we finally decided that. Conservative ideological thinkers were against it. They opposed every step of the way.

We see it again here today. We need good trade policy in Canada. We are a trading nation. We need to shut down tax havens around the world and have people, whatever their social standing, pay their fair share of taxes. It is the right thing to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call to order this twentieth meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. The orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 19, 2010: Bill C-9, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010, and other measures.

This is the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9. Colleagues, we have before us here this afternoon and evening 2,200 clauses, so we have a lot of clauses and work to do.

We did the briefing sessions with officials by part, and there are 24 parts to this bill. So that is how I will proceed, through the different parts of the bill, and then we'll do the schedules, the title, and such.

Clause 1 is the short title, but pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), this is postponed until after, for consideration at the end.

We will start with part 1. The way we will proceed is that I will identify which clauses that refers to, and then I will call for any discussion on any of the clauses within that part.

In part 1, we have clauses 2 to 36, amendments to the Income Tax Act and related acts and regulations.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Martin, please.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that vast question, which encompasses the responsibilities of all humanity.

In terms of globalization, we could all aim for a healthy balance for all peoples. But the bill that is before us addresses only a small part of the overall problem.

We have to think about the end result of the bill, because taxation in the three countries in question is lower than in Canada. In fact, Bill C-9, which I see as related, allows companies registered in foreign countries to pay tax only in the country where they are registered. That is why I talked earlier about Canada's potential loss of revenue, which needs to be assessed.

If we look at the end result of this bill, I think we will see that these countries may ultimately achieve a net gain. Because taxation is lower there, many companies registered there will benefit in terms of their domestic revenue.

These countries will have to manage this revenue well if they really want to improve their people's welfare.

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

Madam Speaker, I find the Conservatives' strategy of cramming several bills into one very curious. They did the same thing with Bill C-9. They put all sorts of things in that bill, but of course it was inappropriate and showed a complete lack of respect for Parliament.

Bill S-3 has to do with Greece and Turkey, two countries that have rather advanced tax systems, and Colombia, where the drug industry rakes in about $90 billion a year in revenues. We know that that industry has close ties to the government.

Does the member believe that it is inappropriate to combine two countries that have relatively advanced tax systems with a country whose government is linked not only to paramilitary groups, of course, but also to the drug industry, which rakes in tens of billions of dollars?

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill S-3, which passed third reading in the other place on May 4, 2010.

The Bloc Québécois supports the bill because we believe that it is important to implement the tax conventions negotiated with Colombia, Greece and Turkey. The goal of these conventions is to avoid double taxation and promote the exchange of information.

Any time economic relations are established with another country, the individuals or businesses in question likely enjoy revenues in both countries. Accordingly, tax conventions are crucial in order to ensure the exchange of information so as to avoid double taxation.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois does have some serious reservations about the bill that must examined in committee once it passes second reading.

First of all, we do not know how it will affect public finances. We heard a little bit about this earlier in other speeches, because Bill S-3 is 74 pages long and includes provisions that will have a direct impact on government revenues. The terms and conditions need to be thoroughly examined for a final assessment of this bill.

This type of review becomes even more necessary when the government is opening loopholes in the Income Tax Act to allow corporations that are not registered in Canada to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Just look at Bill C-9 currently under review in committee. I will come back to that later on in my presentation.

The government must make a real commitment to fight tax evasion. The Conservative government, which waited until 2009 before signing its first agreement on information sharing, is showing blatant unwillingness to do anything about tax havens.

Signing bilateral agreements on information sharing is just the first step in fighting tax evasion since businesses have an incentive to declare their income: to avoid being taxed twice.

The government can do a number of things to truly fight tax evasion and simply sharing information is not enough. It has to stop concluding tax treaties with tax havens. It has to submit every international treaty it negotiates to the House of Commons and allow the representatives of the people to have their say.

In order to respect jurisdictions, it has to consult the provinces and Quebec before negotiating a treaty that affects their jurisdictions. I will come back to that later.

Earlier I spoke about the impact on the government's finances. Bill S-3 falls into line with the Conservative government's moves to cut corporate taxes. What impact will it have on the government's finances?

What impact will limiting the rate of income tax withheld at source have on the government's finances in the case of dividends from affiliates and the cases involving other dividends, interest and royalties?

This type of review becomes even more necessary when we consider that Bill C-9 to implement certain provisions of the budget confirms the Conservative government's desire to protect rich taxpayers at all costs, and among them we find the banks and big corporations.

With regard to tax loopholes, the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On one side, it says that it wants to go after tax havens and, on the other side, it is opening loopholes in the Income Tax Act to allow corporations that are not registered in Canada to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

I would like to shed some light on the budget implementation measures in Bill C-9. This bill changes the definition of “taxable Canadian property” to exclude shares from certain private companies. This will have a number of implications.

Non-residents—which can include companies that are owned by Canadians but were incorporated abroad—that sell shares of Canadian companies are currently exempt from paying taxes under the Canadian Income Tax Act, without having to apply the tax relief measures provided for in the different tax conventions Canada has signed.

I want to put this into context. Before, when a non-resident sold a Canadian company in part or in full, Canadian tax authorities required the purchaser to hold back 10% to 25% of the total amount of the transaction, while they did their usual checks of the conventions between Canada and the country of the non-resident. Once these checks were complete, if there was a convention in force, the non-resident would pay taxes in their own country and would avoid double taxation.

With Bill C-9, the government will stop enforcing this holdback, whether or not there is a convention with the country in question. For example, a company in the Bahamas, which does not have a tax convention with Canada, could sell shares of a Canadian company without paying taxes in Canada. A number of these companies are owned by Canadians, who would therefore avoid paying taxes.

Furthermore, the non-resident is no longer required to wait for authorization from the tax authorities when selling a Canadian investment, pursuant to clause 116, and is therefore no longer required to produce a Canadian income tax return.

The government is opening the door wide to foreign investors, and this includes the technology sector. Companies registered in countries where the tax rate is low or non-existent will be able to purchase and resell Canadian companies and pay little or no taxes.

Regarding tax havens, the Bloc Québécois urges the government to stop talking and start acting, instead of proposing pseudo-solutions made up of empty words. The Bloc Québécois has been proposing concrete solutions since 2005 to do away with access to tax havens like Barbados and to eliminate the double deduction of interest.

Why would a company not pay taxes on profits brought back to Canada after having declared them in a tax haven like Barbados, for example? This type of special treatment does not have a place in our society. Companies, like citizens, must pay their share of the tax burden. That is why we must prevent companies from using tax havens by abolishing the section in the Income Tax Act that makes this possible.

In order to truly fight tax evasion, the government could take action on a number of fronts. It must stop signing tax treaties with tax havens.

On four occasions the Bloc Québécois has introduced a treaty bill to modernize the entire process for concluding international treaties. Our treaty bill was designed to build transparency and democracy into the process of negotiating and concluding international treaties.

Moreover, the bill required that the federal government respect the provinces' jurisdictions, including Quebec's. The bill provided for five important changes: all treaties were to be put before the House of Commons, the House was to approve important treaties, a parliamentary committee was to consult civil society before Parliament voted on important treaties, treaties were to be published in the Canada Gazette and on the Department of Foreign Affairs website and the government was to consult with the provinces before negotiating a treaty in an area of provincial jurisdiction.

The treaty bill came to a vote only once, on September 28, 2005. I would like to point out that all the federalist parties in the House voted against it.

The clause on consulting Quebec and the provinces was nothing revolutionary. When the federal government, in an international forum, discusses a treaty that would impact the provinces, it consults the provinces beforehand.

The Bloc Québécois will still support the bill despite our reservations. As for respecting the Quebec nation, which was recognized here in the House, the Conservative government has yet to deliver the goods.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier, I heard our Liberal colleagues talking about broken election promises. As members will recall, during the last election campaign, the Conservatives promised two things: they promised to put international treaties before the House prior to ratification and to give the provinces a role in concluding treaties pertaining to their jurisdictions. But as we can see, and as the hon. member mentioned earlier in response to one of his Liberal colleagues, the Conservative Party made promises during the election campaign, but as soon as it took power, it forgot all about them.

We are not comfortable with this bill because it comes from the Senate, and we have to wonder what the Senate has to do with any of this. Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said that we look to some senators for guidance. I realize that many of them have had successful careers and are knowledgeable, but what good is this knowledge in the upper chamber if it wastes away from lack of use?

Bill S-3 would implement tax treaties between Colombia and Canada, Greece and Canada as well as Turkey and Canada. One interesting aspect is that this seems to be a pure, unadulterated bill, unlike Bill C-9, which is a mishmash of things, odds and ends, that the government sent to us in parliamentary committee. We will be studying those 888 pages clause by clause this afternoon. I do not know what time we will finish. But this bill is focused strictly on avoiding double taxation and exchanging information. That is very important.

We in the Bloc Québécois will take our roles as parliamentarians seriously, and we will be diligent in our work. We have studied this bill and, because we encourage diligent and serious examination of issues, when it comes time to vote, we will do our jobs as parliamentarians. We want to see this bill further studied in committee. This is very important to us because we often hear that the Bloc is systemically opposed to everything, that we are here just to stonewall, as some token Quebeckers in the Conservative Party seem to enjoy saying or erroneously suggesting. I am obviously not insulting anyone here in the House by saying that because they are not here. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill because we believe in looking at things carefully.

Trade between Canada, Colombia, Greece and Turkey affects the revenues of the Government of Canada, but it also affects the revenues of provincial governments and of Quebec. There was no consultation about that. We do not even know how much this will cost. It will cost something, obviously, but we have no idea what it will cost the government.

Of course, for Quebeckers with companies that do business abroad—and I used to work in companies that did business abroad—tax conventions are attractive. I will always remember when I made my first foray into politics in 1994 in the Government of Quebec. At the time, my employer and immediate superior was Pierre Péladeau, who was president of Quebecor Inc. I was his executive vice-president of acquisitions.

He told me that if I went into politics in the Government of Quebec—I became Minister of Industry, Trade, Science and Technology—I should try to do as little harm as possible. That was how he liked to talk. Pierre Péladeau was a believer in the popular KISS principle, which recommends keeping things simple. To keep things simple, I will try to remember this man I loved working with.

This bill opens loopholes and revolving doors, and we will want to ask questions in committee or here in the House. For example, how is it that Canadian companies can register elsewhere to avoid paying their fair share here? We are concerned that there may be loopholes.

This bill is also supposed to fight tax evasion. Earlier, an NDP colleague wondered whether the current government really wanted to fight tax evasion. That is disturbing. We have to wonder which countries are tax havens and whether they have agreements with the Government of Canada. This is something that needs to be looked at. I still believe that we are being presented with a done deal, but we still need to examine a number of provisions in the bill.

For example, in subclause 1(d) of the General Definitions in Schedule 1, which pertains to the agreement between Canada and Colombia, the term “person” is defined as including “an individual, a trust, a company, a partnership...”.

On page 29, in subclause 1(c) of the General Definitions in Schedule 2, which pertains to the agreement between Canada and Greece, the term “person” includes an individual, a trust and a company. There is no mention of a partnership. This is the sort of question we could ask, but the agreement is a done deal. We have to take it or leave it.

Moving on with general definitions. In that same paragraph of the agreement with Turkey, the term “person” is defined as an individual, a trust, a company and an estate. As a parliamentarian, I would like to ask a question before signing this kind of agreement. Why are estates not mentioned in the agreements with Greece and Colombia, but they are mentioned in the agreement with Turkey? What does that mean? It is our job as parliamentarians to know what that means. There may be good answers out there, but I have not had a chance to get any. The parliamentary committee will try to get those answers.

There are currently 87 conventions between Canada and other countries, but only one contains the ideal standard of information exchange recommended by the OECD: the Canada-Netherlands convention. It is all a bit vague when it comes to other countries, and that raises a question.

Canada is apparently in talks with 14 other countries: Anguilla, Aruba, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Bermuda, Gibraltar, Guernsey, the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man, Turks and Caicos, the British Virgin Islands, Jersey, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Saint Lucia. But there have been delays. Until these agreements are signed, people will continue to take full advantage of tax havens. That is the important thing here.

Let us look at three random cases: Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Barbados. There are no conventions with these countries. They say negotiations are ongoing, but between 2000 and 2008, Canadian investment in those countries rose from $30 billion to $90 billion.

Can anyone tell me what it is about those three countries that caused investment to triple in the absence of tax conventions? Some might suggest that 300% divided by eight is 37% growth per year. As a financier and former university and HEC professor, I would say that that is not how it works. We have to consider compound interest. That is still 15% growth per year. Investment rose from $30 billion to $90 billion. Can anyone tell me what it is about those countries that supports that volume of international trade?

There are other countries as well. We remember the enthusiasm of President Sarkozy, who had the political will to act quickly, to sign and to condemn tax havens. He condemned what is known as the grey list. Who is currently on this list? Belize. My NDP colleague spoke about Belize earlier. In fact, it seems that some Conservatives do business in Belize. It would seem so. It is still on the list along with the Cook Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Liberia, the Marshall Islands, Montserrat, Nauru, Niue, Panama, Saint Lucia, Vanuatu, Brunei, Costa Rica, Guatemala, the Philippines and Uruguay. They are all on the grey list. What are they waiting for? Canada does not have agreements with these countries and therefore why not take full advantage.

What is a tax haven? The OECD has established criteria for identifying them. We have agreed on 0.08 as the legal alcohol limit for driving a car. I can say that the taxation rate is 0.0 when looking for tax havens. That means that there is no or nominal taxation. When you go to a country and ask about the corporate tax rate or the tax rate on capital gains, and you are asked in turn what tax rate and told 0.0, that should be a sign.

A lack of transparency is the second sign. It is like opening files and there is no system of record-keeping. Organizations specialize in not keeping records.

Lack of diligence is the third sign. It is expressed by administrative, legal or bureaucratic barriers or evasive answers when responding to our questions.

There is no transparency, no diligence and no taxation.

I find the fourth sign interesting: a total absence of economic activity associated with the investment.

I would like to go back to the three examples cited earlier. Canada's foreign investment in three countries went from $30 billion to $90 billion and we wonder what is in those countries.

There is nothing. Well, there are beautiful beaches, beautiful people and beautiful places, but in terms of industrial activity, there is nothing.

When a company that does metal and chemical processing invests in Barbados, we have to wonder what that country has to accommodate that. If there is nothing, along with a 0% tax rate, no transparency and no diligence, that is the perfect example of a tax haven.

In the 1950s, there was a sign on the way into Montreal meant to attract American investments in Quebec where, supposedly, labour was cheap and docile. Older people may remember it. Mr. Duplessis boasted about it. In a tax haven, you would see a sign that says that taxation is very cheap and very flexible. It is very docile. That is what a tax haven is all about.

Consider Barbados as an example. It is said that the tax laws in that country include a specific section for international business corporations. An international business corporation is a corporation that is registered in Barbados, but that conducts most of its business outside of Barbados.

Very few conditions have to be met to be there. The business has to be registered in Barbados, have its head office there, hold one annual meeting there—which can be a teleconference—keep records of a board of directors there and employ a local resident as the manager. How interesting: a job is created. However, the manager does not have to have any power. Accordingly, the board of directors recruits a manager from Barbados and tells that person they have no power and that is just fine.

How are the companies taxed? The maximum tax rate is 2.5% and the minimum tax rate is less than 1%, which is not much more than zero. They are exempt from capital gains tax, exempt from exchange controls and they can import anything they like duty free. One small detail: the average salary of a manager of a foreign subsidiary in Barbados is $1,500 a year. That same Barbados branch manager simply has to find 1,000 jobs at $1,500 each and he or she is the manger of 1,000 companies. It is a great way to earn a very good living.

I will close by talking about the road to healthy co-operation. We are told, of course, that things are improving and that this occurs less and less. Attempts are made to have tax agreements with countries, but under what conditions? We are told a country will be removed from the list if we can have access to real, valid information, if there is no banking secrecy, if access to information is relatively easy and if taxpayers' rights are protected. What happens if there are a dozen agreements? The trick is to have a dozen agreements with lenient countries and then continue to operate as a tax haven.

We are voting in favour of the bill. I know that my colleague from Alfred-Pellan will address some of the Bloc's other concerns, but we are voting in favour of the bill in order to be able to go over it with a fine-toothed comb.

With all due respect, it would have been better if the agreements had been submitted to the House beforehand and with input from the Government of Quebec.

[Johanne Bernard]

No, because in the case of Genome, it will be charged directly from the budget implementation act. Where you will see it is in public accounts as payments are made. There will not be a need for a new appropriation to be voted. Once Bill C-9 is approved, the authorities will be granted to make the payments to Genome Canada.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So that number is not really accurate based on Bill C-9 if Bill C-9 actually passes and becomes law. Is that correct?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Just in clarification on what you said earlier, in Bill C-9we have some more money for Genome Canada. In the budget it looks like there's a decrease--I can't remember if it was a decrease--to $48 million or something. So this budget doesn't reflect what's in Bill C-9, of course, because it was done long ago in the fall, right?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. I appreciate that.

Based on the budget, on Bill C-9, I'm not a big fan, to be frank, of departments being able to come back three times in a year. I've said that for four years in a row now and I'll continue to be that way.

Based on Bill C-9, are we expecting big supplementaries in A and B--and I hope not in C--from the industry department?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for appearing here today.

Ms. Brisebois and Mr. Oakey, it's interesting that this seems to have gotten lost in the weeds: this was a top-of-mind issue. The changes that we put into Bill C-9 for credit cards slightly over a year ago were a top-of-mind issue. The biggest issue we were dealing with was access to credit for Canadians—for businesses, but also for consumers--and we were running into some challenges. To your credit, you highlighted the concerns of the businesses you represent. We do appreciate the efforts you've put forward.

I guess I'm still a little concerned. The minister is on record--and I'm sure you've heard him say this--that we have put in place a voluntary code, and that if it didn't work, this would be involuntary. I don't know how we can be more blunt, but I'm concerned by a comment you made that your sense is that some are not planning on complying. Have you heard that from your membership?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

In closing, Mr. Yussuff, allow me to tell you that you have our full support for the withdrawal of part 15 of Bill C-9. As you have seen from the questions by the Bloc Québécois, it also offers you its full support on this point. The fate of part 15 is in the hands of the Liberal Party. When my colleague Mr. McCallum spoke earlier, I saw that there was some openness to the idea. Let's hope it will result in support for the withdrawal of part 15. I believe that will favour maintenance of this essential service.

I'm very pleased to say hello to Ms. Margles and I want to tell her how proud Canadians can be of the workers and of the products and services offered to the public by Canada Post. I hope that can continue and that those products and services won't be left to wither for ideological reasons.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say hello to all the speakers and to thank them for assisting us in our proceedings on Bill C-9.

I'm going to start with Mr. McKenna because his testimony is very important.

By way of a story, Mr. Chairman, we are getting ready for a family trip to Europe this summer for a wedding. My wife and I, our children and their respective spouses and our grand-daughter will be on that trip. For our air tickets, I've realized that this tax literally represents hundreds of dollars. It's incredible. This is the same government that says it is opposed to tax increases. This is an enormous direct tax increase for consumers, introduced immediately before the budget, as though people couldn't understand that it was a trick to conceal the fact that they were increasing it.

You're asking questions. Are these rhetorical questions or not? That's why I ask the question. Mr. McKenna, do you have the slightest indication that anyone is criticizing anything at ATAC regarding its productivity, efficiency or management capability? How do we compare, objectively, to what's being done elsewhere in the world? I know our tax is the highest in the world. The Conservatives tax Canadians more than people are taxed anywhere else in the world for this service. How does this service compare to what's being done elsewhere?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Okay.

Now I just want to read a quote from the Canada Post CEO, Moya Greene, in her comments before the Senate finance committee. She states that, generally speaking:

I favour open markets....

For us it is a revenue risk of $40 million to $80 million of a total revenue stream of $7.3 billion. We will vigorously compete for that business. Just because a market is competitive does not mean that Canada Post is out of the game. Look at what we have managed to do in the parcel business. It is the most fiercely competitive business in the country, and we are by no means out of that game. We are in there ensuring that our share of the market stays with us....

I do not think that remailers will put Canada Post under....

...I want to make it clear that [Bill C-9] does not take away the exclusive privilege. It applies only to a tiny segment of the mail...It affects a tiny subsection of the mail, and I believe that we can compete vigorously and successfully for that subsection. Of the many challenges that face Canada Post, I do not consider remailers to be anywhere near the top 10 list.

Mr. Yussuff, you stated in your remarks on page three, “We do not believe that Canadians want to see the destruction of their postal service”.

[Barry Sikora]

It is important for the committee to understand that during the past 25 years while this industry has operated in Canada, Canada Post has continuously and successfully provided universal postal service. There was no crisis. Our industry has not stopped this important mandate from happening.

Moreover, Canada Post experienced significant profits for 12 consecutive years in the early 1990s and throughout most of the 2000s. While the industry was operating in Canada, and until this matter with Canada Post became public in 2006, this industry did not receive one communication or complaint from CUPE relating to our operations.

Mr. Chairman, how could it have been the intent of Parliament, when it established the Canada Post Corporation Act, to allow small businesses like mine to start up in Canada, employ thousands of Canadians, and invest in the economy with the full knowledge and acceptance of Canada Post, only to have Canada Post come along and tell me, “Thanks, Barry, for building up your business, but you no longer are in business”, hoping to drive all the business to them, which has not happened and will not happen....

This is why the government introduced Bill C-14 in 2007 and then, again, Bill C-44 in June 2009. And now it's part of Bill C-9.

Mr. Chairman, this is really about common sense and fairness. This has nothing to do with the diminishing of an exclusive privilege or the ability to provide universal postal or rural mail services in Canada. It hasn't been about any of these issues in the past two decades while we have been operating, so why, all of a sudden, is this one sentence going to completely disrupt and dismantle our entire postal industry and postal authority?

The reality is that it will not. We welcome the opportunity to continue to compete and operate against the much larger Canada Post. I welcome your questions.

[Bob Elliott, President, Canadian Printing Industries Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting us here today.

My name is Bob Elliott. I'm the president of the Canadian Printing Industries Association. I'm here today with Mr. Barry Sikora, general manager of Classic Impressions Inc., a small businessman and member of our British Columbia association who has been involved in the international mail industry for over 30 years.

We've heard the testimony here yesterday and today and wish to respond in part here with our comments.

Mr. Chairman and members of the finance committee, our comments are specific to part 15 of Bill C-9 as well and deal with the one-sentence amendment to the Canada Post Corporation Act that will enable a competitive and long-standing industry made up predominantly of small and medium-sized Canadian businesses, to continue doing what they have been doing for more than 25 years.

This is not about some new industry attempting to just enter the Canadian market. This is not about diminishing Canada Post's domestic exclusive privilege, or its ability to provide universal postal service. This small one-sentence amendment does absolutely nothing more than maintain the status quo of the past 20-plus years.

The Canadian Printing Industries Association represents over 7,200 printing establishments that employ some 65,500 Canadians. Not all printing establishments in Canada participate within the international mail industry in Canada, but a significant number of printing companies are involved in this industry.

The need for this amendment has significant implications for Canadian printers and allied industries that produce a wide variety of products such as advertising material and envelopes and more for Canadian and international customers, and then bulk-ship this material, predominantly to the U.S., or to some other foreign destination.

Canadian printers and remail companies have already seen a significant decrease in business given this industry's uncertainty over the past few years. Without this amendment, these companies stand to lose even more business as their customers will simply take their business to another country. The economic contribution to Canada will be lost. Canada Post will not reap the benefit of that. No one is going to win: not Canada Post, not our small businesses, and not the Canadian economy.

In short, Mr. Chairman, the Canadian printing industry is in full support of part 15 of Bill C-9.

I thank you. I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Sikora.

[Hassan Yussuff, Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress and its 3.2 million members, we want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before the committee on the important public interest issues that are raised in part 15 of Bill C-9.

The CLC represents workers in every province and territory, and in communities big and small. Included in that numbers are the people who work for Canada Post, the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association, and the Public Service Alliance's Union of Postal Communications Employees.

We want to state from the outset that we are unequivocally opposed to any legislation that will weaken Canada Post's ability to provide universal, affordable services to Canadians, wherever they live. We believe that maintaining and improving public postal services is what provides the most benefit to the population and to all sectors overall.

Part 15 of Bill C-9 represents an attempt to partially deregulate Canada Post. If it becomes law, it will send a significant signal to the corporate sector that the door has been opened to further postal deregulation, especially given the current government's stand favouring deregulation and privatization of public services.

When Canada Post was granted exclusive privilege to deliver international and domestic mail in 1981, it was because our legislators understood that market forces alone cannot guarantee a reasonable level of service at affordable prices to all Canadians, regardless of where they live or what their economic status is.

The exclusive privilege is a reflection of the principles of equality and common commitment that our society values highly. We believe that all Canadians, no matter where they live in this vast land mass of ours, must be guaranteed access to public services. These principles are why we built an extensive transportation system and created universal public services such as health care, education, and, of course, postal services.

The exclusive privilege is the means by which the post office is able to fund its universal service obligation to serve and link Canadians from coast to coast,to coast. If passed, part 15 of Bill C-9 will have a detrimental impact on Canada's postal services. Canada Post already forgoes revenue to illegally operating international remailers. If the exclusive privilege is eroded, it is very likely that the remailing business will grow and Canada Post will lose more of its international letter business.

Without the revenues that flow from having the exclusive privilege, Canada Post's ability to carry out its universal service obligations will be weakened. Changes will not happen overnight, which is why those in favour of the bill will accuse those of us who oppose it of being alarmist. But the fact is, the causes and conditions will be set in motion for revenue losses leading to service cuts, particularly for those living in rural or isolated communities, and there will be higher postal rates, as well as eventual further deregulation of the post office.

The government and the international remailers say that the bill will change nothing because private companies have been breaking the law and handling international mail for many years. They say the loss in revenue to Canada Post has been in the vicinity of $70 million annually and, compared to Canada Post's overall revenues, this represents a pittance.

These arguments are not very persuasive. To say the least, it is strange for a government to change a law that will have a negative impact on Canadians just because those who are breaking it don't like it and are eager to siphon off even more profits. Don't we count on our governments to enforce our laws?

It is even stranger that the government is attempting to push the legislation through without a thorough review. What's the rush when there's so much at stake?

We do not believe that Canadians want to see the destruction of their postal service. They want a sustainable public post office and reliable, affordable mail delivery. There is no reason to jeopardize a good service that provides good value to Canadians, just because of a desire to satisfy the powerful lobbyists.

We are urging the government to immediately withdraw or sever part 15 of Bill C-9 and reaffirm its support for the exclusive privilege and public ownership of Canada Post.

In closing, I point out that the post office has played an important role in our nation by uniting our vast but sparsely populated territories and regions. From Confederation until recently, the postal service linked together virtually every community in the country. Canada Post's role as an instrument of national unity should not be overlooked or undervalued, especially now, in a globalized world.

The postal service makes important and positive contributions in the enhancement of the cultural, social, and economic life of Canadians. The postal service serves as a lifeline for the charities, service clubs, and non-governmental organizations that add so much to the quality of life of Canadians. Furthermore, the postal service helps to transport the multitude of specialized publications, such as magazines, to help preserve the many cultural identities that comprise our nation.

The postal service also plays a significant economic role.

In a country in which small businesses compete against large multinationals and small communities compete against large urban areas, the postal service acts to equalize communications costs and reduce the disadvantages faced by those working in smaller businesses and in smaller communities.

Also, as an employer, the postal service offers many job opportunities, many of which are in rural areas and are occupied by women. Canada Post is often one of the few potential employers for women in rural communities.

Our public postal service provides universal and affordable services to all Canadians, no matter where they live. As the second largest land mass in the world with one of the smallest population densities, access to a universal and affordable postal service is an important piece of public policy required to maintain a healthy social and economic network within Canada.

It is our role as Canadians to preserve this capacity and to prevent the erosion of service provided to all Canadians, no matter where they live, where they work or do business, or where they communicate and exchange services and goods between themselves.

I want to thank the committee for this opportunity. I look forward to any questions you may have.

[Susan Margles, Vice-President, Government Relations and Policy, Canada Post Corporation]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee today.

My name is Susan Margles and I am vice-president of government relations and policy at Canada Post. It is my job and the job of my team to ensure that parliamentarians are fully informed about Canada Post and that we maintain a productive relationship.

As the postal administration for this country, Canada Post has a statutory mandate to provide universal postal service to all Canadians, regardless of where they live, and to do so while remaining financially self-sufficient.

Despite considerable challenges, our corporation generated $7.3 billion of revenue in 2009 and has remained profitable for 15 consecutive years. In the past 10 years, Canada Post has paid the Government of Canada almost $400 million in income taxes and another $350 million in dividends.

Last September, the Government of Canada introduced the Canadian Postal Service Charter, which outlines the services Canadians can expect to receive from Canada Post. Canada Post continues to meet our published service standards and provide Canadians with postal service that is reliable and secure.

Traditionally, postal administrations have covered the cost of their service obligations through revenues generated from the reserved service area for letters, as well as revenues derived from competitive services such as parcels and direct marketing.

Section 14 of the Canada Post Corporation Act gives us the sole and exclusive privilege of collecting, transmitting, and delivering letters. Part 15 of Bill C-9 amends this section of the Canada Post Corporation Act and permits others to collect letters in Canada and then send them for delivery outside of this country.

International remailers are countries usually associated with foreign postal administrations. They take large volumes of mail produced and collected from Canadian businesses and ship it abroad to be inducted into foreign postal systems.

Remailers have been increasing their presence in Canada over the last 20 years. In the past, Canada Post has taken the position that international remailers contravene the exclusive privilege given to Canada Post. We have taken legal action against some international remailers and succeeded in court. Injunctions were awarded against two international remailers that would have prevented them from operating in this country.

In 2007 the government introduced legislation that would permit letter exporters or remailers to legally collect letters in Canada and send them for delivery outside of this country. Following the introduction of this legislation, the injunctions we had were stayed until the intentions of Parliament were known. The current injunctions expire in December 2010.

Canada Post's position in terms of part 15 is that, as our shareholder, it is up to the Government of Canada to determine what areas of the postal market to keep reserved for Canada Post or to open up to competition. As our president and CEO, Moya Greene, said recently at the Senate finance committee, if the letter market is open to competitors, Canada Post:

...will vigorously compete for that business. Just because a market is competitive does not mean that Canada Post is out of the game.

In order to remain competitive and deliver on our service commitment, Canada Post is modernizing its infrastructure equipment and technology.

As part of our Postal Transformation Strategy, we will invest more than $2 billion to purchase new equipment and upgrade systems and facilities across the country. Next month, we will open a new state-of-the-art mail processing plant in Winnipeg. This is our first new mail plant in Canada in more than 20 years. We are changing the way we deliver in order to ensure that we can continue to deliver in the future.

These investments and others will ensure that Canada Post is able to maintain its service commitments, compete successfully in the marketplace, and remain financially self-sufficient.

Thank you. I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

[David Goldstein, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tourism Industry Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, and committee staff.

Again, for the record, I'm David Goldstein, president and CEO of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada. I'm joined this afternoon by Chris Jones, our vice-president of public affairs.

TIAC was formed over 70 years ago and stands today as the only national organization that represents the entire cross-section of the tourism and travel industry, which includes tour operators, accommodations, convention facilities, airport authorities, airlines, and passenger rail.

It is indeed a pleasure for me to be here with you today to examine the provisions of Bill C-9 that relate to the tourism sector, as this is my first standing committee appearance in my new role.

In our brief time today, we want to situate the proposed increase in the air travellers security charge as being incongruent with the federal tourism strategy announced by the Prime Minister on June 4, 2009.

Time does not permit us today to go through the fulsome framework outlined by the Prime Minister. However, this holistic approach was well received by our industry, and we hope that the continued work and consultations done by Minister Moore and his officials will provide important benchmarks over the following months.

Of the four pillars outlined by the Prime Minister, the one key to today's discussion is this: “Facilitating ease of access and movement for travellers, while ensuring the safety and integrity of Canada's borders”. This objective, as read in the context of increasing security fees, correctly implies that Canada's government will do two things: ensure the security of our aviation system, and facilitate ease of access for travellers.

Ensuring security and safety for travel and the general public goes without question. But we respectfully submit that the method chosen to finance our prospective security initiatives is inconsistent with other like jurisdictions. And it is contributing to the erosion of our competitiveness as a nation in the area of tourism, one of the fastest-growing sectors in the global economy.

The vitality of our sector and the ability to compete for a share of international business and leisure arrivals have already been significantly impacted by the plethora of taxes, fees, rents, and user charges the federal government levies on our sector. Last year, the federal government extracted $386 million in ATSC charges alone from travellers using our airports. With increases to our aviation security resulting from the planned introduction of body scanners and other screening technologies, this burden is set to increase.

By way of direct example, the impact of these proposals would increase the fees for a family of four from outside Canada by over $100. In an era of choice, we worry that they will choose to go elsewhere. In an environment of heightened price sensitivity and increased competition, Canada should not be increasing structural barriers. Inbound visitation to many of our key target markets is falling or flat, and our aviation sector is struggling with reduced load factors, lower yields, volatile fuel prices, and higher debt-servicing charges.

In our view, security is akin to policing. We don't levy policing costs solely on an individual shop owner, and in the same way, we shouldn't tax individual travellers. Aviation security is a public good that benefits all Canadians, and its costs should be borne by the national treasury.

Take the United States as a comparison, where a full 63% of the operating costs of the Transportation Security Administration are covered by a direct appropriation from the federal government. In Canada, the passenger fee-based system we rely on exclusively has become a deterrent to travel and visitation in this country. It prevents our sector from growing and making its full potential contribution to the Canadian economy.

In our view, the proposed security fee methodology will work at cross-purposes with the federal tourism strategy, which is built on a solid foundation and specifically stresses the need to look at issues in a holistic way.

Like many of my colleagues who have appeared before you, we believe that aviation security and safety are a critical public good, but which, if we are not careful, could choke off the supply of domestic and foreign travellers that are the lifeblood of the Canadian tourism sector. This is a sector that represents $71 billion to the Canadian economy, over 1.6 million direct and indirect jobs, and tens of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses from coast to coast to coast.

We need, in our view, a new security model that reflects shared collective benefits, that is sustainable in the long term, and that is better aligned with the approach of the TSA.

We thank you for this opportunity to appear. We look forward to your questions.

[Diane Brisebois]

Will we be out of the woods with the passage of Bill C-9? If only it were that straightforward....

I stood at Minister Flaherty's side when he announced the code of conduct, because our members believe the code will go a long way towards providing greater cost certainty. I did so in the full expectation that the code is but the first step and that ultimately regulation will be required.

Retailers have long experience with card company practices, both here and abroad. Already we're seeing some disquieting signs. Some players have been signalling that they intend to delay their acceptance of the code, while others have been pushing merchants to lock in the new contracts before the code takes effect.

More troubling still is that while the government has taken steps to level the playing field and create downward pressure on fees in the debit world, fees in the credit world continue to rise for our members.

One example is the emergence of a new so-called super premium card, which carries fees as high as 3%. With low single-digit profit margins, a 3% fee can take a devastating bite out of merchants' profitability. What we are seeing is a concerted drive by some players to undermine the intent of the code by switching the emphasis over to credit and away from debit.

This was brought home to me recently at the atrium at Toronto's Eaton Centre, in exactly the spot where the Minister of Finance made his announcement less than four weeks ago. Two weeks later, the atrium was taken over by half a dozen peppy salespeople for one of the major banks, along with a dozen instant sign-up screens, all pushing the use of their 2% cashback card.

As you will see from the page we will be circulating later, the pitch is to get people to put daily purchases on their credit cards, items bought at drug stores, grocery stores, and gas stations, all things that people would typically pay for with debit or cash. What is clear is that if the code's new rules on debit cards won't give issuers and card networks the high fees they were hoping for, these actors will steer consumers to use credit cards instead, and they will introduce even more expensive credit products.

From the merchant perspective, the voluntary code will be successful if--and only if--all the players in the card payment system accept the code's underlying principles and do not attempt to sidestep them by other means. We are encouraged by the minister's clear statement that non-compliance will be met with regulation. It would suggest that one very important measure of compliance must be that those who had hoped to drive up fees on debit transactions do not compensate by extracting ever higher amounts from credit transactions.

[Diane Brisebois]

Yes, I'm going to speak in French and English. Thank you.

I am the president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada.

I also serve as co-chair of the Payments Accountability Council, which represents over 250,000 merchants across the country.

I'm joined today by my colleague, Terrance Oakey.

He is our vice-president of federal government relations.

Last year, RCC appeared before this committee, calling for some of the very measures that are now included in Bill C-9, the budget implementation act.

I want to begin my remarks by thanking this committee for the leadership you continue to show on this issue. Merchants across Canada are following this issue closely. They commend the minister and the Government of Canada for establishing a card payment regulatory framework, and for equipping the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada with the tools it needs to monitor and enforce compliance with the code of conduct changes, changes that are both contained in Bill C-9.

As you may recall, the Retail Council was criticized in some quarters for calling for a regulatory framework, while other witnesses argued that a voluntary code alone would address this issue of skyrocketing fees.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. This is the nineteenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance.

I want to thank all our witnesses for being here with us this afternoon. We are continuing our study of Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 19, 2010.

We have two hours for this panel. We have six organizations with us here this afternoon: the Air Transport Association of Canada; the Retail Council of Canada; the Tourism Industry Association of Canada; Canada Post Corporation; the Canadian Labour Congress; and the Canadian Printing Industries Association.

Thanks to all of you for coming out today. You each have five minutes for an opening statement. We will proceed in the order listed in terms of organizations, and then we will go to questions from members. We will start with Mr. McKenna.

Are you presenting on behalf of your organization?

[Hubert Thibault]

That causes no problem. We don't object to the principle at all. Moreover, as you so well said, the expression “caisse populaire” is already being used elsewhere than in Quebec, whether it be in Acadia, Manitoba or other places. The Caisses Desjardins have no pre-emptive right to reserve the name “caisse populaire”, on the contrary. Bill C-9 could indeed make it so that a credit union migrates toward the federal jurisdiction and becomes established in Quebec. Whatever the case may be, Desjardins has never wanted to protect its territory in order to oppose this kind of bill, on the contrary.

[Hubert Thibault]

No, not necessarily. The term “coopérative de crédit” has been selected. If we establish a level-two institution, we're asking that it be a commercial bank such as what exists now, before the amendments are even introduced in the context of Bill C-9, and that the term “federal credit union” be used to describe that institution to the extent it would be 100% held by the caisses populaires or credit unions.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is for Mr. Thibault.

I listened to the answer you gave Mr. Paillé earlier concerning consultation and your answer to Mr. Wallace concerning your support for the principle of the part of Bill C-9 concerning the cooperatives. I just want to make sure I clearly understood.

From what I understood, you're suggesting that we not be able to use the French term “caisse populaire” in the case of a federal institution. Is that in fact your position?

[Dr. Neil Alexander, President, Organization of CANDU Industries]

Good evening. My name is Neil Alexander. I'm the president of the Organization of CANDU Industries.

OCI is an association of about 165 companies, with bases here in Canada, that have an interest in the ongoing health of the nuclear industry here. One of those companies, Laker Energy Products, is represented by its president and owner, Chris Hughes, who's sitting in the audience.

OCI's private sector member companies employ more than 30,000 people directly on nuclear work. They represent a significant proportion of the 70,000 people who owe their livelihoods to the investment by Canada in its nuclear industry.

OCI is an independent organization, and while it works closely with stakeholders and the plant operators, it does not represent their views.

We see a great opportunity for Canada. Canada is one of the few nations that can benefit significantly from the worldwide renaissance in nuclear power. This renaissance will likely lead to a market opportunity of $2 trillion to $3 trillion as between 400 and 600 new reactors are built around the world. The benefit to Canada will arise from sales of CANDU plants into which Canadian companies supply many of the components, as well as the sales of components to the other reactor designs that are built around the world. These components will be built by companies like Laker Energy Products and our other members, and they will create high-quality jobs for skilled workers throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada.

As an example, we see what the Koreans are doing. They have spotted this tremendous opportunity in the nuclear business, and they recently signed their first export order for four units from the United Arab Emirates. Their newspaper celebrated this success by announcing that this single project was worth the same as the export of a million cars, or one hundred and eighty 300,000-tonne supertankers.

I leave you to imagine how beneficial such an announcement would be in Canada in the present economic circumstances. To gain these benefits, Canada needs to remain at the forefront of the technology. We need to continue developing and innovating, and CANDU Inc. has a very important role in ensuring that happens. It is also essential that the existing fleet of CANDUs is properly supported by a team of sufficient size and competence to deal with any arising operational issues.

OCI has been a long-time and consistent supporter of the restructuring of AECL to achieve the objectives that are very clearly defined in Rothschild's investment summary. We agree that CANDU technology has to be properly capitalized to be successful, that the management team of AECL does need a significant injection of commercial capability, and that the sales team at AECL does need a much greater international outreach.

We believe that all of these things can be achieved through seeking an appropriate business partner for the organization, again as specified in the investment summary. We also believe that to gain access to the wave of opportunity that's currently developing, the restructuring needs to be completed promptly. Further delay will likely cripple the opportunities for CANDU sales, as other reactor designs find footholds in new markets and then become entrenched. And of course we're concerned about the issues that Michael Ivanco raised concerning the retention of the high-quality staff at AECL.

Additionally, continuing uncertainty increases the risk of the loss of our talent. We need to maintain them, and we need to retain that talent in companies like Laker Energy Products, which have very highly skilled craftsmen working within their organization.

As a result, we support the language in Bill C-9 and encourage all parties to ensure that AECL is restructured as quickly as possible.

As well as the need to make the decisions promptly, achieving the stated policy objectives is also important. In the investment summary we remind people that there are three policy objectives, five evaluative criteria, and eight desired outcomes. We believe these policy objectives are effectively a contract with the people of Canada and that the government is obligated to deliver on them.

Two of these policy objectives, three of the evaluation criteria, and three desired outcomes are focused entirely on the prospects of the industry, including expanding access to markets and growing jobs in design and engineering.

One policy objective, one of the evaluation criteria, and two desired outcomes are focused entirely on safety and performance.

The issues are complex and we believe that the restructuring team should demonstrate how it is ensuring that these objectives will be met. But we do conclude that the restructuring of AECL has to proceed promptly and that the process should ensure that the policy objectives are met in an optimum way.

Thank you very much.

[Tracy Redies]

For a credit union, the membership list is also the credit union's customer list. The provision in Bill C-9 dealing with membership lists could therefore provide a competitor of a federal credit union with the means of obtaining access to a list of all the credit union's customers. This could be a major impediment to take-up of the federal credit union option.

Fortunately, there is a simple solution, namely to change the rules to correspond to the rules for federal insurance companies, whereby par policyholders and shareholders are not permitted to obtain the list of par policyholders. This is appropriate for policy reasons and also to prevent a competitor from buying shares and using the entitlement to obtain a full list of par policyholders.

[Tracy Redies, President and Chief Executive Officer, Coast Capital Savings Credit Union, Credit Union Central of Canada]

Thank you, David.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the Case for Progress committee. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to offer comments to the members of the House of Commons finance committee regarding part 17 of Bill C-9, which proposes to amend the Bank Act to allow for the establishment of federal credit unions.

Formed in 2006, the Case for Progress committee has been a strong advocate for federal legislation to enable credit unions to expand beyond their provincial boundaries. The committee is comprised of large credit unions interested in developing a national presence, mid-sized credit unions focused on becoming regional financial services providers, and small affinity-based credit unions wanting to serve members of their communities wherever they are located in Canada.

Coast Capital Savings is one of the founding and largest members on the Case for Progress committee, but the diversity of the committee underscores how the option of becoming a federal credit union could appeal to any credit union in the system. The Case for Progress committee applauds the government's decision to allow for the creation of federal credit unions through amendments to the Bank Act, as outlined in Bill C-9. The proposed legislation is a historic milestone that will enhance the strength and stability of the credit union sector and financial services industry as a whole.

The proposed legislation recognizes the hallmarks of a credit union and provides an attractive option for those credit unions interested in expanding outside their province of origin under one national regulatory authority. It will give credit unions the chance to develop greater economies of scale and more competitive cost bases while remaining true to cooperative principles. This, in turn, will allow the development of a wider range of enhanced products and services that credit union members now expect.

Increased competition from federal credit unions will provide Canadian consumers more choice, drive innovation, and lower prices. The charitable sector will also benefit, as credit unions have a proud history of significant involvement and philanthropic investment in the communities where they operate.

While the Case for Progress committee supports the federal credit union charter, we have a concern with regard to a provision dealing with access to membership lists.

[David Phillips, President and Chief Executive Officer, Credit Union Central of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on part 17 of Bill C-9, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, which proposes, among other things, to amend the Bank Act in order to allow for the establishment of federal credit unions.

My name is David Phillips and I'm president and CEO of Credit Union Central of Canada. Presenting with me today on behalf of the Case for Progress group of credit unions is Tracy Redies, president and CEO of Coast Capital Savings.

In 2009, Canadian Central called upon the federal government to establish a federal charter option for credit unions. We believe that a useful, attractive, accessible and distinctive federal charter would achieve several objectives.

First and foremost, a federal charter would enable those credit unions that wish to do so to reach beyond provincial boundaries and pursue business strategies that are not constrained by provincial regulation. Expanding across provincial borders has become more pressing as the growth and consolidation of the credit union system is approaching the point where the lack of a federal charter option may become a competitive disadvantage for some credit unions and for the credit union sector as a whole.

Credit Union Central of Canada has expressed a preference for establishing federal credit unions under the federal government's existing cooperative financial institutions legislation. However, Canadian Central did not preclude alternative legislative approaches if such legislation could provide a federal charter option for credit unions that meet these conditions.

The federal government has chosen to provide for the establishment of federal credit unions through the Bank Act, and Credit Union Central of Canada supports the enactment of part 17 of Bill C-9 as a good first step towards the establishment of a useful, attractive, accessible, and distinctive federal charter option for credit unions.

While it has many positive features, the placement of the federal credit union charter in the Bank Act does raise some issues of compatibility between the framework proposed for federal credit unions and a number of provisions in the Bank Act that are primarily designed for commercial banks.

The federal credit union legislation, while welcome, is lengthy and complex. For this reason, Canadian Central is still analyzing the proposed amendments. We expect that some issues will result from this analysis that Canadian Central will want to discuss with the Department of Finance at some point in time. These issues include matters such as the granting to members of a federal credit union access to the membership list of that credit union--Ms. Redies will speak to that in just a minute--and the position of the federal credit union in the payments clearing and settlement system.

Canadian Central, nevertheless, wishes to express its support for the enactment of the legislation in Bill C-9 that will provide existing credit unions and those desiring to establish new credit unions with the option to operate under a federal charter. We believe that the proposed legislative framework is a positive step forward in achieving this purpose.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to address you today.

Ms. Redies will now say a few words about the proposed framework.

[Hubert Thibault, Advisory Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Desjardins Group Management, Desjardins Group]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your invitation to come and give you our comments on this important legislative measure.

The Mouvement Desjardins hails the initiative that has been tabled before you to permit the recognition and creation of credit unions and caisses populaires under federal jurisdiction. The Mouvement Desjardins understands that it responds—perhaps not completely, which is virtually impossible—to wishes expressed by the credit union system, mainly outside Quebec. Those wishes have been expressed on numerous occasions over the past 15, 20, if not even 30 years. In that sense, the Mouvement Desjardins hails the initiative that is before you today.

Having said that, the Mouvement Desjardins must also say that it is extremely comfortable with the legal framework to which it is currently subject, that is to say the Quebec legislation governing it. We think two aspects in particular are conducive to the success of the Mouvement Desjardins. As a result of them, we are tempted to suggest further improvements to the act before you for the future. They also explain the fact that the Mouvement Desjardins would not be able to use the provisions that Bill C-9 will include in the Bank Act.

First of all, the Mouvement Desjardins is an integrated system of caisses populaires. The possibility of establishing a federation—a league, to use the English term—and pooling powers as well as responsibility for the network is fundamentally important for us. We get the impression that, in a second component of the House of Commons' initiative, that would be something you could consider with interest to permit greater cooperation among the credit unions of Canada, indeed cooperation within the credit unions and the Mouvement Desjardins within Canada.

There is another very distinctive feature of the Quebec legislation. In Quebec, as in many European countries, the constituted general reserve cannot be shared. In the bill before you today, the membership shares have no par value. Consequently, a transfer or migration from a Desjardins caisse populaire under federal jurisdiction would be unimaginable since the share's par value, which has been $5 since the first caisse was founded in December 1900, would overnight become several tens of thousands of dollars. In fact, it would have a value pro-rated to the market value of the entire Desjardins group. So are these are two factors that are very different for us.

When we look at the needs of the Mouvement Desjardins in terms of operations, both in Quebec and the rest of Canada, there is an aspect that is fundamentally important for us, and that is the ability to follow our corporate members who have commercial operations across Canada. The Mouvement Desjardins has been examining this question for a number of years. There is one vehicle which we think is suited to enabling us to render these services to our members, and that is a traditional bank as you know it under the Bank Act.

That said, in the cooperative world in Quebec, as in many other places, the term “bank” has a connotation for our members, in our caisses, which is somewhat shaded by our everyday competitive experience. In fact, if the Mouvement Desjardins had one request to make to the committee or to the federal government in connection with Bill C-9, it would be, if a bank is held solely by caisses populaires or cooperative entities or a mix of caisses populaires and credit unions, that they be able to use the name of federal credit cooperative so that it reflects their cooperative nature.

Thus, a simple amendment could enable the Mouvement Desjardins to better discharge its obligations and better serve its cooperative members.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's what we wanted to bring to your attention.

[Richard Lindgren]

That's exactly what happened in the Red Chris Mine situation, and there is nothing in Bill C-9 that would prevent that from happening again. In fact, proposed subsection 15.1(1) of the bill purports to give the minister that very power. That's exactly what our fear is.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I'm going to make a general comment to thank all the environmental groups that have made their presentations here today. They were to the point and extraordinarily clear. They concerned the entirely foreseeable harmful effects of the amendments provided for under Bill C-9. What you said is entirely consistent with my analysis. My friend and colleague Linda Duncan, an NDP member from Alberta, was one of the first to sound the alarm on this subject.

I also want to tell you that your presence here today is essential. Last week, we heard from departmental representatives who tried to stuff our heads. They told us a lot of nonsense about the foreseeable effects of this legislation, and it's scandalous. We are elected members. We agree or we do not agree, we dispute but we do our jobs as best we can. On the other hand, officials, agency leaders, the people who are paid to serve the government—if we literally translated the English term, we could say functionaries—are supposed to be a little more neutral. However, neutrality comes more from your side because you have an enormous amount of experience. You examined the bill and you say it cannot produce the anticipated results.

I also take the liberty of thanking you particularly, Mr. Lindgren, for your comments on what you call “the red herring”. It's true that the feared duplication and overlapping of roles is nonsense.

When I was Quebec's minister of the environment, I had no difficulty signing agreements with the federal government. We brought together two members of the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement and a federal government assessor. The results were excellent. The concerns that are expressed in piecemeal fashion by the Canadian right, that all this is too complicated and we have to try to simplify matters for the public, are nonsense and bunkum. It's not true.

What we have before us is an attempt to destroy a system that exists to protect future generations. Earlier I was listening to my friend and colleague Ms. Menzies, who said that last year an attempt was made to improve matters so that infrastructure spending would be done more quickly. In fact, they ruined a 100-year-old act respecting the protection of navigable waterways. That's what they did, period.

Now I want to come back to Mr. Lemelin, from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. I'd like to ask him whether he received a signal from the Liberal Party. The Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party share the idea that Part 15 must simply be deleted from Bill C-9. On the Liberal Party, you have a worthy representative of the left wing in Mr. Pacetti, of the centre in Mr. MacKay and of the extreme right in Ms. Hall Findlay. This will depend on the group that wins the internal battle. That's why I would like to know whether the people from the Liberal Party told you whether they were going to support you in the effort to delete Part 15 from the bill.

[Stephen Hazell]

My name was mentioned, so I think I should have an opportunity to respond.

First of all, Mr. Menzies, I'm glad you're an environmentalist, because you live in a very special part of the world. I hope you will be able to support the Sierra Club in getting the Andy Russell Park established in Castle-Crown. We'll just leave it at that.

Neither the Sierra Club nor Ecojustice has ever supported any of the amendments in Bill C-9, and there are a number of movable pieces in this. We all want the most efficient and effective law we can get, but we need to look at it comprehensively. We can't come at it with piecemeal, ad hoc, quick-and-dirty types of amendments, which this committee is being asked to sanction.

There are lots of good ideas on the table, but let's take some time, deliberate, have some public involvement engagement, have some considered review by the parliamentary committee that has the most expertise in this matter, I would submit, and do it that way.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

With regard to Bill C-9, if this was a minority government and there was an opposition with backbone—some opposition parties have backbone—we could continue by saying we are in favour of it and that we agree to withdraw Part 15. However, we aren't sure that everyone will agree with us that Part 15 should be withdrawn.

One of the reasons why you're opposed to it is that Canada Post's mandate is to distribute the mail at the same rate, regardless of whether you are in downtown Montreal or in the confines of a very remote region in Canada. This is somewhat like Hydro-Quebec's situation. It's national and, as a Crown corporation, it can't bill the Magdalen Islands at a different rate from the one it charges in downtown Montreal. We understand that.

You mentioned that there has been lobbying. The people from the Department of the Environment told us that too, in view of the fact that none of the environmentalists here before us were consulted. What lobbyists could make us swallow this postal mess? Can the people from the Department of the Environment—perhaps Mr. Lindgren could do it—identify the lobbyists that would be strong enough to have bills passed amending all this, in an omnibus bill that has nothing to do with us? Which, if the official opposition had backbone, could even risk bringing down the government? Who are these super strong people?

[Denis Lemelin]

Absolutely not; we weren't consulted. We know that this part, which is now included in Bill C-9, existed in other forms in the past. For example, there was Bill C-14 and Bill C-44. However, we were never consulted. We have always tried to be publicly accountable and we've always called for public debate on the postal services issue, since it's a service we provide to the public. This is a roundabout way of avoiding public debate on the issue.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Welcome.

It's obvious to everyone that Bill C-9 is an unpalatable stew that the government has put on the table, betting, even though it's a minority government, that the bill will be adopted. If the ranks of each party were respectable enough, this bill would not pass. The government wouldn't have tried to introduce this mess. As proof that we're being served up this stew, we have both people from the environment sector and a union president defending his business. That's what this leads to.

Mr. Lemelin, earlier we were told that no one had been consulted among the people in the environment sector. I'm going to continue down the road by asking you a first question. Were you consulted on Part 15, which concerns you?

[Denis Lemelin, National President, Canadian Union of Postal Workers]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. I'll be making my presentation in French.

On behalf of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee on Part 15 of Bill C-9. CUPW represents 54,000 workers in rural and urban communities from coast to coast to coast. A majority of our members work for Canada Post.

CUPW would like to urge this committee to give this very small part of Bill C-9 a very large amount of attention as it amounts to partial deregulation of our public post office. In Canada, letter mail is regulated for a reason. Canada Post has an exclusive privilege to handle letters so that it is able to generate enough money to provide affordable postal service to everyone, no matter where they live in our huge country. This privilege includes both domestic and international letters. We believe it will become increasingly difficult for Canada Post to provide universal postal service if the government erodes the very mechanism that funds this service—the exclusive privilege.

Canada Post’s exclusive privilege to handle letters has received remarkably little attention over the years. But international mailers, who are currently carrying international letters in violation of the law, have recently taken issue with this privilege and waged a campaign to undermine our post office’s right to handle international letters. Canada Post estimates that international mailers siphon off $60 million to $80 million per year in business. Its concerns with remailers have grown as the international mail business has grown and as remailers have unfairly competed for international mail by exploiting the two-tier terminal dues system adopted by the Universal Postal Union in 1999.

It is our understanding that Canada Post attempted to address its concerns with international mailers through negotiations and finally through legal action against two of the largest companies, Spring and Key Mail. One ruling by the Court of Appeal for Ontario stressed the importance of the exclusive privilege in serving rural and remote communities and noted that international mailers such as Spring Canada are not required to bear the high cost of providing services to the more remote regions of Canada. The corporation won this legal challenge all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

After this victory, a coalition of private Canadian and international mail companies called the Canadian International Mail Association (CIMA), hired a lobbyist in an attempt to convince parliamentarians to remove international letters from Canada Post’s exclusive privilege to handle letters. The government initially defended the importance of the exclusive privilege but it was not long before it started to reconsider its position, presumably because of the CIMA lobby. Nevertheless, the government did promise, in a letter to CUPW, that no changes to Canada Post's exclusive privilege would be considered without thorough policy analysis. We would like to point out that, to date, there has been no serious review or thorough policy analysis of the international mail issue or the impact of removing international letters from Canada Post’s exclusive privilege.

The government’s recent strategic review of Canada Post did not look at these issues. Unfortunately, this did not stop the review’s advisory panel from recommending against deregulation of letter mail, with the exception of international letters. It simply doesn’t make sense to be proposing legislation before you look at the relevant issues. The proposed legislation doesn’t make much sense either. Canada Post’s letter mail volumes declined for the first time in 2008 and again in 2009. The corporation clearly needs international letters as a source of revenue to maintain and improve public postal service. Furthermore, most people in this country are opposed to deregulation of Canada Post. They do not support eroding or eliminating Canada Post’s exclusive privilege. Close to 70% of people oppose postal deregulation according to a 2008 Ipsos Reid poll.

Some remailers have argued that the French version of the Canada Post Corporation Act should carry no weight and that the English version would prevail. This argument has been rejected by the courts, as a result of which those businesses are now outlaws.

I draw your attention to the two recommendations we are submitting to the committee. They appear on the last page. We are asking that Part 15 of Bill C-9 be withdrawn. We're also asking that measures be taken to shut down the five or six international mail companies that are violating the law and that there be consultations with Canada Post and CUPW concerning the possibility of offering employment to workers at these companies. That's important for us. I think we'll have to debate the question of the jobs that are at issue.

Thank you for listening. I'll be very pleased to answer your questions.

[Jamie Kneen, Co-Manager, MiningWatch Canada]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

By way of introduction, MiningWatch Canada is a pan-Canadian coalition of 20 environmental, aboriginal, social justice, development, and labour organizations that advocate for responsible mining practices and policies in Canada and by Canadian companies operating internationally.

Environmental assessment is one of the areas MiningWatch has worked closely in, in terms of policy development, as well as working directly on a number of project-specific environmental assessments.

One of the most surprising aspects of this work has been the level of interest from the public. Communities potentially affected by mining projects are naturally very interested in the assessment of those projects, but so is the broader public, and we receive a constant stream of inquiries and requests for information and assistance.

Environmental assessment, or EA, is sometimes seen as a somewhat technocratic and esoteric process. It can certainly be complex and inaccessible. Yet people are adamant that we need strong and consistent EA processes, and they are willing to invest considerable time and energy in trying to understand the process and participate effectively in project assessments. They tell us what an important part of working together for sustainable development it is.

On January 21 of this year, not four months ago, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously decided a case brought by MiningWatch Canada over the federal government's handling of the proposed Red Chris copper and gold mine in north-central British Columbia. The court ruled that the federal government cannot assess only part of a project, or split projects into artificially small parts, to avoid rigorous environmental assessments. The ruling guaranteed that the public would be consulted about major industrial projects, including large metal mines and tar sands developments.

The bill before you today includes amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that would effectively reverse the Supreme Court ruling. These amendments should be removed from Bill C-9.

With support from Ecojustice and the broader environmental community, we have fought through the courts for three and a half years to try to correct profound deficiencies in the application of CEAA. It is with great dismay that we now see those same deficiencies being deliberately re-created, only now in the text of the act itself. What's perhaps most unfortunate about the proposed changes is that they won't address the actual issues with the act that they're supposed to resolve. There is in fact a structural problem with the way CEAA is framed that creates delays through a late triggering of an environmental assessment. By the time a permit or licence application is filed triggering the act, a project can be well along in its planning stages. A major projects management office was created a little over two years ago to help resolve this contradiction by identifying projects earlier on, although it's hard to determine at this relatively early point how effective it has been.

The Supreme Court decision on Red Chris should also help eliminate delays by clarifying the decisions that responsible authorities are required to make under the act. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, for example, does not have to spend months and months trying to figure out how to avoid triggering an environmental assessment or how to reconfigure a project proposal to avoid a comprehensive study, if it simply accepts the project as proposed and assumes its responsibility.

By the same token, if there is a clear mandate behind the federal involvement in joint processes with other jurisdictions, then there is no need for protracted negotiations around the EA process itself. By putting arbitrary ministerial discretion on scoping into the act, the proposed changes will essentially re-create the situation that we fought through the courts to clarify.

MiningWatch Canada has always pressed for a strong federal role in environmental assessment, partly because of the consistency and accessibility that it brings, but primarily because of the federal jurisdiction in a number of critical areas, as has already been mentioned. But let me provide a concrete example.

The proposed Prosperity copper and gold mine in British Columbia is currently undergoing both a provincial assessment and a panel review under CEAA. If the project were to proceed as presented, it would have serious detrimental environmental effects, including the draining of Teztan Biny or Fish Lake to make way for the mine. I have provided you with a picture of this, so that you have an image of Fish Lake. The project would also have serious impacts on the Xeni Gwet'n and Tsilhqot'in people.

The federal panel review has been hearing evidence from the affected communities, independent fisheries experts, and social scientists. Serious shortcomings in the proponents' proposals have been identified and are being reviewed. Meanwhile, the provincial review has been completed and the project has been approved by the B.C. government.

The other picture I have is of the Kemess mine, just so you have an idea of what will take the place of Fish Lake. It's a large open-pit copper-gold mine, barely a few hundred kilometres away and very similar in ecological terms. But if it weren't for the federal review, there would be no meaningful consideration of significant issues around the project's impacts on water and fisheries, and the interests of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nation and the Tsilhqot'in national government.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is a critical element in Canada's legal framework for sustainable development and environmental protection. It has its strengths and shortcomings, but there are also processes established to build on those strengths and to address those deficiencies, and they should be used to their fullest. Substantially weakening the act will deprive Canadians of one of the best and in some cases one of the only tools they have to ensure that vested interests and poorly considered projects do not compromise environmental, social, and economic sustainability.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Richard Lindgren, Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for inviting us to speak to Bill C-9.

As you know, CELA is a public interest law group that was founded in 1970. Our mandate is to use and improve environmental laws in order to protect the environment and to protect public health and safety. We basically represent citizens and public interest groups before the courts and tribunals in order to protect the environment and human health.

CELA has long advocated for effective and enforceable and equitable environmental assessment legislation at the federal level. For example, about 20 years ago I appeared before a parliamentary committee to speak to CEAA when it was first being debated. It seems like only yesterday, but I guess it was 20 years ago. I also participated in the five-year review that occurred from 2000 to 2003.

I should also note the fact that we have intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada in various cases involving federal EA requirements. For example, I was counsel for the six environmental groups that intervened in the MiningWatch case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada earlier this year.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, based on our experience and our public interest perspective, we have very serious and fundamental concerns about the Bill C-9 proposals to amend CEAA. Our main concerns were outlined in a letter that I sent to Prime Minister Harper back in April, before the bill was referred to this committee. I have provided a copy of my letter to the committee clerk for distribution. My understanding is that it has been translated and distributed to the committee.

In essence, our letter raises three main concerns about the Bill C-9 proposals to amend CEAA. First, CELA objects to the process that's being used to enact these amendments. In our opinion, proposed changes to CEAA should not be buried in a budget bill. Instead, any proposed amendments to the act should be brought forward and proceeded with as stand-alone legislation that's subject to full parliamentary debate and meaningful public consultation, neither of which has occurred in this case to this point. That's our first objection.

The second objection is to the timing of the proposed amendments. As the committee is aware, these amendments have been introduced just as the mandatory seven-year review of CEAA is about to commence. In our opinion, the 2010 review is by far the preferable forum for discussing and debating and developing changes to Canada's national EA statute.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, we object to the content of the proposed amendments. In our opinion, Bill C-9 does not reflect sound public policy. To the contrary, it is our view that most of the amendments weaken or roll back existing EA requirements under CEAA and do not adequately address the various priorities or matters that really do need some legislative attention under CEAA.

Like the previous speaker, I am particularly concerned about the proposal in Bill C-9 to empower the environment minister basically to redefine the scope of projects as they go through the CEAA process. In our opinion, Mr. Chair, that proposal is likely to result in more delay, more uncertainty, and more litigation as the minister attempts on a case-by-case basis to scope out or screen out the most contentious or most environmentally significant components of a project. That's the very type of project-splitting that the Supreme Court of Canada disallowed in its MiningWatch decision. So why would we revisit it through this proposed amendment?

For those reasons, Mr. Chair, CELA does not support the proposed amendments to CEAA. We would respectfully request that this committee do everything in its power to delete or defer or defeat the proposed amendments to CEAA.

Thank you.

[Arlene Kwasniak]

Okay. Thank you. I wasn't expecting to go first, but here we go.

Thank you for this opportunity to connect remotely. I represent the Alberta Wilderness Association, which is the oldest conservation organization in Alberta, dating back to 1965. We promote wilderness, wild lands, and ecosystem protection generally, so of course environmental assessment is very important to us.

We'd like to stress the importance of strong, effective, federal environmental assessment in Canada. The federal government has exclusive constitutional legislative jurisdiction over a number of heads, including our fisheries, navigation, oceans, and others. If the federal government doesn't appropriately assess projects that impact these heads of power, no other level of government can constitutionally do it. So it's really important that the federal government keep its very strong role in environmental assessment.

I'd like to say that what is happening now in Bill C-9 and some other events that preceded it in the last couple of years is defying a long tradition of legislative requirements and general comprehensive consultation for the CEAA and its regulations and policy.

I'd like to highlight a couple of things, and they're all set out in my brief. The CEAA took five years to develop. Obviously the government considered it to be very important legislation that impacted people, the environment, and the whole face of Canada. That is why it had such extensive consultation. The government formed the regulatory advisory committee, which advises the federal minister on CEAA matters. It was very instrumental in developing the key regulations under the CEAA, and has worked for several years to assist the government in the development of regulations and policy.

The first five-year review took three years, because it took that long to make sure the act was properly reviewed. The second review is scheduled to happen later this year. The act itself requires a comprehensive, substantive review of the provisions of the act.

I would like to suggest that there has been a recent demise in consultations having to do with the CEAA and an avoidance of the legislative requirement for consultations for substantive changes. This is very clear in the budget implementation bill of 2010.

In my brief I lay out a number of events prior to this budget bill, but I'm going to leave it to you to look at them, because I certainly don't have the time in these five minutes. I want to go right to the budget bill itself, because a number of destructive substantive changes to CEAA are buried in this bill.

For example, proposed section 15.1 would give the environment minister the right to slice and dice projects so that only one component was assessed. This provision completely undermines the potential application of the act and could result in significant environmental impacts not being assessed and mitigated. It will certainly diminish public participation. It also overrides a recent Supreme Court of Canada case that says a project is a project is a project, and the CEAA requires the assessment of projects, and not bits and pieces of them.

Finally, this provision opens the door for uneven and unfair application of the CEAA. There are no statutory conditions governing the exercise of the minister's discretion, except that the minister must set some conditions, whatever they might be. So I think that all interested persons, including regulated industry, should be very concerned about this.

There are also provisions that exempt most Building Canada plan projects from environmental assessment. These provisions, which are currently in the exclusion list regulation, have been challenged by the Sierra Club of Canada. Curiously, this bill purports to put these exclusions in the act, making that part of the challenge moot.

The exclusion list regulation can only, by the act itself, include projects that are known to have insignificant environmental effects. It's clear that this list of Building Canada plan projects could have any range of environmental impacts, so they certainly don't belong in the exclusion list legislation.

The addition to the act gets around that problem, but what it also does is completely undermine the logic and coherence of the CEAA. The CEAA requires that a project that triggers the act because there's a federal interest in the project be assessed no matter what its environmental impacts are, unless it's on the exclusion list. Putting this exemption in the act completely undermines that. Also under the act, the level of assessment depends upon the level of environmental impacts.

I'm done?

Fairness at the Pumps Act

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Obviously I have touched a raw nerve somewhere here.

That contrast is quite stunning. We know, with the HST coming in July, that $2,000 to $5,000 will disappear from a family's pocket, and that was passed in two days. In this case, however, when millions of dollars are being lost at that pumps, no action has been taken. It takes a long time.

Maybe we should not be surprised. Even though we have raised the issue of tax subsidies to big oil and gas companies over and over again, we still see at least $1.2 billion in tax incentives going to the big oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars of profits. We have noticed that there is a bill that is about to get third reading with the support of the Liberal party and members of Parliament here, Bill C-9, which would again give these very profitable oil companies a total of $6 billion with all the corporate tax cuts.

In the other bill, we have seen that oil companies would be able to skirt around environmental assessments. Also in that bill, environmental assessments are being removed. Companies do not need a federal environmental assessment if they get a few dollars of federal funding.

A different kind of assessment or check and balance is supposed to be done through the environment side. Instead, however, whether or it is drilling or oil sands explorations, it will to be done now through the National Energy Board. It apparently has nothing to do with the environment. We just recently had a huge oil spill that is having a devastating negative impact on the environment, wildlife, birds and the species in the water. This whole addiction to oil is really quite astounding.

Bill C-14 does not deal with the price fluctuation. Sometimes the price could be at an all-time low in terms of gasoline prices and yet at the pump it is high. All of a sudden it goes up to $1.20 for no reason. It is supposed to be about supply and demand but it seems that often there is no connection.

The bill also has no increase in the number of government inspectors. It is all done by non-governmental inspections. Government has a role to play, which is to inspect to ensure that industry is doing the right thing, and yet that is not in this bill.

The bill does not establish an ombudsperson, something that the NDP has asked for over and over again. We need an independent office to evaluate the problems, investigate complaints and to ensure consumers are given justice and fairness. It is not here in this bill and it is not fair.

What else is not fair? If people were being cheated, they would think that they would get some of that money back. In this bill, even though the government would be collecting more fines, which we support, the bill says that the government would be fining minor offences up to $10,000, major offences up to $25,000 and new fines for repeated offences up to $50,000. Hopefully the government will send a message out there and fine a few gasoline companies.

However, one would think that if the government were collecting a few dollars out of it, that it would at least compensate and ensure the gas companies compensated and refunded those who were being ripped off, but no, there is nothing in here to protect the consumers. This is, in many ways, really unfair because every dollar counts, especially if and when the price of gasoline goes up.

What else does it not do? It does not actually repay the GST. The gas tax right now is 10¢ per litre but if the consumers are being shortchanged, which the last I saw amounted to $240 million, one would think that with the taxes that are charged on these so-called phantom purchases at least there should be a refund on the taxes being collected on the purchase. The bill says nothing about a tax refund or any type of compensation for those who have been ripped off. It contains nothing to deal with the price fluctuations and nothing to protect the consumers. It says nothing about an ombudsperson and there is no place to file a complaint. It is no wonder the government is known to just make a lot of noise. It makes it appear as if something is being done but it takes very little action.

Our consumer critic and industry critic will be making a lot of amendments when this bill comes to the committee and if the Conservatives and the Liberals really want to protect consumers, they will support the kinds of recommendations and amendments that the New Democrats will be pushing.

I suspect that this bill, unfortunately, may not pass until the fall. With long weekends and the summer coming up, how will people who are travelling to visit their friends and families protect themselves? I looked up some pointers. One of the pointers that I found quite fascinating was that we should put in 10 or 20 gallons and then multiply the price by 10. We would then know precisely how much we were paying and know exactly the amount of gas that we paid for. It looks like the consumer needs to resort to those kinds of activities to protect themselves since the Conservative government, unfortunately, is dragging its feet and not taking real action.

We will support different aspects of this bill, such as the mandatory inspection frequencies and the additional fines, but we will not support using private sector authorized service providers. We will not support the kind of privatization of inspections that we see in front of us because we believe that regulations put out by government should be done by government. We have seen far too many times that when we privatize inspections, it just means that the retailers end up having to pay more and the consumers continue to get ripped off and hosed.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Just on your future study on the oil spills, it's great that you're doing that. I've raised that at committee a couple of times. You might be interested in looking at the evidence from the Beaufort project, which was set up in the 1970s to study that.

My understanding is that in Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, I was told that in part 20 they took the environmental assessment responsibilities from CEAA and put it in NEB, which is not an environmental assessment organization. So hopefully you'll be looking into that when you do that study.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Four minutes goes fast. I’m going to speak to the people from the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.

I understand why you’re exasperated over the fact that workers have been robbed of $54 billion in surpluses accumulated over the years. I think that, if money were taken from anyone here, that person would be in the same frame of mind. Earlier, Mr. Bellemare, you said that, if Bill C-9 were adopted, you would go to the Supreme Court since the government is not interested in doing so. You know that Bill C-9 will surely be adopted, with the cooperation of the Liberals, who don’t want to see the government defeated. So are you going to take immediate steps to go to the Supreme Court?

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I’m going to take 30 seconds to speak to Bob Kirke. I’m surprised to see that a representative of an employer, who pays 1.4 times the employee premium rate, can be in favour of Bill C-9 on employment insurance. If we have some time left, we can discuss that further.

I’d like to thank the people from the FTQ for presenting their file. That file reminds me of the victims of Earl Jones. In that case, they were a group of vulnerable individuals who were cheated in a swindle, and here we have vulnerable people who contribute to employment insurance and who are also being cheated. If we can’t say the government is a swindler, what is the term you would use to illustrate the fact that some $50 billion has disappeared and that everything has been accumulated since premiums have been paid by employees and paid at one point four times that rate by employers?

[Michel Ducharme]

One minute left? I’m going to go right to the conclusion.

Let’s go back to Judge LeBel of the Supreme Court. In his view, the fundamental reason to rule on the constitutionality of the amounts collected and accounted for was to maintain a connection in the act between the needs of the plan and a certain rate stability. These principles maintained an allocation policy, a balance in the collections that preserved their constitutional characteristics as regulatory collections. This action is based on the idea that the government can do what it wants with the cumulative surpluses in the employment insurance account. However, that claim was not allowed by the Supreme Court because appropriate accounting had been kept.

In conclusion, we consider that the government must abide by the Constitution. The section of Bill C-9 repealing the employment insurance account does not appear to be a legislative choice authorized by the Constitution of Canada in that it retroactively alters the nature of the amounts collected and entered in the account.

We demand that the planned increases in premium rates be used to restore the employment insurance plan, enabling it to adequately cover workers’ unemployment risk on a permanent basis, and we ask the House of Commons and the Senate to block the coming into force of this repeal of the employment insurance account—

[Michel Ducharme, Vice-President, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Mr. Chairman, committee members, on behalf of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, I thank you for allowing us to express our opinion, in particular on Part 24 of this bill.

With respect to the employment insurance account, I would say, from the outset that, for the FTQ, eliminating the employment insurance account is an unconstitutional act, contrary to democracy. Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, states: “The account in the accounts of Canada known as the Employment Insurance Account is deemed to have been closed at the beginning of January 1, 2009 and removed from the accounts of Canada at that time.”

The bill adds that only those premiums and other amounts collected under the employment insurance plan as of January 1, 2009 will be included in the new employment insurance operational account. To take this kind of action, the Conservative government assumes it has constitutional authority to cancel public accounts, the amounts contributed and counted for employment insurance plan purposes of $57 billion in the employment insurance account. And yet, in its previous budget, the government was compelled, following a judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada in the challenge by the Syndicat national des employé(e)s de l'Aluminium d'Arvida and by the CSN, to have the premium rates for 2002, 2003 and 2005 passed by the House of Commons in accordance with the imperative democratic rules provided for under the Constitution of Canada. The purpose of the government's efforts at the time was clearly to adopt premiums for the purposes of the employment insurance plan, not a general tax.

Now the government is clarifying the scope of the amendments adopted in previous budgets respecting the setting of the premium rate with respect to cumulative surpluses in the employment insurance account. These are cumulative surpluses, remember, reducing access to employment insurance for thousands of workers in Canada, with all the negative effects that result from that for those people and the communities to which they belong, and systematically setting premium rates distinctly higher than the atrophied employment insurance system through various cuts since the early 1990s.

Moreover, all stakeholders who have had to analyze the premium rate setting process, in particular, have observed that rates have been set based on other imperatives than the financial imperative, essentially the employment insurance plan. The Canadian Institute of Actuaries did it, as did Judge Gascon of the Superior Court and Judge LeBel of the Supreme Court of Canada. Judge Gascon held that the fact nevertheless remained that, despite their scope—he talked about cumulative surpluses—criticized by the Auditor General of Canada and the Chief Actuary of HRSD, one searches through the evidence in vain for justifications and explanations for maintaining these surpluses at the level where they stand. Judge LeBel held as follows, on behalf of the Supreme Court of Canada: “In my opinion, those amendments had a significant effect on the validity of such levies in the circumstances in which they were adopted, that is, at a time when government representatives could not have helped but see that employment insurance revenues in fact greatly exceeded what the system required and that those revenues no longer had an actual connection with the system.”

In 2005, the government put a legislative framework in place to exclude the cumulative surpluses in the employment insurance account from the premium rate-setting process. It also altered the premium rate-setting parameters by stating that the rate had to be set based on the estimated costs of the plan for the subsequent year, not on the basis of the maintenance of a reserve to prevent upward fluctuations in premium rates at the time of an economic slowdown, a role that cumulative surpluses were officially supposed to play in the employment insurance account.

Despite this new rate-setting mechanism, the rates adopted since 2005 to cover only the costs of the employment insurance system, with the exception of 2010, nevertheless had the effect of increasing the cumulative surpluses in the employment insurance account by nearly $8 billion. However, Judge LeBel of the Supreme Court did not see fit to comment on the legislative amendments since 2005 because they were not directly concerned by the legal issue.

[Bob Kirke, Executive Director, Canadian Apparel Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address the committee. I'm pleased to be here to provide our comments on Bill C-9.

Before I begin, please allow me to introduce our association and our industry. The Canadian Apparel Federation represents over 400 Canadian companies that are active in the apparel industry. The industry itself produces a wide range of women's, men's, and children's apparel. The industry directly employs approximately 50,000 people, with the largest concentration in the Montreal area. Other areas of concentration include Toronto, Winnipeg, and the Vancouver area. We are one of the few manufacturing sectors found in all provinces and territories.

Many Canadian firms have become market leaders and successful exporters in the past decade. They have made major inroads into the U.S. market, in particular. Despite our successes, the Canadian apparel industry faces immense pressures and challenges, including one of a domestic nature; that is, duties of up to 14% on imported raw materials.

Our association last appeared before this committee in 2004 on this issue. Duties paid on these imported raw materials represent the most significant policy issue for the industry, as companies need to have access to competitively produced raw materials to meet the needs of the Canadian consumer and our export markets. Since 2004, we have seen some progress on this issue. But currently, our industry pays approximately $65 million in import duties on raw materials on an annual basis.

The clothing industry is one of the truly global manufacturing industries. Clothing is made in virtually all countries. And in developing countries, it is seen as a key strategic industry. Our firms understand globalization, because they know that they are competing with manufacturers from around the world who are keenly interested in our domestic market and our major export market, the United States.

Canadian firms can compete based on superior design and innovation combined with superior customer service. However, if we are to remain competitive, we must have a policy framework that ensures that we are not working at a disadvantage to our competitors internationally.

As we have mentioned in previous appearances before this committee, our most important industrial policy issue has been the duties paid on imported raw materials. I am happy today to support the passage of Bill C-9, because it contains the elimination of these duties.

Last year, the Department of Finance initiated a consultation on input tariffs, including textile tariffs. The Canada Gazette notice on September 19, 2009 set out the government's intention to eliminate duties on imported raw materials. From our perspective, it is a balanced approach, as it applies to the apparel and textile sectors. Fabric mills will benefit from the removal of duties on their inputs, namely yarns and unfinished fabric. Apparel producers will benefit from the removal of duties on inputs they use to manufacture, primarily finished fabrics.

In the current economic climate, this is the most effective policy at the government's disposal to lower the costs of domestic manufacturing. It eliminates an unnecessary financial burden on domestic manufacturers, namely the 14% duty on raw materials.

Our members have made dozens of individual submissions to the Department of Finance requesting tariff relief on literally hundreds of different tariff lines.

I have provided the clerk of the committee with a summary of our association's submission. The bottom line is that we strongly support the passage of Bill C-9. We also support the red tape reduction initiatives contained in the budget.

We also believe that the government should establish a mechanism to review various proposals that came up in this process relating to other tariff relief measures, such as outward processing. These should be reviewed on a sector-specific basis.

I thank you for your time, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Louis Beauséjour, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

It should be noted that the budget officer’s office conducted its analysis before the new provisions in Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, was introduced and that changes were made to the mechanisms for handling deficits and the employment insurance account.

First of all, one of the provisions was deleted. There were no more advances. The advance mechanism in the employment insurance account, whereby interest could have been added, no longer exists. It is a mechanism that no longer exists, and, consequently, there cannot be any interest added to the deficit.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call the meeting to order, this 17th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, as we continue our study of Bill C-9, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010.

Colleagues, we are on part 24 of the overview, with officials. We hope to have about a 30-minute discussion with officials on part 24, and then move to the witnesses who are invited for today. That will depend on the number of questions we have from colleagues.

This part 24 deals with amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, to establish an account in the accounts of Canada to be known as the employment insurance operating account and to close the employment insurance account and remove it from the accounts of Canada.

We'll proceed as we have on other parts, with questions from members for five-minute rounds. We'll start with Mr. McKay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Duncan, just to be clear, we're having five-minute rounds with officials and we're reviewing part 20 of Bill C-9. We will hopefully have witnesses on this section sometime next week.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go back to the last point we were discussing. I was asking Mr. Leboeuf whether Part 20 of Bill C-9 wouldn't have the result, in concrete terms, of weakening environmental assessment as a whole in Canada. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I'm trying to summarize what I understood from his answer.

You answered that you were doing that. As a legislator, I'm taking a cold look at this. I don't doubt your competence: I'm asking you what the effect of Part 20 is as a whole. Is the position that the exclusions provided for and the screening done in a different manner in no way represent a weakening, in any regard whatever, consistent with your opinion as a professional?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

To the part we're studying, Part 20 of Bill C-9.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call the meeting to order. This is the 16th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. We are continuing our review of Bill C-9, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010, and other measures.

Colleagues, we are continuing with our review, part-by-part, of the bill. We did get to part 20.

[Cécile Cléroux]

The government determined that the best tool to be able to provide the authorities and the flexibilities to be able to go forward swiftly with the transaction process towards the divesture was using Bill C-9.

[Cécile Cléroux]

Right now this is part of Bill C-9. If it's approved, we will have the possibility to move forward. Decisions will be made by the Governor in Council, and these discussions will take place in cabinet.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Okay. It doesn't really tell me why it's in Bill C-9, but I'll move on.

I see Mr. Menzies is anxious for that.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Chair, this is a question for question period, not for the officials. The officials are here to provide background information on the decision that is in Bill C-9.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

What is the rationale for putting these provisions concerning the sale of AECL in the budget bill, Bill C-9? Why not debate this separately in the House of Commons? We have, for example, what was Bill C-20, now Bill C-15, on nuclear liability. That's being debated separately, running separately through. Why not AECL?

[Jane Pearse]

...that follows the regulations under Bill C-9, that is registered as a federal institution, then certainly that financial institution might have activities in Manitoba, for example.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I have some questions to ask about the concept that you can be a shareholder in a co-op. That seems to be contradictory from the outset.

Clause 1931 of Bill C-9 talks about the right to issue shares. It also says there is no right to vote. But a little later, it says that there is a right to "receive any of the remaining property". In a co-op you invest five dollars, and the Mouvement Desjardins, for example, has had exceptional growth through its own capital.

Is that not a major contradiction? I'm a little surprised to hear you say that consultations were held and the Mouvement Desjardins, for example, is in complete agreement. It seems to me that this is subject to interpretation. It would mean that if Desjardins decided to do that, it would have to have its own federal name, that is understood. But there is a kind of dichotomy. A cooperative with shares: that seems completely contradictory to me. I would like to know more about the idea behind all that.

[Jane Pearse]

I had a discussion with Desjardins, for example, and also with other cooperatives throughout Canada, and with the Credit Union Central of Canada, after Bill C-9 was introduced. In general, their reaction was positive. The Canadian Cooperative Association is happy with the federal model.

[Jane Pearse, Director, Financial Institutions Division, Department of Finance]

There was a discussion 10 years ago with the Proponent Group, a group of large cooperatives that would like there to be a federal model as proposed in Bill C-9. As well, we received a request for support from the Credit Union Central of Canada, which would like there to be a federal model for cooperatives here in Canada.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I would like to come back to the number of jobs. Of course, we will be able to see that from the models requested by Mr. Mulcair. You say that if the bill is not enacted, the private sector could lose thousands of jobs. I am trying to understand. That means that $40 million would be generated by thousands of jobs. I am thinking that the $40 million does not represent just the revenue that would be in question. Clearly with thousands of jobs, a lot more work and revenue is generated than $40 million. I am trying to understand this threat. We are told that if, for example, the Liberal Party voted largely with us against Bill C-9, and it didn't pass, the private sector would lose thousands of jobs. I don't see how thousands of jobs could be lost solely because of $40 million.

If you are right, that means there would be the opposite effect on the Canada Post Corporation. Plainly, remailing is not going to double overnight. If the Canada Post Corporation continues to do it exclusively, with its employees, without adding any, thousands of jobs will be lost.

On the other hand, you say that if the private sector enters this market, thousands of jobs will be preserved. The Canada Post Corporation will not eliminate jobs. This means there is some inefficiency somewhere. I am trying to understand.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Ms. Moynihan, it is still your turn. You have to understand our role here. I know you are in a delicate position, and you are here to try to defend something that comes from a political directive. But I'm not trying to draw you into the political side of the issue. As an elected member, I want to get information that is as objective as possible, and that will enable me to make a considered decision. So I have a few questions that call for an objective answer.

If this part of Bill C-9 is enacted, how much will the Canada Post Corporation lose?

[Katherine Moynihan]

Canada Post has recently estimated that the revenue risk is between $40 million and $80 million on a revenue base of $7.3 billion. These companies have been in operation in Canada for over 20 years. The provision in Bill C-9, as in the previous Bill C-14 and Bill C-44, does not change Canada Post's powers or its mandate, which is to offer a universal postal service in a financially self-sustaining manner. We don't expect a significant impact.

[Katherine Moynihan]

We don't expect a large impact on Canada Post. As I said, the government has made its expectations clear in the Canadian postal service charter. Canada Post has already started annual reporting on those service commitments. Canada Post recently said that the revenue risk was in the neighbourhood of $40 million to $80 million, on a revenue base of $7.3 billion, so 0.5% to 1% of its revenues, and that's the risk. However, these companies have been operating for 20 years. Canada Post has been competing with them and will continue to compete with them if Bill C-9 is passed with this provision.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call to order the 15th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Colleagues, we are continuing with our study of Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010, and other measures.

We are continuing our discussions with officials from various departments as we go through the various parts of this bill. We want to thank the officials for being with us here today. We hope to finish it this week sometime, but we'll see how things go today, as Mr. Pacetti says.

Colleagues, we'll go back to the five-minute rounds, and if you do have any questions, please indicate to the clerk.

We are on part 15, Canada Post Corporation, the amendment to the Canada Post Corporation Act.

Are there any questions?

Mr. McKay and then Monsieur Paillé.

Criminal Code

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-16.

First, I was proud to be part of the justice committee when we limited Bill C-9. We took out minor offences, where people should not always be incarcerated because it would make society less safe. There were some ridiculous provisions in that bill. The opposition made it far more sensible.

As the members have heard all afternoon, I have asked simple questions about the bill. A bill is usually brought in when there is a big outrage and a problem. I have asked every member of the government to give me examples of how it is not working and why we need to make this change. There was no answer from the parliamentary secretary, or the minister or any member who has spoken,

A member from the Bloc has already said that there are hundreds and thousands of examples of conditional sentencing having worked for some of the minor offences in the bill. No one is arguing that in some of the serious offences it should not be allowed. However, for some of the minor offences, would it be possible to do that? There is no answer and no example.

The second question I have asked is if conditional sentences have been proven by the stats to be far more successful in reducing recidivism, when people get out, they do not commit other crimes, when it makes victims and other Canadians much safer, why would we change that? Why would we limit it in the less serious examples?

A member mentioned earlier that these conditional sentences were not done just off the cuff. Average research shows 11 to 13 reasons for the case from a judge, a judge who has a lifetime of experience in the criminal justice system, who understands the situation, who understands what will work and what will make Canadians safer. Only then do they oppose those sentences.

Why can the Conservatives not come up with examples? Perhaps it is because judges who have this lifetime experience do not give out conditional sentences. In a lot of cases, they make wise decisions and do not give them in serious situations, which would be covered in this bill. Just because the bill would prohibit them from giving out conditional sentences does not mean that they give them out now.

For a lot of the serious crimes, judges would never give out conditional sentences. This is one of the reasons why people are having such a hard time coming up with as many examples as there are for success stories.

I would encourage people to attend the restorative justice organization of the city of Ottawa to hear the success stories, or to read Professor Doob's book. I would challenge any Conservative member who does not believe in conditional sentencing to do that and then come back and say that he or she does not believe in them. There have been huge benefits to society, huge protection of Canadians and victims, in some of the cases where conditional sentences have been applied.

The members have brought forward a lack of understanding. In some of the Conservative speeches, it is very true. There is a lack of understanding of how it works. One Conservative member suggested that the people on conditional sentences just watched TV. In jail they get to watch a lot of TV as well. That is not all that is involved in a conditional sentence. This is not the only reason it turns out to be successful.

There are a number of other conditions of rehabilitation, conditions that cannot be provided on probation, that help. They could be tougher on the criminal and certainly would give him or her a much better chance of not recommitting an offence. It makes society much safer for the victims so they are not re-victimized. It makes it much safer for Canadians if criminals do not reoffend.

The vast majority of offenders get out. When they get out, we need a way to ensure they are unlikely to reoffend, which will keep all of us safe. They need the investment in rehabilitation.

When I go into the prisons, prisoners say that they are not getting the anger management they need. They are not getting the drug rehabilitation programs they need. They are not given the re-education they need to get out and to be successful in society, which would keep everyone much safer.

As some members alluded to at the beginning of this debate, we need to invest in the root causes of crime and the prevention of crime. Some of the minor crimes, as people have mentioned, are committed under bad circumstances or the individual came from a bad family situation. The person should not be put in jail as a result. Learning the background and finding out the cause of those crimes could stop the situation before it came to any kind of sentence.

The government could continue to invest in the aboriginal justice strategy. To the government's credit, it has extended the funding for a couple of years, but we wanted it to be made permanent. Under that system people working in restorative justice counsel individuals and they have a tremendous success rate in reducing recidivism and, in a number of cases, have eliminated it. It is almost like not approving funding for judges every two years. This strategy should be made permanent. The government could certainly continue investing in it.

I want to talk a bit about the policy process or the way the government comes up with the laws that I have seen when I was on the justice committee. Bill C-9 was just one of them.

When we had hearings in Toronto we were told by the public that the system had been turned upside down. The normal policy development process involves experts. In this case it involved experts from the justice department, people who have spent a good part of their lives finding out how to make Canadians safer by bringing in effective laws.

In this particular case, we were told that the direction came from the top. It avoided all the evidence and the science. It was not evidence-based legislation. The experts told us what would actually reduce crime and make people safer. However, for whatever reason, the government brought in totally ineffective laws that would endanger Canadians even more. Witness after witness, the experts at committee, made the same case. That is why some of these laws, like Bill C-9, were overturned, eliminated or put into a more reasonable and rational shape.

We would like this bill to go to committee in order to limit the situation to those cases where a conditional sentence would actually make sense. We have heard some examples today of some cases that should be in the bill and some that should not but that type of debate will be had at committee.

Hopefully at committee the government members, who will have had another couple of years of experience, will now listen more carefully to the experts, listen to what is working and what is not and we can come to a compromise and come up with a bill that will make Canadians safer by using the effective restorative justice processes, new processes compared to the thousands of years of failure by incarceration resulting in a number of people becoming worse off after jail and making society less safe.

One of the points made by the opposition, which the experts have proven to be another fallacy, is that this change would act as a deterrent. This is not what most criminals are thinking about. Making a change like this would not be a deterrent. Evidence has proven that deterrence is the perception of getting caught. If we want to have deterrents for these crimes then we would increase our police force, increase monitoring and increase the understanding that criminals will get caught. It is not by changing sentences in the ways being suggested in this legislation.

Judges need to make the right decisions but by limiting their options there will be more probation and suspended sentences, which actually will make society a more dangerous place. In those circumstances, one cannot add the same conditions. As I said earlier, conditional sentences have a number of conditions that can be put on offenders to ensure they do not reoffend, that they are not just sitting in cells learning more crime but actually being rehabilitated. That would not occur in some cases where judges' options are limited. They would not be able to do that.

People are unaware, which is partly the problem for all of us. There are some success stories and stories of difficult conditions imposed in conditional sentences. There are success stories of restorative justice here in Ottawa. From the society in Ottawa all the way to my riding, the farthest riding in the country, there are great success stories in restorative justice. We need to ensure that when we create a bill like this, we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater, that we do not throw out the good success stories in an attempt to limit certain situations, which, as I said, we all agree need to be limited as to when certain types of sentences can be provided.

If we want judges to have the best chance of making society safer, they need as many tools available to them as possible. They are the ones who listen to the evidence, understand the situations people come from, understand the circumstances of the crime and understand what caused it. They are the ones who understand, with a lifetime of experience in the criminal justice system, what would be most successful when dealing with a particular person, a particular offence and to make it safer for all of us. To do that, they need the tools. Why would we as parliamentarians want to limit the number of tools available to them to make the wisest decisions? In some cases, they will use this tool and another tool. Why would we want to limit the tools so there are less successful outcomes in the criminal justice system?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, with the member's vast experience, could he comment on the justice policy, programs and bills put forward by the Conservatives in the sense of whether they are evidence-based? He mentioned one particular professor who was totally against Bill C-9 as an example. When I sat on justice committee, my perspective, time and time again, was that what was presented was totally not evidence-based.

Does the member have any comments on that?

Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders)

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, most of us have difficulty with omnibus bills sometimes, because they do tend to have a lot of legislation buried in them. The thing about an omnibus bill is that there is a theme that brings all the pieces of proposed legislation together. In Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, there is virtually no theme. With the potential sale of AECL and legislation about payment cards or credit cards, it is all over the map. There is no theme.

In terms of criminal law legislation, we have seen bills in the past here and in other jurisdictions that have a themed Criminal Code amendment, and I was referring to those.

My colleague makes a good point that, when we are dealing with youth criminal justice, it is a very visible separate component of our criminal justice system. We keep it separate. That is why I styled my remarks around the theme of intervention as opposed to retribution, accountability, deterrence, these types of issues.

I recall visiting a youth boot camp in the Ontario jurisdiction. It was a very successful operation that dealt with youth. It was well run and disciplined. The young men there earned points to get the chance to go home on weekends on a supervised home visit.

I did bump into one young man and I asked him where he was going after he was out of there. It was a very sad comment because he said he did not have any family so it did not matter whether he earned any points to go home on the weekend. He said he would probably go back to the pool hall.

What a sad situation that the intervention that was there, which seemed to be having some benefit, was going to come to an end. The intervention would end and that young man would go back to a pool hall in Toronto. He was not going to go back to school. He did not seem to have any appetite for that. He was about 17 years old. I was quite saddened that the intervention that was there was going to come to an end and he was going to end up back at the same place that probably got him into trouble in the first place.

I go back to my theme of quality intervention. The better the quality, the better the outcome and the better it is for our society.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, if I interpreted the member's speech correctly, he said the government should have put this bill in with a bunch of other bills into an omnibus bill. I would definitely disagree with that. The government does that when it has a whole bunch of ineffective, poor bills it wants to pass all at once.

On the other hand, does this mean the member also thinks that Bill C-9 as an omnibus bill was a good idea? There were lots of things all in that one bill.

Sébastien's Law (protecting the public from violent young offenders)

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating another, another, amendment to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I say that knowing that the act used to be referred to, at one point, as the Young Offenders Act. This is probably the fifth set of changes this Parliament has dealt with since the time when Parliament accepted that the old Juvenile Delinquents Act did not really suit where we were headed as a society.

It is quite fair to accept that, from time to time, it is necessary to fine-tune our legislation. That is essentially what we do here all the time for all of our laws and our public policy. Approximately five years ago, there was an inquiry in the province of Nova Scotia dealing with young offenders. That particular inquiry produced a very credible report that suggested that components of our Youth Criminal Justice Act were not up to par and that portions of it could use some minor amendments in the public interest.

Those areas dealt with the way we handled youth who, with 20/20 hindsight, were potentially violent and seriously violent offenders and were not really controllable by the kinds of routine orders and judicial intervention available under the act. I sat on the justice committee at the time and I recall pretty much around-the-table acceptance of those suggestions. Those suggestions for reform have now found their way into this bill.

In fairness, I should say that there have been a couple of other bills before Parliament that attempted to implement the same changes. We are finally getting around to it now. For those changes dealing with the really hard-to-handle procedural problems involving young offenders, I could not imagine there would be too much dissent.

Even the judge who led the inquiry in Nova Scotia said that these should be seen as minor amendments. There is no need to make a radical overhaul of the statute, but these amendments would suit the public interest in the sense that they would protect both the public and the young offender from potential serious harms in the period that follows the police intervention until the time when the youth is sentenced. That would be the interim period while the youth is being processed, while charges are being laid and during the trial.

I do not think he pointed out any problems with the act regarding the period after conviction and sentence. But he did request that these amendments look very clearly and honestly at the problem of youth who have adopted a potentially violent modus operandi and society needs protection from that.

In this particular bill, there is a whole lot more than just those recommended changes. Members should go to the title; this is not the first time I have spoken about this. On the front page, it says, “An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act”. There is nothing the matter with that, but then clause 1 says that this act may be cited as somebody’s law, protecting the public from violent young offenders.

That is a commercial. That is an Orwellian mantra. It is a distortion. It is an adulteration of what should be there in the first section. This is a bill that is there to make a minor but important amendment, not a very complex set of amendments, to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I object to that type of title. When that kind of a title is in there, it actually ought to tell us something. The bill just might be torqued to do a little bit more than just a minor amendment to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Anyway, we read through the bill and find it does attempt to make some significant changes.

I note that this is one of about half a dozen criminal law amendment bills, and I also ask the question: Why did the Conservatives not put all these criminal justice bills into one bill? We have done that lots of times before. We make several amendments to the Criminal Code, we put them in a bill, call it an omnibus Criminal Code amendment bill and the House deals with it. But no, the government has to do a separate bill for every category of change it can think of. That has to tell us something also.

So utterly telling is the contrast between this bill and the budget implementation bill, Bill C-9. Do members know how many bills that bill changes, how many statutes that bill amends? It seeks to amend 29 statutes in one bill, and yet when it came to making amendments to the Criminal Code, the government had to introduce a half dozen separate bills. I do not quite understand that. Maybe I am naive and maybe there is something going on here I do not see, but I will leave it to the voters to figure that one out.

When it comes to youth criminal justice, a term we should be dealing with is the concept of intervention. I have not heard that term a lot here, but it is so important, and in my view it is the most important concept. When a youth goes offside, breaks the law, and I am talking of a person who is between the low threshold and 17 years old, I prefer to regard our obligation as that of intervention. Now some Canadians would just like to treat that like a normal criminal act; we charge, we convict, we sentence, we deal with it. But we have learned in society that it is the absolute worst way to deal with young offenders. For a person in the sometimes turbulent, confused youth years, a lot of things happen.

I will admit that, when I was under 10 years old, I broke into a house, I as a little kid with some other kids. As great irony would have it, Mr. Speaker, you will not believe it, but the house I and the others broke into was the house of a Juvenile Delinquents Act judge. Is that not unbelievable? And I was the son of a policeman, to boot. At the time I really did not think I was breaking any laws. I actually did not know a lot about what I was doing. But the point is: What if they had taken all those youths who were all different ages and just put us all in jail? How would our lives have turned out? That would have been a bad story.

I refer colleagues to the Perry preschool project and the whole history of that project, which began about 1960 and went on for 25 years in the Chicago area. It measured outcomes between one group with which there was a huge intervention, in school and otherwise, and another group for which there was no intervention. The outcomes were like night and day. We have proven that intervention works and jailing does not. Even though it can be very expensive, the dollars we spend on intervention are infinitely better spent than any money we are going to have to spend later, after the fact, jailing and punishing. In addition, the youth who get through these turbulent years and make better choices rather than bad choices end up costing us zero and are productive citizens.

I am getting close to the end of my time for debate. I will pause here in the hope of being able to speak further at a later date.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Absolutely. As you allowed the day before yesterday, Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do that Bill C-9 implements a number of provisions, including measures related to equalization. These clauses deal directly, as we have seen earlier, with the social transfer and with equalization payments in general.

And we had a question for the officials responsible for calculating equalization payments about a difference in the way the federal government treats provinces. In the case of Quebec, they say that they are not allowed to take into account the wall that exists between the different functions within Hydro-Québec. They say that Hydro-Québec should be considered as a whole, and he said that several times, because they find it too difficult. Mr. McGirr told us...

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we are not talking about Hydro-Québec or Ontario Hydro. We're here talking about Bill C-9. If the honourable member can point out those two items for me somewhere in this piece of legislation I will tolerate this, but he had an entire meeting to talk about what wasn't even in Bill C-9. I request that we move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call the 14th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance to order. We're continuing our study of Bill C-9, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010, and other measures.

Colleagues, as you know, we are going through Bill C-9 part by part, and we were still on part 6 at our last meeting. In the interest of time, perhaps we can try to be as brief as possible in our questions. I'm going to recommend that we do rounds of five minutes maximum. If people still have questions beyond that, I'll perhaps put them at the bottom of the list.

We will try to get through this section and as many parts as we can today. We have two hours, until 5:30. Mr. McGirr is back with us again.

Thank you for coming back, Mr. McGirr.

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the important issue raised in Bill C-501 put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, dealing with unfunded pension liabilities.

The bill is a sign of his and his party's concern about pensions and the income security of Canadians in or approaching retirement. This is a concern shared by the government as evidenced by the number of initiatives that we have undertaken in response to the concerns of many Canadians across the country.

We appear to be coming out of the recent economic downturn experienced by countries all around the world. In that regard, I am pleased to point to the April 7 OECD interim economic assessment report that noted that the Canadian economy grew 6.2% in the first quarter of this year compared to 1.9% overall growth estimated for the other G7 countries. Our economy will continue to expand in the second quarter at 4.5%, twice the G7 average.

I mention this because a healthy economy can only be good for the stability of companies, the pension funds they support and the employees who will benefit from them. However, I do not suggest that this is not a reason for concern for individuals and for their companies that have not weathered the economic storm well.

During the downturn, which has led to a number of employers filing under insolvency legislation, many people, especially senior citizens, were understandably concerned that their pensions would be affected. While Canada is showing signs of emerging from this downturn, the financial well-being of these older Canadians must not be taken for granted.

Although the government has undertaken a number of specific initiatives to deal with those heartfelt concerns, debate on this bill allows us an opportunity to stand back and see where we are when it comes to our pension and bankruptcy legislation. The best place to start is in understanding exactly what the current legislation covers.

Canada's insolvency regime relies mainly on two statutes: the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, often called the BIA, and the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act, or the CCAA. These two statutes set the rules for the process of bankruptcy or, in the alternative, companies restructuring. Both are important pieces of marketplace framework legislation. They influence Canada's economic health, so much so that we must take great care not to tinker with their provisions on a piecemeal basis.

In broad strokes, the following is how the legislation works.

In bankruptcy, a trustee in bankruptcy seizes the non-exempt assets of the bankrupt company and sells, liquidates and distributes the proceeds of the sale among the creditors according to the distribution scheme set out in the BIA.

In the alternative, a company may choose to restructure. In restructuring, the company becomes a debtor rather than bankrupt. Rather, it works with an insolvency professional to try to find a repayment scheme for its debts that will satisfy the debtor's creditors and allow the firm to continue perhaps in a different and restructured form.

Historically, creditors receive better recovery under restructuring than they would if the debtor simply became bankrupt. Furthermore, it is better for jobs, growth and opportunity as it allows for the quick redeployment of assets from insolvent businesses to new and profitable ventures in a controlled and orderly manner, which is essential in today's economy.

That brings me to today's debate. One of the objectives of the insolvency legislation is to balance the competing interests of creditors, including employees and pensioners, for the scarce resources available in insolvency files as there is not usually enough money to satisfy the full claims of all creditors.

Great care must be taken when amending insolvency legislation because if the proper balance is not achieved, it is possible that the cost and availability of credit for companies with defined benefit pension plans could be negatively affected. This could, in turn, reduce the ability of companies to create or continue to fund benefit pension plans for their employees.

We also should be mindful that while exploring the various ways to help pensioners of insolvent companies, we do not impose additional constraints on reorganizing firms that could interfere in the reorganization process and eventually push still viable businesses into bankruptcy. Evidence has shown that restructuring and reorganization, as opposed to bankruptcy, provide better recovery for creditors and help to save jobs, which ultimately protects employees' wages and pensions.

I leave it to my colleagues to go over in greater detail the factors of which we must be mindful in considering the implications of pension protection in insolvency for the interests of stakeholders and the economy as a whole.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government committed to explore ways to better protect workers when their employers go bankrupt, and it certainly understands the value of secure and sustainable pension plans.

In order to promote more secure private sector pensions in the federal sphere, in October 2009, the government announced a comprehensive reform plan for the federal private pension plan legislation and regulatory framework. Many of these significant pension reforms announced by the finance minister are to be implemented through Bill C-9, the jobs and economic growth bill.

The Minister of Finance has also announced consultations with Canadians to obtain their input on this important matter, as well as consultations with his provincial and territorial counterparts that are currently ongoing concerning retirement security. A review of policy options is scheduled for the finance ministers' meeting to be held in May 2010.

In considering this bill, we must be mindful of the larger issue of pension and retirement income security. We must consider as well the interaction of this bill with the initiatives that are currently ongoing to promote the security of pensions as an important component of the retirement income security system. The government is considering all of these factors in fulfilling its commitment to explore ways to better protect workers whose employers go bankrupt.

I have a final note on this issue. Based on our experience at committee, I want to be clear on the present structure of the BIA. In fact, there is a super-priority group of current employees of a company that is looking at bankruptcy. That money that is available goes to those wages that are earned but not paid and they are a super-priority.

The next level is the secure level of debtor, which, to be frank, is the banks, those that have security against the bankrupt company in terms of hard assets and so on. It is really the banking level that most people consider.

The third level at present is everybody else, which includes the pensioners but also includes the suppliers, bondholders and a number of other debt instruments that companies use to operate.

This bill, from my understanding, and I will need some clarification as we debate this bill further, would move the pensioners above the secure level into the super-priority area. That was what was indicated in the speech by the mover of the motion. I will check into that further. However, what the Nortel employees who came to see us at the finance committee said is that they do not want to be a super-priority. They do not believe they could qualify for the secure level but they would be interested in a preferred position, ahead of suppliers and ahead of bondholders.

Through the debate over the next number of weeks on this and if it makes it through to committee, those are the questions that, as a member of the finance committee, I will be asking the mover to ensure we have clarification on what this bill would do. We need to be very careful when making these changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to ensure everyone is treated fairly through this process.

Pensions

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

Mr. Speaker, the only deceit here this morning comes from the opposition when it even suggests that it cares about seniors. Maybe it did in that half-day conference that was convened here in Ottawa to listen to seniors. Those who could not travel here, I guess the Liberals did not want to hear from them.

Last year we consulted with those involved in the federally regulated private pension plans. We found out what the problems were and we put in fixes for them. They are in Bill C-9 and we would encourage hon. members to actually read that they are in the budget and help us get them through for those people.

Bill C-9--Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to let them continue but my focus here is to ensure that Bill C-9 passes because that is what Canadians have asked us to do.

The mining industry had asked us to continue the flow-through shares, and that is part of this bill.

The universal child care benefit is being changed so that single parents actually qualify for it. We heard that from Canadians as well.

Maybe the issue here is hidden. Maybe the member, along with other members of this House, are concerned that in this budget implementation act their wages will be frozen for three years. I think that is leadership and that is what we are showing.

The member for Outremont just talked about the devastation that happened with the changes in the Navigable Waters Protection Act in budget 2009. We did not hear much from those people who came to committee and were reassured that those changes in budget 2009 to the Navigable Waters Protection Act were nothing but improvements. They are happy. I am not sure where the hon. member for Outremont has been canoeing lately but he has not been impeded from canoeing anywhere because of those changes.

I think I have spoken long enough about my frustration with this frivolous motion. Therefore, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague who sits on the finance committee with me and who, I am sure, will bring forward healthy debate when we do debate Bill C-9 at the finance committee, where it should be debated. We have offered to extend meetings. I hope he will stay past his supper hour and join us in those meetings, because we think it is very important, and I referred to that in my last question.

However, let me read a quote. This is supposed to be all about the environment. This is why the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona wants to split this bill. Let me read a quote from my good friend, Elizabeth May. This is going back some time.

So we were extremely hopeful with the 1993 red book, where there was a commitment that CEAA

—the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency—

—would receive royal assent, but it would be with significant strengthening and the creation of an independent Canadian environmental assessment agency that would be more like the CRTC in its functions.

That is what is in Bill C-9. That is exactly what we are doing in Bill C-9, giving the minister more strength to ensure that environmental assessments are done, and done properly.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is what I was asking.

The motion moved by my friend and colleague, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, proposes that Bill C-9 be divided to ensure that the dissimilar parts concerning completely different topics can be debated one at a time and not all together.

A few examples were cited earlier, but I would like to come back to some of them. For example, the bill would legalize—for ever and ever—the theft of the employment insurance fund first committed by the Liberals and now continuing under the Conservatives. We must remember that every business and employee across Canada has contributed to a fund specifically dedicated to assistance during times of unemployment. As we know, unemployment is cyclical.

Instead of leaving the money there, the Liberals transferred it to the consolidated revenue fund, the government's general account. Some people said that did not change anything because the same amount of money appeared on the government's books before and after. But there is a huge difference between the two. Every single business, whether it made money or lost money, had to contribute for each and every one of its employees. The government used that money to give itself an extra $60 billion in leeway to offer tax breaks to the most profitable companies. Why those companies? Well, because tax breaks only apply to companies that pay taxes, or in other words, those that make a profit.

Businesses that were already suffering because of the Conservatives' negligence, incompetence and preferential treatment watched the money that was there for their employees, along with the money employees themselves contributed, disappear. Businesses that were losing money contributed to the fund, and that cash ended up subsidizing oil sands companies. Worse still, once the precedent was set, the Conservatives, who pointed fingers at the Liberals for doing it first, turned around and did it again, perfecting the technique and making it all perfectly legal in this bill. It is clear to us that this issue must be debated separately.

As my colleague so rightly pointed out earlier, there are also serious implications with respect to the environment. Last year, the Conservative-Liberal axis of evil joined forces once again to completely undermine the Navigable Waters Protection Act, a century-old law that gave Canada an enviable reputation for protecting its waterways. The Liberals and the Conservatives joined forces and torpedoed the Navigable Waters Protection Act because the Minister of Transport claimed that it was killing jobs.

Decades after the Brundtland report, it seems that Canada was incapable of understanding that the environment and the economy are not opposing forces, but that they have to go hand in hand in every choice we make in our daily lives, especially when we are called on to make decisions in a Parliament such as ours.

Furthermore, the Conservatives and Liberals are going to join forces again, this time to scrap the environmental assessment process for energy mega-projects. I listened to my colleague, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi, speaking earlier. I was in his region recently with our candidate, Christelle Bogosta, to work with the municipality of Dunham in order to prevent the Conservatives from reversing the flow of the Portland—Montreal pipeline, which would have the double effect of killing jobs in Montreal and endangering the environment in a beautiful region that boasts many lakes and rivers. The pipeline was built about 60 years ago. They are going to build an enormous pumping station order to increase pressure because, instead of bringing oil from the Middle East or North Africa, they will be getting crude from the oil sands, and it will have to be pumped in the opposite direction. The flow will be reversed, and the pressure will increase. This is going to cause environmental disasters, but the Conservatives do not want us to even consider these things. They no longer want any environmental assessments in such cases.

Sustainable development means considering environmental, social and economic factors all together, in each case that is presented to us. And what about the jobs that will be killed? Consider all the projects that have been approved since the Conservatives came to power: Keystone, Alberta Clipper, Southern Lights, and a new line they want to install as soon as possible in order to export oil to China. According to an objective external assessment, the Keystone project alone will cost Canada 18,000 jobs.

We have always had an integrated economy that involves processing our own primary resources, including lumber, minerals and oil. Value was added right here. We are going back to the days of exporting logs to the United States where they were transformed into furniture, thus creating wealth and jobs there, and then re-importing the furniture to Canada. This is what it means to be the proverbial hewers of wood and drawers of water. This is the kind of economy the Conservatives want to pass on to our children and grandchildren.

When the Netherlands discovered oil and gas offshore a few decades ago, the guilder, which was the Dutch currency at the time, shot up in value. In economic terms, this is known as Dutch disease, not to be confused with Dutch elm disease. This economic malaise occurs when foreign currency flows into a country too quickly, driving up the value of the country's own currency and making it nearly impossible for the country to export manufactured goods. The country's resources are used to create wealth, but it can no longer manufacture and export goods, because its currency is too valuable.

Because the Conservatives have never factored in the environmental costs of the oil sands, an artificially inflated number of U.S. dollars is flowing into our economy at present, driving the loonie to unprecedented heights and making it harder for us to export our manufactured goods and forest products. Before the current crisis hit Canada, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia had lost more than 400,000 well-paying jobs in forestry and manufacturing. Talk about gutting the economy.

Let us say that someone in our riding wants to show us a factory where product x is manufactured and tells us that the product is a real money-maker, selling around the world for $100 and bringing in huge revenues. We go to the factory and say that it is wonderful, but we ask to see what is going on out back. We are refused access and told not to look. But we insist on looking, and we notice that all the waste is being thrown into the river behind the factory instead of being properly processed. Our first instinct would be to say that the price is wrong, because it does not factor in the cost of managing byproducts or waste.

This is the fundamental mistake that Canada is making under the Conservatives, and they do not even want anyone to look anymore. They do not even want any more environmental assessments. As usual, the Liberals will vote with the Conservatives to scrap the environment and destroy our economy and any chance future generations might have of enjoying the same safeguards we do. In fact, they are going to be stuck with the bill. It is a scandal, and we are going to stand up and condemn it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona for her truly wonderful work on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

According to the Conservatives, Bill C-9 is both extraordinary and fantastic, but at the same time, they have slipped some poison pills into it. One of the pills they seem to have included in the bill—and I would like to hear my colleague's opinion about this—would now give the Minister of the Environment the option of whether or not to hold public hearings. They have included this in what they say is a budget implementation bill. What will the minister do? Will he stand up for the oil sands or fish?

What does my colleague think the minister will do once he has discretion over public hearings?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our environment critic for raising this motion today. It is a very important motion and she has laid out some very clear, solid grounds as to why Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, should be split and sent to committee.

She has raised the issues of environmental regulations and how the government is trying to truck through massive changes in public policy under the cover of a budget bill. However, there are also many issues in the budget implementation bill that are of great concern to us as New Democrats. When we look at what is not in the budget implementation bill in terms of helping people in their everyday lives, whether it is housing, help for students and seniors or pensions, there are huge issues here that are not being addressed.

I wonder if the member, in moving this motion today, could also address some of the issues regarding Bill C-9 and the problems that it has presented. On the one hand, it contains huge flaws in terms of trying to push through these massive changes, but on the other hand, it is neglecting the real priorities that people have concerning things like pensions, housing and child care.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that it have the power to divide Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, into two or more pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to my motion, first tabled before the House April 20, 2010 and today.

Why have I moved this motion? The pattern and practice of the government to institute significant legislative reforms under the cloak of budget bills has been loudly criticized by the Canadian public. This is the second time that the government, during this Parliament, has chosen to make major changes to the environment through a budget bill.

What has caused such broad consternation is the fact that the subject area of at least one part of Bill C-9, part 20, is by law required to be referred to a parliamentary committee for comprehensive review this year; the fact that the parliamentary committee on environment and sustainable development has already agreed to undertake this review. and that this review is scheduled to commence within weeks; and the fact that the same law requires the committee to report back to Parliament on its review and any recommended changes within a year of completing that review.

There is a clear intent expressed by legislators: of who is charged with reviewing changes to the bill; the process to be followed and, in other words, an open participatory process to review any legislative changes; responsibility already taken on by the parliamentary committee; and that the review is likely to be substantive. For these reasons I am recommending that the finance committee, having been charged to study Bill C-9, be empowered to consider dividing the bill. It is my recommendation to the House that it consider empowering the finance committee to split the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Outremont.

The very title of the budget implementation bill makes clear the narrow thrust of Bill C-9. It is entitled “Jobs and Economic Growth Act”.

While a good number of provisions of Bill C-9 arguably fall within the purview of a budget implementation bill and that narrow context, under the rubric of jobs and growth, I submit a number of parts of Bill C-9 clearly do not. Counted among those are: part 18, which is about the reorganization of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited; part 19, amending the National Energy Board Act and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to allow for participant funding; and in particular, part 20, which brings forth substantial amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I wish most specifically to speak to parts 19 and 20. These parts provide for significant reforms to the federal environmental assessment law: procedures and critical rights. To provide a context, the legislative purposes of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act include: to ensure projects are considered in a careful and precautionary manner in advance of decisions to ensure they do not cause significant harm or adverse impacts; to ensure coordination among federal authorities; to ensure communication and co-operation with aboriginal people; and to ensure opportunities for timely and meaningful public participation.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires that the government minister, the CEA agency and all federal authorities exercise their powers in a manner consistent with protecting the environment and human health, and observing the precautionary principle. No such similar broad duties can be found either in the NEB Act nor the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

The CEAA does allow the Minister of the Environment, on a project-specific basis, to assign environmental reviews to other bodies, but with conditions that there be identical factors, as considered under CEAA, and equal public participation rights. What the government has proposed in the bill is hardly equivalent and a major step backwards in participatory rights and opportunity.

The amendments under part 20 provide for the transfer of responsibility of the CEA agency to the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for any comprehensive study of projects under their purview, so it is a broad policy assignment of power.

Of concern to me is the fact that the National Energy Board has apparently already posted on its website that these reforms are already in legal effect. The CEAA requires the minister to establish a participant funding program, while Bill C-9 reforms really grant the discretion to the National Energy Board and the Nuclear Safety Commission to consider establishing participant funding.

Of greatest concern, Bill C-9 also exempts a broad category of federally funded projects from environmental assessment, regardless of the significance of their environmental impacts. The minister may reverse the exemption if significant impacts are identified. It hardly provides for the legal certainty that the government promised in its throne speech.

Projects that would be exempted include: the building Canada fund, the green infrastructure fund, the recreational infrastructure fund, the border infrastructure fund, the municipal rural infrastructure fund, and on it goes. Bill C-9 also changes CEAA to grant the minister broad, undefined discretion to narrow the scope of any environmental assessment or, in other words, allow for the introduction of inappropriate, potentially political considerations.

Concerns about this provision have been voiced strongly by a number of sectors including first nations. In particular, first nations are concerned that their constitutionally protected rights for advance notice, consultation and accommodation may have been violated by bringing forward these amendments without first contacting them.

I might add that the government appears to also be failing to adhere to its commitments under the North American agreement on environmental co-operation, where it is obligated to provide advance notice and opportunity to comment to anyone in North American who may be impacted by such reforms. The amendments strike at the very heart of the federal process negotiated among all interests over past decades. The reviews could have gone to the regulatory advisory committee, which the government has not brought together for the last year and half.

In summary, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act review includes a review and reform process. It prescribes who is to undertake that review. The matter has already been taken up by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, one of the two bodies provided in law that may take on such a study. The parliamentary committee has already scheduled public hearings on this matter, which will proceed within weeks.

It appears, therefore, logical and respectful to empower the finance committee to split its review of Bill C-9 and to delay review of specified parts, in particular parts 19 and 20, until such time as the CEAA review, mandated first to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, is completed and the recommended reforms submitted to Parliament.

This would enable a full and open review of the proposed reforms to assessment law, including hearing testimony from interested Canadians, including industry, provincial governments, first nations, the territories and the general public, on the proposed legal reforms. To do otherwise would ensure a slippery slope to the democratic process.

Canada has long stood as an example in the Western world for having among the best environmental impact assessment processes. Many Canadians have gone to court to fight for strong federal environmental assessment laws. Yet, with one broad brush of a budget bill, open to potentially having the government fall to a confidence vote, is not the way to proceed with a sensible, open discussion on these critical amendments.

In closing, I would just add again that I recommend to the House that it consider giving this power to the committee to consider splitting Bill C-9.

The House resumed from April 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Post

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

Mr. Speaker, in the budget implementation bill, the Conservative government is trying to slip in a provision to make outgoing international mail accessible to the competition, thereby attacking Canada Post's exclusive privilege and opening the door to full deregulation of the crown corporation.

Does the government realize that by avoiding debate on the issue, it is being anti-democratic? Will it agree to remove this provision from Bill C-9?

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. When I was speaking yesterday, I felt that I had to bring to the attention of the House what, in my view, was almost an extraordinary package of measures contained in Bill C-9. It was the scope of the measures contained in the bill that struck me. It struck me so much that I feel that there is a procedural anomaly extant here, that the bill is too big, too wide, and harms the ability of the House, of members of the House, to deal with its components.

As I mentioned, and maybe other members have done this, it would probably take me five or ten minutes to go through all the components of the bill if I read each statute and just mentioned what the amendment was all about. There are 11 income tax amendments. There are eight GST-HST amendments. There are a couple of Customs and Excise Act amendments. And there are some 20 other statutes amended.

In order to bring in a budget implementation bill, normally there is a ways and means motion that precedes the introduction of the bill. That is normal. That gives the House a heads-up. In fact, the government must have a ways and means motion adopted before such a bill is introduced.

I would not have a problem, and I do not think anybody would have a problem, with a bill that reflected, give or take, what was in the ways and means motion. If the ways and means motion implementing the budget has 10 or 20 separate items and the budget implementation bill that follows deals with those 10 or 20 separate items, I do not think we could argue that the bill does not reflect the ways and means motion and the ways and means motion does not reflect the budget because there is a theme.

However, in this particular case, the bill goes way beyond both the ways and means motion and what I heard in this House in the budget. I think probably all of us were here to listen to the budget speech,. However, there are things in this bill which were not mentioned in the budget speech and there are other things which were not listed, mentioned, or itemized in the ways and means motion.

What this bill comes forward looking like is what we sometimes call an omnibus bill. It is an omnibus bill. At least that is what some would say at first blush. However, I must say that as I look at this bill, it is not even an omnibus bill.

So, what kind of a bill is it? I will try and tell members why it is not an omnibus bill. But what kind of a bill is it? It is not even on the list of types of bills. It contains so many measures it looks like the House may be in the process of accepting a bill which is not an omnibus bill but which has dozens or hundreds of separate statutory amendments because there does not appear to be a limit.

If we can put 30 or 40 statutory amendments in this bill, why could we not put 50 in another one? How about 100?

This is a little bit like the Texas senate. As I understand it, the Texas senate used to meet for about one week per year. What it did was take all of the legislation it had to deal with and put it into one bill. It had one bill that dealt with the dozens of pieces of legislation it wanted to deal with in the legislative body in Texas, U.S.A. It would meet for a week, debate for a week and pass the bill. Its members were out of town, gone, and it was done. That is how easy it is. Maybe we are heading in that direction. I hope we are not and I am still considering just what the procedural implications are, both at this point and later at committee and then report stages.

There is also another procedure the House has adopted over the years. It is not an omnibus bill issue; it is called the miscellaneous statutes amendment procedure. This is a procedure, which the House has accepted and used for many years, where a whole bunch of miscellaneous minor technical amendments to statutes, 10, 20, 30 statutes, are bundled. The Justice Department bundles them up, creates a bill, and the bill is put through the House. It is usually debated very quickly at second reading and then goes to the justice committee.

If at any point along the way there is objection to any one component of the bill, that component is dropped. Otherwise, the bill goes through and these dozens and dozens of miscellaneous technical amendments are made, passed and done. It is really easy. This is not a miscellaneous statutes amendment bill. This is a budget implementation bill. It is too big and wide.

It is so big and wide that in the 10 minutes we each have here to talk about this bill, we will not actually get a chance to address some of these components. This has serious implications for the way we do our business and there may be another opportunity for me to talk about that in the House.

The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. I want to begin my remarks by commenting on the enormity of this bill. It is 872 pages long and has 24 different parts.

When one goes through the bill, whether one goes through the summary or starts looking at the bill in its totality, one can see immediately that the Conservative government has decided to use this bill as a cover for all kinds of very negative and bad public policy initiatives. We are certainly aware of that and this is one of the reasons it is very important that debate take place on Bill C-9.

I would add to the comments made by my colleagues that it is very ironic that Conservative members are choosing not to debate this bill, because it is simply enormous when one considers what is covered in it. We did hear the budget speech and we had the budget itself, but this budget implementation bill goes far beyond what was contained in the budget. It is using itself as a cover for all kinds of draconian measures. I will mention a couple.

Environmental assessment is a very important issue in terms of ensuring that the public interest is represented in dealing with environmental issues. Why is it in a budget implementation bill that the minister will now have all kinds of discretion to dictate the scope of environmental assessments of any of the projects to be reviewed? Why would it be that federally funded infrastructure projects can now be exempted from environmental assessment?

These are very serious questions which in and of themselves should be debated separately through legislation in a debate in the House, yet they have been slipped into Bill C-9, the budget implementation act. We are very concerned about that. We are very disturbed that the government is yet again using these kinds of means to try and slip important matters through the House.

The Conservatives did it a few years ago with Bill C-50, when they brought in all kinds of very substantive changes to the Citizenship and Immigration Act. They used a budget bill to do that. We see the same in this bill with Canada Post. We know that the Conservatives have tried to move a bill through the House which in effect would privatize aspects of Canada Post and affect the jobs and services that are provided by that crown corporation and federal agency.

We have held up that bill. We prevented it from coming forward. What is the response? Yet again, the Conservatives are trying to slip it through in the budget implementation bill. I am actually surprised that they did not try to include the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and sneak that one through, too, because we have been holding that one up.

I want to reserve the rest of my comments for issues pertaining to what I think are very serious in my community and how this budget implementation bill does not deal with them.

I represent the riding of Vancouver East. It is a wonderful riding, full of activists and great neighbourhoods, and yet right now in the city of Vancouver there is a crisis taking place. The seven Vancouver homeless emergency action team shelters are slated to close by April 30.

Those shelters have been providing a safe, warm, appropriate place for people to go where there is a laundry facility, food, good management and care for about 600 people a night. There was a lot of suspicion that these shelters were put up just for the Olympics. Hundreds of thousands of people were in our city for the Olympics. We were all aware that we had a serious homelessness and housing affordability crisis in our city. These shelters were opened and they have provided support to people. That has been very important. Now they are going to close.

In fact, there has been a very public conflict going on between the province of B.C. and the city of Vancouver as to what will happen with these shelters. What is remarkable to me is that the federal government has not said one word. There is nothing about the federal homelessness partnering strategy and that maybe it could provide some assistance with these shelters now slated to be closed and the fact that there will be hundreds of people out on the street. It is just so staggering to understand what is taking place.

We are dealing with issues in my community that are deeply systemic. This housing crisis has gone on for two decades. It started with the former Liberal government that eliminated all of the housing programs. My Bill C-304 would try to get the federal government back into housing by working with the provinces, municipalities, first nations and civil society.

This crisis is incredible to me. People are out on the street in our city right now and more people will be out on the street because these shelters are going to close down.

The annual homeless count that was done on March 23 showed that the number of homeless people in Vancouver had increased 12% from 2008 from 1,576 people to 1,762 people. Those are numbers but we also need to think about this in terms of individual people. We need to think about the impact on people's lives when they do not know where they will go each night, do not have access to proper food, do not have a decent income, do not have proper shelter assistance to keep out of the cold and wet weather and do not have access to laundry facilities. These figures are staggering.

The only good news, if there is any good news, is that 1,300 of those 1,700 homeless people were in shelters. In fact, the number of people in shelters has increased, which is good, but, as I said before, these shelters will be closing.

I have to question the government with this budget implementation bill that is nearly 900 pages long as to why there is nothing in the budget that will help the City of Vancouver deal with this crisis as it tries to cope with the costs. It costs the city about $7 million to keep these shelters open when the federal government could be doing that.

The City of Vancouver, like other municipalities, relies on the property tax base. It does the best it can in stretching every single dollar. It has gone more than its distance and more than its responsibility in ensuring that these shelters are operating. It did get some assistance from the provincial government but most of that is now coming to an end.

This raises a very stark contrast. On the one hand, we see a budget that continues with outrageous tax breaks to corporations in the billions of dollars, robbing the public purse of desperately needed revenue, and on the other hand, we see communities, like the Downtown Eastside and other communities across the country, where people are destitute on the street and do not know where they will go each night.

A budget is about disclosing the real priorities and the real objectives of a government. We have had so much emphasis and focus on crime bills and little boutique bills. We have had so much overemphasis on law enforcement and tough on crime measures that will solve every problem we have, but we have deeply systemic and complex social issues in the urban environment, whether it is a lack of funds for public transit, lack of funds for housing or lack of funds for child care. People are literally struggling each month to get by.

The plight of homeless people is quite shocking but it affects a broader segment of society too. I know lots of working folks where both parents are working and making minimum wage or maybe a bit more and they are struggling to keep up with exorbitant child care costs, even if they can get into child care.

In addressing Bill C-9, the budget implementation act, I want to put it right out there that this is an outrage and a shame in terms of what the government has not done to address some of these ongoing and deeply systemic issues in our country. The gap is growing between wealth and poverty. More Canadians are falling into an environment where they cannot make ends meet.

We saw a wonder film the other night Poor no More that was premiered here on Parliament Hill hosted by Mary Walsh that showed so well in a very articulate way what is taking place for the working poor. These are people who are working, many of whom are getting a minimum wage. It showed how people are struggling and are actually living below the poverty line.

This is a bad budget implementation bill because it does not deal with what needs to be dealt with in my community and other communities. I hope that we can convince other members of the House not to support it.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand here to speak as the member for Churchill, as a member of the New Democratic Party in this House, to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

While it is an honour to speak to it, this is fundamentally a document of ideas that is profoundly disappointing. Why is it disappointing? Because this is a budget, an implementation bill, and an agenda, that leaves Canadians behind.

As the MP for Churchill, this budget leaves my region behind. It leaves northerners who live in my region of Manitoba and all across the country behind, when it comes to the needs that they have expressed so clearly are important to them.

Take, for example, one of the greatest needs that we have, housing. There is nothing there. In the area of health, an area in which we face great challenges, whether it is the lack of medical professionals or the lack of services, while the government maintains the continued amount of transfers as there was last year, there is no investment in our health care system in a way that meets the demands people have.

More broadly, in terms of infrastructure for our regions, many of our communities are far away from each other and are looking to diversify their economies, looking to build linkages. This budget has nothing new. While some things were promised last year, there is no vision for rebuilding, for reinvesting, and for ultimately moving forward at a time of difficult economic recession.

Also, in terms of the industries that are integral to our region, this budget holds nothing. When it comes to forestry, not only is there no plan to support forestry communities, but we actually have measures in the budget implementation bill that further continue the suffering that communities such as The Pas, Manitoba or Opaskwayak Cree Nation experience in my region. Through this budget implementation bill we see the raising of export tariffs on softwood lumber products from my province by 10%, in addition to the pain felt as a result of the government selling off our lumber and refusing to stand for forestry communities.

More broadly, the budget implementation bill leaves Canadians behind across the board, in light of the experiences they have had over the last few years, more specifically in the last year. For Canadians who have lost their jobs, some of them in my region and regions all across the country, the budget does not hold the support they need. When we look at employment insurance that workers have paid in, week after week, year after year, and hold on to that for times of difficulty, we have a government that, instead of supporting the workers at the hardest time they are experiencing, instead of helping, is actually looking at emptying the employment insurance account and also increasing premiums over time.

When it comes to pensions, there are some references to pension measures, but we in the NDP have been proud to forward so many initiatives called on by the labour movement, called on by working people all across this country, and called on by seniors. Yet, this budget holds none of that. It does not propose to improve the retirement security that so many Canadians are looking for.

The budget also holds nothing for young people. While there are some measures in terms of summer jobs and certainly some charitable enterprises, the budget leaves young Canadians behind. What about job initiatives year round?

Young people who have been the first to lose their jobs and are struggling to find new ones during one of the most difficult economic times have been coming to me and sharing the challenge of trying to find proper employment, not just during the summer but year round. Many of them get stuck in minimum wage jobs, oftentimes even after they have graduated or invested years in post-secondary education. They are forced to look at jobs that do not remunerate them in a way that reflects the education they paid for and invested in. The budget has nothing when it comes to supporting young people entering the job market and finding sustainable work.

It also has nothing to support young people with the continued burden that a post-secondary education is proving to hold here in Canada. Tuition fees are increasing in almost every province in Canada, with the exception of a few. As a result, student debts are increasing at historic rates. I mentioned it before in this House, but we have the shameful number of $13 billion as the amount of money that students, former students and current students, now are faced with as they go into a very uncertain job market. This budget holds nothing to alleviate that stress.

This budget is also dangerous. It leaves Canadians behind because it takes away some of the supports that link us, that link our communities, that make us stronger. I reference two areas in particular.

One is that of privatization. The budget implementation bill talks about removing Canada Post's legal monopoly on outgoing international letters. Much has been said about protecting Canadian institutions. Canada Post is one of the institutions that Canadians are very proud of and would hope that our government would support. We are seeing that the government not only is not standing up for it but it is choosing to chip away pieces of it. It is selling off parts of it. The government is weakening an institution that allows us to communicate, an institution that is part of our identity as Canadians.

This budget also puts Canadians behind. It weakens Canada through deregulation. My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona has spoken with regard to the environmental regulations that are being done away with in this budget. As many Canadians hear more information about this, they are becoming increasingly disturbed by these measures that are found in budget, such as exempting federally funded projects from environmental assessments.

Further deregulation is proposed in the telecommunications area. We have heard from the CRTC and from others. There is great concern with respect to the government's agenda in this area.

What I and many others cannot understand is how the government proposes to move forward as a country while it sells off, deregulates and privatizes parts of our economy, parts of our identity that truly keep us together and that reflect who we are as Canadians and that reflect Canadian values.

Finally, I would like to note the way in which this budget forgets many people whom I have the honour of representing, and they would be first nations and Métis people.

This budget is a disgrace when it comes to aboriginal issues. Front and centre is the failure to commit funding to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. This area is a great passion of mine. I know first-hand what it means to the people in my region. I know what it means first-hand to the survivors, young people and people all across the board who live in northern Manitoba who depend on community-driven programming to help them heal from the trauma of residential schools.

I was in my riding last week and I heard not only from my constituents, but I also heard from people across Canada. They spoke of the hypocrisy of a government that apologized to residential school survivors, made them believe that a new page would be turned when it came to our history and yet, all it said was “sorry”. The programming that residential school survivors and their communities have called for has been cut.

While the current government with this budget is leaving Canadians behind, we in the NDP have hope. We have hope that our initiatives, whether they be on pensions, EI, the environment, housing, restoring funding for aboriginal organizations, are the initiatives that ought to be followed. Canadians are calling for these initiatives to be followed. In fact the majority of members in this House are calling for these initiatives to be followed. Because this is not something for us. This is for the benefit of all Canadians, the people we are here to represent.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

This budget was very disappointing. That is one of the main reasons all opposition parties will vote against it.

Unfortunately, as usual, the Liberals will manipulate the vote to ensure that the government does not fall and that an election is not called. The government will continue going from bad to worse, in light of everything going on right now. With their outdated thinking, the Conservatives will continue governing in their own special way.

I could talk about what the bill, over 800 pages long, does contain, but instead I will talk about what is missing. The budget does not contain compensation for Quebec for post-secondary education. In 1994 and 1995, the Liberal government, under the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, cut post-secondary education transfers to balance the federal budget.

Once again, we saw the Liberal government's open-minded approach and the wonderful open federalism that all federalist parties have been practising in the House since the beginning of the Constitution. There is a serious lack of respect for provincial jurisdictions and the government refuses to give money back to the provinces so they can overcome the challenges they face. As a result, the provinces have been sinking deeper and deeper into debt for the past 20 years. All this so that the government can have it easy and enjoy surpluses and spend them on areas of provincial jurisdiction, particularly in Quebec. We have seen this on many issues, such as the sponsorship scandal, when we clearly saw the federal government manipulating things to promote and spout propaganda about its federalism.

Post-secondary education transfers were cut in 1994 and 1995, which created a fiscal imbalance of over $800 million for the Quebec nation. Because of that deficit, Quebec had to make some crucial, unpopular choices in order to be able to balance its education budget.

I find it extremely sad that the Conservative government has recognized the nation of Quebec, but has not allowed it to thrive. If you are going to recognize a nation you must give it the means to thrive mainly by promoting education and through massive investment. Young people need to be encouraged to get an education, do research and become better citizens in order for the nation to thrive. On one hand, the government recognizes the nation of Quebec, but on the other hand it is not giving that nation the means to thrive, educate itself and grow.

The government has created a deficit of more than $800 million since 1994-95. I find it extremely sad that the Conservative government has not tried to correct the problem that the Liberals created at the time. There is nothing in the budget to help the nation of Quebec in terms of education. There is nothing about giving us what we are owed. We did not steal that money. We gave it to the federal government in taxes.

What did the federal government do? It invested the money in areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction and we were not given the right to opt out with full compensation. The federal government invests in areas of its own interest and not in areas that are viable for the nation of Quebec.

The nation of Quebec has therefore had to make extremely difficult choices in its education budget. Again, the problem has been offloaded to someone else. Again, the nation of Quebec ends up empty handed and having to resolve major problems. There is absolutely no help coming from the federal government.

That is one of the reasons my colleague from Hochelaga introduced a bill in the House to limit the federal government's power to spend in areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. When it comes time to vote, we will see where the Liberals and Conservatives stand.

How can the Conservative members from Quebec tell the people of Quebec that they practice an open federalism and recognize the Quebec nation, and that they are helping the Quebec government with its dreams and ambitions, when the government is taking away everything of interest to Quebec and cannot even give back what it owes to Quebec?

I find that very sad. Once again, it proves that federalism is not a viable option for the Quebec nation. This is compelling evidence that Quebec sovereignty is and will always be the best alternative to federalism. What is even more unfortunate is that the Liberals will probably do the same thing as our Conservative colleagues and vote against the bill on spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction introduced by my colleague for Hochelaga.

The Liberals have shown on a number of occasions that they do not intend to stop federal spending. On the contrary, the government will put provinces into debt and cut transfer payments in order to present a positive balance sheet to the world. That is very unfortunate because our fellow citizens pay taxes and will be impoverished.

The Conservatives will probably vote against the bill by the member for Hochelaga even though it fulfils an election promise they made in 2006. Members will recall the campaign speech given by the Prime Minister when he came to Quebec to explain that not only would he recognize the Quebec nation, but that his open federalism was completely different than the dominating federalism of the Liberals.

That is more proof of the Conservative Party's deceit. It promises one thing and then, when the time comes to take action and to vote in the House, it does the exact opposite of what it promised.

I will be very interested in seeing how the Conservative members from Quebec can defend the Conservative Party and its open federalism when their Prime Minister, in this budget, has broken his own promises once again.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010. I brought in my own copy of Bill C-9. As you just heard, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who is doing excellent work, spoke about Canada Post. I am the Bloc Québécois critic on Canada Post. One of the major challenges in the past two years has been the remailer issue. Two bills were introduced by the Conservatives on this issue. The elections in 2006 and 2008 ensured that these bills never passed. When Parliament was prorogued most recently, another bill introduced by the Conservatives died on the order paper. I want to show how sneaky the government can get with a bill. As we have already heard, this bill has 880 pages, and the section that applies to Canada Post is summarized in a quarter of a paragraph. It is in part 15, which takes up seven lines out of 880 pages. It states:

Section 15 of the Canada Post Corporation Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The exclusive privilege referred to in subsection 14(1) does not apply to letters intended for delivery to an addressee outside Canada.

It is important to note how the Conservatives slipped this into the bill. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to the budget and will therefore oppose Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. But we will be doubly opposed to this bill because the Conservatives, who campaigned on a platform of transparency, are using the tried and true tricks Conservatives and Liberals have used for 140 years in this country, and by that I mean burying major reforms in a bill. This represents a significant change to Canada Post.

Why did the government previously introduce two bills that went nowhere? Because putting an end to Canada Post's exclusive privilege gives rise to a great deal of debate. Canada Post is the only service the Government of Canada provides for the public. The Government of Canada does not look after health, education or transportation, even though it tries to tell us that it invests a lot of money in these areas. These services are delivered by the municipality or the province, at least in Quebec.

The only hospital that belongs to the Government of Canada is the veterans hospital in Saint-Anne-de-Bellevue. Yet the Government of Quebec will likely take over running that hospital in the near future under a memorandum of understanding. So mail delivery is the only real service the Government of Canada provides for people.

For purely partisan reasons and obviously under pressure from lobbyists, the government is siding with a whole industry that has sprung up alongside Canada Post: the remailing industry. I am talking about companies that serve large businesses by collecting mail going outside Canada, even though collecting letter mail is an exclusive privilege of Canada Post. Canada Post has tolerated this, because there are businesses that turn all their international mail over to private companies because postage rates differ from country to country. In my riding, there are aeronautics and aerospace firms that have clients all over the world.

The problem is that the companies that offered this service, which was tolerated by Canada Post, decided that, as long as they were collecting mail going abroad, they would collect all the mail, handle all the mail, offer services, do home delivery and everything.

On account of Canada Post’s exclusive privilege, the burden of proof was on the private companies offering this service. They lost in the courts, and Canada Post obtained an injunction to have certain operations of its competitors who had procured this service stopped, because Canada Post had the exclusive privilege to collect lettermail.

Obviously, the remailer lobbyists have succeeded in convincing the Conservatives—and I would even say certain Liberals—that the service they are offering has to be maintained, even if they collect some mail for inside Canada. The remailers will try to revise their methods and focus on mail collected for outside Canada. The snag is that, in amending the law, it will now be up to Canada Post to prove that these companies are in non-compliance. How will it be possible to prove that, when a private company decides to collect a business's mail, it is not at the same time collecting mail destined for inside Canada? So the burden of proof is being reversed, and Canada Post has tallied this at $80 million in lost revenue. The president of Canada Post, Ms. Moya Greene, told us that the corporation was going to lose $80 million because of this.

This week Canada Post sent me some of its executives, who explained that Canada Post will be experiencing some difficulties in the years ahead and will have to cut back its services, modernize its operations and try to recover what it can. Tens of thousands of jobs will be lost at Canada Post over the next five to eight years because the corporation will have to recover some money. But a portion of the money to be recovered will include the $80 million that Canada Post is going to lose because the government has just allowed private companies to have a share of this market.

The fact that jobs will have to be cut means that services will be lost. What poses a problem is service in the regions. Every citizen, every taxpayer, has the right to have their mail delivered. Whether they live in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Notre-Dame-de-la-Paix or Lac-aux-Sables, whatever the municipality, everyone has the right to have their mail delivered. The reality is that this is being worked on now.

Canada Post tried to argue that there were safety concerns, that they had to be careful and that routes were dangerous and should be cut. Members of the Bloc Québécois took up the fight and put an end to this idea. The routes were maintained. Some safety studies were done, but ultimately the president just wanted to reduce and eliminate rural mail delivery. That is what she wanted. She wanted to concentrate the mail in boxes very close to village post offices.

I was told today that safety had cost Canada Post more than expected. That is for sure because our members were vigilant and managed to let everyone know that Canada Post was trying not to have to deliver the mail any more. The government evidently issued directives to Canada Post indicating that it should maintain this service. If we look closely, though, at the delivery protocol drawn up by the minister responsible for Canada Post, a lot of escape hatches have been included: if a postal worker becomes sick and Canada Post cannot replace him, it can close his post office, or if the post office is located on the premises of a private company and the contract cannot be renewed, the post office can be transferred. The purpose is to succeed some day in centralizing postal services in major cities.

Once again, in a bill that is 880 pages long, we see them introducing a part 15, just seven lines in length, that puts an end to Canada Post’s exclusive privileges. The Conservative members do not even realize the harm they are going to do to mail delivery, but they are not Conservatives for nothing. It is hard to hold it against them. As soon as they get up in the morning, the boss issues the orders. They cannot think for themselves. In actual fact, the government is trying once again to avoid discussion in committee. It did not table a separate bill. As a result, there will not be any discussions in committee about Canada Post, and all the towns and the citizens of Quebec will suffer the consequences.

The Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague on the work that he has done on the EI file. He spoke earlier about the elimination of the waiting period and about reducing the amount of hours.

I wholeheartedly agree with one of the issues that he brought up and that is with respect to the 15 week benefit period for compassionate care and sick benefits. The government went ahead and extended the weeks of EI, but in this particular part of the EI fund people who desperately need compassionate care or sickness benefits cannot get any more than the 15 weeks, yet in some areas regular EI benefits go for much longer.

EI is also part of seasonal work in general, and I would like for the member to comment on how Bill C-9 lacks a vision or lacks any assessment of both the fishing and the forestry industry. I would like for him to comment specifically on what he would have liked to have seen in this budget for those two particular industries.

[John Farrell, Executive Director, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)]

I will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much for inviting us to talk to this committee once again.

I am John Farrell, the executive director of Federally Regulated Employers--Transportation and Communication, otherwise known as FETCO. Here with me as advisers to FETCO are Mr. Ian Markham, Canadian retirement innovation leader for Towers Perrin, and Dr. Marlene Puffer, managing director for Twist Financial. Mr. Markham is a leading actuary in Canada, and Dr. Puffer holds a PhD in finance and applied statistics and is an expert in fixed income and pension investments.

FETCO is an organization consisting of a number of major employers and associations under federal jurisdiction in transportation and communications. A list of our companies appears in appendix A. FETCO members employ approximately 586,000 employees. The majority of FETCO's members provide defined benefit pension plans, and some of the companies also provide defined contribution plans.

Last spring we appeared before this committee to discuss our recommendations for strengthening the pension plan benefits for employees and retirees without unduly constraining the financial flexibility of plan sponsors to maintain appropriate investments in their businesses. Then last October the government announced its intention to make specific changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act and associated regulations.

The proposed changes are intended to be a balanced package of measures that resulted from extensive consultation with Canadians. The proposed changes provide enhanced protections to pension plan members. These include the following: full funding for any deficit upon plan termination; filing actuarial valuations on an annual basis; restrictions on contribution holidays; a prohibition on plan amendments if a plan is less than 85% funded on a solvency basis; an increase in the current “excess surplus” limit on employer contributions above its current 10% threshold to 25%; and greater pension plan financial disclosure to plan members.

The proposed changes in funding rules, including the ability to utilize letters of credit, will moderate, to some degree, the current volatility of employers’ defined benefit pension contribution requirements. These are much-needed changes that will provide employers with greater predictability in managing their cashflow.

FETCO's members support this balanced package and the changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act and regulations. We would like to emphasize both the importance of these proposals being implemented and their implementation on a timely basis.

The need for permanent changes in the pension plan funding rules are apparent. Twice in the last four years the government has introduced temporary funding relief to address the onerous and volatile nature of solvency funding requirements. Yields on long-term government bonds, on which solvency liabilities are based, remain at historically low levels. Financial markets remain volatile. Defined benefit plan sponsors continue to be burdened with onerous and volatile solvency funding requirements.

Bill C-9, recently tabled in the House of Commons, contains the proposed changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act. However, most of the details will be contained in regulations, which have yet to be pre-published. We urge the Parliament of Canada to adopt the proposed changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act and the government to issue enabling regulations prior to June 30, 2010, the filing deadline for year-end 2009 actuarial valuations.

Now I'd like to address the issue of creditor status in the event of bankruptcy. I know this committee is examining the creditor status of less than fully funded pension plans in the event of a sponsor’s bankruptcy, and we would like to offer FETCO's comments.

We appreciate the policy intent of providing enhanced protection to pension plan beneficiaries in the event of a sponsor’s bankruptcy. The unintended but nevertheless adverse financial ramifications of such enhanced protection could, however, be significant.

Legislation granting preferred creditor status for pension plan deficits would negatively impact existing creditors, including corporate bondholders, as well as plan sponsors that rely on capital markets for financing. It would increase sponsors’ financing costs. It would reduce the value of the sponsors’ existing bonds. It would reduce the availability of credit to plan sponsors. For weaker plan sponsors, it could limit access to credit of any kind, and it could put fragile sponsors over the edge in a bankruptcy situation.

Equally important, granting preferred creditor status to pension plans would cause significant collateral damage to countless Canadians. Reducing the value of the plan sponsors’ bonds would erode the retirement savings for thousands of Canadian seniors for whom corporate bonds are a key component of their portfolios.

As well, most Canadians’ retirement savings, whether held in RRSPs, defined contribution pension plans, or other vehicles, are exposed to corporate bonds. Their retirement savings would also be eroded if defined benefit pension plans were granted preferred creditor status. In addition, it would exacerbate the inequities between Canadians who participate in defined benefit pension plans and those who participate in other types of retirement plans that cannot, by the nature of those plans, benefit from preferred creditor status for any loss in value.

Preferred creditor status for pension plans would place companies that offer defined benefit plans at a competitive disadvantage against companies that do not offer defined benefit plans, as well as companies in jurisdictions that do not provide such preferred creditor status, including the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Germany. As a result, such legislation would serve to accelerate the private sector’s move away from defined benefit plans.

In considering the security of plan participants’ benefits, it is critical that legislators not lose sight of the fact that the basic premise underlying the security of their benefits remains a financially strong sponsor. Companies must continue to invest in their businesses to remain competitive and increase productivity. Failure to do so will weaken companies and may even put some companies out of business. Continuing to burden companies with incremental costs, including the costs associated with preferred creditor status for pension plan deficits, will accelerate the process.

Now I'm going to return to the retirement income system in Canada.

FETCO supports the broader consultations that are currently taking place in Canada to ensure the ongoing strength of Canada’s retirement income system. At the heart of these consultations is the question of pension coverage for Canadians. Professor Jack Mintz’s December 2009 report stated:

The OECD suggests the Canadian retirement income system performs exceedingly well by international standards, with the three pillars enabling Canadians to provide enough retirement income to sustain an adequate standard of living in retirement.

FETCO believes that the existing mandatory elements of our current retirement savings system are, in total, sufficient as a minimum framework. Further, we believe that the diversity of the various components of the system reduces risk and contributes positively to income security in retirement.

It is generally acknowledged that Canada’s existing social security programs provide sufficient basic retirement benefit for those at lower earnings levels. In the event that governments wish to enhance the current system for middle-income Canadians, we oppose a mandatory expansion of the Canada Pension Plan. Employers need to have a large range of pension design options at their disposal that are suitable for their particular cost and risk tolerances.

Finally, the modernization of pension plan standards to support the viability of defined benefit plans is an important element in supporting retirement income adequacy for many Canadians. This will enable plan sponsors to continue to manage the risks inherent in their defined benefit plans, thereby allowing them to maintain these plans for current and future Canadians.

Mr. Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to make these comments. I will turn to my advisers if you have some technical issues you want to discuss.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking about Bill C-9, which would implement various initiatives presented in the Conservative government's budget of March 4. Unfortunately, it is a budget that represents the government's own interests and the interests of its friends, the banks—which we have often discussed in the House—and, of course, the oil companies, all to the detriment of those who are often the poorest in our society. They have simply forgotten about supporting families and those who are so often in need after a period of recession and economic crisis such as the one we recently experienced.

This budget was very disappointing. Contrary to the Liberals, who also find this budget disappointing, the Bloc Québécois has stood up and voted against it because it goes against the needs of Quebeckers as well as Canadians with their numerous needs.

We will vote against this budget. The Conservative government continues to spare the rich, including the banks and major corporations. They want to make the middle class and working class pay off the operating deficit. They do not want to take profits from big banks or big oil. And then they justify it by saying that more jobs will be created for the unemployed if we give preferential treatment to the banks and big oil.

We have seen that the big banks do not necessarily create jobs. They move their capital to tax havens. We have seen it and we have the numbers to prove it. This budget does nothing about the problem of tax havens. It even allows some businesses that are not registered in Canada to avoid paying taxes in Canada when they do business. The government is protecting these people.

In term of tax loopholes, the government is still talking out of both sides of its mouth. On one hand, in its speeches and to the public, it is saying that it will target tax havens. On the other hand, it creates loopholes in the Income Tax Act allowing businesses not registered in Canada to avoid paying their fair share of taxes

This is doublespeak. There are two messages here. Rather than protecting the rich, the government should implement the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois. In doing so, it would free up additional funds to deal effectively with deficits, while distributing wealth more equitably for all Quebeckers and Canadians.

Why not ask an extra 2% from those who earn over $150,000, and an extra 3% from those who earn more than $250,000? The Bloc Québécois proposes that the budget include a surtax in this regard. This would allow the federal treasury to collect $4.8 billion annually. That is a lot of money, and this measure would not affect the poor in our society. Those who earn $150,000 have the means to pay and to support those who make less. They can support the unemployed and low-income seniors by improving the guaranteed income supplement. This is money that could be used to support the manufacturing and forestry sectors. We could do a lot with $4.8 billion, but the government prefers not to do it.

The government refuses to pick on the rich, those who have high incomes, and it also refuses to pick on the banks' outrageous profits. Instead, it goes after the poor in our society. The government makes them pay more taxes, while protecting those who hold the economic levers, under the pretext that this will generate wealth and create jobs.

Of course, this is not an approach that the Bloc Québécois supports. The Conservative government prefers to give generous deductions to oil companies and banks, while neglecting to support those who are in need.

In fact, this government wilfully refused to improve the employment insurance program. Fifty per cent of those who lose their job do not qualify for EI benefits. This is shameful. We are talking about people who contribute to the program. We know how much profits large corporations and banks make. Employees and employers pay into the EI system, but the government has taken close to $60 billion of these funds, over the past 10 or 15 years. It has taken this money from those who lose their job, and it has reduced access to EI for people who are in need. The government has taken that money and used it for various expenditures. Surely, that money must have helped reduce taxes for banks and make oil companies a little richer, because this is what the Conservative government has been doing for the past few years.

The Bloc Québécois has made suggestions. Some of my Bloc colleagues have presented proposals to improve the EI program. We introduced three bills. The waiting period is an issue on which I have worked very hard in my riding. I tabled a petition in the House signed by over 4,000 citizens, demanding that this unfair measure be abolished.

Not only does the government refuse to improve the employment insurance system, but it will not hesitate to dip into the EI fund, just like the Liberals before them. The waiting period must be eliminated. When someone loses their job, why should they lose another two weeks of income? Not only did they lose their job and see their income drop, but they are also penalized for two weeks. Will their landlord give them two weeks of free rent because they lost their job? Do they stop feeding their kids for two weeks when they lose their job? No, they still have expenses. Despite the staggering surpluses misappropriated from the employment insurance fund, the government still deprives these workers of an income for two weeks. It is shameful.

The Bloc Québécois introduced another bill, proposing another initiative. In our respective ridings, people who have been ill, people who have cancer for instance, come to our offices. They are entitled to only 15 weeks of employment insurance when they have a serious illness.

Once again, the Conservatives decided to put the burden of the deficit on the middle class and refused to ask for more from those who have more.

I would like to talk about Bill C-44 from the previous session, which would have amended the Canada Post Corporation Act. As part of the budget implementation, the government wants to privatize international mail. Yet that is Canada Post's cash cow. If we cut Canada Post's revenues, the repercussions will be felt in rural communities.

The Conservative government wants to privatize international mail, but this will mean lower revenues and then it will certainly have a hard time making the Canada Post Corporation make ends meet. That is why rural services are being cut.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from the member. I would indeed like to get into that dialogue at some appropriate time, but really the matter before the House is Bill C-9, and I want to focus on that.

The government's own budget documents show that corporate tax cuts are the worst way to stimulate the economy. Page 281 of the Conservatives' own budget, which I have read, reveals that in 2010 every dollar spent on infrastructure grows the economy by $1.60. Every dollar spent on housing grows the economy by $1.50. Every dollar spent on low income households grows the economy by $1.70. However, every dollar spent on tax cuts for families only grows the economy by 90¢, and every dollar spent on corporate tax cuts grows the economy by a mere 20¢.

If we are talking about smart economics, what government would put forth a budget that is based on massive corporate tax cuts that we get 20¢ on the dollar return when we could get $1.70 return for every dollar spent by giving that money to low income households?

That is what I mean by the New Democrats proposing measures that are smart economics for the 21st century that will build an economy that works, that is green and that is fair. That can be done, but this budget does not do it.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to drift away from Bill C-9 for just a moment to ask my colleague a question. He spoke of the social groups within his own province.

Recently I read a report about the despicable occupation of human trafficking. I found in my reading that his province and the social groups there have gone a long way in trying to alleviate the social cost in human trafficking of mostly women, by getting women out of the business and providing a safe haven for them. It seems in the House the debate is focused primarily on the penalties being given to those who traffic, which is a good thing and I supported the bill in relation to that. What would the member support for the federal government to get involved in providing a social safe haven for people who are victims of human trafficking in this country and around the world?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the constituents of Vancouver Kingsway and to offer their feedback and views on Bill C-9, the budget presented by the Conservative government.

Prior to the budget being presented in the House, I spent several months meeting with my constituents in my office and in my community in every kind of context one can imagine. I visited owners of small businesses. I went to community centres. I went door-knocking from house to house. I visited my constituents on the streets, in the markets, in the businesses and in the cultural and recreational venues of Vancouver Kingsway.

I asked them about their lives. I asked them about the federal government and about the priorities they would like to see presented in the budget. This is a particularly cogent question. As we all know, over December, January and February of 2009 and 2010, many people, including the people of Vancouver Kingsway, had to deal with a challenging economic environment. Many people, from children to seniors to working men and women, to single mothers to owners of small businesses have been struggling.

These are the priorities that my constituents overwhelmingly and repeatedly mentioned they would like to see in this budget.

They wanted to see a budget that focused on creating jobs and not just jobs as a number on a page, but good, well-paying jobs upon which someone could raise a family. They wanted to see the federal government get back into developing affordable housing in the country. They wanted to see the provision of federal funds to create a national, universal, affordable and accessible child care system.

My constituents told me they wanted to see the federal government increase its transfers to the provinces in every aspect of education, from preschool to elementary and secondary public education to universities, trade schools and community colleges of every type. They told me they wanted to see the federal government increase spending on public transit. They wanted to see the government make a clear stand, both in policy terms and in financial backup to protect our environment.

The people of Vancouver Kingsway told me they wanted to see help for seniors, whether that was providing medical, dental and transportation support. They wanted to ensure that every senior in British Columbia and across Canada could have a decent, comfortable, safe and secure place to live.

They told me they wanted to support for small businesses. They told me they wanted to see fair taxation returned to the country. On that score, the people of Vancouver Kingsway, unlike the people on the other side of the House, believe in government and believe that if we pool our resources together, we can collectively build the kind of country that will provide strong public services for every person from coast to coast to coast.

Last, the people of Vancouver Kingsway wanted to see action taken on pensions. As the baby boomers age, as the demographics in the country move us closer to retirement in ever-increasing numbers, people across Canada, including those in Vancouver Kingsway, are starting to be concerned that they will not have enough money to live decent and dignified lives when they retire at the age of 60, 65 or 70.

I submitted these submissions to the Minister of Finance and I submitted them well in advance of the budget. I am also proud to say that I submitted a number of specific requests that also emanated from direct requests from the people of Vancouver Kingsway.

They wanted us to build a mid-sized performing arts theatre in Vancouver Kingsway. They wanted to see federal help to build a Filipino cultural centre and a Vietnamese cultural centre. They wanted to see investments in affordable housing at the Little Mountain site and at the RCMP headquarters site, which will soon be vacated. They wanted to see senior stand-alone housing, public housing projects and affordable renting housing developments backstopped by the federal government.

The people of Vancouver Kingsway wanted to see the federal government make a clear stand for the children and youth of our communities and the recreational needs of our citizens by helping contribute funds to the Mount Pleasant outdoor pool, to help fund the programs and capital requirements of Cedar Cottage, Little Mountain and Collingwood Neighbourhood House

They wanted the federal government to help make sure that our community centres, such as Renfrew Park, Douglas Park, Trout Lake and Riley Park, have adequate space and enough funding for their programs.

They wanted to see increased services for new Canadians, the funding of more language training programs and more settlement and counselling services which are critically important to ensure that new Canadians can get settled and prosper in their new country of choice.

The people of Vancouver Kingsway specifically wanted to see more investment in community crime prevention programs and increased community policing in the riding. They wanted very practical environmental solutions right in the riding, things like bicycle paths and greenways in Vancouver Kingsway. They wanted to see increased tax credits and government grants to encourage the green retrofitting of residential and commercial buildings. They wanted to see the federal government lead the way in encouraging urban food production by investing in community gardens and other community food safety and security programs.

Most importantly, the people of Vancouver Kingsway wanted to see investments in our children. They wanted to see federal contributions to help us seismically upgrade our elementary and secondary schools. As we all know, Vancouver is in a seismically active area, and schools are the first places that people will go to in the case of an earthquake. We have seen earthquakes devastate so many countries in the world. I can say that the schools in Vancouver Kingsway and Vancouver are seismically unsafe.

They wanted to see capital and operating funds for elementary and secondary schools in Vancouver Kingsway, and operating funds for new and existing child care providers, because nothing is more important to the people of this country than their children.

Last, as I said, they wanted to invest in public transit to increase service levels on overcrowded bus routes, expand rapid transit in Vancouver and keep transit fares affordable.

This is what the people of my riding told me they wanted to see. But what did they see? Did they see the Conservative government deliver those priorities? Absolutely not.

We see very little new in this budget. It shows a government that has no clear vision for the economy. Even worse, it is repeating the failed policies of the past instead, policies that are based on the flawed assumption that increasing corporate tax cuts and deregulation are the way to fuel the economy of the future.

We see a budget that provided a missed opportunity to create jobs, help the vulnerable and contribute to building the strong kind of economy that will be needed in the years ahead. The truth is that none of the priorities expressed by the people of Vancouver Kingsway are reflected in the budget.

I heard it expressed recently that a budget represents the soul of the government. When we read the budget's priorities, we can see deeply into the very soul of the people who make up the government. We can tell what they think is important. In this respect we have a very clear picture of the type of soul on that side of the House, which is one that favours corporations, ignores the vulnerable and needy and does not fundamentally believe in building a strong, public system and delivery of services to all Canadians.

The budget should have included a national industrial strategy that focuses on investing in green jobs and the green economy. We would have liked to see a budget that provided high-paying jobs that are based on fostering innovation in green technology and green energy and, at the same time, adopting provisions that save families money on energy costs and that make sure that we have clean air, clean water and protect the environment for future generations.

We wanted to see a budget that was an opportunity to deliver on child care. Canadians need help getting back to work. Nothing is more important to them than their children, so what better way to invest and support working families than by making sure that when they drop their children off in the morning, they are in safe, secure, stimulating environments. Having a lack of child care disproportionately impacts women and low income families of all types. It is time we had a national child care program. Canadian families are waiting.

The budget was an opportunity to launch an affordable housing strategy. In Vancouver, housing is incredibly unaffordable, and the lack of affordable housing is a huge issue for many families. Too many Canadians have no adequate housing at all. Shamefully, in this country there are many people who are homeless.

Many people who are struggling to maintain housing, would like to purchase housing, or rent clean and affordable housing cannot do so. It is time that we had a federal government that came back into the housing file instead of leaving it to the provinces and cities. Without federal government participation we simply cannot provide acceptable affordable housing for everyone.

My colleague from Vancouver East has Bill C-304 before the House right now and it is time that we all got together and supported it.

I could go on, but I will conclude by saying that the budget needs to be rejected by members in the House. We need to replace it with a budget that works for everyday Canadians based on the priorities that have been identified by my constituents.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reply to my hon. colleague, the House leader of the official opposition, as to the business of the House for the remainder of this week and into next week.

Today I hope to conclude the debate at second reading of Bill C-9, the jobs and economic growth act. The budget implementation act is a very important legislation. We have heard a lot of debate about it in the Chamber. I am very pleased that we are getting our message out about all the good things we are doing to help sustain jobs and create new jobs in our country.

The next bill I intend to call following Bill C-9 is Bill C-5, the international transfer of offenders act.

Next week we will continue with the business of this week with the addition of Bill C-4, Sébastien's law, and Bill C-13, fairness for military families act.

Tuesday, April 20, next week, shall be an allotted day.

As for the hon. opposition House leader's inquiry about specific pieces of legislation, all I would ask is that he be patient. We are bringing forward a lot of legislation. All of it is excellent legislation that I know he can hardly wait to support.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. The NDP is opposed to this bill for a number of reasons. My colleagues have addressed a number of topics, but since I am the employment insurance critic, I will focus on that part. For the record, that is not the only thing I am opposed to in Bill C-9. I could go on about many other points.

Bill C-9 includes certain amendments to legislation. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission is continued. It consists of four commissioners. A new employment insurance operating account has been created in the accounts of Canada. This new account was created because the old account in the consolidated revenue fund has been closed.

The Conservatives boast about creating a new employment insurance operating account that will open with $2 billion. They also boast about not being like the Liberals and not dipping into the employment insurance fund.

This is 2010 and the Conservatives have been in power since 2006. Between 2006 and 2010, who are the mysterious people who stole from the EI fund? It had to be someone. Who stole from the fund between 2006 and 2010? We cannot blame the Liberals for everything. Not everything is their doing. They stole from the EI fund between 1993 and 2006. It cannot be denied; it has been said often enough.

Ironically, during a question period, the Minister of Finance said:

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the plain fact is that the previous Liberal government, in the middle of the 1990s, siphoned off the $58 billion to $60 billion from the EI fund and put it into the consolidated revenue fund. People do not have to take my word for it. Read what professors—

I remember the words he used, but they were changed in Hansard. He said the Liberals stole between $58 billion and $60 billion. “To steal” and “to siphon off” mean the same thing.

Normally when a thief is caught, he has to return the stolen money to its rightful owner. There is more than $57 billion in surplus in the EI fund. I did not make this up. The Minister of Finance said so in the House of Commons on March 29 .

The blues show that that same day, the Prime Minister rose and acknowledged that the Liberals had stolen money from the EI fund. If money is stolen and then recovered, it must be returned to the people it was stolen from. Who are those people? They are the same people to whom the government is bragging about cutting taxes to major corporations. The government is cutting taxes for the corporations and at the same time wants to increase EI premiums by 15¢ per $100 of insurable earnings. So it is a tax for workers. But they claim to want to lower taxes.

The government does not believe in taxing people, and the previous government pillaged the employment insurance fund. The Conservatives continued this from 2006 to 2010. Now, with a bill, they are legitimizing this pillaging and are wiping out the government's debt, the surplus belonging to the workers. Now, workers will pay an additional $223 per year for employment insurance contributions and employers will pay an additional $312.

The government lowered taxes for workers by $100 and patted itself on the back, but it will tax them $212. That is what the government did. It is a tax on workers because workers and employers already paid into the employment insurance fund. They already put money into the employment insurance fund.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst is not the only one saying it. In the question I asked, and I think it is worth repeating, I mentioned that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently conducted a survey that showed that 82% of Canadian business owners wanted to see the federal government freeze future increases to EI premiums until the $57 billion surplus has been fully paid back.

Workers are not the only ones saying that they want the money that was taken from them. Business owners are saying it too: 82% of business owners say that they want the money that was taken from them. They are not asking for a cheque for $57 billion. What they want is for their premiums not to increase. They are saying that if the government needs money, it should use some of the $57 billion that it took from them. The government borrowed that money. If it did not steal it, then it should return it to them. If the government stole the money, then we should call the RCMP to come pick up the ministers. That is what we should do.

There are only two things that can be done. On March 29 or 30, the government acknowledged that funds were stolen. But what happened between 2006 and 2010? This same government stole money from the employment insurance fund, too. They want to use Bill C-9 to legalize this theft. But I cannot vote for a bill that would legalize such theft, the biggest theft in Canadian history.

The sponsorship issues in the past were nothing compared to the scandal perpetrated on the backs of this country's workers. It is unparalleled. This is the biggest national scandal ever: taking employment insurance premiums from workers' pay, putting it towards the budget and paying down the debt with this money. The minister acknowledged that funds were stolen but he does not want to turn around and pay back the workers and entrepreneurs. I remind the members that 82% of independent entrepreneurs tell us that they want their money back. That is what has happened.

In addition, there have been changes to employment insurance in this budget. It is all very well for them to pat themselves on the back for new bills as though they can fix everything. I will support the government bill for our people in National Defence. However, there are bigger problems. How many people in this country have cancer, heart problems, and how many need employment insurance benefits for a year but are not entitled even though they paid into them? They are only entitled to 15 weeks. Something could have been done to help workers. Something could have been put in the next budget.

There are other areas where something could be done for the workers, such as lowering the EI eligibility criteria to 350 or 360 hours rather than maintaining the current requirement of 455, 700 or 900 hours. This would help people who are not eligible for employment insurance during an economic crisis. We must not give money only to major corporations through tax cuts. We cut taxes for big business and we put workers on social assistance. Instead, we should be providing assistance to the people who helped make these corporations profitable. These companies have turned a profit a number of times. There are corporate presidents who pay themselves salaries of millions of dollars, not just hundreds of thousands, every year.

The government has turned around, taken pity on big business and given them tax breaks. It is doing the same for banks. The government says that big business and the banks need tax breaks. However, workers who lose their jobs and go on employment insurance are accused of abusing the system. They do not want workers to abuse the system. How many times has the government said in this House that if the number of hours to qualify for benefits is changed to 350, people would work only 10 weeks and receive employment insurance the rest of the time?

I find that shameful. It is an insult to workers. For example, France pays workers 75% of their income when they apply for employment insurance. If asked the question, France would reply that it respects its workers.

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

Madam Speaker, I was not expecting it to be my turn to take the floor, but I am happy to speak to Bill C-9. This is not a very attractive bill because it relates to implementation of the budget, a budget which the Bloc Québécois finds very disappointing.

While I find this bill to be disappointing, I would like to say that the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona has indeed given a very good statement on part 20. That was the subject I wanted to address today, but I will not do so since she has handled it very well.

All the same, I shall speak on the environment, because I find that this budget implementation is truly contemptuous, particularly of the forestry sector. In Canada and Quebec, the forest is truly a key component in the reduction of greenhouse gases. The members opposite say that greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced. It is bizarre for the Conservatives to say this, given that they won the third fossil award in Bonn last week. They won this award because greenhouse gases in Canada have risen 3% over 1990 levels. I do not see how they can claim to be happy with an alleged reduction.

All that was only an aside, and I shall continue now to speak of the lumber industry. Many people speak of this industry as if it simply involved paper mills and mills that cut softwood into two by fours, but it is much more than that.

There is one thing I want to say. The money that should have been invested in the forestry sector would have been used for much more than just cutting down trees and shipping them to the United States. It would have been used to develop engineered wood, something that is now being done, in fact.

Engineered wood is bonded with glue and assembled to make immense spans or big fire-resistant pieces. It is interesting to note that one sawmill employee creates five jobs. One mill employee who cuts two by fours or two by sixes creates five jobs in the lumber industry. It is my impression that the members opposite think that only wood cutting is involved, but it is far more than just that. We have to invest in the forest. Proper forest management is important. This is called stewardship. It means increasing the potential of our forests by managing them so that trees grow larger, there are more of them, and they are in better condition.

It is important to invest in private forests and not just in public forests. It was the government’s responsibility to do so, but it did not. In addition to better quality lumber, more forests are created and greenhouse gases are reduced. It is self-evident.

The more trees we have and the bigger they are, the more greenhouse gases are reduced in the atmosphere. That goes without saying. It is also essential to increase incomes in the regions in the short and long run. Our forests are managed very well and are of major importance.

So what do we find in the budget in this regard? Nothing. There is nothing about the management of private forests and the forests that are the future of our regions. There is absolutely nothing about this in the budget. It is not just the future of our remote regions that is at stake but of our less distant regions as well. As I mentioned, a job in a sawmill creates five others in related factories.

The budget dwells on the automobile sector, as if we were going to live or die by it alone. We are going to die with our trees, and they are what is important. If we take that approach, it is possible that one day we could be autonomous in our construction industry and in our biomass from one end of the country to the other.

That is vital. They always take the short-term view, and that shows real contempt.

They treated the automobile industry like a god of some kind and gave it 57 times as much as the forest industry. For every employee who works in a sawmill, five others work in related plants or have a job maintaining our forests.

Trees grow. They are like money in the bank that earns interest. They are something we can give future generations. Unfortunately, we have a government that looks at the future in the rear-view mirror and sets nothing aside for our children.

We will all pay for the numerous tax breaks the government is giving the oil companies. They cost money and are a way of taxing people. These tax breaks amount to $2.7 billion, and every province and city will have to pay its share.

If green industries had been given the billions of dollars in tax breaks handed out to the oil companies, jobs could have been created. Instead of giving this money exclusively to shareholders, we could have created jobs in healthy work environments, for the future of our country and the future of our young people. The government thinks that oil companies are the future because there will be a shortage of oil. But there is enough in Alberta for a very long time.

There is no overarching vision of our strengths and no strategy for helping the younger generation. Creating green energy means creating an economy that could be exported and could replace fossil fuels. Unfortunately, that is not what they did. They always favour fossil fuels.

The budget increases funding for nuclear energy. Some governments think that nuclear energy is clean, but that is a farce. We have not even found places yet to store the waste. So long as these places have not been found, nuclear energy will remain dirty. In addition, it produces plutonium.

Recently, an agency of the Canadian government produced a report stating that the CANDU reactor might overheat and explode. This is a real sword of Damocles hanging over our heads, but we still keep promoting the reactor, because we know we will make a profit from it. They tried to build a reactor in Ontario. At the end of the day, a kilowatt hour generated by nuclear energy was so expensive that they abandoned the plan. Nuclear energy is starting to be compared to green energy. We are realizing that green energy creates a lot more jobs and is much safer. A windmill will never explode, and the same is true for solar and hydraulic energy.

Getting electricity from deep geothermal energy is also something that will not explode and that will last for years. We might say forever. So why not invest in green energy instead of investing in polluting energy? I know there is a very strong lobby. Nuclear energy has a huge organization lobbying the Canadian government.

We know that our government is very sensitive to lobbying. In fact, that is why there was not much money for forestry. The steel lobby is very strong, as is the cement lobby. So they want to keep wood for small houses only and build them out of two by fours, when we know that engineered lumber could be used to build rooms much bigger than here. So the environment and climate change have been completely ignored in the budget.

We could have changed tack and said now is the time to put money into the green economy. They did not do it and I am very disappointed. The Bloc considers this to be a major reason not to vote for the budget or for this Bill C-9, precisely because it is not looking to our children’s future. In this kind of bill we are looking to the past.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

No, I can't say that? I am very sorry. I was not aware I could not say his name. That is fine. I will not mention his name again.

The current government is holding fast to its long-held and false assumptions that protecting the environment always comes with a significant impact on the economy. If this trade-off ever existed, it has long been replaced, at least in informed circles, by the need to move into the new economy.

The International Energy Agency weighed in this week by saying that Canada's record to date in addressing greenhouse gases suggests meeting even the meagre targets committed by Canada at Copenhagen “will present policymakers across the country with an immense test. It remains unclear how national targets are to be co-ordinated, divided and enforced among the provinces and territories.”

The IEA recommended that Canada produce a more coordinated national energy efficiency policy. Counted among many others who have recommended federal action on national energy efficiency are the former Conservative trade minister and chair of the Energy Policy Institute of Canada, David Emerson, and the right-of-centre Alberta-based Canada West Foundation.

Yet, what the government delivers in this budget is cuts to the very programs that were enabling more efficient energy use, including the highly popular eco-energy home retrofit program.

While the current government argues that it is in sync with the United States, nothing could be further from the truth. The United States government is proceeding with bills and expenditures focused on U.S. energy security and sustainability, encompassing actions on climate and energy efficiency and investments in renewables. The U.S. clearly gets it. When will the current government get on board?

However, I wish to focus particularly on part 20 of this bill. There is clear intent in this part to erase environmental considerations from all federal stimulus spending and to emasculate the remainder of federal reviews. The proposed legal reforms directly contradict the legal mandate of the environment minister.

The Department of the Environment grants the minister his powers, duties and responsibilities. And contrary to the minister's assertions that his responsibility is to balance economy and environment, nowhere in that act, which mandates his power, is there any mention of that need to balance.

The intent of part 20 directly contradicts one of the minister's duties; that is, to require the assessment of any new federal projects. The minister's duty to assess impacts was first abrogated in last year's budget when the Navigable Waters Protection Act was eviscerated.

If Bill C-9 is passed, the majority of federally funded projects will be exempted.

First, part 20 of the bill exempts a large swath of federally funded projects from a key regulatory trigger: federal financing. This is done despite the fact the majority of projects merely undergo an initial screening.

Second, the government is responding to recent court rulings confirming federal responsibilities to assess project impacts, by simply empowering the minister to narrow the scope of any assessment.

The most obvious question is: Why are these significant amendments to the federal law included in a budget implementation bill?

The legally required review of the federal law, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, is slated to come before the parliamentary committee within weeks. Unlike the process for this bill, reviews before the parliamentary committee allow detailed consideration and hearing from all the affected stakeholders.

Is this simply another example of the failed promises on transparency and participation in governance?

Next, is this emasculation of federal impact assessment simply being done to save money. And if so, is it money for the government or for industrial proponents?

Where is the evidence of this alleged unnecessary duplication and overlap? The government has yet to table a single example.

The key to considering the appropriateness of this reform is the recognition of federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada has, in a series of decisions, clearly upheld federal jurisdiction and responsibility for the environment, including environmental impact assessment.

One of the most frequently cited Supreme Court cases is the decision on Friends of the Oldman River Society vs Canada.

As the court held:

Local projects will generally fall within the provincial responsibility...federal participation will be required if...the project impinges on an area of federal jurisdiction.

The federal law specifies three triggers for federal assessment. One of those is federal finance. The second is any areas of federal responsibility. Both are eviscerated by this bill.

Is the rationale to ensure more coordinated federal and provincial cooperation in environmental assessment? This was recognized and responded to years back. Measures taken included the harmonization accord; federal-provincial bilateral agreements; coordination in the field; and joint panels. By these provisions, the government has slung an axe to its duties where only a scalpel slice may have been necessary.

Of equal concern is the decision to grant the Minister of the Environment the complete discretion to decide to narrow the scope of any federal assessment. Again, the sense is that this change was simply to limit future judicial scrutiny of the government's decisions.

Separate and apart from that concern is the potential for conflict of interest. Surely the decision on the scope or extent of a federal assessment should be removed from any potential political considerations. For example, any assessment of a pipeline or export power line that the government has endorsed surely should not be made based on the decision of a minister who may well have endorsed those projects. Again, that is the case of the Mackenzie pipeline.

Contrary to what the minister has suggested, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, in his 2009 audit, did not in fact recommend that this role be assigned to the minister. The commissioner merely recommended that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency propose options to the minister, and the agency in reply said that it looked forward to putting forward options to the parliamentary committee in the very hearings that will commence in a few weeks.

A bigger question is whether this law change represents an underhanded attempt at a constitutional amendment. This is a long-standing request by the Alberta government and perhaps other governments to get the federal government out of the environment business on their turf. This is certainly the case on fisheries, a unilateral area of federal jurisdiction. What of the duty to assess impacts to first nation peoples, their lands and waters? What of the federal power over transboundary impacts? Are these, too, being ceded to the provinces? Is this a case of illegal sub-delegation?

In considering this bill, members must consider the duties under federal law to regulate, manage, prevent or mitigate environmental impacts. The very purpose of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is to implement the government's duty under the precautionary principle to identify and prevent unnecessary environmental impacts. Where the effort is not made to assess these potential impacts, how can the government credibly claim to be exercising those powers effectively?

Finally, to the matter of the transfer of environmental impact assessment duties to the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Indeed, this is already allowed under law. What is of grave concern is the broad brush policy decision to completely transfer the environmental assessment function for the majority of these reviews to these agencies out of the very agency set up at arm's length to review environmental impacts.

Contrary to what the minister has asserted, impacted communities and families have not been satisfied with the way those agencies have delivered environmental reviews. A non-government report on the New Brunswick facility did not give it the glowing review the minister professes. In the case of the National Energy Board review of the first export power line out of Alberta, dissatisfaction in the assessment of impacts resulted in court action. Central to the case was the failed consideration of impacts on farmers by the Energy Board.

In summary, I am absolutely opposed to the passage of Bill C-9, particularly part 20.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the title says it all: Bill C-9, jobs and economic growth act. On the face of it, this critical bill ignores an important federal mandate, the legislative and constitutional duty to protect the environment. Part 20 represents a clear abrogation of federal duty. It appears to contradict the government's stated mantra of the need to balance the economy with the environment.

In the 2010 budget, the government declares Canada to be a clean energy superpower. Then in its budget implementation act, the environment component is completely exorcized in both the name and the measures.

The Prime Minister promotes seeking for Canada to be a clean energy superpower. His government committed in the fall, 2008, throne speech to support technologies that will not emit greenhouse gases. His government also committed to a 90% national target for non-emitting electricity sources. How is the government going to do this? It is going to do this by deep-sixing renewable power and giving further subsidies to the dirtiest source of power, coal.

While Canadians thought the 2009 federal budget set a new high-water mark for perverse economic policies, this year exceeds that backward slide. The government is leaving our country mired in 19th century fossil fuel economy. The Harper government's failures can be found not just in the specifics but in the very principles that guide its regulatory and fiscal policies. The Harper government is holding fast to its long-held and—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this budget implementation bill. All Bloc Québécois members were opposed to the budget because they think it is a bad budget, particularly for Quebec.

The Conservative government had an opportunity to send a true message of support to Quebec, which is experiencing serious problems related to the last financial crisis, which is not over yet. That crisis began long before the financial crisis that has affected the other provinces. The decline of the forestry industry over the past number of years was the prelude to this crisis. Once again, the Conservative government did not include anything in its budget to correct this most unfortunate situation for Quebec.

In that budget, on the same page, the government agreed to give in excess of $10 billion to the automotive sector, which is primarily located in Ontario, while allocating a measly $170 million for the forestry industry in all of Canada.

It is completely bizarre and it is a slap in the face to Quebec. For that reason alone, it is absolutely inconceivable that Bloc Québécois members could come out in support of this bill. We had proposed several very specific and very concrete measures to eliminate the deficit and the debt in the long term.

This budget implementation bill confirms the desire of the Conservative government to protect rich taxpayers at all costs. One thing we had proposed was to impose a surtax on people earning over $150,000 and another on people earning over $250,000, but we found nothing like that in the budget, even though that could have brought in nearly $4 billion a year for the government’s coffers. The government has ignored those proposals, and, once again, has chosen instead to put all the problems on the shoulders of the middle class. As well, the banks and big corporations are still not being asked to pay their fair share in this budget.

This morning, I was reading in La Presse that the Minister of Finance in the Conservative government is even rejecting proposals made by other members of the G8 and the G20 to tax the profits of the big banks, which are in large part responsible for the financial crisis we have gone through and the effects of which we are still feeling. By refusing to make the ones that are responsible pay, we are automatically making the middle class and working people pay for the consequences of the mistakes they have already had to endure.

The measures set out in this bill clearly illustrate that desire, since corporations are not being asked to pay their fair share in order to increase government revenue. The Bloc Québécois submitted precise recommendations to the government and suggested options worth considering. The finance critic held consultations all over Quebec, with the entire population, in order to propose concrete measures, but the Conservative government did not accept them.

Once again, it has opted to protect the wealthiest, the banks and corporations, at the expense of working people and the middle class.

Tax loopholes are another major point. The government is engaging in double talk. On the one hand, we hear the Minister of Finance, or other ministers, saying that they make no sense. The Minister of National Revenue said that, for one. He said he wanted to tackle tax havens, but essentially, with the bill we have before us, he is opening loopholes in the Income Tax Act to allow corporations that are not registered in Canada to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

There are a lot of examples like that one, where the Conservative government is engaging in double talk. It says it is acting in good faith, it says it wants to face the facts and try to get back all the taxes that should be paid in Canada, and yet on the other hand, it is putting in place measures that preserve the loopholes. We are hearing considerable discontent among the public on this issue. People are disillusioned. We know what is going on in the government of Quebec. It has been hit with a major credibility crisis.

At the same time, I think this affects the federal political class as well because the general public realizes that when the government tables a budget like this, it is not ordinary people who benefit. The public knows that, once again, the government did not take into account the people who pay their taxes every day. It simply carried on with measures to protect the rich. It protects people who are powerful and busy making their money grow. The public is fed up with hearing this and seeing these kinds of things perpetuated year after year. It still continues today.

We could point as well to the Telecommunications Act, which was amended to allow foreign companies, the owners or operators of certain transmission facilities, to function as telecommunications companies in Canada. This does not help our companies. They talk about helping companies. We are against the government doing too much for companies, but when they adopt measures like these to help foreign companies, it is doubly nonsensical. Once again, there is a double meaning. They say they want to help both companies and consumers. However, the companies already established in Quebec and Canada will have to pay for decisions like this.

We also saw in this budget and in Bill C-9, ensuring the implementation of the budget, that the government will not even shrink from looting the employment insurance fund. A kind of independent fund was created two years ago. I say a kind of fund advisedly because many people criticized it and said it was not large enough. At least the government made a start on an independent employment insurance fund. Now it will fall back to zero. All the fine principles used to justify its creation have been jettisoned and the government will not shrink now from pillaging it. It will fall back to zero and be replaced with an employment insurance operating account, which will start from zero.

When this fund was established two years ago, both businesses and big banks said it was a good idea to create a fund like this. However, it should have $15 billion in it instead of the $2 billion the government injected. Now the government is even coming to get these $2 billion. That money was there as insurance, in case of difficult years for employment. Now all is lost. The Conservative government and its Liberal predecessor pillaged a total of $57 billion from the employment insurance fund—money that belongs to employers and employees.

It is totally absurd. I have mentioned only a few examples which make it absolutely impossible and unacceptable for the Bloc Québécois to vote in favour of this bill.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to join in the debate on Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. We are in the House of Commons, Commons referring to commoners or ordinary Canadians in today's terms. We are called here to participate, debate and make decisions on behalf of ordinary Canadians.

This budget gives money to the people who have the most money and ordinary Canadians, especially those who have the least, the least amount of money. Remember a budget really is the soul of a government, so what are the priorities for the Conservative government? In my mind this budget makes the wrong choices. The budget chooses to hand out tax breaks to big corporations, but does little to help struggling Canadians make ends meet.

It is obvious who gets the most in the budget. It is the $6 billion in a corporate tax giveaway that is the highlight of the budget. We cannot afford those the tax cuts. We can not only afford them, it does nothing for our economy but pad the pockets of the big polluting oil companies. The tax cuts create very few jobs. They wind up in the wallets of the corporate executives after they increase their own bonuses. Do these millionaire executives really need a raise, courtesy of the taxpayers of Canada? I do not believe so. Who needs the raise? The 250,000 senior citizens who live in poverty.

A few weeks ago, at a pension forum in my riding of Trinity—Spadina, a woman called Vera told her story, among other seniors who told their stories. Her story stands out most in my mind. She is in her mid-eighties and is very dignified. She used to be the founder of the African Theatre Company of Canada located on Madison Avenue. During the seventies and eighties, she did a lot of good work creating culture and training many actors who are now in Hollywood. She gave up her nursing job in order to do that, but as an artist she does not have much of a pension. Now that she is retired, she finds herself in deep financial trouble.

After the meeting, she pulled me aside and told me that she did not know how she would pay her $200 hydro bill. A few months ago she could not pay the hydro bill and that was not the first time it had happened. We worked out her income. She gets less than $16,000 a year, combining her Canada pension plan, which is not much, the old age security and the tiny guaranteed income supplement. How will she pay her hydro bill? She has to make a decision whether to turn off her heat, or stop travelling, or pay the rent, or cut back on her food costs. That is not the way to treat our seniors.

As New Democrats, we have suggested to the Conservatives that instead of the big corporate tax cuts, why not take some of the funds, only $700 million, and invest them in the guaranteed income supplement. That would lift every senior in our country out of poverty. That is what we should be doing as Canadians, as participants, as members of Parliament in the House of Commons. That is the kind of decision we should make, but it is not in the budget.

What else can we do with that $6 billion? We could invest in children who are our future. Let us invest in high quality, affordable child care so parents can go to work knowing full well that their kids will be in good learning and care facilities in a loving environment, in stimulating child care centres. We know the OECD reports that of all the industrialized countries we rank last in our investment for children.

Part of the $6 billion, a small portion of it in fact starting with only $25 million, would create universal nutritious food and healthy snacks for our children. Whether they are in schools, community centres, child care centres, they could get a decent meal, a hot lunch perhaps, apples, milk or something nutritious.

Over the last two decades, our children are growing obese and becoming unhealthy. A girl who is 10 or 11 years old is now 11 pounds heavier than 20 years ago. For a boy, it is something like 15 pounds heavier than a few decades ago. What does that say to members of Parliament and government? We are not investing in our kids to ensure they are eating properly and combatting child poverty and child obesity. We could spend part of that $6 billion on our children.

We could also use part of the $6 billion to create and build a clean energy future. We could commit to providing dedicated funding for public transit, transferring 1¢ of the existing gas tax to municipalities to fund public transit, invest in transit expansion programs, like the exciting Toronto transit city projects that have six streetcar and LRT lines across the city. However, this budget does not designate funding to public transit.

Toronto taxpayers will have to shoulder the costs of new streetcars and light rails. Riders will continue to face excessive wait times for buses and streetcars and commuters will continue to waste time and energy idling their cars on clogged highways and roads. Transit is a backbone of our urban economies.

The government could have strengthened our economy and created green jobs by funding public transit. Instead it made the wrong choice.

The budget could also have continued and expanded the very popular eco-energy program so it covered even more buildings, homes, condominiums and even affordable housing. Those residents living in affordable housing need their buildings retrofitted so energy bills, like the ones that Vera has to pay, would not be as high. Right now they are using electric baseboard heat, which is expensive and it is also very energy inefficient.

A part of the $6 billion could have gone to help struggling students by lowering the tuition for post-secondary education. It could have helped graduate students to do volunteer work overseas, or participate in internship and apprenticeship programs by allowing them to delay their students loans while they were doing meaningful work overseas. Most of those are non-paying jobs or very poorly paid jobs.

We could have used part of the funds to hire more doctors, nurses or even nursing aids so more seniors could stay at home and receive better home care.

Part of the $6 billion could have paid a bit more in foreign aid. Right now we are only spending .033% of the GDP to foreign aid and that is nowhere near enough.

The budget could have plugged some of the leaks and closed the tax havens, whether it is in the Bahamas or in Belize. That could bring in more revenue for the government and it would provide funding for ordinary Canadians.

That is the kind of budget we should support. Instead the Conservative budget is making the wrong choices. That is why we are not supporting the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a friendly question and request for the member. Bill C-9 enables a voluntary code of guidelines regarding credit cards and debit cards. The government is constantly siding with big banks and big business against consumers.

Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights was opposed by all the Conservatives, who are more interested in protecting the interests of Air Transat and Air Canada. All opposition parties, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals, voted for the bill at second reading. However, at the transport committee, the Bloc critic turned against Quebec consumers, and he is now supporting the Conservatives to kill the bill.

I know most of the Bloc members are very progressive in their outlook politically. Could the member investigate why the Bloc critic has turned his back on Quebec air passengers and sided with the Conservatives? I think that would be very helpful, because I thought we had a very good understanding with all three opposition parties supporting the bill. Something went wrong at committee, and I am very curious to know why it happened.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I join the debate on Bill C-9, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, which should really be called the Budget Implementation Act. This bill is about implementing the last budget. Since the Bloc was against the budget, it is against this bill on jobs and economic growth, or rather this budget implementation bill. The name has been changed to give the impression that something is actually happening and something new is being put on the table.

There are many reasons for our position. One need only think of the manufacturing and forestry industries, successful industries in Quebec, which are being left to their own devices. Jobs could have been saved in many regions where there have been layoffs and plant closures. For five years these industries had been asking the government to take action and help them so they can purchase new equipment or harvest the forest differently, for example. The manufacturing industry was also faced with having to restructure companies.

The government therefore released the amount of $170 million, but what shocked us is that it was able to find $10 billion for the automotive industry. The forestry industry, which is an important industry in Quebec, was thus suffering, since the $170 million had to serve the forestry industry all across Canada. We are really talking about crumbs here. The lack of sensitivity toward Quebec was obvious; nothing was done to save this industry. Yet for the automotive industry there was no problem, and they could find the money, that $10 billion, to save it.

One need only think of another priority: equalization. The Prime Minister made a commitment in the 2005-06 campaign to change the equalization formula, and in particular, not to do so unilaterally. But he did the opposite. The change he made to the equalization formula created a shortfall for Quebec. The loss was $1 billion for last year alone, and every year it will grow by $350 million.

So we have reasons not to vote in favour of this budget implementation bill. These are not small amounts. Added up, they total billions of dollars. Quebec finds itself left out of this government's priorities.

Furthermore, the calculation of equalization for Quebec takes account of the revenues of Hydro-Québec, yet the calculation for Ontario does not take account of the revenues of Hydro One. There, once again, is the double standard. The automotive industry has favoured Ontario. To repeat, calculation of equalization for Quebec takes account of the revenues of Hydro-Québec, but in the case of Ontario, it does not take account of the revenues of Hydro One. The effect of this is to increase the relative wealth of Quebec and decrease its equalization payment. For Quebec, the shortfall in this regard comes to $250 million per year. How does this government explain this double standard?

Harmonization of the sales tax is another reason to vote against this bill. Here too, the policy of the double standard prevails. Whereas Ontario, British Columbia and the three Atlantic provinces were compensated for harmonizing their provincial sales tax with the GST, the government refuses to do the same for Quebec. The amount of this compensation is $2.2 billion per year. The Conservative government alleges that there has been no harmonization. Many questions have been asked in the House. The Bloc Québécois has been very persistent on this demand for compensation, but it always receives the same response.

Yet, certain documents recognized that the Quebec sales tax and the GST had been harmonized. Then, all of a sudden, this process was no longer called harmonization. The QST and the GST were harmonized in 1992, and a unanimous motion was passed by the Quebec National Assembly. As I mentioned earlier, in its 2006 budget, the Conservative government itself recognized that the QST and the GST had been harmonized.

This was recognized in the 2006 budget but now that the time has come to deliver the goods and give the money to Quebec—particularly considering that the government did it for other provinces—it no longer wants to give back to Quebec what it is entitled to for harmonizing its tax with the GST.

The government has changed its mind. It refuses to compensate Quebec to the tune of $2.2 billion, because it is trying to put pressure on Quebec so that Canada will collect the harmonized tax itself. But Quebec has been doing it since 1992. This is nothing less than blackmailing Quebec taxpayers, who are being asked to tighten their belt. But the fact is that this money is owed to Quebec. This is another reason why we voted against the budget.

As for the environment, we are nowhere near making the green shift. We are well aware that the Prime Minister's performance in Copenhagen was mediocre. Instead of behaving like the leader of a country that seeks to be a model and encourage other nations to follow its example, this government has decided to contribute to the wealth of oil companies and to oil sands development in Alberta. Again, this is happening at Quebec's expense.

As I mentioned, the government's last budget provides $1 billion for the nuclear industry, compared to $51 million for a few tepid environmental measures. As we know, the nuclear industry is primarily located in Ontario, not in Quebec.

We can see that the choices made by this government do not allow Quebec to develop at an adequate pace.

Moreover, there is nothing in the budget to help reduce greenhouse gases at the source. However, there is a lot for oil companies, through tax benefits and also the absence of a carbon tax.

The Bloc would also have liked to see in the budget a recognition or compensation program for industries that have made efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, including Quebec industries, such as its manufacturing industry which has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 24%.

The Bloc proposed many other measures for the environment, such as allocating $500 million, over five years, to a fund for green energy initiatives, and developing a plan to promote electric cars and the electrification of transportation. Obviously, we are talking about huge investments of billions of dollars.

Preference has also been given to tax havens. This budget very certainly does not do what was announced to combat tax havens. That was also something the Bloc Québécois had called for. The government is engaging in double talk. On the one hand, it says it wants to tackle tax havens, and on the other hand, it uses this bill to open loopholes in the Income Tax Act to allow corporations not registered in Canada not to pay their fair share of tax. That is a double standard. We would have liked to see a second recovery plan in this budget, to get the economy going. There is nothing in this budget that suggests that the right decisions have been made.

The Conservatives have decided to eliminate tax withholding for certain non-resident corporations that sell their assets in Canada, which many experts in the field say will open the door wide to tax evasion. So this facilitates tax evasion.

We know that that there are also some corporations that use tax havens to avoid tax. The figures from the auditor general tell us that corporations would save as much as $600 million a year by doing business in tax havens.

The Bloc Québécois therefore urges the government to stop talking and start acting, instead of proposing pseudo-solutions made up of empty words as the Conservatives are doing. The Bloc Québécois has been proposing concrete solutions since 2005 to do away with access to tax havens like Barbados and eliminate the double deduction of interest.

The government has done nothing in this regard and it is plain that the bill confirms the Conservative government’s desire to protect rich taxpayers at all costs, among which we find the banks and big corporations. This shows contempt for workers in our industries, including the forestry industry, which are experiencing hard times in Quebec. Right when those industries need help the most, they are not offered a hand.

We could also talk about the reduction and elimination of positions in the government. The adjustments made are merely cosmetic. A large majority of the positions they said they want to eliminate, 90%, had been vacant for several years.

So it is ridiculous to offer to reduce positions that have been vacant for several years. The measures proposed by the Conservative government to cut operating costs in the federal bureaucracy are very insignificant, when we compare them to the stringent recommendations made by the Bloc Quebecois.

We had proposed some $5.4 billion in savings per year. There are several reasons for this, and I think they are justified.

We held consultations across Quebec and our new finance critic, the member for Hochelaga, also heard other suggestions. Numerous people told us we were not heading in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. The misnomer of course is the subtitle, which is “Jobs and Economic Growth Act”. I think a number of speakers from this corner of the House, from the NDP, have pointed out how inappropriate that term is, given that the current government has absolutely no fundamental economic approach, no industrial policy, and no real attempt to create jobs and prosperity for the middle class. What the government loves to do, as members well know, is just shovel money off the back of a truck to bankers and the richest of Canada's CEOs. That is the government's attempt at economy policy.

In this corner of the House we actually believe in sound economics and a fundamentally economic approach that includes an industrial policy, that includes building export markets abroad by providing the same supports that our competitors are providing to their export industries. So, we have different approaches.

I would like to say that Canadian values and Canadians are much closer to where the NDP is going than what the Conservatives are offering in this budget implementation bill.

As I mentioned previously, this should be called the “everything but the kitchen sink act” because what the government has done is thrown in a whole range of inappropriate measures into this bill.

Is this in keeping with where Canadians want to go? Of course not.

Do Canadians want to see Canada Post gutted in its ability to provide services across the country? Of course not.

Do Canadians want to see punitive softwood tariffs imposed that would hit the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec? Of course not.

This would force more mill closures and more job losses. We had the softwood sellout that killed 20,000 jobs across the country. The budget implementation bill would continue that tradition among the Conservative government budgets and policies of killing our softwood jobs in this country.

What this bill would also do is legalize the employment insurance theft that took place. This is $57 billion of money that was taken from Canada's middle class, Canada's workers, by the former Liberal government, a practice continued by the Conservative government. This was money that Canadians paid into an employment insurance account as an insurance policy against loss of wages.

Yet, what this budget implementation bill would do is legalize that theft. It is quite simple. It is as if we rob a bank and then afterward we change the law to say that robbing banks is okay. Well, robbing the employment insurance fund was robbing Canadians, robbing unemployed Canadians. For the Conservatives to offer the legalization, the retroactive legalization of this theft, whether it occurred under the former Liberal government or the current Conservative government, is equally inappropriate. I believe Canadians will punish the Conservatives when they get the opportunity to voice their disapproval on what is a fundamentally irresponsible and dishonest act.

What this bill would also do is centralize control in Ottawa the environmental assessment process. We have seen this with other Conservative ministries. We have seen how the Conservatives have tried to centralize control in Ottawa, that growing sense of entitlement of the Conservative government. We have certainly seen it perhaps most particularly just in the actions of the last few weeks.

However, the centralization of control, putting into the hands of very few people, or one or two ministers, the ability to determine whether or not the environment is protected in various parts of the country, again, is something that conflicts with basic Canadian values. Canadians are a fair people. Canadians want to see increased protection of the environment, not decreased protection.

What this budget bill would do, the everything but the kitchen sink bill thrown in, in addition to all of these other measures put into this completely inappropriate omnibus bill, is simply allow the Minister of the Environment to dictate the scope of environmental assessments or whether they even occur at all.

For my province of British Columbia, perhaps the worst aspect of this budget implementation bill is that it would compound the incredibly unfair redistribution of taxes through the HST. In my province of British Columbia, HST is a hated word, an epitaph. The B.C. Liberal government is on the retreat and desperately falling in the polls because of what it has done. What it has done is restructured taxes. It has given corporate CEOs another free ride, and it is saying to the average family in British Columbia that it is going to pay $2,000 more a year to supplement this tax-free ride that is being given to the corporate bigwigs.

It is $2,000 at a time when British Columbia has been hard hit by incredibly inappropriate economic policies, both by the Conservative government and also by the B.C. Liberals. To force B.C. families to pay $2,000 more out of pocket so that corporate bigwigs can have an even longer tax-free holiday is absolutely inappropriate.

What we have seen over the last few days shows the willingness of British Columbians to fight back. In places like the Peace River Country, which is certainly not a hotbed of the NDP, we have had hundreds of British Columbians lining up to sign the referendum question, basically a petition to force a referendum on the HST. Those names have been coming in so quickly that Peace River is virtually finished in meeting the threshold to force that referendum.

In places like Delta, we have had 1,000 people out at community meetings. Right across the province, Vancouver Island, the Okanagan, and the lower mainland, we are seeing a record level of support to sign the petition to force the referendum and to force back the federal Conservatives from their incredibly unfair attempt to give corporate bigwigs a tax-free holiday and force ordinary British Columbians to pay more.

The budget implementation bill just compounds that problem by enlarging the HST into other areas like financial services. It is like the Conservatives have completely lost the ability to understand British Columbians. They just do not listen to British Columbians anymore. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, as we heard from one of the budget speeches that was made by the Conservatives, Canada basically ended at the Rocky Mountains.

That inability to understand British Columbians and their belief in having a fair tax system, and their abhorrence of unfair redistribution of taxes to penalize the average B.C. family $2,000 while giving corporate bigwigs a tax-free holiday, is something that will cost the Conservatives quite dearly whenever that next election occurs. Whether it is this spring or next fall or next year, there is no doubt British Columbians will punish the Conservatives for refusing to listen to them.

In the meantime, British Columbians are lining up to sign the petition. There is no doubt we will see a referendum in British Columbia that will cut the HST.

The B.C. Liberals have been pointing their fingers at the federal Conservatives and saying that if the HST bill is not passed in the B.C. Legislature, the Conservatives are going to doubly punish British Columbians. I would just caution the Conservatives. British Columbians are already fed up. They are angry enough at Conservatives.

If the idea of the federal Conservative government is that it is going to punish British Columbians and make them pay more if this bill does not pass the Legislature, I would say that they will see a degree of anger and rage against these federal Conservatives that has never been seen before in British Columbia.

I would be inclined to say every single Conservative seat in British Columbia would be put in jeopardy if the Conservatives are foolish enough to threaten British Columbians by saying that it is going to impose an additional 5% PST on top of this 12% HST unless the bill is passed in the Legislature. That is a warning that I think all British Columbians will be delivering to Conservatives in these coming days.

With all of these inappropriate measures, given what Canadians and British Columbians are living through, there is no doubt that the strong B.C. caucus of federal New Democrats will be voting against this budget implementation bill. It does nothing to address the fundamental economic challenges that we are facing and nothing to help the middle class in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-9, the 2010 budget implementation act. It is called the jobs and economic growth act, but that is a bit of a misnomer because there is absolutely nothing in this budget that will create the jobs and the economic growth of the future for Canada. It is important to consider this budget in the context of the challenges and opportunities that Canada faces in the 21st century.

This is not a normal recession, but rather a global economic restructuring. Canada cannot return to where we were before the recession if all the other countries have restructured their economies in order to move forward. We should never waste a good crisis.

We should never waste a good crisis. Throughout history smart companies, smart entrepreneurs, smart governments have used crises to change, to create opportunities. In fact, in Mandarin the word “crisis” is the same word as “opportunity”. Throughout history we have seen intelligent leadership during crises create remarkable wealth for people. That is not what is happening in Canada today. In fact, we are wasting a good crisis.

This budget is another example of the Conservatives' failure to provide any level of vision. While other countries are using their stimulus to make their economies more energy efficient, greener and more competitive in a global carbon-constrained economy, the Conservative government is doing nothing with this visionless budget to address the changing nature of the global economy.

The focus should no longer be on environmental responsibility, but increasingly on economic opportunities and energy security. It is very important to make our economy greener and more competitive for the jobs of tomorrow.

At the World Economic Forum in January, everybody from U.S. Republican senators like Lindsey Graham to industry leaders agreed that the new green economy and the clean energy economy is going to become the largest economic growth area of the 21st century. Lindsey Graham actually said, “Six months ago, I was opposed to putting a price on carbon in the United States because I felt it would create a disadvantage with the Chinese economy. Today, I believe that with every day we wait to put a price on carbon in the United States, we are giving the Chinese a head start in the emerging green economy”. That was said by a Republican senator from South Carolina who believes that the time has come in the United States to move forward with a price on carbon and green investments to create a more competitive economy in a global carbon-constrained world.

At Davos this year, France's finance minister, Christine Lagarde, said, “It's a race and whoever wins that race will dominate economic development”. She was speaking of the race for success in the green economy. The Conservative Prime Minister of Canada was the only leader at Davos who was saying that environmental responsibility and measures to address climate change will ultimately hurt the economy.

Other governments around the world are investing to create competitiveness in the global green economy, but not Canada. South Korea invested 79% of its stimulus into green technologies. This is to create 1.8 million green jobs in the growing sector. China dedicated $218 billion of its stimulus toward clean environmental technologies. On a per capita basis, the United States has put six times more money into green and clean energy investments than Canada has.

The Conservatives, however, do not look beyond next week's polls. They are so focused on next week's polls that they are ignoring the challenges and opportunities of the coming decades, particularly the opportunities in the green sector. Canada has one of the lowest proportions of green spending in its stimulus package of any OECD country.

In fact, a document from the World Economic Forum entitled, “Green Investing 2010: Policy Mechanisms to Bridge the Financing Gap”, lists the investments. In Figure 13, regarding the green investments of various countries, it lists clean energy stimuli by country in 2009, including the U.S., China, South Korea, EU countries, Japan, Spain, Germany, Australia, the U.K., France and Brazil. Canada, with a paltry $1 billion of investment in clean energy last year, was at the very bottom of that list in terms of investment in green technologies.

If we believe that the opportunities of the future are going to be in the green economy and clean energy and if we are going to fulfill the government's promise of Canada being a clean energy superpower, we have to start making those investments now. The government talks a good game, but unfortunately there is no first-talker advantage, there is only first-mover advantage. Other countries are moving and we are sitting still, and as such, we are falling behind.

Other countries have invested in research and development and innovation. In terms of scientific investment, our stimulus package in Canada has been among the lowest in the industrialized world. The problem is not only are we failing to create the jobs of today in what is effectively a jobless recovery, and it is a statistical recovery but a human recession, but we are not even protecting the jobs of today, let alone creating the jobs of tomorrow.

Almost one in five young Canadians is looking for work. Farmers have been devastated by drops in demand. The forestry industry has all but collapsed. We are leaving many Canadians without their livelihoods. This jobless recovery and human recession is devastating to a lot of Canadians as they hear the government boast of a recovery.

On page 34 of the government's budget, its own figures project that unemployment will continue to rise this year. We need to focus on protecting the jobs of today and creating the jobs of tomorrow.

We need to focus on the three Es: energy, the economy and the environment. We need to make Canada a global clean energy leader. We need to invest in clean conventional energy technology. We need to invest more in technologies like CO₂ sequestration where we have a head start. Forty per cent of the CO₂ stored anywhere in the world is sequestered in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. That was because the previous government, the Martin government, invested alongside the private sector in the technologies of the future. It put Weyburn on the map as a centre of excellence globally for CO₂ sequestration.

Yet in December when the U.S. signed a deal with the Chinese government on CO₂ sequestration, we were not even at the table. This is an area where we have the best technology and the best example of the implementation of that technology in the world in Saskatchewan and Canada was not at the table when the U.S. and China signed a deal on CO₂ sequestration.

There are other examples of areas where we have a comparative advantage in clean energy technology. In Nova Scotia, for example, the Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world. We should be investing to harness those tides as a source of clean energy.

While many ordinary Canadians in fact want the government to provide leadership for the future, the Conservative budget actually looks backward. The fact is there are a number of areas of failure in the budget.

I want to also talk about the importance of healthy communities. Across Canada there is a need for investment in healthy communities.

In my riding we have facilities that are quite aged, for instance, Glooscap District Arena in Canning, Nova Scotia. There is the East Hants Sportsplex in the community of Lantz and the East Hants corridor area which has doubled in population in the last 10 years. There is also the Hants County Exhibition arena in Windsor, the birthplace of hockey no less. We need investments in these important recreational facilities. We cannot have healthy citizens if we do not have healthy community infrastructure.

The province of Nova Scotia has committed $5 billion to the East Hants Sportsplex. East Hants has committed--

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He spoke about what real people would want. There is nothing in this bill for the middle class. How many times has our colleague from Hochelaga risen in this House to tell the government to focus on where the money is?

The banks are putting billions of dollars into tax havens. That is appalling. The money is there. My colleague from Hochelaga did an incredible tour of Quebec and heard from a number of citizens and organizations who really have their priorities straight when it comes to this government's budget. Once again, this federal budget completely ignored the strong measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois.

My NDP colleague mentioned Canada Post. The government wants to put an end to some exclusive privileges of Canada Post and quietly slipped some measures into Bill C-9, without debate, having let Bill C-44 drop. It slipped these measures into Bill C-9. That is completely unacceptable.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I have the unanimous consent of my colleagues, I want to take a bit more time. I will not repeat what I said last Tuesday evening at 5:25. I will continue my speech, but if I have additional time at the end, I will be able to say more about various aspects of BillC-9.

I listened very attentively to the point of order raised by the House Leader of the Bloc Québécois, who pointed out once again all that should be done to ensure that Quebec’s constitutional prerogatives are respected here in the House.

Yesterday, the hon. member for Saint-Lambert and the hon. member for Hochelaga jointly introduced a bill that would eliminate the federal spending power to ensure that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces are respected. With Bill C-9, the federal government is again infringing on the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

As our health critic, I am not surprised. At the Standing Committee on Health, hon. members in federalist parties ask certain questions to enhance the federal government’s role in health care, even though this is an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Some people will say, of course, that when it comes to health care, this is a good thing because it is supposed to help people, cure them and improve their lives. But that is not the point. We should not be asking whether particular measures are wanted or desirable, but whether it is up to the federal government to concern itself with them. My colleagues will have to agree with me that this is clearly not the federal government’s role.

In part 22 of Bill C-9 on payments out of the consolidated revenue fund, we see that millions of dollars will be paid to a foundation, a not-for-profit organization, to heal injuries. The question is not whether this should be done, but whether it is the federal government’s job to do it. When it comes to health care, we want the federal government to forward all the available money to Quebec and the provinces, which are most able to make wise choices in view of the needs of the people they represent.

We worry when we see the federal government once again disregarding the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces and insidiously encroaching on the jurisdiction of health.

And when we listen to the leader of the Liberal Party, their ideas are no better. They want to implement Canada-wide strategies to block the initiatives that might be introduced by the Government of Quebec.

Part 2 of Bill C-9 implements an enhanced stamping regime for tobacco products. As the health critic, I am pleased to see that measures are being introduced to block measures to increase tobacco product consumption. We were in complete agreement with the government when it introduced Bill C-32 to eliminate flavoured tobacco products and cigarillos. We invite the government to continue down that path and adopt the regulations related to Bill C-32.

As far as stamping tobacco products is concerned, the government has listened to the Bloc Québécois' proposal to implement this marking system, but again, it is not nearly enough.

The government needs to take firm action to block the illegal activities of tobacco smugglers because the measures announced are largely inadequate. In the Bloc Québécois, my colleague responsible for public safety, my colleague responsible for justice, and I are calling on this government to take serious action to stop the growth in smuggling and even eliminate it altogether because if we do not want our youth to have access to cheap tobacco products then we have to address this problem head on.

I will now list a series of measures the Bloc Québécois wants to see the government put forward. It is aware of these measures since we have already talked about them in this House, but I would like to go over them again at this stage since, in part 2 of Bill C-9, the government is introducing a measure that is interesting, but falls far short of what is needed.

My time is up, so this will have to wait, but if the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of Health would like to hear what I have to say about this, I invite them to contact me directly and I would be pleased to share my thoughts on this with the House another time.

The House resumed from April 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures be read the second time and sent to a committee.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

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

Madam Speaker, I have to say I like the parliamentary secretary, but his statement was absolute rubbish.

First off, we have to be very clear here. There is absolutely nothing in the bill that contravenes any international obligations pertaining to Canada. It is simply not true.

Second, and this is perhaps even more important, when we look at what has happened with the wood industry, the softwood lumber industry particularly, in this country over the last few years, it has been self-inflicted by the current government, particularly because of the softwood lumber sellout that has led to the death of 20,000 jobs across this country.

When we held hearings into the softwood lumber sellout at the international trade committee, it was very clear what the implications were. This was a sellout with implications that would lead to the death of thousands of jobs in this country and would kill dozens of mills. Yet, the Conservatives, with the support of Liberals and, I have to say with great regret, the Bloc, the three other parties in this House ganged up together and the result has been the death of much of the industry.

In my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, we were at the epicentre of this killing of our softwood lumber industry. We lost three mills after the signing of the softwood lumber sellout. We lost Interfor, Canfor and Western Forest Products, one after the other. Two thousand direct jobs were lost. Six thousand jobs were lost indirectly. All because the current government put its faith in David Emerson who knew full well that what this would do is kill the industry. But he figured that nobody on the Conservative government's side would actually do any due diligence around his work; what the Conservatives would do is cut some ribbons, say that they had achieved a victory, give $1 billion to the United States and, somehow, everything would turn out all right.

Well, that is not how it has turned out. We have seen dozens of mills close, thousands of jobs lost, and the Canadian taxpayer and Canadian softwood communities continue to pick up the tab. We are debating, currently, Bill C-9, which would imposes a $60 million additional penalty on softwood communities across this country, brought in by the Conservatives. We now have in front of the arbitral panel a further hundreds of millions of dollars, potentially, in penalties, given Quebec and Ontario forestry practices, legitimate for the softwood lumber sellout, now considered the object of fines, and we have looming in the distance B.C. stumpage being challenged with potential penalties of up to half a billion dollars. All because the Conservatives did not actually read the agreement before signing it. All because these Conservatives were recklessly irresponsible with our wood industry.

We have a chance to start to rectify what was broken by these Conservatives, with the support of the Liberals and, I dare say, the Bloc; that is, by taking a first step to actually start to repair what was broken by adopting Bill C-429. It is a small step forward. It is not going to get back the 20,000 jobs that were lost directly and the 60,000 jobs that were lost indirectly. It is quite true that the reckless abandon with which the current government destroyed the softwood lumber industry is going to take time and a lot of work to repair. But it is true that giving preference to concepts that promote wood, while balancing off costs, while balancing off greenhouse gas submissions, as is included in this private member's bill, would allow for those first few steps. We produce quality products, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan said very clearly. British Columbia produces about half of that wood across the country. I need to quote again what the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan quoted, that British Columbia's skilled workmanship and advanced technology help to provide high-performance structural materials and unique appearance grade wood components.

There is no doubt of the quality. There is no doubt of the efficiency of our workers in British Columbia and right across the country. What is in doubt is the current government's capacity to understand the magnitude of what it did in 2006 when it imposed the softwood lumber sellout.

Liberals went along. The Bloc went along. That is true, but it is the Conservatives who provided the getaway car while they emptied out everything that was of value in the softwood lumber industry and drove away, completely irresponsibly, killing thousands of family-sustaining jobs across this country with that vote.

Parliamentarians, particularly of those three parties, have a responsibility to adopt this private member's bill to start to address what they have broken. Every single Conservative MP in this House is responsible for the devastation in the softwood lumber industry. Every single Liberal MP in this House is responsible and every single Bloc MP is responsible.

At least the Bloc is stepping forward with some ways to repair the mistake that was made in 2006.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, because this budget implementation bill contains nothing good for Quebec, it confirms the fact that the latest federal budget is fundamentally unfair to Quebec. I am thinking of the growth-generating economic sectors that receive more support in Ontario and the west than in Quebec. That is an understatement. I am also thinking of the sales tax harmonization that everyone but Quebec got.

I can hardly believe my ears when I hear the Prime Minister say in the House, without batting an eyelid, that harmonization did not happen in Quebec. On page 68 of his 2006 budget speech, the Minister of Finance said that five provinces had not harmonized their sales taxes, and Quebec was not among them. I am sure that everyone will agree that sales taxes have been harmonized in Quebec since 1992.

The Conservative government also seems to think that the Great Lakes make up a closed basin. It renewed the Great Lakes action plan for $16 million over two years, but there is no money for the St. Lawrence. There is no long-term vision for this waterway, which flows alongside the riding of Verchères—Les Patriotes, where water, in the form of the Richelieu river, a tributary to the great river, and the St. Lawrence itself, plays an important role. That is why I am so disappointed and worried that on March 31 the St. Lawrence plan to develop an integrated vision and management strategy for one of America's largest waterways expired without any announcement by the government regarding its extension.

Part 15 of Bill C-9 limits the exclusive privilege of the Canada Post Corporation. I will not talk about this at length. People can refer to the speeches by my colleagues from Beauharnois—Salaberry and Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, who have spoken about this in detail. It is clear that the government is trying to avoid a debate on this subject in the House, even though it introduced Bill C-44 itself to study the issue.

Trying to eliminate certain exclusive privileges of Canada Post without debate, on the sly, quickly, through the back door, leaves us asking a tonne of questions. Our constituents are concerned about the services they are receiving from Canada Post. In my riding, a number of constituents are drafting petitions. Municipalities, such as the Lajemmerais RCM, have adopted a resolution calling not for the reduction of Canada Post services, but for the improvement of the services that have been cut and for the moratorium on post office closures to be maintained.

It is as the health critic that I would like to come back to certain parts of Bill C-9, namely part 18 on privatizing AECL. Nowhere in part 18 is there any assurance that the federal government will continue to take its responsibilities and provide Quebeckers and Canadians with a supply of medical isotopes. Knowing the serious and unfortunate consequences of closing the Chalk River facility and the NRU to patients and health care providers, this is worrisome.

On November 23, 2009, Patrick Bourguet, President Elect of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine, came to speak to the Standing Committee on Health about a global approach to technetium. I wonder whether the budget and Bill C-9 will ensure international unity in order to prevent what we are currently going through. Therefore—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some pleasure and frustration that I enter into this debate today on Bill C-9. It has been referred to by many of my colleagues as being quite a substantial bill, consisting of some 880 pages.

It is up to us as members of Parliament to attempt, for the average Canadian citizen, a translation or interpretation simply because it is clearly not an expectation for Canadians in their leisure time to read through examples such as on page 416, where it states:

Tariff item No. 7320.10.00 in the List of Tariff Provisions set out in the schedule to the Act is amended by replacing--

It is up to us as parliamentarians to interpret what Bill C-9 actually means in the lives of Canadians. When we in the NDP look through this bill, we find that in fact the government needed so many pages because this bill is, in reality, a Trojan Horse. Within these pages are all sorts of actions the government has taken that it did not actually want to debate in the full and proper light of day. There are many examples.

This from a government, if we recall the Conservatives' election win the first time around in 2006, that was going to bring in new accountability. We have in Bill C-9 nothing but unaccountability to Canadian taxpayers. I will provide some examples.

One is the Environmental Assessment Act. The willingness of the federal government to assess the environmental sustainability or impact of major industrial projects has been stripped down to virtually nothing in this bill. The number of projects that need to be assessed by the federal government so that Canadians can understand their impacts are too numerous to mention in the brief time I have.

Canadians have a sense that one of the roles and functions of government is to protect them from harm, particularly to protect them from projects they may have no knowledge of or nothing to do with. We are talking major industrial projects, oil sands, energy, bridges, highways and all the rest.

In Bill C-9, this Trojan Horse, the government has said it will simply defer to the provinces or, in other circumstances, will give the power to the Minister of the Environment to decide what should be assessed and what should not have an environmental assessment. The irony of this new move is that the minister will somehow determine beforehand what is going to have a major environmental impact.

Canadians know the reason an assessment is done is to find out if something is going to have an environmental impact or not. The minister is somehow being given this divine knowledge and right that he will understand what is going to cause harm to the environment and what is not before the project has even been proposed or implemented.

A second piece is the selling of AECL, Canada's nuclear industry, also contained in these pages, without debate or comment from members of the government. Here they are, the great defenders of the nuclear industry, trying to sell off that same industry, which begs a few questions. Will they bring that in a separate piece of legislation, a bill which is required by law? No, they stick it in a Trojan Horse, threaten the opposition and get the support of the Liberals to do it. Something they could not do in the full light of day they bury in 880 pages. They bury something that Canadians, over the 50 years of AECL, have contributed $50 billion toward.

It staggers the mind that the government would say it is going to selloff a Canadian asset, but it does not want to talk about it. It is going to selloff a Canadian asset that by law says it has to be brought to this place as a stand-alone bill and the government buries it on page 556. This is not a government of accountability, clearly not.

There is the environmental assessment, the burying of AECL, and the raising of taxes at airports. Of course, this is a government that likes to proclaim it is lowering taxes, but here we see it raising taxes, user fees that will garner a 50% increase. A 50% increase for security costs on travellers is also buried within this Trojan Horse of a bill. Are Canadians being asked for their comments or opinions about a tax hike like this? Of course not.

Such was the case when the government raised taxes with the HST, also contained within Bill C-9. The HST will be applied to a whole bunch more services that Canadians use, thereby raising their tax burden again. This is Orwellian at its base, hypocritical at its source, and the government must be held to account.

This is what the debate is about. It is ironic and yet tragic. Government members are so proud of their record on taxes and on this budget, which supposedly is the miracle cure for the recession, yet 93% of the projects did not get out the door. Another 50% showed no effect, and if we believe the Fraser Institute, it actually may have been counterproductive to the economy's recovery.

The government that claimed so much credit for its economic prowess will not stand up and debate the bill in this House. The Conservatives will stay in their seats and type their emails, but will not engage in a debate about something so fundamental. There must be something in these 880 pages that they like.

I found something that may be of some benefit to Canadians. I am somewhat of a fan of the credit union movement, and if I take one moment to give some small modicum of credit, the government decided to finally allow Canadian credit unions to compete and operate under the Bank Act, which will allow them to go beyond their limited provincial jurisdictions right now. This is something that has been called for by New Democrats for a long time. Credit unions will now be able to compete fairly and competitively with the banking system. We just heard my colleague from Manitoba talk about the exorbitant salaries that senior bank officials pay themselves continuously. These banks just received, not a year ago, a $75 billion backstop from the federal government through Canadian taxpayers.

We can look at the HST. Being a member from British Columbia, I talk to my constituents in Skeena and the northwest of B.C. Just this past weekend I was in one of my favourite barbershops, which I know bears some irony itself, talking to my friend, Klaus Mueller Jr., the good barber of Smithers, B.C., asking him what the impact of the HST was going to be on his business. The HST was not debated, not discussed, and not presented forthrightly or truthfully, either by the Conservative government or the provincial government in B.C. It is devastating and the folks that he is most worried about are those that can least afford it, those who are already sitting on the margins economically of society.

Those on fixed incomes, seniors, those at the lowest incomes, struggling single moms, families, folks who are just trying to make ends meet are being whacked over the head by a government here in Ottawa that throws its hands up and says it has nothing to do with it, that the HST is purely a provincial decision. Yet, it found in a budget $6 billion to bribe, in a sense, the provinces along the path of redemption on the HST route, thereby using taxpayers' money to bribe another level of government to raise taxes on the same taxpayers.

If this is not an offensive, twisted and contorted way to do politics, I have never heard of one. Taking $6 billion of Canadians' own money from across Canada, which was a generous contribution I suppose from the other provinces to this nefarious effort, it shoved it out the door to Ontario and British Columbia, having them raise taxes on their own citizens and calling it good for the economy. All the while we hear this government trumpet its own ability to lower taxes when in fact that is not the case. We see in Bill C-9 880 pages of misdirection and misappropriation.

I want to step back and conclude my remarks around the environmental assessment component of this act because here is something that we will be paying for, for generations. Many of these issues and the damages being done in this bill will be felt for the next two years, but we know, through trial and error and through experience, that when we do not have proper environmental assessments, when we do not have any basic regulations to guide us on how major industrial projects operate, which is the suggestion in this bill by the government, we pay for it eventually. We pay up front or we pay eventually, and oftentimes, paying eventually means paying more.

An example and a case in point, in 2007 we paid $175 million in the district of Yukon alone to clean up old mines, disasters, orphaned abandoned mines, because they did not go through any kind of environmental assessment 45 or 50 years ago. We are paying for them all now, collectively. This is not how Canadians want their house managed. Their affairs are not being benefited by the government.

We need to not have this bill pass. We need to not bring this Trojan Horse to bear because not only will we be paying for it now but for generations to come.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know that my colleague was talking about gaspillage. As I said earlier on, this is a government that is determined to be known as a squander and tax punitive government.

Do members know that every one of these 880 pages in Bill C-9 is costing every Canadian taxpayer $60.2 million a page? And do members know what they are getting for it? They are going to get something that they did not expect: $1.5 billion in additional taxation for security. At the same time, the government is going to withdraw services. It is going to withdraw police services from airports, so that it can pick up another $16 million.

I wonder what my colleague has to say about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly interested in what the member had to say about the provisions in Bill C-9 regarding the removal of Canada Post's legal monopoly on outgoing international letters, or the remailer situation.

Members of the House know that this bill was introduced on two previous occasions as Bill C-14 and as Bill C-44. The government was not able to get either one of those bills passed through the minority government. The government has taken advantage of a situation and it has simply added this bill, totally unrelated as it is, to an 880-page budget implementation bill. It has nothing to do with the matter at stake. One wonders whether the government has a wish for defeat and an election, whether that is what it is doing.

I have seen this before. The Filmon government in Manitoba did the same thing in a similar minority situation. Every year it would bring in a big omnibus bill like this, throw in a whole bunch of surprises and dare the opposition to call an election. If that is what this is all about, then let us call a spade a spade.

The government is trying to privatize Canada Post by stealth. This is just the thin edge of the wedge. This mail is going to be sorted in places like Jamaica, where the wages are a fraction of what they are here. Once the remailers get peeled away, it is only a hop, skip and a jump from there to when the entire postal corporation gets turned over to private hands, as part of the privatization of crown assets program.

We are on the same side as the Bloc on this issue. The Liberals are saying they support where we are going with this as well. This whole business has to be exposed. The fact that in the last two days no government members have stood up to speak to their own bill says volumes about what is happening in this House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the debate on Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. Ten minutes is not long enough to address the 880 page document, a document so omnibus it makes one wonder if there could ever be enough allotted time for that debate.

Last month, I debated the government's wasteful expenditures and I spoke to the shortcomings of the budget: the lack of a job creation strategy; no investment in early childhood development; no national child care plan; no affordable housing strategy; no pension reform; no national vision or legacy; and after having invested $50 billion in infrastructure spending, no real jobs. The bottom line is there are no real benefits for Canadians and nothing has changed.

Bill C-9 would do nothing to address these concerns. In fact, it confuses the matter even more. What is worse is the underhanded and sneaky insertion of amendments that deserve their own independent worthy consideration and their own debate.

Instead of dealing with the real problems facing Canadians, the Conservatives are ignoring the cries for job growth and job creation. Over 300,000 Canadian jobs have been lost and Canadians remain out of work. The budget offered no solution to compensate for lost jobs or for the 8% of Canadians who are unemployed, or a staggering 11% of Mississaugans. To inflict further pain, the Conservatives will impose a $3 billion job-killing small business tax. Even the CFIB reported that this measure would kill more than 200,000 jobs.

Today, however, I want to concentrate on the government's underhanded tactic of inserting amendments into the bill. Let us be clear. These amendments are not sellable as orders in council or regulation changes. These proposed changes merit their own introduction and their own debate.

As the Liberal critic for crown corporations, I would like to focus on part 15 of this omnibus bill. The Conservatives' steps taken toward the deregulation and the privatization of our crown corporations are vivid and they are clear. I quote from part 15:

The exclusive privilege referred to in subsection 14(1) does not apply to letters intended for delivery to an addressee outside Canada.

This would not be the first time that we have seen an amendment to the Canada Post Act. It is not even the second. It is the third time. Since 2007, the Conservative government has been unsuccessful in trying to pass the same bill that would eliminate Canada Post's exclusive privilege, the first step toward deregulation of an $80 million industry.

At least the first two times, the bills were given their fair share of independent debate, but never passed second reading. The unexpected election of 2008 put an end to Bill C-14. Six months into the next session the government introduced Bill C-44, with the exact same wording. The unexpected prorogation put an end to that bill as well. Once in 2007, again in 2009 and now most recently in 2010, the Conservatives seem transfixed on the road to deregulation.

My colleagues from Hamilton Mountain and Elmwood—Transcona have misspoken the facts. My party has never introduced legislation on remailers. They should do their homework and stop misleading Canadians. They have misinformed Canadians on at least two occasions and I want to correct the record.

The Conservatives, however, continue to fight dirty with trickery, chicanery and underhanded tactics probably hoping people will not notice. Well people have noticed. Canadians have noticed. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers, CUPW, has noticed. It too knows the drill. When such a large and omnibus bill is tabled, there are many issues that do not get a full and proper debate. I quote from a CUPW release:

It appears that the federal government has grown impatient with the democratic debate that accompanied earlier bills and is attempting to ram deregulation of international letters through Parliament by attaching it to a budgetary bill.

That sums it up. The federal government has grown impatient. It is ignoring the democratic debate process and ramming the deregulation of our crown corporations down the throats of Canadians. The government has lost touch with Canadians.

As the Conservative agenda continues to push for deregulation and privatization, it threatens Canada Post's ability to provide affordable, accessible and universal services for residents across Canada. In 2004 the Ontario Superior Court ruled that Canada Post had the legal right to exclusive privilege of both domestic and international mail.

Canadians still value a stamped and sealed envelope which carries strong sentimental messages for their most special occasions such as birthdays, weddings, funerals or other holiday occasions. Canadians value the affordability as well of our postal system. Our country has one of the lowest basic letter rates, at 54¢ per stamp, whereas the U.K., Japan and Germany charge 70¢, 80¢ and 90¢ respectively.

What do the countries with the higher rates have in common? Each one of those countries have deregulated its postal industries.

As the Conservatives continue to push for privatizing parts of Canada Post, they also threaten the delivery to higher cost regions, such as remote and rural areas. With the one price policy, Canadians know that sending a basic letter from Ottawa to Montreal is the same as sending a letter from Halifax to Vancouver, from Iqaluit to Point Pelee.

However, Canada Post reports that the reserve market of letter mail, representing nearly half the company's revenue, is steadily declining. The parcel industry alone reached $10 billion. Canada Post holds 12% of that market. Canada Post boasts the capacity to be a major leader in direct marketing, but now it only maintains close to 10% of this growing industry.

Even in the international remailing market, Canada Post stands to lose $40 million to $80 million. This lost opportunity is one the government should not give up on. However, with the Conservatives when trouble looms, privatize. Privatization is their motto.

In July 2006 the minister responsible for Canada Post at the time stated in a letter to CUPW:

The activities of international remailers cost Canada Post millions of dollars each year and erodes the Corporation's ability to maintain a healthy national postal service and provide universal service to all Canadians.

Since then, that has changed. In 2007 the Conservatives tabled Bill C-14 to modify the exclusive privilege of Canada Post Corporation so as to permit letter exporters to collect letters for transmittal and delivery outside Canada. Inserting an amendment to Canada Post Act in the budget is underhanded and blatant trickery. This is another example of the Conservative Party's iron curtain of transparency at its best. The week Bill C-9 was introduced was a bad week for Canada Post and a bad week for Canadians.

The Conservatives' attempts to deregulate and privatization did not stop with this sneaky Canada Post amendment. In the same week they announced the slashing of 300 Canadian jobs in Edmonton, Winnipeg, Antigonish, Fredericton and Ottawa. The jobs come at the expense of privatizing Canada Post's call centres. The call centres will obviously be outsourced to overseas markets. This guarantees 300 Canadian jobs lost as a result of this announcement.

Union after union complains that the Conservatives do not care. Again, when trouble looms, they privatize. Public Service Alliance of Canada spokeswoman Janet May told CBC News that “the changes are part of a broader effort by Canada Post management to move the company further toward complete privatization”.

In a press release the other week, PSAC, the largest union of its kind said:

Canada Post is in its 15th year of profit...“So to an average Canadian, does it make sense that part of your postal system is getting privatized?”

No, it does not and PSAC is correct. It goes on:

The union said it also worries about the loss of people's privacy if they have to offer up personal information to a private company—especially if the call-centre work is outsourced to a U.S. company.

The list of opponents to the deregulation and privatization goes further. There are other groups that are impacted as well. Organizations representing the blind are concerned. Right now Canada Post offers free mailing of Braille documents and sound recordings. Opening up the market to unfair and unlevel competition would inevitably result in slashing services in order to compete. Senior citizens on fixed incomes need to know that they have reliable access to affordable mail services to suit their needs. Canadians everywhere depend on universal access to reliable postal service.

If it is necessary to radically alter a fundamentally Canadian industry owned by our taxpayers our, citizens deserve a full committee analysis before the current government potentially deprives so many residents. Canada Post can rightfully claim to be one of Canada's most trusted brands in Canada and its services have connected our expansive land. Canada Post must serve all Canadians, regardless of economic ability or geographic location, ensuring that all citizens are valued and have an equal opportunity to the services that the state provides.

The Conservatives have created a slippery slope that threatens this very premise.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we have been debating Bill C-9, a number of things have come to our attention.

As my friend from Winnipeg has shown, the depth of these 880 pages is a bit of a doorstopper. In the document, we see things that we normally would not find in the budget. We have seen this as a pattern with the government.

When there are things the government has not been able to get through the House in other ways, they are stuck in the budget. This is not just with this particular document, Bill C-9, we also saw it with the previous offering from the government, Bill C-10. We can remember when there was actually a bill to deal with censorship. That clearly was not a money concern of Canadians, but it was a way for the government to include things that it could not get through the House previously.

Here we go again. We see things in this bill that have little to do with the financial concerns of the country. We can look at further stripping environmental regulations, dealing with Canada Post and remailers, and issues that clearly have purview in other areas, and we find the government stuffing them in a budget bill. Why is that?

I could critique the government's adherence to its own principles around transparency and accountability, but we have seen that fall of the table recently so perhaps that is not a surprise. What it should indicate is very poor practice in terms of how budgets are presented. I think that is critical.

If we see governments after this one looking to this method, it is not really what Parliament is set up to do. It is not set up to have bills of this volume that have little to do with budgets but have everything to do with initiatives that the government could not get through the House in another manner.

We have the remailer issue, which was noted by my friend from Winnipeg, and the issues around environmental assessment, which my friend from B.C. noted. It means that the government is actually abusing the economic priorities of Canadians by inserting its own agenda.

When Canadians saw the government prorogue, they heard the government say that it needed to recalibrate and that it needed to hear from Canadians and get some ideas around what the priorities of Canadians were for this budget.

What was astonishing when the Minister of Finance rose and presented his budget was how little there was, notwithstanding the volume of the document, in new offerings. What we saw was a continuation of the government to deregulate at a time when the world economy was looking at re-regulating. We saw the same offerings in terms of corporate tax cuts at a time when people were saying that the government could not afford to hand out corporate tax cuts because it would be too hard on our fiscal commitments and that it would further the period in which we had to climb out of the debt and deficit.

People started to wonder what the government was doing during that period of prorogation because it certainly was not listening to Canadians. What we were hearing was that Canadians wanted to see us reinvest in things like infrastructure, and not in the way the government has done but in infrastructure that would allow Canadians to actually deal with the economic crisis they are facing in their households.

Things like affordable housing are a no-brainer. If the government invests in affordable housing, it creates jobs and provides people with what they need, which is affordable housing, reducing the costs in their households and, in fact, making our communities more liveable and sustainable.

We know that if the government had looked at a long-lasting retrofit program that actually used the investments from the federal government to make transitional changes in our economy, we would have had retrofits not only to private homes but to public institutions, as well as greening our grid and the way we distribute energy in this country. We could have seen not only the creation of jobs but the greening of our economy.

We did not see that. We saw an abandonment of even some of the small offerings the government in previous years had offered in terms of retrofits where people were able to make their homes more energy efficient and environmentally friendly and creating jobs that would help us get to the next steps in terms of getting our economy on the right track. One is kind of aghast when looking at what the government offered and what it said it would do.

We had provided the government with some very smart ideas. Instead of taking the corporate tax cuts that the government has presented to corporate Canada, which, by the way, has not taken the government up on the offer and reinvested in its own capital, we thought it made sense to put it in smart targeted investments.

If we look at other jurisdictions, that is what they have done, be it provincial, state or other countries. They have said that if infrastructure dollars are going to be put on the table, there should be some sort of test that is met. The test should be whether it will be helpful to the economy in general. In other words, will it create jobs? Will there be a ripple effect?

Anyone who has looked at the greening of the economy sees the ripple effect. When there are investments in things like retrofits, alternative energy and greening the grid, not only is there the initial impact of the dollars invested but there is a multiplier.

Manitoba did a great job in the last decade and continues to do so to this day. It invested its infrastructure money into conservation and into greening their buildings and infrastructure. Because of that investment, Manitoba was able to bring down its dependence upon hydroelectricity, which, as we know, is the export of hydroelectricity, because it saw the benefit in terms of conservation. It took the surplus it had and exported it.

One of the dilemmas, however, notwithstanding the work that Manitoba did in terms of conservation and ensuring that it preserved the energy it had and had extra energy, is that when it sells its surplus energy there is no place to put it in terms of an east-west grid and Manitoba ends up sending it south. That benefits the northern states, and Manitoba will sell the energy because it obviously has to sell it somewhere and it benefits its treasury, but what Manitoba and the NDP have requested for years is to have an east-west grid in this country.

I do not have to tell the House that the fabric and skeleton of this country, when it was created and conceived of, was the national rail system, which obviously required public infrastructure investment. Here, in the 21st century, we need something similar to that, which is why an east-west grid makes sense. The NDP has campaigned on this three times. It is a smart thing to do but, alas, the government did not do that. We see south of the border that the Obama administration is saying that the thing to do is to green the grid.

At the end of the day, things like affordable housing and green collar jobs that we could have been investing in are lost. Not only that, but the meagre offerings the government offered before are gone. Instead, we have corporate tax cuts, the shredding of environmental oversight and, at the end of the day, a budget that is not in the interests of Canadians or my constituents and, therefore, something I and my party cannot support.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-9 on the implementation of the budget that was passed in March.

This bill has over 800 pages and implements various initiatives set out in the budget presented on March 4. However, two measures that did not appear in the budget were added to the budget implementation bill. The first is the change to the Employment Insurance Act and the creation of the employment insurance operating account. The other measure, of greater concern to me, has to do with the liberalization of one of Canada Post's business lines.

In the 10 minutes I have, I would particularly like to discuss the measure included in Bill C-9 concerning Canada Post. I will address only that issue, for it is very important to me.

I represent a rural riding, where many communities have rural post offices. I recently presented petitions with over 6,000 signatures expressing the wishes of the people of my riding, who want to keep their rural post offices. They are worried about various measures taken by the government, including privatization and more recently, the restriction of Canada Post’s exclusive privilege.

The Bloc Québécois strongly opposes the privatization, even partial, of Canada Post. We believe that corporation must remain a public entity in order to maintain universal services and consistent rates throughout Canada.

I just want to talk about this part of Bill C-9, because I want to draw attention to the hypocrisy of this Conservative government, which has been trying since 2007 to get a bill passed that would take away Canada Post's exclusive privilege concerning international mail.

First, in 2007, the government introduced Bill C-14, which died on the order paper. In June 2009, it tried again with Bill C-44, which also died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued.

Now, the government is using the budget implementation bill to introduce this measure and avoid public debate on restricting Canada Post's exclusive privilege concerning international mail.

I also want to talk about this measure to show the insidious nature of the Conservatives' tactic, which is designed to push through their plan to deregulate the crown corporation. We know that the government wants to completely privatize Canada Post, and it is clearly taking the first small step toward that end by including this measure in the budget implementation bill.

I am very active and very close to the people who work in the post offices in my riding. Since Bill C-9 was introduced, I have received many letters from my constituents who work as letter carriers. They are asking me to oppose this bill, because they are afraid of losing their jobs. I also share their fears about how the bill will affect the crown corporation's revenues.

For the people who do not know what I am talking about, I will explain what will happen if Canada Post's exclusive privilege—what we call remailing—is removed.

This measure will permit letter exporters to collect letters in Canada for transmittal and delivery outside Canada. That means that Canada Post's competitors will be able to collect mail in Canada and Quebec and send it outside Canada.

What that means, in fact, is that the forwarding of mail by a remailing company consists in collecting mail items from business clients residing in one country and sending those items to another country where the postal rates are lower. This usually involves a developing country where the mail is sorted and remailed to a third country. This is a cost reduction method and a way of ensuring that the revenue from that mail goes to Canada Post.

Allow me to illustrate this by way of a specific example. A Canadian company wanting to send mail to the United Kingdom goes through a remailing company. The company then sends the mail in bulk to a branch office in another country where the sorting is done at a fraction of the price. The mail is then resent to the United Kingdom. The company will have saved up to 30% of the delivery cost because the mail will have already been sorted.

A business using the services of a remailng company could save up to 66% of the price Canada Post charges. I am getting letters from my constituents about those figures. It is only natural that people working at Canada Post are as concerned as I am because they have good jobs with good working conditions that allow them to live in dignity and be consumers and thereby participate in the economic development of their community and region.

Who does this benefit? We must understand who will benefit from this measure. Some time ago, the government undertook a strategic review of Canada Post. The government reviewed all of Canada Post's activities and, as a result of its analysis, made a number of recommendations. One of these was to revisit the exclusive privilege of Canada Post in the area of international remailing.

However, the strategic review did not indicate the negative consequences for Canada Post of deregulation, even partial deregulation. It was also unclear whether partial deregulation would permit remailers to directly or indirectly attack Canada Post's exclusive privilege within Canada.

They are opening up a crack in order to challenge the exclusive privilege of Canada Post with respect to international mail. However, this may be just the first step. In fact, the entire issue of postal operations within Quebec and Canada may be next.

The Bloc Québécois believes that this bill will weaken Canada Post by eliminating some of its revenue sources. This situation could speed up its desire to regroup the distribution of mail in certain areas, which would result in cuts to home mail delivery to many Quebeckers as well as potential job losses.

I will conclude my speech by stating that, for the Bloc Québécois, it is important to maintain this universal public service and uniform rates throughout Quebec and Canada.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for a terrific speech on this matter. I have a feeling he wants to say a few more words on this subject.

However, I want to point out to him that the member for Hamilton Mountain, when she made her speech on Bill C-9 the other day, did point out that the bill under a different number was initially introduced by a Liberal MP, perhaps when they were in government. That was news and a surprise to me. Then the current government took up the torch and carried it forward under Bill C-14 and Bill C-44, knowing that it would never pass because of members like the member for Burnaby—New Westminster who would dig his heels in and make sure it did not get passed. The Conservatives put it in this omnibus bill, which is a treacherous way to approach an issue like this.

Would the member like to continue his explanation of why the bill should be severed and not proceeded with?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. It is interesting that some of the final comments to the previous speaker were about the Liberal position vis-à-vis the exclusive privilege at Canada Post. That is a nice segue, a nice place for me to begin, because that is going to be the focus of my remarks.

What was previously known as Bill C-14 and Bill C-44 is now incorporated into the budget implementation bill, basically making it an omnibus bill. They have stuffed everything they can possibly legally manage and think of in there in the hope that one vote gets a whole bunch of things passed.

One of the cute things for the Liberals in this particular bill is that when Bill C-14 first arrived, the Liberal critic at the time was very clear. They were in favour of this bill and they were opposed to maintaining the exclusive privilege, without any question. Then the bill came back with a new number, but very little else changed. I am not really sure what the new critic for the Liberals said. They sort of modified it a bit.

When my colleague asked a very specific question about support, the answer was about process. They were playing games particularly with the union in this regard and in terms of conversations they were having with them, because of course the organization that represents the 55,000 people who provide our important, crucial, efficient mail service cares about this issue.

The Liberals got some heat from the first go-around, so what did they do in the second go-around? They made up some kind of nonsense about how they were going to help the workers when it got to committee. When it got to committee, they would roll up their sleeves and be there for the workers. The difficulty is that the Bloc was already on record as being opposed to both bills and so were we. This means that, had the Liberals taken a position that said they were opposed to the bill, we could have killed the bill and there would not be any committee for anybody to roll up sleeves at and play games.

We are hearing the same thing again. As I understand it, and things change over there a lot, they are going to roll in a minimal number of members to technically vote against it. However, by not bringing in enough members to actually win the vote, the government will get what it wants. Bill C-9, the budget implementation act, moves on to committee. Tagging along like a trailer hitched to the back is a little issue that the government is hoping nobody will pay any attention to, and that is the issue of Canada Post and the exclusive privilege.

We have been around and around on this issue. What is frustrating is that something has happened during the tenure of the government. Let us understand where we are. The law right now says Canada Post has exclusive privilege to all mailing, full stop. Canada Post is not obligated or mandated under the Canada Post Corporation Act to solely be there as a cash cow to make money. It is quite the contrary. The act spells out that it is there to provide a similar service across the country at the same price to every Canadian, and it makes sure they charge reasonable fees for doing that.

Let me just say what an undertaking that is. Canada is the second-largest country by land mass on the planet, and we are promising to deliver mail to the farthest corners of this huge country at the same price as we charge for halfway across downtown Toronto. We do it efficiently and the workers there do a great job. It is not perfect, but nothing is. However, when we look at this and compare it to other countries and the challenges, they do an excellent job.

All of a sudden, these private entities take a look over there. They are eyeballing Canada Post, as they do all the time. They are looking at the money to be made and they are saying that they want a piece of this action. So they just step right in and start getting involved in the international remailing issue. Canada Post reminded them it is against the law. To make a long story short, these private entities took Canada Post to court. They lost. They appealed. This is where it gets interesting.

On May 8, 2007, when the panel ruled on behalf of the Ontario Court of Appeal, this is what the judge said:

The purpose of the statutory privilege can only be to enable CP to fulfill its statutory mandate or realize its objects. It is meant to be self-sustaining financially while at the same time providing similar standards of service throughout our vast country. Profits are realized in densely populated areas which subsidize the services provided in the more sparsely populated areas.

It sounds like a great Canadian idea. That was to support the law. That means the work that these international remailers were doing remains illegal. It remains illegal this second as I stand here. So the government's intent is to change the law. If their buddies cannot win in the courts, the beauty of being the government is to change the law so the courts have no choice but to rule in the way it wants.

In fact, on July 25, 2006, the Conservative minister responsible said:

The activities of international remailers cost Canada Post millions of dollars each year and erodes the Corporation's ability to maintain a healthy national postal service and provide universal services to all Canadians.

What changed? It was illegal to start with. They went to court and lost. They went to the Court of Appeal and lost. The Conservative government in 2006 said it was standing by the exclusive privilege. What changed? I think what changed was that friends of friends got talking here and there. I am not suggesting anything illegal. I do not know enough of the details to make that charge. I would not say it was not, but I would not say it was. Anyway, discussions took place and the government had an epiphany. Conservatives woke up one day and said they had been wrong, the previous government was wrong, the courts were wrong, the strategic review in 1996 was wrong; they needed to sell off part of Canada Post and at the same time have their backbenchers make speeches about no privatization of Canada Post and hope that no one followed the details enough to know that they really were starting to privatize Canada Post. That is what is going on.

The Liberals are going along with it. We are going to have a couple of opportunities, if the Liberals want to suggest that what I have put forward is not accurate. We are going to ask that the bill be severed and we are going to need support for that. We have the votes and we would hope that the Liberals would join with the Bloc and us in severing off this piece of Bill C-9 and at the very, very least, allow Canadians an opportunity to have some input before the government monkeys around with the financial stability of something as important as Canada Post, particularly when 55,000 Canadians and their families rely on those jobs. It is not there solely to create jobs. It is not there to be a cash cow. It is meant to do exactly what it is doing, and that is why this change ought not to happen. It is wrong. It is not in the interests of Canada Post. It is not in the interests of the workers there and it is not in the interests of Canada. So we ask the Liberals to finally get off the fence, join with us, get it severed and let us kill this sucker before it kills Canada Post.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, previously bills C-14 and C-44 were before the House, and they contained provisions to destroy the Canada Post legal monopoly on mailings going outside Canada. What it would do to Canada Post would be devastating. As a result, either our postage is going to go up or there will be massive layoffs in this privatization move.

I do not know where the Liberal Party stands. The hon. member said she is opposed to the privatization of Canada Post, but the provision is in this budget implementation bill, Bill C-9, and her party is about to allow this bill to pass.

Which is it? Does she support the privatization of Canada Post or does she not? If she does not support it, then why are they allowing this bill to pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-9, the so-called jobs and economic growth act, but based on my reading of it, I believe it needs a new title. This rather large tome is short on potential for jobs and growth and long on gimmicks, fee increases and a lot of challenges.

The bill does not address some of the key issues of importance to Canadians, such as child care and pensions. It does not assist small business to encourage job growth. It does not address the requirement for future economic success. It does not address the skills shortage, nor does it encourage lifelong learning. Bill C-9 does not focus on productivity and does not focus too heavily on innovation.

What the budget did do was increase moneys for the Privy Council Office for ministerial advice. It continues the deep investments in government advertising. I guess government ads will be showing up during the Academy Awards and the Super Bowl in the future. This bill funds a record number of ministers, and we all know how that is going.

This bill ensures another huge deficit after 11 straight surpluses. The Conservatives formed government and within a couple of years the country was back in deficit. At the same time the bill does not provide security for Canadians in tough economic times. This bill fails to improve the lives of Canadians. It fails to ensure economic security. It fails to ensure job growth.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, there are some 400,000 more unemployed today than in 2008. Youth unemployment is double the average national unemployment rate. There have been several reductions in manufacturing shift hours, which means less take home income and a lower standard of living. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we are 4.5% behind where we should be in terms of job growth.

What did the Conservative government do? It laid out a plan that would raise employment insurance premiums by 35% over the next four years. This payroll tax would cost a two-earner family $900, and a small business with 10 employees $9,000 more.

This bill would also impose an increased charge for air traveller security. The cost of an airplane ticket will rise. For a domestic one-way trip the fee of $4.90 will rise to $7.48, a $2.58 increase. A domestic round trip fee will rise from $9.80 to $14.96, a $5.16 increase. The fee for trans-border trips will increase from $8.34 to $12.71, a $4.37 increase. The fee for other international trips will rise from $17.00 to $25.91, an $8.91 increase. This will raise about $1.5 billion in revenue over the next five years. That is quite a substantive fee increase.

I live on the island of Newfoundland. There are only two ways to get off the island of Newfoundland, either by plane or by ferry. We know what the government is doing with respect to air travel security. We know there is going to be an increase. To get off the island of Newfoundland, there are going to be increased costs.

On the other side of things, in order to get off the island of Newfoundland and Labrador I could drive and get the ferry at Port aux Basques. Marine Atlantic is a crown corporation. In the budget a small amount of money has been set aside to have additional capacity on this ferry. This small amount is a pebble in the ocean of requirements for Marine Atlantic.

The Auditor General produced a report which indicated that over $1 billion was required to ensure that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador had adequate service and to ensure effective and timely capacity so that the transportation of goods and services is efficient and effective and available. During certain times of the year grocery stores hang a sign saying, “Sorry the boat didn't get in”. In this day and age that is simply not acceptable.

I am concerned about this budget. There are several other things in Bill C-9.

There is some mention of pensions. The government is going to increase the maximum solvency ratio for pension plans from 110% to 125%, allowing for more overfunding. However, during the briefing on Bill C-9 the financial officials suggested there would not be many pension plans in a position to take advantage of this extra room. This is an overfunding of pension plans. I wish there were more businesses in a position to overfund their pension plans so that we could ensure that people who pay into their pensions actually have them at the end of their working lives when they retire.

For the second year in a row the government is using the budget bill to weaken environmental laws. We have this tome, as I said earlier, and buried in it is a change to ensure there will be some weakening of the federal environmental laws. This is not acceptable. If the government is going to change environmental laws, there should be full disclosure so that we can have a discussion and debate.

Also buried in this very large bill are changes to Canada Post. Bill C-9 removes the exclusive privilege of Canada Post to deliver mail outside Canada, allowing remailers to collect and transport mail to a foreign country. This is being done through the back door because it would not have been allowed through the front door.

In previous sessions of Parliaments the Conservatives tabled Bill C-14 and Bill C-44 to try to do just that. Now they have included it in this budget implementation bill. It should not be in this large bill. It should have a full discussion. It should go through the proper process. It should have a full review, complete disclosure. There should be complete democracy actually. People should be able to debate it and bring forward their ideas on how improvements could be made, or simply express their concerns with regard to remailers.

There is a lot in this rather large document that does not necessarily work for Canadians. It does not necessarily give the kind of economic security that Canadians are looking for.

We are coming out of a very difficult economic time. We still have a situation where, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said, over 400,000 people are still without work. We have been talking about this in Parliament.

Yes, the bill puts in place a second phase of the economic stimulus package and that is going forward.

My view on this bill is that a lot more should have been done to ensure Canada's position for the future. In my riding I have talked to a number of people. A lot more should have been done to ensure that we have the economic security that we require as Canadians, to have a vision.

KAIROS is an organization that did international development work. Sadly, its funding was cut by the government. For 35 years that organization did some great work worldwide. At the same time we see increases in advertising. I guess there is a disconnect between what Canadians want and what the government is prepared to allow to go forward.

This is a stay the course budget that is on the wrong course. I believe that Canadians deserve better. I believe that Canadians want better. I would be remiss if I did not say there is a lot in this bill that should be taken out, debated, disclosed and discussed in other ways.

Again, I appeal to the government and say there are things we should be addressing in this country. We take our international development work quite seriously. We take the needs of Canadians for health care and pensions quite seriously. It is time for us to buckle down and do just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly interested in the member's comments about tax havens. There is a provision in this 880-page Bill C-9 that deals with ensuring the provisions of the Criminal Code that apply to serious crimes related to money laundering and terrorist financing are invoked in cases of tax evasion prosecuted under Canada's tax statutes.

I would like to be able to ask questions of government members, but we cannot find any government speakers. There have not been any for the last couple of days on this bill. I am not certain whether or not there is an application in the bill that deals with the tax haven issue.

Interestingly enough, at this point the government is offering an amnesty to people involved in tax haven activities. It is basically a risk-free endeavour for the people doing it. We were only seeing this happen recently. There is a lot of activity of people involved in tax havens asking for amnesty. Some computer disks were sold, I believe it was by an employee of one of the Swiss banks, to the German government so that it could chase down German citizens who were involved in tax havens. When Canadians read about this, they started rushing forward to declare their income on the money invested in these tax havens. This is not going to discourage it if we are offering amnesty.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity, brief as it is, to enter into the debate on Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, this massive tome that I hold before me today. My only regret is that I will not have the time to adequately go through many of my strongly-held views on the inadequacy of this particular document.

Let me begin my remarks by sharing with the House the content of a speech that I once heard by a civil rights leader in the United States. He began by saying that if there are five children and only three pork chops, the solution is not to kill two of the children and neither is it the solution to divide those three pork chops into five equal pieces because then all of the children go to bed hungry and none of them have enough to eat.

The social democratic point of view, as well as my own, is to challenge the whole idea that there are only three pork chops and to challenge the whole myth or lie, as it were, that in the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world, we cannot provide for the basic needs of a family to not only survive but to flourish.

This introduces the theme, in the few minutes that I have today, that Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, fails Canadians in the most fundamental ways because a budget implementation bill is an opportunity for the redistribution of wealth in this country and speaks volumes about the priorities of the ruling party that crafted the budget and the implementation bill.

I am trying not to overstate things, but there has been an undeniable and recognized trend in recent years of the shift of wealth from the middle and working classes to a smaller and smaller elite of the very wealthy. This budget document does nothing to ameliorate this shift of wealth, what I argue is the redistribution of wealth, against the best interests of ordinary Canadians. In fact, it exacerbates the problem. It compounds that trend.

I will perhaps only have time to dwell on what I believe is an obvious argument to make my case. Within this document is found the argument that dealing with poverty or bringing seniors out of poverty through dealing with inadequate pensions, et cetera, is somehow a structural deficit and, therefore, the government cannot go there. Yet, giving permanent corporate tax cuts to the extent of $15 billion is viewed as a necessary investment in the economy.

How did we ever come to such a perverse view of the distribution of wealth in this country that lifting seniors out of poverty is viewed as a structural deficit that we cannot allow ourselves to enter into and yet, in fact, going even further, borrowing money to give permanent tax cuts to corporations is viewed as an investment in the economy? Nowhere can anyone find a single study that proves beyond doubt that giving corporate tax cuts leads to job creation. It simply does not exist. I challenge and defy people to show me the direct evidence that giving yet another corporate tax cut will create jobs in Canada and can, therefore, be viewed as an investment.

This is all an elaborate hoax, in my view. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accuse the neo-conservative mindset of perpetrating an elaborate, deliberate hoax on the Canadian people to further what I believe is a nonsensical argument that corporate tax cuts will produce the results claimed. It is a leap of faith that is not warranted. It was not even warranted when there was a budgetary surplus and now we have to borrow money to give another $15 billion away.

I will give one example of how wrong-headed this is. It is a point made by the leader of my party, the member for Toronto—Danforth, to our recent NDP convention in Manitoba. He and our party costed out what it would cost to lift every Canadian senior citizen up to the poverty line. There are approximately 450,000 Canadian seniors living below the poverty line. The cost of elevating every one of those seniors just to the poverty line would be $700 million. That is less than one-fifteenth of the corporate tax cuts that are inherent within this budget.

The leader of the NDP went to the Prime Minister with this very argument, suggesting the government put the brakes on these tax cuts for a year or two. Given that we are in an economic recession and we want to get money out there quickly, one way that we can stimulate the economy and achieve a secondary objective as well is to put more money in the hands of poor seniors. They would spend the money immediately and they would spend it in the right places, in the local economy. It would be in circulation the very next day at a cost of $700 million, not an insignificant amount of money but it pales in comparison to the $15 billion that the government contemplates giving in corporate tax cuts.

That is how wrong-headed it is, and one of the reasons that so many of these Conservative absurdities actually become government policy is the intellectual veneer that is applied to them by right-wing think-tanks that, in fact, are bought and paid for by the same people whose special interests are being served by this reasoning and this logic.

Again, I challenge the reasoning. I challenge the logic behind this spending. I am frustrated in my tone perhaps, but somebody has to sound the alarm. Somebody has to blow the whistle on this trend.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day on a car that said, “At least the war on the middle class is going well”. In fact, working people, or those from the middle class on down in the economic spectrum, are feeling the pinch. It is not their imagination. Canadians should be comforted to know that it is not their imagination that it is harder and harder to make ends meet. It is true, and this is the predictable consequence of economic policies and economic trends that, in fact, leave less money in the pockets, transferring this wealth, once again concentrating this wealth, in the hands of people who do not even necessarily have the best interests of the country at heart, who do not even reinvest in Canada.

When given the opportunity, again I challenge anyone to show me the empirical evidence that these tax cuts create jobs in Canada. More often than not, that money is transferred to these corporations in the form of tax cuts and there are no strings attached. They could invest in an offshore plant. They could actually lay off 1,000 workers in the same year that we are giving them money. The irony is that these tax cuts are not going to the very businesses that do need some help and support. Because of its nature as an income tax break, it is only businesses that are showing profits that are benefiting from these particular tax breaks.

It is just wrong-headed and the leader of my party was right to appeal to the Prime Minister, to urge him, even if he cannot see fit to cancel this round of even further corporate tax cuts, to delay them or cut them in half, reduce them, use some of that money for something more strategic that would, in fact, elevate the living standards of the people who gave us their confidence, who sent us here to advocate on their behalf.

I was shocked to learn that 450,000 seniors are living below the poverty line in this country. I believe that if we had used $700 million to address their specific needs, it would have put more money into circulation and it would have been the moral thing to do.

Let me perhaps spend the last minute that I have to comment on the last article of this 450-some-odd page tome, which is the final straw in the wholesale theft of the $57 billion surplus of the EI fund.

I have been speaking on this for the better part of 10 years. When someone deducts money from workers' paycheques for a specific purpose and then uses it for something entirely different and denies them the benefits they were guaranteed when it was taken off their cheques, that is wholesale fraud. It is not only misleading; it is fundamentally wrong. That is $57 billion that would have given us the fiscal capacity to address our social programs. It has been eliminated and gobbled up and used for different things—

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation act. I would like to spend my time talking about some of the things that are in the bill but also about some of the things that are not in the bill and things that should be discussed.

I certainly appreciate the comments of my colleague across the way and thank her very much for those comments.

Let me talk about a couple of things that are in the budget that will create hardships not just for people in Thunder Bay—Rainy River in northwestern Ontario, but right across northern Ontario and other regions across the country. There is the increase of 50% in security fees in the airline tax. That is one of those hidden things that people will be hit with. There is the HST on financial services. We have talked about some of the problems with that before. Another is employment insurance.

Employment insurance is of particular interest to our party, to me and to our member from New Brunswick who is the critic in that area. The budget implementation bill empties the employment insurance account which held a surplus of roughly $57 billion. That was money paid by workers and employers which had built up over many years. The bill empties that account once and for all.

People talk about the budget being a budget that says nothing. There are a number of things in it that we need to be aware of.

There is very little said about pensions. I suspect that the Minister of Finance who is now going across the country will be getting an earful about pensions. We know where pensions need to go in this country. We are really in the dark ages as far as pensions are concerned. The NDP has a plan and we put it forward. The Minister of Finance is aware of what we are talking about regarding reforming the pension system.

I will make a quick plug for Bill C-501 which will be coming up for debate next month. It is a bill that moves workers' pensions from unsecured into secured status. It is a very simple, straightforward bill. I am hoping that everyone in the House will support it, including my colleagues from Saskatchewan and other places whom we try to co-operate with as much as possible. I am sure we will find some common ground on Bill C-501 and will be able to push it through very quickly to protect workers.

Imagine a country where workers and employers who paid into pension funds actually get the money back in the case of bankruptcy. That is what the bill would do. I certainly hope that members will support it.

I do not want to be completely negative when I talk about the budget. The budget extends the mineral exploration tax credit for another year, which is good. I am glad that the government has done that. The government is at least taking a couple of steps forward to fight contraband cigarettes with a new stamping regime which is a good thing. The budget also enacts certain payments to some charities, for example the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, the Rick Hansen Foundation and others. That is also a good thing.

Let me move from examining the propaganda in the budget speech to the nuts and bolts of Bill C-9. We see that the Conservative government continues to sell out our long-term interest for questionable short-term gains.

I was not surprised to see many items in Bill C-9, the HST payment to McGuinty's Liberals for example, a freeze on MPs' salaries and office budgets and huge corporate tax cuts. These were all expected.

Buried deep in the 904 pages of legal jargon that is Bill C-9 there are also provisions that eliminate the need for environmental assessments for stimulus projects, enable the sale of crown assets like Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and increase the export tariff penalty for Canadian forestry producers.

Given that we are blessed with a beautiful and relatively pristine natural environment in northwestern Ontario, I am very concerned that environmental assessments will no longer need to be completed before infrastructure stimulus projects get under way.

While the Canadian economy is in desperate need of public investment, northwestern Ontario is in desperate need of new roads and highways right through the region. I would rather have a month or two delay on these projects so as to ensure that they comply with existing environmental regulations and do not have negative long-term effects on our natural environment, which many families in our region depend upon for their economic well-being.

Just as it does not make sense to cancel environmental assessments in the name of short-term economic stimulus, it also makes little sense to sell off profitable crown corporations and crown assets when we are facing many years of large fiscal deficits.

In the case of AECL, Bill C-9 lays the groundwork for the selling off of particular assets or of the company as a whole, even though the company is one of the world's largest producers of nuclear technology and brings in millions of dollars each year through the sale and licensing of its cutting-edge technology. Would it not make more sense to halt the $100 million ad campaign the Conservatives are using to promote their budget? Imagine $100 million being spent on ads to promote themselves; the Conservatives are using that to promote their budget supposedly.

How about reducing the $60 billion in corporate tax cuts before selling off a proven long-term money maker? The answer is obvious but the government has never shown an ability to look beyond the next poll when it comes to its decision making.

Perhaps the most troubling detail contained in the fine print of Bill C-9 is the acceptance and enforcement of the London Court of International Arbitration ruling that Canadian forest companies owe $68 million to their U.S. counterparts, $68.26 million to be exact, due to an unintentional violation of the softwood lumber agreement. In fact, the unintentional violation is the government's fault. To comply with this ruling, the Conservative government included a provision in Bill C-9 that increases the export tariff on softwood lumber products from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan by 10% immediately.

When one subtracts the paltry $25 million in new forest sector investment that is also contained in the budget, Canada's forestry sector will actually be forced to pay out $43 million in new taxes and tariffs this year just as it begins to emerge from a catastrophic decade-long downturn. It makes no sense. At the very least, since the tribunal has already ruled, the government should be on the hook, not forest companies that are struggling to manage and are just starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

It is a horrible situation in Bill C-9, eliminating the need for environmental assessments on infrastructure projects and selling off profitable assets while running massive long-term deficits.

I talked about AECL. Also contained in Bill C-9 is the beginning, the thin edge of the wedge, in starting to dismantle Canada Post. Think of all the fine public sector workers who have good jobs, work hard, are paid well and have pensions at the end of their time. There is nothing wrong with people working hard, getting paid well, raising their families and having a little pension when they get to the end of their working lives. There is nothing wrong with that, but the government is making it more and more difficult for people in Canada to do that.

Surely Bill C-9 will go down as one of the most shortsighted and misguided budget documents ever before the House of Commons. Should the Liberals and Conservatives band together to pass this bill, as they did with the HST, then both parties must share the blame for the substantial damage that it is likely to cause to the long-term economic and environmental interests in our region.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

An implementation bill often contains fine print. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. The government often tries to slip in certain measures in implementation bills that it did not announce in the budget. These measures end up in the overall bill, as do all the technicalities and all the details on implementing the budget. Everything must be read very carefully because often the government tries to pull a fast one, as is the case in this bill.

Fortunately, this poses no problem to the Bloc Québécois since it was already against the budget, which in no way meets the needs of Quebec in a context of economic crisis and the crisis in the forestry and manufacturing sectors. Obviously we will be voting against the budget implementation bill.

I have discovered that the budget says nothing at all about the restriction on Canada Post’s exclusive privilege that the implementation bill would introduce. Once that measure is implemented, it will allow exporters of letters to collect letters in Canada and transport and deliver them abroad. That means that Canada Post’s competitors will be able to collect mail in Canada and Quebec and then ship it outside Canada.

The people in the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have been publicly calling on the government for a long time to preserve jobs in this sector. Instead of listening to them, the government has proposed a measure that will end Canada Post’s exclusive privilege.

On June 17, 2009, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-44 to eliminate international mail from Canada Post’s exclusive privilege. The bill, which made it to second reading, died on the order paper because the House was prorogued. It died, like all other government bills.

So they decided to short-circuit the democratic process. They put that measure in the budget implementation bill. That shows the insidious nature of the Conservative government and its real intention to completely deregulate this crown corporation.

The people in our various ridings, particularly in rural regions, are continually lobbying for the survival of postal services as we know them today. This is not a matter of closing your eyes and thinking there should be no change in the services. But we know how governments work. I say governments because the Liberals did the same thing in their time. They were closing post offices in the regions left and right, saying they weren’t profitable. But we have the evidence that Canada Post is actually very profitable.

We have to accept that the services we receive in the regions must be paid for and that they may be less profitable than other services, but they do make it possible for a community to survive and keep its services. It is the same thing for schools and financial institutions. When those establishments close down, one after another, the regions lose their vitality and their population declines. These are services the public is entitled to. We pay for these services and governments use sleight of hand to reduce those services.

The Bloc Québécois is firmly opposed to privatizing Canada Post, even partially. This crown corporation must continue to be a public agency and maintain universal services with uniform rates throughout Quebec and Canada. When these services are eliminated, all rural regions suffer the same fate.

The change to the Employment Insurance Act is also not in the actual budget but in the implementation bill. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for substantial improvements in the employment insurance system.

A few examples of this would be to administer the system on the assumption that applicants are acting in good faith; increase the program's wage replacement rate to 60% of maximum insurable earnings; eliminate the much-discussed waiting period; standardize the qualification requirements for benefits at 360 hours of work; calculate benefits on the basis of the 12 best weeks of insurable earnings; expand the right of recipients to continue receiving benefits while receiving training; and make self-employed workers eligible for regular benefits.

More generally, we believe that the government should submit a plan for reimbursing the funds diverted to its own accounts from the employment insurance fund. It should also drop its obvious intention to loot this fund once again; the fund does not belong to the government.

We are very concerned about certain provisions in the implementation bill. The Conservatives’ 2008 budget established a new crown corporation, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, reporting to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. This board’s duties included administering a separate bank account. Any annual surpluses in the employment insurance fund were supposed to be retained and invested until needed to cover the costs of the program.

Budget 2010 closes the board’s separate bank account, the EI account, and creates a new one, the employment insurance operating account.

They are permanently eliminating the accumulated surpluses in the EI account, effective retroactively to January 1, 2009. This account will therefore no longer exist and will be replaced by the employment insurance operating account, which will start from zero. The EI surpluses, amounting to more than $57 billion on March 31, 2009, according to the Public Accounts of Canada, will disappear for good.

We very much regret the fact that there is no mention of the reforms needed to make employment insurance more accessible. That is a real problem. Most people who contribute to employment insurance do not necessarily qualify for it.

My colleague from Compton—Stanstead spoke about the situation of women, who are especially affected. They are the least able to access employment insurance. It is nearly as bad for young people. People contribute to EI but are not entitled to the fruits of their labour, that is to say, benefits. When someone loses his or her job and has paid into the system, that person should have benefits for a little time before finding another job. Unfortunately, though, some people cannot even get employment insurance benefits.

Furthermore, lifting the freeze on premium rates will not improve the system. The government will not hesitate to pilfer $19 billion from the employment insurance fund between 2011 and 2015.

When the Conservatives were the official opposition, they, like the other opposition parties, publicly criticized the pillaging of the employment insurance fund by the Liberals who were in power at the time. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin, when he was finance minister, was mandated by Jean Chrétien to get Canada's finances in order. He did two things: he pilfered from the EI fund and cut transfers to provinces.

The Conservatives were highly critical of these measures. They took power a few years later, and are now pilfering $19 billion from the EI fund themselves. For that reason alone, we must vote against the budget implementation bill.

Between 2011-12 and 2014-15, the government has estimated the surplus at $19.2 billion. With the 2010 budget, the government will be able to pocket these surpluses.

In order to generate these surpluses, the government plans on increasing premium rates by 15¢ a year, as of 2011, as permitted under the act. However, I must note that the increase will be suggested by the EI Financing Board, which we find very worrisome.

I will talk about other changes we found in the implementation bill, such as an amendment to the Banking Act, which will enable credit unions to incorporate as banks

I have just mentioned some aspects of the implementation bill that show that this government has tried to slip in some completely unacceptable measures. The people of Quebec are calling on us to vote against this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak briefly to Bill C-9, the budget bill, and what this means to most Canadians.

My constituents of Don Valley East are concerned, as in general this budget has very little positive impact on the average Canadian. Instead they feel the budget is providing businesses greater profits on the backs of average hard-working Canadians. For example, the budget does not provide any real relief for the unemployed or any hope for those who are in imminent danger of losing their employment.

Currently 1.5 million Canadians have lost their jobs and more will lose their jobs due to the inaction of the government. Young people are especially vulnerable. The current unemployment rate for youths is 16%, the highest it has ever been. The government needs to develop a strategy to get these Canadians back to work. It is very simple. If people work, they can spend and with that spending, they can enhance the economy.

The one thing the government has boasted about is the stimulus plan, the economic action plan. I would like to do a reality check on the action plan. So far the stimulus plan of the government has only created photo opportunities for ministers, a feel-good advertising campaign, which is all talk and no show, and false promises of jobs.

The question being asked by many Canadians is this. Where are the jobs that the government claims it is creating, the full-time well-paying jobs? A reality check, after the first year of the stimulus plan, is there are very few full-time well-paying jobs for Canadians.

The minister responsible for infrastructure and his officials are unable to verify either how much of the stimulus money has been spent or the numbers of jobs that have actually been created. How could they? They do not track the job numbers. The question my constituents are asking is this. Where are the thousands of jobs that the government is claiming it has created?

We understand the government spent about $250 million on advertising. How much did it spend on job creation? It was $9.4 million. If one does the math, the proportion is 1:25, $1 on job creation, $25 on advertising. That does not create jobs. The government needs to be more strategic in job creation and needs to spend less on advertising.

To add insult to injury, we have learned that more than $1 billion of this stimulus plan in the last budget did not even leave the federal coffers. How can that be possible? By not spending the money, the government can claim it managed the deficit. Talk about manipulating the public. How can Canadians trust it?

The government also lacks an economic antenna and fiscal credibility. Just last October, the Prime Minister claimed there was no recession, no economic crisis. The Prime Minister claimed that he would never create a deficit. It just goes to show that the Conservatives have never balanced a budget. The last time they did it was during the time of Prime Minister Borden, which was when the Titanic sank.

What are some suggestions that the government can do? It could extend the home renovation tax credit, with a new emphasis on energy efficiency and retrofit and build affordable housing for Canadians across the land. These are really the social determinants of the health of Canadians.

The government could invest in eco-energy retrofits and research and development to create value-added jobs. Canada has the technology and the know-how, but it needs a government to provide a conducive environment, not a government that cannot think beyond ideology, like it did with the Avro.

The government has a reverse-Midas touch. It kills everything that is good and progressive for Canadians, like the popular eco-energy retrofit program.

It is also a well-known fact that the most effective economic multipliers that provide stimulus are infrastructure. For every dollar that is invested, $1.60 comes back. In housing, the yield is $1.50 per $1 investment. Investing in the unemployed gives back $1.60.

Instead of doing the logical thing, what does the government do? It brings in a payroll tax. Increasing EI premiums, which is a payroll tax, kills jobs and is not an efficient way for the government to collect revenues. Canadians cannot figure out how the government can be so economically obtuse. A payroll tax of $13 billion to small and medium-sized enterprises is not an incentive for businesses to create jobs.

Officials from finance tell us that a percentage change in GDP equals approximately $16 billion and that its impact on job creation is around 0.6%. This means that $16 billion would create 96,000 jobs. However, the government's investment is only one-quarter of that, so how can it claim it is creating thousands of jobs? This is a plain falsehood.

One of the biggest losers of the stimulus program has been the women. They have not benefited from the stimulus package. Women have only seen a small part of the action in the Conservative government's economic action plan.

As the federal government rolled out the budget, a new study by Queen's University Professor Kathleen Lahey argued that men were seeing a disproportionate share of the benefits of Ottawa's record spending over the past years. Professor Lahey says that the top question for the government this week should be what budget 2010 will do to ensure that women receive a fair share of the benefits of these costly initiatives. Women have only seen a small part of the action in the Conservative government's economic action plan.

The study notes that of the $9.4 billion spent to date on stimulus, only $572,475, that is, 0.00006%, has gone to upgrade women's shelters, when nearly triple that amount has been committed to upgrading three animal shelters in Canada. While the care of animals is something very close to my heart, I believe the care of abused women should take precedence.

As I mentioned previously, the government has decided to massively increase EI premiums in 2011 for both the employees and employers. This impacts women and youth who are trying to seek employment or getting back into the workforce. How imposing a payroll tax helps stimulate the economy boggles one's mind.

The government also has proven itself to be an incompetent fiscal manager. In 2006 it inherited a $13.2 billion surplus, which carried over to the following year to about $9 billion. Today we find ourselves with a $56 billion deficit. When we add that up, it works out to over $70 billion in three and a half years that we have lost. That is shameful. If the government can claim it is an economic manager, I shudder to think what it would do next.

The government is putting a burden on every Canadian adult and child to the tune of $3,000, a burden on some who have not even started walking, let alone working.

What does the government have to show for this massive mismanagement of finance? There is nothing for seniors, women or the unemployed. There is no social housing, nothing for the homeless, older workers or informal caregivers.

What about the environment? Yesterday we learned that Alberta was facing a huge shortage of water. Why? Because of the lack of rain and snow. Climate change is a science that the Conservative government still refuses to accept.

What about R and D? The government let the space agency funds lapse and got rid of the government's leading scientists.

The budget does nothing for most Canadians. It is truly unfair to those who are most vulnerable and who care about the environment or the future. It affects the public service and programs of Canadians. The budget reinforces my belief that Conservatives are not here for average Canadians. They are only here for their ideological friends.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I will be debating Bill C-9.

The Bloc Québécois is against this bill, and I will explain why. I will also talk about what has been excluded from this budget.

First of all, my colleague from Hochelaga did a tour of all the ridings, including mine. During his visit, he met with various organizations: an organization representing women, another representing non-profit groups, farmers, employment insurance recipients, as well as experts on social housing and homelessness.

It was noted that the budget does not offer anything to women, who represent about 52% of the population. As women, they are responsible for the family. A number of single mothers must find housing on minimum wage or with minimal government assistance. These women need social housing assistance. Since no money is being invested in social housing to help these women, we are seeing increasing poverty.

It was clear that the gap between the rich and the poor will widen even more because of this Conservative budget. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

It is also clear that the majority of caregivers are women. Our employment insurance system allows them only eight weeks of special leave, which is not much. These women who decide to stay at home to help their family will lose their jobs or quit them temporarily. But being a caregiver does not come with a contract. No one can know whether the person being cared for will pass away within six weeks. It is impossible to know.

Furthermore, the court challenges program was very important to women, who cannot afford to pay lawyers $1,000 an hour to defend a job.

That is why we are against this budget, particularly because of its impact on women.

This budget is also silent on the subject of moneys owing. The government owes Quebec $2.2 billion for harmonizing its tax with the GST. Considering Quebec's latest budget, which is a controversial attempt to deal with some financial difficulties, I sincerely believe that if the government were to truly take its responsibilities and stop scorning the Quebec nation, it would transfer that $2.2 billion to the province. That money would pay for the social programs that Quebec has chosen to implement, such as $7-a-day daycare for single mothers who want to go back to work or return to their studies. That costs money. It provides direct assistance to women.

In general, women who have part-time jobs are eligible for employment insurance. If a person who earns $9 per hour three days a week gets 55% of her salary, she will be living below the poverty line. I have much more to say on the subject of women, but I will move on to other matters.

Our seniors are our library. These are the people who built our society, who educated us and who raised us. These people have been forgotten. I am talking about the guaranteed income supplement.

I meet women who are living off their old age pension, which is $500 per month. How is anyone supposed to pay for housing, food, clothing, electricity and medication on less than $7,000 per year?

Not helping these people spend their retirement years and the last years of their lives in dignity suggests a truly narrow vision. It is unacceptable. Stranger still is the fact that when these people owe the government money for taxes, it does not take long for the government to collect. However, when it comes to helping vulnerable people, most of whom are women, the government just forgets. Apparently, it is a little more complicated to help these people than it is to collect money from them.

Just as unacceptable is the discrepancy between what this government promised when it was in opposition and what it is doing now that it is in power. That is what we call selective memory.

They talk about voting for power. I have power from my electors, the power to defend their values and needs in the House, be it in terms of agriculture or otherwise.

We asked for just over $625 million for the agri-flex program. The government gave nothing. They are simply holding consultations, but meanwhile nothing is being fixed. While they are travelling around Canada visiting farms, nothing is being fixed.

It is the role of government, which the public trusts, to fix what is broken. If the Conservatives are not able to fix what is broken, they can just stand aside and let us have our own country. We will fix our problems without always having to be at the mercy of a centralizing government that does not share our values. It is not that our values are better or worse, they are simply different.

The government could have found other ways to get money. In 2008, when we came back after the election, the Minister of Finance said that Canada had no problems. I do not know what colour his glasses were, but all of a sudden everything changed. This is the same minister who was once Ontario's finance minister. Things did not go well at the provincial level either. I wonder if it is mere coincidence that this happened twice or is it just a lack of knowledge?

The Bloc is doing a thorough job. It visits its electors every week, every month and every year in order to find out what they need. It would have been easy enough to get money from tax havens, which are worth $3 billion. That amount would help many young families with limited means.

Also, Quebec's equalization payments should be restored. We pay 25% of the bill and the $3 billion would have been a tremendous help to Quebec. In addition, there is the $2 billion for the GST, and Hydro-Québec's $400 million still locked in the federal government's coffers. This money has not been returned to Quebec. All these items add up to $6, $7 or $8 billion. It is as though this money was owed. It is not an amount owing, it is a right. This money belongs to Quebec and must be returned to Quebec.

There is also the matter of Quebec's responsibilities, in health, for example. The population is aging. Money is being transferred in small doses, and is not flowing very quickly into the population. For that reason, we must make intelligent investments and the money we send to Ottawa must be returned. This is taxpayers' money, money from people in my riding. They are experiencing difficulties or are going bankrupt because the money is not being returned. They have to feed their families and pay their bills.

This bill will mainly help banks and the oil sands industry by providing tax credits to oil companies and all the rest. I find that unfair.

Quebec has chosen to provide social programs such as a child care program, among others. That is the choice that we have made and we cover the cost.

Government expenditures must be cut. The government says that it cut 245 positions, phantom jobs that were already empty. They are abolishing 245 jobs, but creating 300 others to manage other things. I may not be a mathematician, but I do know how to do the math. When you get rid of five people and then hire 300, that makes an additional 295 hires.

There is also a great deal of duplication. There are officials at the Quebec ministry of health and officials at the federal health department. This is something that should be looked at in order to better manage public funds.

I will leave some time for members to ask questions, which I welcome. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill and I am proud of that because it is not a good bill.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak against Bill C-9, which would bring into legislation a number of measures already announced in different ways and means motions or previous budget documents. It also spells out a number of measures originally presented as part of the most recent Speech from the Throne.

As the New Democrat consumer protection critic, I will devote the majority of my time to discussing the provisions contained within Bill C-9 that relate to the credit and debit industry. However before my analysis of the credit and debit sector provisions, I would first like to address two measures contained in Bill C-9 that are extremely concerning. The first is environmental assessments, and the second is the employment insurance fund.

With regard to environmental assessments, and in keeping with our party's concerns about the oil sands, the measures contained within Bill C-9 are very worrisome. If passed, Bill C-9 would exempt certain federally funded infrastructure projects from environmental assessments, going well beyond efforts by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to streamline the environmental assessment process.

Bill C-9 also would allow the minister of the environment to dictate the scope of environmental assessments. It would also weaken public participation and enable the removal of assessment of energy projects from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to the National Energy Board and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Eighteen months ago, the Conservatives came out with their now infamous economic and fiscal update. Within this update, they gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which had been in place for 100 years, and the Liberals supported them. Now the Conservatives are trying to finish what they started by doing away with environmental assessments for most projects that receive federal funding. Several provinces have rather weak legislation and no way to conduct real inspections and assessments. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was the only way some provinces could have an assessment done.

The second measure I would like to address, before going into my analysis of the credit and debit provisions, is the measure introduced regarding employment insurance. If passed, Bill C-9 would empty the employment insurance account, which held a surplus of roughly $57 billion, money paid by workers and businesses, built up over years of Liberal and Conservative rule. First the Liberals took the $57 billion from the employment insurance fund and transferred it to the government's general revenue fund, and now the Conservatives will finish off the job they admonished the Liberals for.

There is a fundamental difference between the employment insurance fund and the government's consolidated revenue fund. All Canadian companies and their employees have contributed to the employment insurance fund. If a company recorded a loss, it did not matter. It still had to contribute to the employment insurance fund. Only a company with enough profits to pay tax was required to fork over corporate taxes into the general revenue fund.

In other words, the same companies, primarily the forestry and manufacturing industries, which suffered greatly because of the high dollar, for example, that had not turned a profit and that did not have to pay tax, could not benefit from the $60 billion in tax cuts given to the most profitable companies, and yet each and every one of these companies paid for every single one of their employees and every employee contributed to the EI fund.

The manufacturing and forestry companies that were already suffering believed their contributions would be used for a very specific, precise and dedicated purpose. This means that those who paid, who suffered because of the high dollar, supported the rich, particularly those in the oil industry in western Canada.

Now I will move on to discuss the measures relating to the credit and debit industry in Canada. I would like to share with the House the opinions of various stakeholders in the credit and debit industry on the government's latest measures released in the budget.

The Credit Union Central of Canada appreciates the overall intent of the draft code as stated in its purpose. However, and that is a big however, it believes that the draft code should give additional consideration to protecting the interests of Canadian consumers, to ensure they are provided with transparency, flexibility and the opportunity to make an informed choice when using debit and credit services, and of course to preserve a competitive, balanced market that includes a strong Canadian-focused payments delivery channel, as provided by Interac.

The Credit Union Central of Canada continues by stating that the most significant concern of Canadian credit unions regarding the draft code is the combined potential of provisions 5 and 6. They negatively impact the future of Interac debit services and the viability of Interac itself. They believe that providing merchants with the ability to set priority routing for debit services will exacerbate the concerns put forward by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and that aggressive marketing practices and the dominant market positions of Visa and MasterCard may cause debit card processing fees to skyrocket and may ultimately lead to the end of Interac.

The CUCC believes that provisions 5 and 6, as currently written. will make it easier for Interac to be overwhelmed by targeted pricing strategies of the much larger international payment card networks. Provision 5 reads:

Merchants will be allowed to provide discounts for different methods of payment (e.g. cash, debit card, credit card). Merchants will also be allowed to provide differential discounts among different brands.

Depending on how this provision is interpreted and applied by merchants, consumers may find that it becomes hard to tell the difference between discounting and surcharging, particularly if there is no requirement for the discount to reflect or relate to the merchant's cost for the transaction or payment card network.

Provision 6 reads:

Merchants can decide whether they will accept multiple forms of debit card payment. In such a case, merchants can choose the lowest-cost option on transactions involving co-badged debit cards.

The draft code states:

When a consumer uses a co-badged debit card with a merchant who accepts both debit products on the card, the merchant will decide which debit payment option is used for the transaction.

By unintentionally facilitating a significant threat to the future viability of Interac, these provisions may ultimately hasten a reduction in competition and choice of debit services available to Canadian merchants, consumers and card issuers.

Canada's payment card industry is one of the most successful and stable models in the world, due in no small part to the unique role of Interac and its national infrastructure for the provision of debit card services. Interac has become a valuable national utility that Canadians trust and depend on to provide universal, cost-effective debit services and is uniquely positioned to design and deliver services suited to the Canadian markets and in the interests of Canadians.

The principle of protecting the public and consumer interest should be primary and should be reflected in the rules of conduct and operation for all parties involved in providing debit and credit services, including the payment card networks, card issuers, acquirers and merchants. We believe the draft code, as written, places consumers at a disadvantage. It does not acknowledge the consumer as an equal participant and party to debit and credit card transactions, and several of the code's provisions either do not adequately protect consumer interests or protect the interests of merchants at the expense of the consumer.

Option consommateurs, a not-for-profit association dedicated to the defence and promotion of consumers' rights, is also concerned about the adoption of the code of conduct for the debit and credit card industry. According to Option consommateurs, if adopted as is, the voluntary code would give more power to merchants, to the detriment of consumers.

It also argues that whenever consumers make a purchase, they must be able to freely and transparently choose their preferred payment method from among those offered by merchants. However, the voluntary code allows merchants to require the payment method of their choice.

Furthermore, the government should prohibit surcharging on the payment method in order to make it easier for consumers to compare prices.

In closing, the measures contained within Bill C-9, mainly the gutting of our employment insurance fund, the removal of environmental checks on government infrastructure projects and the implementation of a flawed code of conduct that would negatively impact consumers, are just some but definitely not all of the reasons why our party cannot support this budget.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

It is my pleasure to make a brief speech on behalf of the residents of greater Moncton, my riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, and the people of Atlantic Canada.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak to the budget on behalf of Atlantic Canadians. We are all in this place representing various areas of the country and I want to point out what is a glaring absence of any policy, of any care or of any words related to the hopes, the aspirations and the mere existence of Atlantic Canada.

In the budget speech we all received a document entitled, “Leading the Way on Jobs and Growth”, delivered by the Minister of Finance who, like many in this House, has Maritime roots, in fact New Brunswick roots, which I know he is proud of. Nonetheless, in his speech of some 19 pages there was not one word toward Atlantic Canada, which is what we might call exhibit A.

Second, we in Atlantic Canada laud our coastal brethren in the Pacific for their initiative with respect to the Pacific Gateway and we understand that it is vital to Canada's economic growth and future. I could probably speak for all members of the Atlantic Liberal caucus when I say that we are happy there was mention of and movement toward forming and making stronger the Pacific Gateway, but there was not one mention of the term “Atlantic gateway” in the budget speech, the Speech from the Throne or the budget documentation.

We have a right arm and a left arm. We have a ying and a yang. In this place, we represent a country with three coasts. Economically, we have a Pacific coast but we also have an Atlantic coast and that coast deserves and is acting on a provincial level toward the crystallization of an Atlantic gateway, both port-wise and inland. No one need take my word for it. There are various provincial governments of all political stripes. We have a whole rainbow of colours of governments in Atlantic Canada now. We have a provincial NDP government, a provincial Conservative government and provincial Liberal governments. It is not partisan when I say that there is good work being done by all provincial governments on the Atlantic gateway and yet the federal government appears not to want to mention anything of it in its recalibration document. In fact, there is no real effort toward sustaining or helping the Atlantic lobster fishery which is in crisis.

I want to take a few moments to speak to other entry point aspects. Moncton is an area that is clearly inland and it is the hub of the Maritimes. It is a transportation centre. For a long time, after being one of the first airports to be transferred to a private authority in Canada, has been at the cutting edge of having small or mid-sized community transportation issues made important. The Greater Moncton International Airport handles over 500,000 passengers a year. It puts itself into the same category, with the same aspirations, hopes and struggles, as places like Abbotsford, Charlottetown, Mont Tremblant, Fredericton, Saint John and Kelowna, the airports that are not, frankly, Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal.

There are challenges presented to those points of entry, which is why, in the budget document beginning at page 299, there is the strange term called “strategic review savings”. To many people, this might go unnoticed, but we need to be clear that those are cuts to budgets. If they were cuts to budgets of Air Force One and the PMO's plane, maybe we would not have a big problem, but they are cuts to things like CATSA, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. Those are the fine men and women who, until I suppose a month ago or so, were not very well-known until a certain visit by a former cabinet minister to Charlottetown. However, they are the people who administer security in our airports. They perform a very vital function in flowing traffic for commerce and ensuring security, which needs to be top of mind for all of us.

In the 2011-12 budget, $12 million will be cut to the services, followed by a further $15 million in 2012-13. The government gives lip service to the notion of airport security. When the focus should be on ensuring security personnel in our airports, the only safety measure the government is able to employ is body scanners and there is no indication that the body scanners will be deployed in mid-sized airports. It is of crucial importance to people, like I say, in Abbotsford, Charlottetown and Moncton to ensure the flow of passengers continues.

The presence of body scanners suffices for the government while it cuts personnel. How will that help on the issue of security and with respect to the flow of goods and persons on a commercial level? For many of the airports in Atlantic Canada, it will be crippling. Frankly, the government is abdicating its responsibility in this regard to protect Canadians. We can forget about commerce, Atlantic Canada gateways and the importance of emerging economies, the real point is that there is an offloading of the costs of security to the citizens.

While the government talks about tax decreases and easing the burden for Canadians, what is happening through this budget instrument is that the Conservative government, in claiming to prioritize security in Canada, is hiking airport security fees to the passengers while simultaneously reducing the budget by some $12 million to $15 million for CATSA, the agency providing security. In the end, the Canadian traveller will pay.

Canadians already pay up to $17 in security taxes per flight and the government is proposing to raise it on some flights by over $8. It may not sound like a lot but for some people travelling across this country it may be the difference between some people choosing to stay home, to not travel through an airport or not to use the Moncton airport, for instance, especially if there is one scanner employed for over 500,000 passengers. We do not know what the future holds but there is certainly no emphasis on small and medium-sized cities and their airports in this budget and, as I mentioned, not a word about the issue of the Atlantic gateway.

The government claims to care about Canadian security but it is cutting funding to CATSA and expecting taxpayers, Canadian citizens, to cover the shortfall. It is another instance of a hidden tax. It is another incidence of untruthfulness in a budget document. It does not even provide sufficient funding for airport security in terms of personnel and there will be cuts of people employed at Canada's airports.

Another issue with respect to security, an issue of importance to the Greater Moncton International Airport and other airports, is the work of the Canada Border Services Agency. The disregard for the security and safety of Canadians citizens shown in this budget has been furthered by the fact that the CBSA cuts, which total $6.5 million in this year and $54 million in 2011-12, show a complete disregard for the need for service at our airports and ports. How will CBSA deal with the budget cuts?

I want to know where the champions of Atlantic Canada are. Where are the Allan J. MacEachens? Where are the Don Jamiesons? Where are the Roméo LeBlancs? They are not in the House or in the government. They are not on the government side because Atlantic Canadians have been told, along the lines of a famous 1997 speech given by the prime minister, that Atlantic Canadians should come to the House and mind their spots. They should just mind their place, follow the rules and be quiet about their aspirations.

It is no longer time for Atlantic Canadians to accept the ignorance of the government toward their dreams and aspirations. It is no longer time for them to be quiet about the future of Atlantic Canada. It also is not time for the Government of Canada to omit the words “Atlantic Canadians” from a budget document. We will not stand for it and I urge all members of the House to take that to the government during the budget debate.

The House resumed from April 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. The Bloc Québécois took the preparations for this budget very seriously. We toured all over Quebec. We met with hundreds of economic players. We were very disappointed, after making suggestions to the government, that the Conservatives stuck with their habit of acting as though Quebec does not exist.

Once again, the Conservatives want to help their rich friends at the expense of the less fortunate and the workers. This bill shows the government's desire to spare the rich, including the banks and major corporations, at all costs and make the middle class and working class pay off the deficit.

The measures contained in this budget attest to this desire because corporations are not asked to contribute to raising government revenues, except for the lower interest rate to be paid by the Minister of National Revenue on tax overpayments by corporations.

The bill attests to the Conservative government's inertia with respect to the environment and the fight against greenhouse gases. Rather than attacking the sources of the problem, the government is ignoring the national and international pressure for a radical reduction in energy waste and implementation of tangible policies to promote the production of clean and renewable energy.

In addition, as a woman, I am personally outraged by the measures, particularly the lack of measures, for women in this bill. In fact, the Conservatives are denying the existence of more than half the population and the challenges they face. There is nothing for women in this bill. It is an unacceptable step backwards. And we know that women are often the poorest in our society and often head up single-parent households, which compounds their problems.

I would now like to speak about Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and isotopes. As the natural resources critic, I have serious concerns about Bill C-9, specifically part 18.

Conservatives, like the Liberals, have dragged their feet on medical isotope production. These isotopes are crucial to detecting and treating a number of serious diseases. Because the core of nuclear reactors is exposed to extremely high temperatures and radiation, NRU reactors must be rebuilt every 25 or 30 years; otherwise, they become too unstable and dangerous. Consequently, the Conservatives' failure to act forced the “temporary” closure of the Chalk River reactor in May 2009, leaving Quebec health care institutions and hospitals to their own devices and creating an unprecedented medical isotope crisis.

Quebec has been paying for the government's negligence and incompetence on this issue for nearly a year now. It will soon be a year since hospitals have had a guaranteed supply of medical isotopes. We have yet to see any money to cover the cost of what the Quebec government has had to pay to manage the crisis. Waiting lists are growing longer and doctors are becoming impatient. Quebeckers want a long-term solution so that we do not put any more lives in danger unnecessarily and so that patients can get the tests and treatments they need.

There have been many calls for help from doctors. What will it take to get the government to act? The Conservatives made a commitment to have the reactor up and running by August 2009. We have seen delay after delay, and now they are saying it will be up and running at the end of July 2010, a full year after it was shut down. It remains to be seen whether there will be more delays. Forgive me if I have doubt the Conservatives' word on this.

Jean-Luc Urbain, president of the Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine, predicted that patients would experience dark days waiting to receive diagnoses and treatment.

It is important to remember that it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited that owns and operates the Chalk River reactor. AECL is therefore responsible not only for producing isotopes for Canada, but for producing half the supply of medical isotopes in North America. It accounts for more than 30% of international production.

AECL manages the supply of isotopes, and it is no secret that the government is thinking of privatizing this crown corporation.

What is more, the government commissioned a study in February 2008 to set the corporation's long-term strategic direction. Part 18 of the budget implementation bill gives the federal government carte blanche to determine the corporation's future. We have absolutely no assurance that the federal government will keep on doing its duty and providing Quebeckers and Canadians with a supply of medical isotopes.

In addition, the process is blatantly non-transparent. The government is giving itself the right to notify the House of its decision on AECL only within 15 days after it takes effect. As a result, we run the very real risk of being faced with a fait accompli.

Another thing that troubles me is that the budget provides $300 million in 2010-11 to cover anticipated commercial losses and to support the activities of AECL, such as pursuing the development work on the advanced CANDU reactor, safely supplying medical isotopes and maintaining reliable and safe activity at the Chalk River laboratories.

It is curious. I wonder whether this $300 million of taxpayers' money is literally a gift for potential buyers. I was unable to get any answers about this.

In addition to the supply of isotopes, a number of other issues remain unresolved and are cause for concern.

How much is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited worth? We have invested more than $8 billion in it over the years. Can Quebeckers and Canadians expect a return on their investment with the sale of AECL? What sort of future can workers at the Chalk River laboratories and the Montreal offices expect? What will become of the intellectual property pertaining to the CANDU reactors if the company passes into foreign hands?

These are worrisome questions that still do not have answers.

I would now like to talk about the forestry industry. Quebeckers are worried. This industry is going through an unprecedented crisis in Quebec, and the bill contains no real measures to reassure Quebeckers.

Even though the forestry industry is the lifeblood of the Quebec economy, the latest budget completely ignores the demands of the Bloc Québécois. It is unacceptable that the Conservative government is putting 57 times as much money into Ontario's automotive sector, when the forestry industry has to make do with scraps.

The elimination of tariffs for the machinery and goods needed to modernize and improve productivity is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The industry does not have access to loans or loan guarantees to buy the machinery. Even if tariffs are eliminated, the issue will not be resolved.

The $25 million per year over the next four years is not nearly enough for all of the lumber and pulp and paper mills to modernize. They still need to borrow money to purchase the necessary equipment.

This budget blatantly ignores the demands of the industry. For five years, forestry companies have been calling for loans and loan guarantees, but they have not seen anything.

In conclusion, the government is following the path it set out in its 2006 economic statement, with policies geared towards Ontario and Alberta to the detriment of the pressing needs of Quebec.

We do not see any measures that meet the needs of the Quebec economy. This budget should take Quebec's interests and values into account.

For these reasons, I will certainly vote against this bill.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I was very struck by his line that we are all called here because we have an obligation to protect the environment.

I think of the situation that is happening on the James Bay coast now, all across the Nishnawbe Aski territory with the ice roads melting. We have never seen ice go out this quickly. It has had a devastating effect.

The most impoverished communities in Canada, the northern aboriginal communities, are facing serious shortfalls. They are living with the consequences of climate change now.

Therefore, I go back to the member's comment that we are all here to protect the environment. I would like to suggest for the member that many of us are here to protect the environment, but a certain party in the House is here to protect the interests of the Alberta oil and gas sector.

The Prime Minister himself said that his job and his party was to build a firewall to defend the tar sands.

When we look at Bill C-9,, we see nothing for the environment, nothing for protecting communities that are already living with the impacts of climate change. What we see is a bill tailor made to allow the pillaging of the tar sands to continue and allowing the people who are making the most money from destroying the environment to continue making that kind of money while our poor communities in the north are suffering and paying the prices of the government's inaction.

Does the member not think it would have been fairer that we actually look at dealing with the tar sands so our poor communities on James Bay and elsewhere could at least have some protection because climate change is hitting them now?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is very much opposed to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, for a number of reasons, which my colleagues have been outlining for several days.

To briefly summarize the Bloc's complaints, this is a big C Conservative budget. It does not reflect the progressive values of the Quebec nation whatsoever. The budget is all about sparing the rich, including the banks and big business, and making the middle class and workers pay.

The Bloc cannot support a budget like that. Every time someone on the other side of the House stands up and says that the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget, we will remember that it was a big C Conservative budget, against the middle class, against workers.

Here are some examples: the government is reducing the interest rate on corporate tax overpayments; it is creating a tax loophole for companies not registered in Canada; and it is pillaging the employment insurance fund. Pillaging is serious. It means that everyone who contributes to the fund is not paying insurance premiums, but a tax because they are working. That changes the whole meaning of the EI fund.

Here are some more examples: the government is going ahead with the privatization of Canada Post, which is questionable, to say the least; it is interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions and it is doing nothing to protect the environment and fight greenhouse gases.

As the Bloc Québécois heritage critic, one measure in the budget that concerns me in particular is the amendment of the Telecommunications Act, which is designed to enable foreign carriers that own or operate certain transmission facilities, such as satellites, to operate as telecommunications common carriers in Canada.

Members may say that cultural activities have nothing to do with satellites. But that is not true, and I will prove it.

Telecommunications and broadcasting are becoming more and more intertwined; they are almost the same thing. The fact that telecommunications and broadcasting are more and more intertwined is a threat to the cultural industry here and to all cultural activities. Let me explain.

The time when we could easily distinguish between telecommunications and broadcasting is over. Before, telecommunications referred to wireless devices and cellular phones, and broadcasting referred to radio, television, video and audiovisual. But that is no longer the case. Those were the good old days, when we dialed a number on the telephone and someone answered at the other end.

We now talk about smartphones. You can do all kinds of things, referred to as applications. You can easily find an advertisement for a telephone company in any newspaper. Bell, for example, offers 16 applications for free with the purchase of a wireless device. These applications clearly involve activities related to broadcasting. For example, you can listen to CBC Radio. I have an advertisement here in which Bell is introducing its 3G smartphone. It talks about CBC Radio, Air Canada, Facebook, CBC hockey, Maclean's magazine and Scotiabank. I found this advertisement in an English-language newspaper. It is targeted to Canadians.

If that same announcement were made in Quebec, it would obviously talk about Radio-Canada instead of CBC Radio. It would likely give applications for La Soirée du hockey, and would talk about caisses populaires Desjardins instead of Scotiabank, where we could get information.

This shows the difference in culture and shows that communications companies control access to content. The CRTC cannot say anything, because these are not broadcasting companies; they are telecommunications companies. And that is what needs to be fixed.

The worst thing the government could do would be to open telecommunications companies to foreign ownership. That would mean giving foreign owners control over our culture. Everyone knows that our culture is fragile in many ways and that we must protect it. In fact, Canada was the first country in the world to sign a treaty on cultural diversity specifically to protect culture. In other industries, there is a tendency to sign free trade agreements. This is an excellent example that shows that telecommunications and broadcasting are the same.

Let us now turn to satellites. Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, mentions only satellites and is not clear on the subject of telecommunications companies even though the throne speech announced plans to open up all telecommunications companies to foreign ownership. Bill C-9 basically talks about satellites. Do satellites have a place in the cultural sector?

I have two examples, two quotations. Alain Pineau, the National Director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, is concerned about the repercussions on the country's cultural sovereignty of opening satellites to foreign ownership. He said:

—opening up foreign ownership and control of our telecommunications can only lead to tremendous pressures to enable a similar model in cable and broadcasting.

To illustrate, he talked about film, which is not protected. Most distributors do not distinguish the distribution rights for the Canadian market from North American rights. As a consequence, American films occupy over 98% of screen time in English Canada.

Things are not quite as bad in Quebec. Our nation's culture is strong and vibrant, and Quebeckers tend to prefer Quebec films. All the same, we are forced to fight a constant and difficult battle against American movies on Quebec screens. That is what happens when there is no regulation.

Solange Drouin, director of the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo (ADISQ), offered another example of the repercussions of foreign satellite ownership. She appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on April 1, where she said:

In 2005, XM Radio and Sirius Radio applied to the CRTC for a pay audio programming undertaking licence. Those two companies proposed to use a foreign satellite to broadcast their products in Canada. As that was not permitted, the CRTC had to assess the possibility of using a foreign satellite to provide a programming service. The government deviated from its principle regarding the use of Canadian satellites for the purpose of that service. What happened? XM Radio and Sirius Radio unfortunately convinced the CRTC that, in view of the lack of capacity of the foreign satellite broadcasting their products in the United States, the CRTC could not set requirements on the French-language and Canadian content levels it would have wished to have. Consequently, in its decision, it granted ridiculous French-language content percentages.

A little later she says:

The ownership principle, which was frequently criticized in that decision and for which we were not heard, tells us that you really have to control the entire chain of distribution channels in order to really achieve our ends—

I quickly want to talk about the Bloc Québécois' prebudget consultations and our many expectations of this budget. None of our expectations were met. First, we asked that the $26 million cut from artists in August 2008 be given back to them. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages told me here in the House that he had given that money to the Olympic torch relay. Now that the relay is over, let him give that $26 million to the artists.

We also asked for $300 million this year: an additional $150 million to the Canada Council for the Arts for a total of $310 million; $60 million for the Canada Feature Film Fund, including $10 million for the documentary feature film fund; $50 million for income averaging over five years for artists; $40 million for the creation of a fund for the transition to digital; $240 million so that Radio-Canada/CBC can go from $32 to $40 a person.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-9, the budget implementation act or, as the Conservatives prefer to call it, the jobs and economic growth act, which unfortunately I do not believe it is.

We know this is a significant piece of legislation. It is 800 pages long and there is lots of stuff in it, but I think the fundamental piece of the Conservatives' economic program is maintained by this legislation, their commitment to the huge corporate tax cuts they have been pursuing and continue to pursue. We know there is another $6 billion in corporate tax cuts happening again this year, which seems a little crazy given the fact that we are now in a deficit position and that we are going ahead with those kinds of corporate tax cuts even though it means essentially borrowing the money to give the big banks and the big oil companies, to give profitable corporations those tax cuts.

We know we are already completely competitive. We are well below the American corporate tax rate, even though we pay significantly more in public services here in Canada. And we depend more on public services, because we believe that Canadians working together can provide important services to each other, like our health care system, something the Americans are struggling to cotton on to, as time proceeds. Unfortunately, the legislation before us does not change that commitment and does not allow for the investment of that $6 billion in services and other programs that will actually benefit Canadians.

Last week we had a week away from the House of Commons and were back in our constituencies. Working in my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas, I met with many constituents, in my office and at events in the community. Folks had a lot to say about the current economic situation and the situation in which they find themselves. I have to say that people are quite worried and some are very, very angry. I met with one gentleman who is very concerned about his ability to retire. He is coming up to retirement in a couple of years and does not feel he will be able to do that because of the current economic situation. He feels he has no economic security. He does not trust the pension system that is in place and feels he will have to keep working, when he has worked hard all his life. He will not be able to enjoy that time he had anticipated.

I understand that many people are concerned about the pension system in Canada. We know that many seniors who rely on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement still live in poverty. Yet government will go ahead with the tax cuts to the largest corporations when, if it put only $700 million of that $6 billion in tax cuts that are happening this year toward old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, we could make sure no senior in Canada lives in poverty.

I think it is a goal that we could all get behind, that all of our communities would be behind. We also know that, in terms of economic stimulus, every dollar we put into that program is spent in our communities. That is direct economic stimulus in our communities. Nobody saves that money. All of that money is spent on goods and services in our communities, which will help all of our communities. Why we are not going down that road, I certainly do not know, and the gentleman I was speaking to in Burnaby last week did not get it either.

Another very disturbing thing we learned over the weekend was that even some of our veterans are forced to go to food banks, in Calgary of all places. The Calgary poppy fund operates a veterans' food bank. That is a veterans' food bank. People who have honourably served Canada are forced to go to a food bank sponsored by the poppy fund for food, furniture, medical care, rent and all kinds of basic necessities. This is unbelievable. There are apparently 60 clients on the list each month for this veterans' food bank in Calgary. A number of Conservative cabinet ministers, I think even the Prime Minister, have helped out with this food bank. I think it is outrageous that veterans, of all people, who have given their service to this country, are forced to go to a food bank. If that does not show that there is a problem with our economy and our attitude toward seniors and people who have served their country, I do not know what does. It is absolutely outrageous and appalling.

In British Columbia, one cannot have a conversation with a person on the street or a constituent without hearing about the HST. That campaign in British Columbia has moved into the legislature, where the NDP opposition is taking on the government on this new tax . It will see a 7% increase in taxes on many commodities, goods and services in British Columbia.

When we were debating that here in the House, the Conservatives loved to say it was British Columbia that wanted it and we were just making it possible for British Columbia to implement this new tax.

Now in British Columbia we hear the minister of finance saying we have to do this because Ottawa did it. We have to do it because Ottawa is doing it.

We knew they were setting that up, to blame each other for this new tax.

It is going to affect so many things. We have estimated that an average family will pay $790 more, but we know it is going to affect things like housing costs. Recently the Rental Owners and Managers Association of British Columbia indicated that things like maintenance and management contracts, condo fees and those kinds of things are going to face an increase, which will require that rents go up as landlords try to recover some of the money they are going to have to pay out in new fees when the HST comes into effect in British Columbia on July 1.

We also know that the HST initiative campaign is under way now in British Columbia. I am sure all of us who are from that province will be hearing more, as folks activate that campaign.

It is not popular. Small business people in my riding have let me know in large numbers their problems with the HST, their fears that this is going to affect their businesses at this crucial time of economic difficulty in British Columbia. That continues. There is nothing that would change the approach to the HST in this legislation.

Recently I attended a meeting of the Burnaby Inter-Agency Council where it heard a presentation about the living wage campaign. One of the things that was pointed out was that in Burnaby the two most significant costs a family of four faces are, first, housing and, second, child care.

The bill and the government's approach to the economy does nothing in either of those areas. It likes to say that it is spending more money on housing than any government in recent history, but that is only because it is living off the avails of the money the NDP fought for from the last Liberal budget. The Conservatives have gone on and on about that for years, but they have taken no new significant initiatives of their own.

In terms of child care, that is the second highest outlay for a family of four in Burnaby. Yet there is nothing in the budget that will help those families.

The universal child care benefit that the Conservatives introduced, that $100 a month, was really of very little help to families, and now they are going to supplement it by $3.25 a week to the lowest income families. It is not very much. It is not a significant contribution toward helping families in my riding. Given the significant costs, it really is a gesture that has almost no meaning whatsoever.

We know there is nothing particular in the budget, other than the final nail in the coffin of the grab of the EI fund that will help people who are on employment insurance at this time. We know that 500,000 Canadians' employment insurance benefits are going to expire very shortly. That will be a serious problem for many communities and for all of those individuals and families.

We have been pressing for an extension of benefits. We won some extension in a larger contribution toward EI, from our work in this corner of the House, but it does not go far enough. We said that at the time, that it was important but it does not go far enough, and now we are going to face that crunch.

Again, the Conservatives are proposing to set up a similar scenario where individuals and businesses are going to have to pay into the EI fund so that it can be built up, and down the road it will be snatched back not to provide for better EI programs or training programs but to pay down the deficit.

We have seen that this is a jobless recovery and there is nothing in the budget bill that will help that jobless recovery. The employment numbers last Friday were not very encouraging, with an 8.2% unemployment rate and 1.51 million Canadians still out of work. The vast majority of jobs that were created were part-time jobs, which offer no decent benefits. The wages are low and they offer no economic security to families. This is not a budget that British Columbians are pleased about.

The government has also buried changes to Canada Post, which will affect the viability of Canada Post and push down wages ultimately if this goes through, which is a completely unacceptable way of dealing with this proposal. It has been around for a long time, to expedite the privatization of Canada Post, and anything that diminishes Canada Post's universal mandate to deliver international mail is a very serious problem, so—

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question on a range of issues that she brought forward with respect to the comments I made on Bill C-9.

On the first point about housing, I would remind her in our budgets from when I was elected in 2004-05, we invested millions of dollars in housing and this was after we put our fiscal house in order. However, more important, with respect to the infrastructure, under Mr. Martin we came up with a gas tax transfer, a new deal for municipalities that really provided cities with sustainable funding.

With respect to EI, the member raises a good point because this is a payroll tax. There have been numerous independent studies. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated that this would cause a loss of 200,000 jobs, which is why it is termed as a job-killing payroll tax. The amount is $13 billion. As indicated in my remarks, for a family of two that amounts to an additional cost of $1,264 on an annualized basis, and for a company that employs about 10 people, that amounts to approximately $8,884 on an annualized basis. That is a substantial amount of money in terms of a tax burden on small businesses and on middle-class families. Again, it does not help our productivity or competitiveness and, more important, it does not help us create jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation act.

This is not a bill that meets the needs of the residents of Mississauga—Brampton South. The people of my constituency of Mississauga—Brampton South need real and timely investments in infrastructure, not a drop in the bucket as the mayor of Mississauga indicated last week when the Prime Minister came to my constituency to make an announcement on infrastructure. According to the mayor, it was “not even a drop in the bucket” of the amount of investment that is needed in infrastructure.

The residents need support for small businesses that encourages job creation rather than slapping them with a $13 billion payroll tax. They need real options for child care, not just a few dollars or a $100 cheque that leaves them on their own to fend for themselves. They need affordable housing, not waiting lists that continue to grow. I will indicate how long the waiting list has grown in my constituency. They need an immigration policy that works, rather than preventing skilled immigrants from contributing to our economy. As many have indicated, and there have been numerous studies done on this, immigration is the key to our economic turnaround.

Simply put, the residents of Mississauga—Brampton South want and deserve a government that works for them.

On infrastructure, the government has repeatedly delayed giving our cities what they need. When it does give money, it is often either insufficient or so tied up with rules or red tape that it fails to meet its own goals.

For example, back in March 2007, the Prime Minister announced that his government would pay the federal share of five transit projects in the greater Toronto area, including Mississauga's rapid transit system. Of course the money never flowed and the city kept on waiting and waiting for the Prime Minister to keep his word.

In September 2007, I, along with my Liberal colleagues from Mississauga, demanded that the government release the money but still nothing happened. Finally, in February 2008, almost a year after the Prime Minister made his promise, the finance minister staged another flashy photo-op promising the money was on its way.

Announcing and re-announcing money may be good for getting the minister's picture in the paper but it does nothing to assist the needs and the requirements of the city of Mississauga, real legitimate transit needs. I believe it is still waiting for that money.

Then we have the stimulus money indicated in this budget that is currently winding down. Of course we know that the government never had any intention of offering any stimulus until they were backed into a corner by the opposition. There was no real plan put forward by the government.

The government realized, when it felt the pressure from the opposition parties, that it must do something. When it finally did agree, it ensured that the money went overwhelmingly to Conservative ridings. It spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on partisan advertising. The Conservatives forced the city of Mississauga to spend $90,000 putting up economic action plan signs and a further $5,000 on signs for the RInC program.

With all that money spent on promotion, one would expect that the government would be able to get the actual program money into the economy on time, but sadly that has not been the case. Take, for example, the RInC program. The allocation for Mississauga is approximately $6 million to help upgrade city pools. After a year, only $664,000 has been spent, resulting in eight jobs being created. By the finance minister's own admission, stimulus funds had to begin within 120 days in order to really be effective. According to the finance minister's own assessment, the RInC program in Mississauga has been a failure in terms of stimulating the economy when it was most needed. If the money is not spent by the deadline allocated by the government, the cities are left with the tab.

In summary, when it comes to infrastructure in this budget and the government's program, it has created a partisan system based on signs, exposure and promotion. It has designed the system to fail with all the red tape and it has created no real jobs.

With respect to small businesses, as indicated earlier on in my remarks, one of the worst things this budget does is raise taxes on small businesses. This is yet another broken promise from a government that promised not to raise taxes. We all remember the government's infamous move when it taxed income trusts, which hurt the investments and retirement savings of many Canadians. The government broke its promise there as well.

In fact, this is no modest increase when it comes to payroll taxes. The budget increase amounts to $13 billion, an amount estimated to kill over 200,000 jobs. I will put that to the House on a per person level. For two people, that equates to roughly $1,264. For a company that employs about 10 people, that is an additional cost of $8,884. By imposing this tax, the government is creating substantial increases to the operating costs of a business.

At a recent small business summit that I held in my constituency of Mississauga--Brampton South with the leader of the official opposition, we heard from over 250 businesses. Time and time again they reiterated their opposition to this payroll tax. They said that it was counter-productive, that it hurt their business prospects and that it killed jobs.

The Liberal Party has a different approach. We want to create jobs and support small businesses. We put together three concrete proposals to do that. We would like to support our manufacturing sector, which is an essential part of the economic turnaround specifically in Ontario but also within the greater Toronto area and in the riding of Mississauga--Brampton South.

First, we have put forward a proposal to increase the capital cost allowance to help manufacturers purchase new equipment, support the tax system so they would have the incentive to buy new equipment to help their productivity and to ensure they are more competitive.

Second, we want to tackle the worst youth employment in a generation by introducing a financial incentive to hire young Canadians.

Third, we want to encourage investment in start-up companies by introducing additional tax measures for Canadians who invest in entrepreneurs and start-up companies in sectors such as clean energy and life sciences. These are key and important sectors in my constituency that are growing and creating jobs. This would provide additional support for them to continue on that path.

One of the reasons why I do not support this budget is that it does nothing to create more early learning day care spaces, which are in desperate need in my constituency. The previous Liberal government signed agreements with all of the provinces and territories to create a national child care and early learning program. The Conservatives threw these agreements in the garbage and replaced them with a modest cheque program. Again, people have to fend for themselves and good luck.

I want to put in perspective what this means to my constituency.

As I indicated before, the government created no new child care spaces. What does that mean for the residents of Mississauga--Brampton South? For every 1,000 kids there are approximately 10.5 spaces. The probability of parents being able to send their kids to an early learning and day care facility is about 1 in 100, or a 1% opportunity, because that is the limited space that exists in the region of Peel and in my riding.

The Liberal Party has committed to learning and innovation through a pan-Canadian learning approach spanning early childhood development, aboriginal education, workforce literacy, language training for new Canadians and access to higher education and training. Those are the types of investments we were looking for in the budget but, unfortunately, we did not see them.

The next point I want to raise with respect to the budget is affordable housing.

Despite being a prosperous community, or perhaps because of it, Peel region has an enormous demand for affordable housing, another area that this budget does not address. In fact, according to the region's own numbers, applicants face waiting lists of many years. It started with 8 years and during the tenure of the Conservative government it has gone up to 12 years, which is simply too long to go without affordable accommodation.

How do we deal with this crisis? Why has the government not put forward a proposal? According to this bill, the government has no example of what it wants to do. So we put forward a national housing strategy, a real issue for middle-class Canadians.

With respect to immigration, we want to ensure we have a system that provides additional resources for application processing, more support for immigrant settlement and an increase in the number of permanent residents Canada accepts.

Last week, the member for Mississauga—Erindale blamed the mayor for the city's problems with infrastructure saying that, “She has been the mayor for 31 years. If there is an infrastructure deficit, shouldn't she bear some personal responsibility for that”? This was compounded by a comment made by the Minister of Finance when he called the mayor “grumpy” and told her “You know, you've got to control your expenses”. Any time people raise legitimate concerns about infrastructure, especially our mayor, she is attacked.

The government, through the budget bill, has imposed a $13 billion tax on small businesses. It has not created any new child care spaces and there are still wait lists for affordable housing. These are just some examples of why I do not support this bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill because it widens the gap between the rich and the middle class and the poor. This bill does not meet the Bloc Québécois' expectations or those of the people.

The Bloc Québécois is the only party that really did its homework. We consulted people in all regions of Quebec. My colleague from Hochelaga made it his mission to travel to every single region to meet representatives, opinion leaders and organizations.

The Minister of Finance ignored the economic statement we presented even though it laid out options for additional resources for the government without compromising the social safety net. In our statement, we suggested that the wealthy should contribute more via a 2% tax increase for those earning $150,000 or more per year and a 3% tax increase for those earning $250,000 or more. Higher taxes on high-income earners would bring in $4.8 billion in additional revenue for the government.

The same applies to tax havens. There are still too many companies, organizations and individuals who use tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. That is additional money the government could have collected.

Instead, the government chose to adopt measures that affect the middle class and low-income earners and to chip away at the social safety net and existing social measures, including a very precious means of communication, Canada's postal system. The subject barely came up here today, but the government began the process to privatize the Canada Post Corporation. That is unacceptable because the Canadian postal system plays an important role in society in general.

In this budget, the government is also seeking to subject credit unions like the Desjardins Group to federal authority. Initially, that would be voluntary. The government always introduces voluntary measures to soften up those concerned about the status of these institutions, but it wants to gradually bring such institutions under a Canadian entity exclusively. That is totally unacceptable.

Another serious issue is that the government wants to make plundering the employment insurance fund official. This diversion of funds over the past 14 years, first by the Liberal Party and then by the Conservative Party, represents more than $57 billion.

When the Supreme Court ruled on how the employment insurance fund is used, it recognized the fact that this money belongs to the contributors. The government can use it for other purposes, but it still has to understand that the money belongs to the contributors.

They are preparing to make this theft official by changing how the fund is administered, and the Liberals will be their accomplices. The Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board will become the employment insurance operating account, and the fund will start all over again at zero. It is as though this diversion of funds never happened. Doing this would allow the current government to make use of the employment insurance fund surplus from 2012 to 2015, to the tune of $19 billion. The $57 billion will be erased with a single vote in the House and the Liberals will be the accomplices. I hope that my Liberal colleagues realize that they will also be accomplices in the future diversion of $19 billion.

Those who support the unemployed—the major unions, unemployment organizations and, of course, the unemployed themselves—have always been unanimous. They all agree that the system no longer corresponds to their reality. It is no longer helpful or inclusive, it is exclusive. More than 54% of the people unemployed today cannot receive benefits.

Yet these people contributed to an employment insurance fund, which is basically insurance should they have the misfortune of losing their jobs. They put money into this fund specifically to be able to receive benefits to continue supporting their families and meeting their obligations if they lose their jobs.

People need to know that voting for Bill C-9 constitutes, in my mind, a serious economic crime against people who have lost their jobs. Not only would this deprive workers of an income, but it would also mean depriving their families. This also puts an economic burden on a certain region, or even on the provinces. Quebec will be left to take care of these people through a last resort measure: social assistance. There is something wrong with this picture.

In closing, women are those most affected: over 67% of women are excluded. This morning in the House, the Liberal Party leader introduced a bill on pay equity, which we will support, because we simply cannot oppose such a measure. However, it is a hypocritical bill, because they will say here today that they oppose Bill C-9, but they will not show up to vote against it. Yet that bill will make it impossible for women to ask the courts to recognize their right to pay equity.

That is why we will vote against the bill. We invite all our colleagues to do the same.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. He is a Liberal, but I cannot be too mean to him because he is from Cape Breton Island. My family had to leave Cape Breton to work in the gold mines in Timmins. Those immigrants built an amazing resource that has succeeded all across northern Canada. It was built by hard-working people. We have built industries that are the envy of the world.

Then the Conservative government came along. The last time it did anything with industry was the Avro Arrow. It saw these great mines like Falconbridge and Inco and said, “Let's sell them out to some corporate raiders and let's not get any kind of commitments”, because it believes blindly in the power of capital.

We have seen a devastation in our regions because of the lack of understanding on the government's part that there is a difference between foreign investment and foreign takeover.

We have always supported foreign investment because it has built industry, but what we are seeing under the Conservative government, which is in Bill C-9, is a change in the rules on oversight with foreign takeovers. We are leaving industries like our northern mining industries, the oil sector and telecommunications open to foreign takeovers that are undermining our ability as Canadians and as regions to maintain good, strong jobs in this country.

I would like to ask the hon. member from Cape Breton, would he not work with us to stop this turnover and deregulation move by the government against our regional industries?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her presentation today on this 880 page Bill C-9 and for her terrific speech this morning on private member's Bill C-471.

She also made a presentation to the House on June 11, 2009, in which she talked about equal pay for women. She pointed out that women reach retirement age without being able to benefit fully from the income they ought to have had. She stated that at the present time women are paid 70% to 80% of what men are paid, so all of their working lives they are carrying with them a 20% to 30% shortfall. Therefore, when they get to retirement, they receive approximately 42% of what they earned when they were working and are missing a huge amount.

In other words, it is not just an issue of earning less money throughout their working lives. It shows up again in the pensions they receive in their 20 or 30 years of retirement. The government has not taken initiatives or any measures in this 880 page bill to deal with the pension issues of retired Canadians.

Would the member like to expand on that area?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always get great enjoyment listening to the Liberals speak. I have never found a group that is meaner or tougher when it comes to shadow boxing in their bedrooms. However, when it comes time to getting into the ring with that ideological crew, they always take a dive.

I was particularly amused by the hon. member's comments about the bank deregulation. If he looks at the Hansard records, he will remember that the Liberal government attacked the NDP for being concerned little old nannies when we kept saying that we had to stop bank deregulation. We pushed that again and again and the Liberals ridiculed us. Now, suddenly, when they do not have to stand up and do anything on it, they are trying to take credit.

I would like to ask the member about another key area to be deregulated in Bill C-9, which would take away the post office privilege. We would deregulate the post offices. All across rural Canada, people are looking at what is going to happen with the post offices, but I am hearing nothing from the Liberal Party. Will the Liberals cave on this, undermine Canada Post and all our rural post offices? Will they go along with it or will they stand up to the government, which is breaking apart, point after point in industry after industry, Canada's advantage?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois opposes Bill C-9, which would implement the Conservative government's budget, because we do not believe that it has identified the true values and needs of Quebeckers and Canadians. And the government's ineptness is equalled only by the ineffective measures it has employed to respond to these needs that it cannot identify.

Weak governments usually feed off those who are even weaker. We know that the Liberal Party will help Bill C-9 pass, but we will continue to oppose it.

This bill demonstrates the Conservative government's will to spare wealthy taxpayers at the expense of the general public, no matter what the cost. It is paying off the deficit thanks to the middle class and workers. Banks and big business are among those wealthy taxpayers.

The measures in this bill are proof of that will. Businesses are not paying their fair share to increase government revenues, except perhaps in that the interest rate paid by the Minister of National Revenue on tax overpayments by businesses will be reduced. If too much tax has been paid, it is most likely because these large companies are making their profits at the expense of small businesses that do not get the help they need and are not profitable.

There is doublespeak when it comes to tax loopholes. On one hand, the government says that it will address this issue. On the other hand, we have Bill C-9, which creates holes in the Income Tax Act allowing businesses not registered in Canada to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

As well, the bill would amend the Telecommunications Act and allow foreign companies who own or operate certain transmission facilities to act as though they were Canadian telecommunications companies.

I will come back in a moment to this point, one that concerns me directly since I am a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. In committee, we are currently examining the case of Globalive, among others. As we can see from the bill, the next step will be satellites and after that, all telecommunications.

We oppose the bill because, once again, the government seems to have no compunction about pillaging the employment insurance fund. The employment insurance account will be replaced by the employment insurance operating account, which will start back at zero. We cannot forget that the Liberals managed to wipe out the deficit and pay down the debt by using the EI premiums paid by both workers and employers.

We also know very well that with this budget, over the next five years, the Conservative government plans to use $19.2 billion for other purposes.

We also oppose this bill because it sets in motion a process to privatize Canada Post Corporation. It also gives the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada powers to protect consumers, which creates a serious risk that Ottawa will infringe on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Given its desire to transform credit unions—including the Fédération des caisses populaires Desjardins—into federal entities, once again the federal government is showing that it simply want to centralize powers and decisions to the detriment of Quebec's interests.

We are against this bill because it includes various measures that are clearly a federal government intrusion into Quebec's jurisdictions. Take for example the money allocated to the Rick Hansen Foundation, which falls under the area of health, and to the pathways to education program, which applies to secondary education. We are also against the bill because the Conservatives are denying the existence of more than half the population and the challenges they face. Women are absent from this budget implementation bill. We are also against the bill because it sanctions the Conservative government's inaction when it comes to the environment and tackling greenhouse gases.

I said I would come back to the Telecommunications Act. In the Speech from the Throne, the government said it was going to open the door to foreign investment in the satellite, television and telecommunications industries. We see that in the budget it is opening the door to foreign ownership of satellites. However, let us not forget the matter of Globalive, which according to the CRTC was, in practice, a telecommunications company controlled and owned by foreign interests.

The CRTC ruling was overruled and an order in council issued to ensure that Globalive could take ownership of a foreign company. We know full well that this is just the beginning for foreign telecommunication companies because after the satellites and after Globalive will come telephony, broadcasting and cable. In fact, all telecommunications sectors could potentially belong to foreign companies.

The Speech from the Throne talked about satellites. I have talked to people who use satellites. They are scared stiff about the fact that satellites could belong to foreign companies. They are wondering what would happen if foreign companies got their hands on Telesat. The legislation clearly states that Telesat must remain Canadian owned. If foreign companies could get their hands on it, then major international players could also get Canadian satellites. We know full well that Canadian satellites currently have military applications and functions as well. The Conservative government truly seems to want to defend sovereignty on many levels, but it is prepared to throw open the door to foreign ownership of satellites, telecommunications and therefore all aspects of broadcasting as well.

If I remember correctly, in 1984 a Conservative government came to power, but with one major difference: it was a Progressive Conservative government. That was our first introduction to restrictions on foreign ownership. In 1987 and then in 1991 came the Teleglobe Act and the Telesat Canada Act, which imposed ownership restrictions on the two telecommunication companies named in the titles of these acts. In 1987, the communications minister at that time presented a policy document titled “A Policy Framework for Telecommunications in Canada” in which the government noted that domestic ownership of Canada’s telecommunications infrastructure was essential to national sovereignty and security.

In 1987, we had a Progressive Conservative government. That is not at all the case today. This government calls itself Conservative but it is Reform-Alliance. It wants to use this bill to open the door to foreign ownership by amending the Telecommunications Act.

I would have liked to have had more time to show that the Liberals have a responsibility to vote against this bill. More importantly, they should all attend the vote. If not, it shows that they approve of this bill, with the result that Canada and Quebec will automatically lose a large part of their telecommunications sovereignty.

The House resumed from April 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-9 on the implementation of the 2010 budget. I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke.

In the 2010 budget, the demands of our constituents have been completely ignored or perhaps deliberately undervalued. That is completely unacceptable. For several years, we have been doing our job and have told the government that it needed to help Quebeckers. It needed to come up with a plan to help workers in the hardest hit sectors in Quebec.

We presented measures in good faith to help businesses make it through the economic crisis and to help people. The Bloc Québécois told the federal government that it could take this opportunity to settle a number of compensation claims with Quebec.

We proposed ways to combat the sophisticated schemes that enable the extremely wealthy to avoid paying taxes on their income. We proposed a 1% tax on individuals with a yearly income of over $150,000.

What is even more appalling is that the government ignored our proposal to eliminate the tax breaks given to the oil industry. We asked the government to treat Quebec's forestry and manufacturing industries fairly and equitably, by giving the Quebec industries the same breaks it gave to Ontario.

What does the government propose? It is maintaining the increases in military spending and completely ignoring the reality facing our forestry industry, investing very little in Quebec. It is completely ignoring sectors that have been suffering harshly for far too long.

In Bill C-290, the Bloc Québécois proposed a measure to help thousands of retirees who have been cheated. Over 20,000 workers and retirees will see their pension plans cut by about 30% following an Ontario Superior Court decision to reject an agreement between Nortel and its pensioners. The Conservative government is doing nothing to help them, and yet there are solutions.

The question asked by my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles is clear. Will the government support the Bloc Québécois' bill to help the Nortel, Atlas and Jeffrey mine workers whose pension plans have been cut off?

The Prime Minister wants to review Canada's retirement income system. If the past is any indication and we remember what the government did to the employment insurance system, we have every reason to fear the worst: we will find ourselves with a program that does not meet the needs of retirees.

The Bloc Québécois is pleased to see that the federal government recognizes that we must make major changes to better protect salaries and pensions. However, these measures do not allay the Bloc Québécois' concerns about declining securities values that, in times of economic crisis, lower the value of pension funds.

If a company goes bankrupt, its pension fund will be unable to fulfill its obligation to beneficiaries, but not because the company fails to make its regular contributions to the pension fund.

The Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to put pension plans set up by companies under federal jurisdiction in trust. That is what Quebec does to prevent companies from liquidating pension funds when the securities market is at a low point. The Bloc Québécois also wants disabled workers insured through self-insurance plans to have preferred creditor status.

The proposal in the budget is not good enough. It does not meet people's needs.

Let us turn now to seniors, who have been largely forgotten in the federal budget. How can the government claim to defend people's interests? For over nine years now, we have been calling for improvements to the guaranteed income supplement. In December 2001, we learned that over 270,000 Canadian seniors, including over 68,000 in Quebec, who were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement were not receiving it. They were entitled to that money. Our poorest seniors are suffering as a result. They are the ones bearing the burden of this government's spending.

Last week, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé rose in the House to criticize the rising rate of poverty among seniors. He cited a Conference Board of Canada study showing that between 1995 and 2005, the poverty rate among seniors doubled.

In an effort to promote equality and social justice, the Bloc Québécois has proposed simple, realistic measures to solve this problem and fight poverty among society's poorest.

Nowhere does Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, propose ways to decrease the poverty rate among seniors. The bill says nothing about this, and that is unacceptable. Improving benefits and paying seniors money that is owing them would prevent an increase in poverty.

The government should start by increasing by $100 a month the guaranteed income supplement that people currently receive. It should also consider the poverty in which many seniors live. Given the cost of urban housing—we can all do this exercise in our own ridings—and the fact that this cost and many utility charges are rising, the amount seniors currently receive is not enough. It should be increased, but neither budget 2010 nor the minister's Bill C-9 provides for an increase.

The program should also include individuals aged 65 and over who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. The government says that it cannot locate these people. It needs to make an effort to find them, even if it tries just once.

One reason why people do not receive the guaranteed income supplement is that they are not aware of the program. Administrative delays are also to blame. The result is that people do not get everything they are entitled to.

The Conservative government should introduce a measure to pay the guaranteed income supplement retroactively. People have been hurt. The solution is simple: make retroactive payments. But Bill C-9 contains no such measure.

The measures in Bill C-9 are not enough and do not meet people's needs.

We also proposed that the government keep paying old age security and the guaranteed income supplement for at least six months after the recipient's death, to help his or her survivor through that difficult time. Again, there is nothing in the bill to meet these expressed needs, such as an amendment to the Income Tax Act or changes to other programs.

Bill C-9, however, contains measures that were not in the budget, for instance, amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and the creation of an employment insurance operating account. There is no mention of a need for reform.

Among the measures not included in the budget which are included in Bill C-9, there is the liberalization of one of Canada Post's business lines. In the last session and previous ones, the government tried to pass Bill C-44 without much success in the House. With this bill now, it is trying to put something in place that the members of this House did not agree with.

To sum up the first part of my speech, I would say that the government did not listen to the various associations that support what I just said, associations like the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens, also known as FADOQ. The government is also ignoring the motion passed unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly calling on the federal government to compensate those seniors who have been shortchanged. It was asking that seniors be refunded. Despite all this support, the federal government simply failed to act.

Allow me to pass on what the seniors with whom I met in February told me. They are asking that the public sign their petition. They are currently campaigning to raise public awareness of what is not in the budget.

I think that the government's message is pretty simple, and the campaign slogan pretty clear. I am mentioning it here because these people need the government to hear their slogan at least one. Their slogan is: “The alarm is sounding. React!” That is what seniors want the government to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the ruling.

I think I was just hitting a very sensitive topic for the members opposite, because no sensible person in this country can be happy with the five banks earning $15 billion and having their presidents paid $6.2 million when other jurisdictions, like the European Union, have restrictions on what corporate executives earn. I believe it has been a long-time tradition in Japan that corporate executives have had limitations on what they can earn.

Just recently one of the banks did indicate at its shareholders' meeting that it is now taking input from the shareholders as to what executives are being paid. They are saying that they will not let them vet what they give to the executives but at least they will listen to the shareholders.

It is about time the government starting taking some action here and putting in some guidelines and some restrictions on runaway corporate benefits and corporate salaries, especially when it is giving them extra incentives by reducing their taxes.

As I have indicated, this is an omnibus bill. The government is introducing all sorts of extra measures in here that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. One of the bills was the post office remailers, which has been brought in under various bills over the last three or four years, and as early as last year.

Since the government cannot get that bill through the House, it sticks it in Bill C-9 and basically defies the opposition to vote against it and cause an election. Maybe that is what the government really wants, an election.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, Speakers in legislatures across the country for many years have given latitude on bills. I have been around long enough to know what is relevant to the bill and what is not. I have sat here listening to every single speaker over the last couple of days and listened to speeches that definitely had nothing to do with the bill, where in fact, I have been the speaker who has actually waved this 800-page book around and asked, what does that have to do with Bill C-9? My speech is relevant to Bill C-9 and I will certainly indulge the member and deal with my remaining comments specifically on issues dealing with this particular bill.

But certainly, Speakers have always given latitude. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, indicated just a half an hour ago to another speaker that a lot of latitude has been given.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to dispute this, but all she has to do is read Hansard.

I have given the Liberals credit before by saying that, when they were in government, they turned down the big five banks' attempt to merge, I believe on more than one occasion. However, while all this was happening, where were the Conservatives? In those days, they were the Reform Party and they would have been pushing the Liberal government of the day to move forward, to deregulate even faster and allow the banks to merge.

The point is that it is really the Liberal government of the day that held firm and stopped this deregulation from happening, which is to the benefit of the Conservative government today. Internationally the Prime Minister walks around and says Canada is in great shape because we do not have the banking institution structures that they have in the United States, but he does not say that if he had had his way, Canada would have had the same type of banking institutions that exist in the States and would have been in a mess as big as or bigger than the one the Americans are in right now.

The reason the banking institutions are in the shape they are in right now has nothing to do with the Conservative government and everything to do with the government and opposition that were here before, which worked to make sure the regulations stayed where they were. It is proper for the government to recognize that it is in a very successful position not because of something it did but because of what it inherited. That is what the member for Western Arctic was talking about in his question.

In dealing with Bill C-9today, I want to talk about the issue of corporate tax cuts. Conservative governments literally around the world since Ronald Reagan's days, the 1980s, have been promoting tax cuts as a way to attract companies to their jurisdictions, to have these companies expand and create jobs. Essentially, what we have seen over the years has been a race to the bottom in corporation taxes, especially when some Nordic countries tax even today at rates of 50%.

When no less a person than George Bush, who became president of the United States, was running against Ronald Reagan in 1980 for the Republican nomination, he used the phrase “voodoo economics”. Everybody here has certainly heard the term voodoo economics used before. It was George H.W. Bush who called Ronald Reagan's program voodoo economics and said it would not work.

Then, when he lost the Republican nomination and Ronald Reagan became the successful nominee, Ronald Reagan chose him as his vice-president. So, George H.W. Bush, for eight years as the vice-president of the United States, had to live down his very insightful comments about his boss's economic policy. But yet he continued to follow that policy of Reagan and of Margaret Thatcher in England, to basically embark upon a whole system of deregulation.

Certainly, the financial deregulations that came about throughout that period have resulted in the past recession in the United States, and maybe even the one before, a recession so serious that it is not going to be resolved any time soon.

So, let us look at the whole issue of corporate taxes and what is the proper rate of corporate tax. I think all of us here could agree that we would not want our corporate taxes to be higher by much more than what the neighbouring jurisdictions would be.

I sat in a provincial legislature for 23 years and we were the government for significant parts of that time. I have to tell members opposite, and they know this, that the Government of Manitoba in the last 10 years did reduce corporate taxes. We did that, but we did that knowing that we had to do it because of our competitors.

Who are our competitors? They were the Government of Saskatchewan, the Government of Ontario. And of course, Saskatchewan had the deal with the province of Alberta. So when a competitor, the province of Alberta, reduces its corporate tax, then the Government of Saskatchewan is under pressure to follow suit. And being next to Saskatchewan, we were under pressure too.

We recognize that on a provincial basis our corporate taxes have to be competitive, at least with our neighbours, maybe not with maritime provinces that are half a continent away, but certainly with our neighbouring provinces in the west.

Having said that, the Canadian government is in a different league. Its competitor is the United States. So, when we are looking at corporate taxes of, say, 40% back a dozen or so years ago and the Americans were in the same range, maybe a little bit less, it made sense to lower our corporate tax rates.

But where we are going with this is that we are going to find that after the next reductions, which will be taking us down to 15% in 2012, we are going to bring it down roughly 12% lower than the corporate tax rate in the United States. That does not make sense to me.

If somebody can show me some study that says we have to be 12 points lower, then I might believe it. But that is certainly not the indication that I get. I would think that we would want to track the Americans. If the Americans decide they want to reduce their corporate income tax and they move down a couple of points, then it perhaps makes some sense for us to do the same. However, when we do that, we have to determine what sort of value we are getting out of that corporate tax reduction.

Let us look at what some people have said about corporate tax reductions. Statistics Canada and Finance Canada have said:

Despite a 36% drop in corporate taxes, both provincial and federal, in the last decade and record profits for much of this time, business spending on machinery and equipment has declined as a share of the GDP--

Well, that should not happen when one lowers these tax rates.

--and total business investment spending has declined as a percentage of corporate cashflow.

So, there we have evidence that this reduction is not producing the type of activity that we want to have.

The intensity of IT use by Canadian businesses is only half of that of the United States. In 2007 Canadian business spending on R and D was about 1% of the GDP and ranked 14th in the OECD, well below the average of 1.6% and only one-third that of Sweden, Finland and Korea. Despite Canadian corporate tax rates well below those of the United States, business sector productivity growth was actually worse in the last decade.

One would expect that, if the government goes to the effort to reduce corporate income taxes, we would be able to get positive responses and positive activity. We would be able to say that we have reduced corporate income taxes, that we have gained so many more companies and jobs and that, while we reduced the rate of taxation, we actually gained more absolute taxes at the end of the day.

What has happened over the last 20 years? I seem to recall a number of years ago that the taxation that was paid, collected by ordinary Canadians, was roughly equal to the amount of taxes collected by the corporate sector in this country. I am guessing that was 20 years ago. I think Canadians were reasonably happy with that.

Over the years, because of this race to the bottom in the corporate taxation field by the Liberals initially and now the Conservatives, we are finding that ordinary Canadians are paying four times the amount in personal income tax than that collected from corporations. How could it possibly be fair to the working people of this country to see their contribution to this country's taxation regime at a level of four times the amount of the corporate sector?

Let us look at some of those corporations. The biggest, best and most obvious sector I would prefer to take a quick look at would be those big banks that wanted to become too big to fail. They wanted to amalgamate in the last 10 years and compete with those American banks.

In the last year Canada's big five banks had profits of $15.9 billion. That does not sound like a sector that needs further corporate tax reductions.

I can see the argument being made that a certain group or sector of the economy would come forward and say that it is dying and suffering and that it needs corporate taxes reduced because it is marginally profitable at the moment. However, Canada's big five banks have a profit of $15.9 billion and we are telling them that they have done a nice job. We are giving them an even bigger benefit by reducing the corporate tax rate another three points to 15% by 2012.

Let us look at the salaries and benefits of the CEOs of these corporations and big banks. While 800,000 Canadians are drawing unemployment insurance, that unemployment insurance is certainly going to be running out. It has already in some cases, but 800,000 workers are on EI and their benefits are running out. There are no jobs for the people to go to. The government says that the economy is growing by 2.6%, yet the unemployment rate has increased from 8.2% to 8.5%.

There is a glimmer of hope. The minister talks about seeing some good results in the last two or three months and I applaud the government for that. We certainly want to be positive about improving results in the country, especially if the number of jobs increased, but we have a very high unemployment rate and we have a long way to go to get out of that.

While all of this is happening in the country, when it is going through a recession, we have the CIBC president earning $6.2 million. Now who in this country needs $6.2 million a year to pay their bills and live? The Toronto Dominion Bank's CEO was granted about $10.4 million. This is not the United States; this is Canada. We are in Canada and we are paying CEOs $10.4 million.

The Royal Bank of Canada president makes around $10.4 million as well. The Bank of Nova Scotia CEO was awarded the biggest increase of 29%, followed by the Bank of Montreal president at 25%. The first president was $9.7 million in 2009 and the second president was--

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for a very good speech on Bill C-9.

I want to ask the member about the type of thinking that the government must be engaging in that causes a government in a minority situation to introduce an 800-page bill.

I have been in this business for 24 years and I do not think I have ever seen a bill of this size introduced. On top of that, the government has put in measures that have absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

For example, the bill deals with postal remailing, which was variously presented in Parliament under bills C-14 and C-44 and probably one or two others in past years.

My question for the member is this. Why would a government that seems to be intent on not causing an election be putting in items like this that are only designed to cause people to want to vote against it? What would be the reasoning behind that?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am going to allow the member for Western Arctic to continue. This is a large bill with a lot in it. I hope and expect that before he gets to the question, the hon. member will make it relevant to Bill C-9.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-9, which is the budget implementation bill. I believe it was tabled last Monday and I had the opportunity to go to the briefing session by departmental officials.

Members will know that this act covers a broad range of changes in the laws of Canada, most of which are related to this year's budget, but a number of items were not matters of budget. In fact, it is fair to say that, to the extent that there are things that were not in the budget, this represents an omnibus bill.

At last count, there were over 30 different acts of Parliament that were impacted by this. It is very difficult to give a coherent speech about Bill C-9, so I thought I would try to concentrate on a couple things that are important to point out to hon. members.

I had taken copious notes. Interestingly enough, a copy of the bill was not available for the briefing and members were at a disadvantage in not being able to ask questions. I noted a matter that has been mentioned a couple of times here dealing with amendments to the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, which would provide for a higher rate of charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products from the regions of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

This goes back to 2006. It is a tribunal decision and seeks to recover $68.26 million from those provinces. Once the moneys are recovered, then the additional tax will cease.

I saw an inequity there. In the case of Manitoba, the volume of business it did and the proportion of its contribution to the over-collection of the $68.26 million was very small. This is going to be applied to the first dollar and every dollar of softwood exports as we move forward.

The amount of $68 million-plus is going to be collected by whoever is selling when. If Manitoba actually sells nothing until the $68 million is collected, it will not pay any of the 10%, but that is not the way the real world works. The fact of the matter is that these provinces are in the softwood lumber business and they are selling as much as they can of their quality products for export purposes.

The inequity is that a province like Manitoba is being disproportionately penalized by being thrown into this. The tribunal made a mistake and it is not an appealable decision. This is unfortunate. The Government of Canada, in terms of making its representations to the tribunal, let these provinces down. It let them down. It knew the decision was not appealable. It must have known that this was not going to be equitable to, for instance, Manitoba, which in fact was responsible for a very small proportion of the $68 million.

I thought that was certainly worth noting. The government did not get the job done. That is what happened. It did not get the job done. It should have been more vigilant on that particular issue.

The next issue many of my constituents have talked about is the whole scenario of problems and complaints about debit and credit cards. In part 12 of Bill C-9, there are enactments on the payment card networks act, the purpose of which is to regulate national payment card networks and commercial practices for payment card network operators and, among other things, and this deals with debit cards as well as credit cards, it will deal with such things as disclosure, fees charged to obtain a card, for instance, merchant contracts, the cancellation of cards, any new fees, and a couple of other minor things.

One thing it does not include is anything that comes anywhere close to touching interest rates charged on these instruments, credit cards and debit cards. Canadians were asking for that.

The government has made all of these changes, but what it has not done is try to find out how some of these usuarist rates can be dealt with. Far too many people get caught in a credit crunch. Unfortunately they rely on credit cards for basic necessities. When people are on EI benefits and the money does not come in and they cannot pay the credit cards, all of a sudden they pay usuarist rates, which could go as low as 18% but as high as 29%.

This was a significant item. When we enter a recession, when we know we will be in a downturn for at least five years, and some say even eight years, this is the time to deal with it. If the security or the credit worthiness of people is not there, the banks have to take responsibility of identifying that rather than soaking people year after year and then having absolutely no relief whatsoever from their government when people are drawn in by companies. I thought that was very concerning.

I note also, and I think people will see this to be a positive, that part 17 would amend the Bank Act and other related statutes to provide a framework for enabling credit unions to incorporate and continue as banks. This is a good thing. When I was on the finance committee and we dealt with bank mergers and the like, the big point was we needed more competition in the banking sector. Credit unions were offered this opportunity to step up, and it has finally happened. Credit unions will actually start to have a national presence in our country, and that is a positive.

There is another matter that caught to my attention. Part 20 amends the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. There are certain process requirements, comprehensive studies and the like. What I have found is it amends the act to provide in the legislation rather than by regulations that an environmental assessment is not required for certain federally-funded infrastructure projects. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is not applicable.

Since when did protection of the environment of Canada become an option? We have a federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to protect our environment. Federal infrastructure projects have no special status. There can be problems. I am sorry if some projects cannot have an environmental assessment and still get done within a government's time frame.

When we started this program, this whole thing about getting infrastructure projects, the government always talked about shovel ready. To most people that would mean these are projects that are well advanced and ready to go and that could retain existing jobs and create new jobs. What we do not need is “Let's see if we can hunt around for a contractor. Let's see if we can do this thing. Let's get the things approved through our city councils”. That is not shovel ready.

The government has seriously misled Canadians by suggesting that somehow the infrastructure program would be the solution because it would have shovel ready. The only thing that was shovel ready was the words coming out of Conservatives mouths. That was the problem.

It is awful when we consider that the last fiscal year and this fiscal year about $3.5 billion of infrastructure approved funding lapsed. It did not get out. I know why? The government had already made the decisions that put us on a track heading into a recession. In fact, Canada was in a recession even before the global economic troubles occurred. That is why money lapsed, so the deficit the government would show would be lower than it otherwise would be. It is window dressing.

Mark my words, we are going to have the same thing again. This money may have been put on the table for stimulus, but I would be prepared to say right now that a lot of that money will in fact lapse because there are some technical problems.

I have seen so many projects and municipalities come forward and say that they could not do them. I hope the government understands that if these projects have all this work and if they do not go forward, because of some timing or whatever, we have lost the opportunity to have jobs. About a half million Canadians will lose their employment insurance benefits before we know it. This is a recipe for very significant problems for Canada.

It is worth noting the Brian Mulroney governments, which ended in 1993. In the last Mulroney government, the employment insurance fund was operating at a deficit. More claims were made against employment insurance than premiums being collected, to the tune of about $12 billion. The auditor general said that the government had a separate bank account, just like the government wants to set up now in this new EI corporation. All the premiums went in and the benefits came out. It said that over time it would balance it.

Look at our history. Sometimes EI funds do not balance themselves. The government is the only one that will be able to fund it. Therefore, having a separate bank account simply does not cut it, but it serves a purpose. The purpose is that in Bill C-9, the government would eliminate the record keeping on $57 billion of surplus that was collected from employers and employees over time.

I know why it is there. It is there because Canada did not enter a recession in the early 2000s like the United States. We had 10 years. Once the budget was balanced after the Mulroney government passed down a $42 billion deficit, it took until 1997 to balance the books and then we had 10 good years of surplus. We were able to reinvest in our health care system, in our public service, which serves Canadians so well, in the social network and the transfers to the provinces for all the needs of Canadians, especially for those who are unable to help themselves. That is why it is there.

However, in Bill C-9, under part 24, would amend the Employment Insurance Act to establish, in the accounts of Canada, an account known as the employment insurance operating account. The government will close the employment insurance account. It is hard to follow that, but this account, which is a notional account, will be gone. The responsibilities attached to that account will also be wiped out.

Therefore, during the Mulroney years, when the auditor general found out that the government was operating a deficit year after year, the auditor general said that it was a government program and that the operation of a government program must be included in the determination of the surplus or deficit of a government in each of its fiscal years, which it was not. If it was a balance, it would have no impact. If it was operating at a deficit, the government accounts would be misleading Canadians to the tune of $12 billion.

The auditor general ordered the Government of Canada, under Brian Mulroney, to discontinue the use of that account and that the moneys would be accounted for as part of the consolidated revenue fund, in other words, as part of the determination of the government's annual surplus or deficit.

Even though the physical dollars were not in a separate bank account, the government kept track of money in and money out. When we had a situation where we had 10 years of not going into recession, in each of those years there was a reduction in the employment insurance premiums. The rules associated with the employment insurance account were that if there was a surplus, the government had to keep two years on hand, which was about $24 billion on hand to take care of a recession. That was the reserve. However, anything over that the government had two choices. One was to reduce premiums until it got back down to the $24 billion reserve level or introduce new programs so the cost of providing benefits would go up and that would also help the notional surplus to go down.

I raise this because this makes sense to me. The government has now set up an account, where it has put $2 billion into a management group. Starting from January 1, 2009, I believe, all premium dollars are to be dedicated to this new account, all benefits coming out of it. While we are in a recession, there are more payouts than there are premiums coming in. It is operating at a deficit now.

However, the Auditor General told me, when I asked her directly, notwithstanding the government is attempting, again, to hide the true impacts of this recession on Canada and Canadians, that the deficit included in this new employment insurance account would be included in the determination of a surplus or a deficit for the Government of Canada, on an annual basis. Therefore, it will not able to hide it.

However, what the government cannot say, and even the finance minister said it today, is that it was somehow the Liberals because they built up this surplus. The accumulation of a surplus meant that we could not reduce the premiums or introduce new employment insurance benefits fast enough because we had the highest employment rates in 30 years, or the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years, however one wants to look at it. When we have that, we cannot adjust that quickly. Therefore, it did go up $57 billion of additional funds more than was necessary to fund that program if it were on a stand-alone basis operated by some third party. That is the fact. However, with Bill C-9, the government has said that it will not be responsible for the $57 billion. It is just going to keep it.

The government says that the Liberals stole it. If the Auditor General says we have to include it in our consolidated revenue fund, it is pretty straightforward that we will not take the surplus and leave it sit in some bank account. We will pay down debt and reduce the debt charges.

However, the EI account was also, in addition to keeping the premiums surplus there, crediting interest on an annual basis. Much of that $57 billion is interest earned on the $57 billion.

The government cannot say that anybody else is responsible for taking away from employees and employers the accumulated equity they had in the EI plan. Bill C-9 would take away that responsibility. It would take away the responsibility to give back that money by reduced premiums or improved EI benefits. The government has misled Canadians on that basis.

I want to talk about the idea of crime about which the previous speaker spoke.

I feel so strongly that Canadians should be taken care of. I once heard a line something to the effect that the measure of success of a country is not so much an economic measure as it is a measure of the health and well-being of its people.

We are in a period now where many Canadians are in jeopardy. They are going to make mistakes. As I said in a earlier question, our experience in Canada is that when the unemployment rate goes up, the crime rate goes up. Violent crime tracks it almost identically. Property crime goes even beyond that.

Therefore, it is easy to make the argument that if we do not take care of the economy with jobs and innovation and take care of the people's needs, if we say, “Let's balance the books first and then we'll take care of the problems later,” we are saying it is okay that crime goes up. Yet the government says, no, we have to be tough on crime.

If the government wants to be tough on crime, it had better be effective on the economy and jobs and innovation. Those are the kinds of things we have to do. Everything in our economy and in our social circumstance in Canada is inextricably linked. We just cannot do one thing at the expense of another. We have to address the full needs of Canadians at all times. Accordingly the government has not done the job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know you want me to ask a question about Bill C-9, the 880-page omnibus bill that the government has introduced in the House today.

I know the member is certainly interested in the softwood lumber issue. This particular bill raises the export tariff on softwood lumber products from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan by 10%.

It is basically designed to bring Canada into compliance with the decision of the London Court of International Arbitration tribunal regarding the evaluation of export volumes from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The tribunal ruled that Canada must apply compensatory export charges of $68.26 million in accordance with the softwood lumber accord.

We know the forestry industry is already in trouble with widespread unemployment. My colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, has talked at length in this House about the softwood lumber sellout perpetrated by various parties in this House. Would the member comment on this provision of Bill C-9, which will basically further hurt the forestry industry in this country?

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-9. I will begin by saying that we will be voting against this bill.

I have been a member in this House for over four years. Twice now the people of Ahuntsic have given me the privilege of defending their interests and Quebec's interests with my Bloc Québécois colleagues.

My duties here have allowed me to witness first-hand the Conservative government's failure to act, and above all, its political grandstanding. In fact, even the name of the bill, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, rather than the budget implementation bill, is itself an example of this smoke and mirrors act, as they try to convince the country that they are taking care of people.

In my speech on the budget implementation act, I will demonstrate that the government is trying to impose its right wing ideology to the detriment of women, children and even the victims it claims so loudly to defend.

First of all, consider the firearms registry. The underlying message of this budget is that the government wants to save all the pennies it can, putting the lives of our citizens in danger, particularly the lives of women and children, and even police officers. To save less than $3 million—the undisputed number from the RCMP—the government is supporting a bill that will exempt long guns from the current firearms registry, and 90% of all guns are long guns. And they are the weapons that kill the most women and children.

Before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on March 18, 2010, the Senior Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP, Bill Sweeney, expressed his support for maintaining the full gun registry and pointed out that there is ample evidence proving that the registry contributes to the safety of police officers and the public. He said:

I believe that there is compelling evidence that the registry promotes officer and public safety...I believe that there will be an opportunity for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to present to a cabinet committee that evidence.

It is clear that the gun registry not only allows for better coordination of law enforcement interventions, but also for the prevention of domestic tragedies by facilitating the seizure of weapons. It also makes it more difficult to steal firearms and easier to conduct and conclude police investigations, and that allows police to arrest criminals more quickly. The registry is consulted more than 12,000 times a day by more than 80% of police officers across Canada.

On the issue of the gun registry, the government has achieved an exceptional level of absurdity. For $3 million in so-called savings, the government, which has more than $242.2 million in expenditures in this budget, wants to compromise the safety of the public and law enforcement officers.

For the government, public safety is just another prop in their show. All the government ever does is put on shows and make the same old announcements. I have some examples. By the way, the shows are not very good.

The Minister of Public Safety made a major announcement on the sex offender registry by saying that the government will tighten its grip on pedophiles. We were told that $14 million was being allocated over two years for DNA analysis. It was a big show.

In fact, we were addressing this issue before the government prorogued the House and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had produced a report on the sex offender registry. Furthermore, in April 2009 our committee met with the directors of two major labs, one in Quebec and the other in Ontario. There are three major laboratories in Canada: those two and the third one, run by the RCMP, which does analyses.

We received Mr. Prime from the Centre of Forensic Sciences, and Mr. Dufour from the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale. These two labs do roughly 70% of all the tests. What did these directors say in April 2009? That not only was there no agreement with the federal government, but they also had to do a tremendous amount of tests—nearly 70% of the tests—with very little money.

This means that it can take up to a year to get the results of these tests.

On March 18, at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I questioned the minister about the funding for these laboratories. I was told that there still was no agreement in place and that Quebec still had not signed the agreement for the current year. So there is no agreement.

I asked how the $7 million a year would be split among these laboratories, and I got no answer. They do not know how they are going to divide up the money. Currently, each lab gets just over $2 million, so they will likely get exactly the same amount, with no increase. Once again, the government is making a great show of things, but in reality there is nothing new. Even worse, nothing is being done.

I want to tell my colleagues about something that is completely absurd. They say they want to crack down on pedophiles. No problem. Yet for the past three years—during which time there have been three public safety ministers—I have been warning the government and calling on the Conservatives to stop transferring pedophiles to Correctional Services halfway houses, also known as community correctional centres, near schools and daycare centres.

The Montreal school board has also been calling for this. It passed a resolution to that effect, but nothing was done. This does not require any investment of money—it does not cost a cent—and it does not even require that a law be passed. All it requires is a simple directive at Correctional Services. Did they agree? No. Three years later, they still have not done anything. What are they waiting for? I do not know. I hope with all my heart that they will not wait for a tragedy to occur before they do something, which is what usually happens.

I will give another example. For four years, this government has been saying that it is very concerned about victims of crime. So it makes a big deal about a paltry $6.6 million over two years to improve the federal victims strategy by making it easier for relatives of crime victims, specifically murder victims, to receive EI sickness benefits.

There is even a spokesperson who spouts all manner of falsehoods. I say “falsehoods” because I do not want to use unparliamentary language. I would use another word if I were not here in the House, but that is another story.

Why did they take four years to come up with a paltry $6.6 million? After putting on a show for four years, claiming to be there for the victims and feeling sorry for them, they did something, providing $6.6 million over two years. Why? On closer scrutiny, what do we find?

We know that the member for Compton—Stanstead introduced—more than once—Bill C-343 respecting the families of victims of crime. This bill would provide assistance in the form of employment insurance benefits not only to the families of murder victims, but also the families faced with the death of their minor child or the suicide of a spouse, common-law partner or child, and to parents whose minor child suffered a serious physical injury during the commission of a criminal offence. It would mean that any member of these families affected by tragedy could receive up to 52 weeks of benefits and maintain their employment relationship for up to two years.

What is the government proposing? It is proposing $3.3 million per year only for the families of murder victims, which boils down to approximately 15 weeks of benefits. We are asking for 52 weeks for a larger number of individuals. That is what I call really helping the victims of crime.

They are so frantic that, on March 19, Senator Boisvenu, their spokesperson, was still telling and writing falsehoods, not to use unparliamentary language, about Bill C-343. He attempted to defend the indefensible. We will see how absurd that was. He said that budget 2010 included an additional commitment of $52 million to help victims of crime and $6.6 million to support the parents of a murdered child through the EI program.

That is not true. There is no $52 million in the budget for the victims of crime. The Conservatives just love putting on smoke and mirrors shows. They are world champions at it. Unfortunately, these are not very good shows. I would not recommend them, because the shows are more pitiful than anything else.

I would like to speak about an issue that is important to me—crime prevention. We will see that they have a rather poor record. Crime prevention is not in their vocabulary. For the Conservatives, crime prevention is an obscure concept, one that they do not even understand. If they did, they would have thrown money at it since coming to power. I would say that previous governments did not do much more. However, the Conservatives claim that they are concerned about crime. Crime prevention is fundamental if we do not want people to become criminals. If we want to save our youth, we have to have prevention.

What if we are wrong? Well, I will prove that we are not wrong. We are not the only ones saying it.

There is nothing in the budget for prevention, there is nothing for the national crime prevention strategy. However, the National Crime Prevention Centre web site talks about providing communities tools, knowledge and support to undertake crime prevention initiatives in communities large and small across Canada. It is great to read that. It is encouraging.

This year, no new money has been allocated. Consequently, for over a year—and this may continue next year—the National Crime Prevention Centre, Quebec section, has been telling agencies in my riding, and they have told me as well, to not submit applications for new projects until further notice because it does not have any money and allocated amounts have already been disbursed.

I asked the minister about it when he came before the committee. It seems that no one could provide an answer. We will receive one in writing at some point, at least we hope so. I have dealt with a fair number of departments. It is fairly difficult to obtain information and a response from the department responsible for the NCPC. I will not go into that.

What are the Conservatives doing? They are doing the easiest thing, what they are paid to do and what they were sent here to do: they are making laws. Making laws is the easiest thing to do, unbelievably easy. However, making intelligent laws is not as easy, I can assure you. And when the time comes to put money into implementing those laws, it is a different story. Furthermore, there is always that narrow vision that would have us believe that putting more people in jail is in some way fighting crime. Let us just put people in jail and throw away the key and everything will be just fine. I am sorry, but no matter how many and how long the jail terms are, those individuals will be freed one day and once back on the streets they will be even more prone to crime and more dangerous.

Last Tuesday—as life and destiny sometimes take us to some cities at the right time—I was in Winnipeg where I replaced my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin at the justice and human rights committee, which was studying organized crime and street gangs. I must say that I was moved and touched by what I saw in Winnipeg, particularly by the condition of aboriginal children. All the witnesses we heard told us that more money was needed for prevention.

I met outstanding aboriginal women who work tirelessly for organizations in terrible neighbourhoods to save aboriginal children, to get them off the streets and to prevent them from being recruited by street gangs or organized crime groups.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about Mr. Wiebe, a man who stood out to me, although all of the testimonies were touching. Mr. Wiebe's 20-year-old son was murdered on January 5, 2003. It was a very violent murder planned out by young men aged 17 to 20.

This man was suffering a lot. Despite the fact that he and his wife were still suffering, he said that he had read that the Canadian government wanted to increase the budget for prisons by 27%, by $3.1 billion. He encouraged the committee to press the government to take 100% of this increase and re-allocate every cent into human rights and prevention. He said that we needed to save these kids before they became criminals. He said that his son would perhaps still be alive if his murderers had gotten some help.

What I saw and heard in Winnipeg regarding the situation with aboriginal children made it clear why these young people join street gangs.

Why, between 2005 and 2007, did Winnipeg police report more than 8,000 car thefts per year committed by members of street gangs, by 11- or 12-year old kids? These kids are living with poverty, unsanitary housing—I saw it myself—violence, drug use, high drop-out rates, parental abandonment, sexual violence, despair and lack of love. And nothing in this budget will meet these desperate needs.

What aboriginal children need is good food, decent housing, the opportunity to go to school, homes free from violence and drugs, and parents who are proud of their culture and their history. They do not need prison.

Aboriginals are already over-represented in federal penitentiaries in the prairie provinces as well as in juvenile facilities in the region. Like all children in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Saskatoon, these children need greater solidarity. They need help to keep them from being recruited, used or killed by criminal gangs.

In my riding, in Quebec and in Winnipeg, I have seen compassionate, loving people who scrounge pennies every day to help children escape misery and to prevent them from being recruited by street gangs. They know that is the way to fight crime.

I get emotional about this because I care so deeply. This is part of my mission as a politician and as a human being.

I hope that the government will listen to Mr. Wiebe. I hope that it will quit showboating and realize that we cannot play games with people's lives. I also hope it will understand that the key to winning the fight against crime is making major investments in preventive measures targeting distressed children and youth everywhere in Quebec and Canada.

The most important thing is figuring out not how to put people in jail, but how to save our children. That should be our first concern. They are the ones who will eventually be looking after us. We must remember one thing. One day, our children will be looking after us. If we do not look after them, if we leave them to rot in jail, they will not do us any favours when it is their turn to look after us.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today we will be continuing with Bill C-9, the jobs and economic growth act.

Next week, as my hon. colleague indicated, is a constituency work week.

When the House returns the week of April 12, we will hopefully be able to conclude the debate at second reading of Bill C-9 and see the jobs and economic growth act move off to committee.

Wednesday, April 14, shall be an allotted day.

While I am on my feet, I would like to wish everyone a happy Easter. As we wind down this five-week sitting, I would like to take the opportunity to recognize and thank the opposition for its cooperation and at times patience as we worked together on the people's business over the last five weeks. With the possible exception from time to time of some partisan issues in question period, we have worked very well.

I would like to extend the same sentiments of appreciation, Mr. Speaker, through you, to the House staff, who always try to serve our needs so well.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-9, the jobs and economic growth act. As the member for Outremont, our finance critic, has indicated, the New Democrats will be voting against this particular piece of legislation.

When pieces of legislation come before the House, we have responsibilities as members of Parliament to give them full consideration. Although we do support pieces of this legislation, there are other pieces of it that we are fundamentally opposed to. The Conservative government has decided to jam into this piece of legislation things that should properly be considered by other parliamentary standing committees and should have stand-alone legislation.

We have items around Canada Post and the environment that should be stand-alone pieces of legislation. The appropriate committees could deal with those in depth, call the appropriate witnesses and give them the kind of study and due diligence that we have a responsibility to do as members of Parliament. Based on that fact alone, because there are aspects around the environment that we simply could not support, New Democrats are in a position where we have to say no to this piece of legislation.

There are particular aspects of Bill C-9 that are very troubling for my constituents of Nanaimo—Cowichan. I want to touch on a couple of them. One is that there are more changes around softwood lumber. We know that the softwood lumber agreement has had a devastating impact on different parts of the country. Certainly in British Columbia, our forestry sector has undergone a number of changes over the past several years.

The softwood lumber agreement, as it was agreed to by the Conservatives, has eroded the resource industry and forestry industry in Nanaimo—Cowichan and other parts of British Columbia. I would strongly urge members of the House to very carefully review that part of the budget implementation act to see what kinds of effects it would have on their communities.

I know other members have talked about the employment insurance aspect of this piece of legislation, but this is going to take the roughly $57 billion of surplus and wind up that employment insurance account. We know that, in many parts of this country including Nanaimo—Cowichan, there are many workers who have exhausted their employment insurance.

I talked a little bit earlier about forestry workers. We know that forestry workers in my riding, throughout British Columbia and in other parts of Canada have been hit hard. Some of them have either exhausted their employment insurance or were not eligible for some of those provisions that were supposed to protect workers.

If we were going to try to jam employment insurance into this budget implementation act, we would have liked to have seen some of the initiatives that other members, such as the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the member for Hamilton Mountain and the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, have called for. We would like to see an elimination of the two-week waiting period. We want to see a reduction in the number of weeks that are required to qualify. We want to see an adequate length of time that actually allows people that safety net that many of them have paid into their whole lives. We want to see an increase in the benefit rate.

Studies by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Canadian Labour Congress have indicated that if we want to talk about economic stimulus, we should provide that social safety net so people have money to spend in their own communities, so they can support their local restaurants and stores. If we ensured people had that safety net through employment insurance, we would make sure our economy stayed more stable.

Another aspect of it is that, as people exhaust their employment insurance benefits, they end up becoming the responsibility of the province. Once the workers have exhausted their employment insurance and then depleted their savings, they then end up going on income assistance. It seems to me that this is another example of the federal government shoving its responsibilities onto the provincial governments, particularly in light of the fact that there was a $57 billion surplus in the EI account, paid for by workers and their employers.

It is very difficult to support a budget that says the government will take the money that workers paid for and make sure it stays in the consolidated revenue fund, with no access to it by workers or their employers.

There are many, many parts of the bill that are simply anathema to New Democrats, but I want to talk very briefly about the environmental assessment part of this legislation. It exempts through legislation rather than regulations certain federally funded infrastructure projects from environmental assessment. This goes well beyond the efforts by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to streamline the environmental assessment process, which was to be the object of a review in 2010. At the outset of my speech, I referenced the fact that parts of this Bill C-9 legislation are taking the responsibility away from standing committees where it appropriately belongs.

Our environment critic, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, is here intently listening and I know she has raised the issues around the fact that there was a process that was going to be under way and this legislation attempts to usurp the authority of the environment committee to do its work. It allows the Minister of the Environment to dictate the scope of the environmental assessment of any project to be reviewed and it allows for, rather than requires, the National Energy Board and the Nuclear Safety Commission to pay for public participations and reviews that they choose to undertake. That is in line with the budget speech, which outlined the plan to remove assessment of energy projects from the Environmental Assessment Agency and give it to the NEB and the NSC.

In British Columbia, we recently had a Supreme Court of Canada ruling where MiningWatch Canada raised an issue. The Supreme Court said that the federal regulators erred when they failed to subject the Red Chris project to a full review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act following its review and approval by the B.C. government. The question this raises is that there are dozens of projects under federal review including mines, highways and pipelines. The court said the so-called responsible authorities including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada must undertake comprehensive reviews of all projects that qualify for CEAA scrutiny.

So the question then becomes, with what is in Bill C-9, what happens to that court ruling. What happens to that responsibility under CEAA to put that kind of assessment review process in place? It is very worrying that the federal government seems to be distancing itself from its responsibility as a federal regulator to oversee these kinds of processes.

In my riding we have a very difficult situation with the Chemainus River and the Halalt First Nation. The Halalt is asking for a judicial review of a water project undertaken by the District of North Cowichan. There had previously been some action by the community because they were so frustrated by their inability to have the District of North Cowichan, the provincial or the federal governments pay attention to their very legitimate concerns.

As Chief James Thomas has said a number of times, their attempt to raise the issue around the Chemainus River aquifer was not just about Halalt First Nation. It was about protecting that aquifer for all of the residents of Chemainus. They had been passionately pleading with all levels of government to come to the table with them as full partners at the table to make sure the aquifer would be protected not only for this generation but for future generations. So they have been forced into the courts. They have a petition asking the courts to order a judicial review of the $3.6 million water project, which has been approved under both the federal and provincial environmental review processes.

Grand Chief Phillip has also commented on this and he has said:

As Indigenous Peoples, we are increasingly alarmed when third party interests are granted access to the resources of our territories, especially fresh water, government and the courts protect those corporate interests at the expense of our Aboriginal Title and Rights and of the environmental values that many British Columbians hold dear.

When we speak about the environmental values, many of us in the House keep in mind that we are not just talking about today. First nations will talk about seven generations into the future and that is what we need to be talking about when we are looking at protecting those valuable environmental assets.

I want to touch on a couple of other items.

I want to speak very briefly about Canada Post. Bill C-9 removes Canada Post's legal monopoly on outgoing international letters. The bill includes some provisions from previous bills, Bill C-14 and Bill C-44. I want to acknowledge the work done by the member for Hamilton Centre in raising concerns around this issue.

I live in a rural community. It is essential that we protect the ability of Canada Post to deliver cost-effective services to all residents in Canada. One way is to continue Canada Post's exclusive privilege to collect, transmit and deliver letters, including international letters, which is what is referenced in this piece of legislation. This would allow Canada Post to maintain its universal obligation. In many communities Canada Post is the lifeline. It is the mechanism by which people receive and send their correspondence at an affordable rate.

The member for Hamilton Mountain identified that where deregulation of that kind has happened in other countries, the costs have gone up and many postal workers have lost their jobs. Surely a piece of legislation called the jobs and economic growth act should look at protecting jobs, and not include measures that would do away with jobs.

Other New Democrats have mentioned that we will not be out of the recession until we have full job recovery. Many communities do not have full job recovery. The kinds of initiatives the government has proposed with respect to Canada Post will see job loss, not job recovery.

I want to touch on a couple of things that are particular to first nations, Métis and Inuit. This week the House had an emergency debate on the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Bill C-9 does not provide any continuation of the funding for it. On Tuesday night, over the several hours we debated this matter, there were passionate pleas for an extension of this funding.

I remind the House once again that the evaluation done on behalf of Indian and Northern Affairs talked about the program's effectiveness. It said that there was almost unanimous agreement among those canvassed that the AHF has been very successful at achieving its objectives in governance and fiscal management. Just to be clear, not only did it achieve its objectives but it has been fiscally responsible.

Every member who spoke on Tuesday night talked about the effectiveness of the AHF. Members mentioned that it is a grassroots community-driven organization and that it is culturally appropriate. Conservative members, without exception, talked about its effectiveness. A member asked me why the Conservative government would cancel a program that it agrees is effective. There simply is no answer to that.

It is very disappointing that the budget does not acknowledge the good work the Aboriginal Healing Foundation has done. The funding should be reinstated so the program can continue until residential school survivors have received the healing they need to become healthy, active, participating members of their communities, socially, culturally and economically. It is an outrage that it was not included in the budget.

With regard to violence against aboriginal women, we know that $10 million was earmarked in the throne speech, but we would like to see a commitment to continue the funding for the Native Women's Association of Canada. The Native Women's Association of Canada has done a Sisters in Spirit follow-up report, which laid out a number of factors that should be included.

At this juncture, we have no confidence that the Native Women's Association of Canada will continue to be funded, included in the action plan and the implementation of it. It needs to be at the table as a full partner in developing the action plan and implementing it.

The association has made a number of recommendations. In my short 20 minutes I will not have time to go through all of them, but I want to touch on a couple.

One is with respect to the reduction of violence against aboriginal women and girls, which results in their disappearance and death.

The association is recommending that the association and all levels of government work collaboratively to review and consolidate existing recommendations from all of the commissions and inquiries that have occurred.

The Native Women's Association needs to participate as a full member in developing a work plan to identify outstanding recommendations and priorities for action. The Native Women's Association, governments and police need to collaborate to develop policies and procedures that address the issues of prostitution, trafficking and sexual exploitation of children by focusing on the perpetrators, preventing the abuse and ensuring that the victims are not penalized, criminalized or had their personal autonomy restricted.

There needs to be a reduction of poverty experienced by aboriginal women and girls that will increase their safety and security, and a reduction in homelessness and an increased ability of aboriginal women to access safe, secure and affordable housing which meets minimum standards of cleanliness and repair. Finally, there needs to be improved access to justice for aboriginal women and girls and their families. There is a whole list of recommendations that fall under that subject.

I want to specifically address the Canada Council on Learning and First Nations University. A letter from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to the Prime Minister indicated:

The research, analysis and reporting capacity of an organisation such as CCL represents an important asset in a knowledge-driven economy. At the OECD, we have watched CCL's rapid evolution with interest. I have been impressed with the above-mentioned Composite Learning Index, which integrates robust measures across varied dimensions of learning and enables individuals and communities to assess the impact of learning on social and economic outcomes.

As we know, investing in a knowledge economy not only supports economic resilience and fuels economic growth, but also improves health levels, strengthens community, and heightens employment prospects.

In light of that letter from the OECD, one would think that the Canada Council on Learning's funding had been extended. Sadly, its funding has been cut. An organization that has raised issues, has monitored, has reported and has evaluated is losing its funding.

Its recent report, “Taking Stock: Lifelong Learning in Canada 2005–2010”, is a very good overview. It indicates that our country has a fundamental data gap in post-secondary education. It states:

Canada has the greatest deficiencies in acquisition and use of data on learning after high school of any OECD country. This renders the country capable of: matching labour market demand to supply; providing adequate information on which students can base study and career decisions; establishing accountability for resources expended and determining how much and what progress is being made.

Another report indicates that the discrepancy in post-secondary education attainment for first nations can be attributed to the university level. Only 8% of aboriginal people age 25 to 64 had completed a university degree compared to 23% of non-aboriginal Canadians.

The CCL has excellent information. One would probably suspect that because the CCL has raised some very troubling issues its funding was cut. Because it has raised some issues around aboriginal people, I want to touch on the report, “Walk In Our Moccasins, A Comprehensive Study of Aboriginal Education Counsellors in Ontario”.

The CCL outlines a number of factors that are essential for aboriginal learners to complete post-secondary and K-12 learning. It talks about a culturally enhanced and supported curriculum taught by caring educators, teaching strategies and assessments that are culturally reinforcing and diverse, and adequate economic well-being.

That leads me to First Nations University of Canada. We know that the provincial and federal governments cut its funding. The provincial government has reinstated it, but the federal government has only reinstated a portion of the funding. The former grand chief of Prince Albert Grand Council, Gary Merasty, wrote a very good op-ed saying that FNUC has turned the corner. He pointed out that in Saskatchewan 50% of the population will be first nations by 2045, and that First Nations University is an essential factor in terms of the economic health and well-being of that province.

Any economy that is going to thrive and grow needs an educated and trained workforce. First Nations University has a vital role to play in that.

For all of the reasons I have outlined, New Democrats will be opposing this budget implementation bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's presentation on this big omnibus bill, Bill C-9, was very down-to-earth.

He talks about the difficulties that small communities have to raise matching federal funds for buildings and infrastructure. That is certainly an issue not only in Newfoundland, but right across the country.

He also talked about the home renovation program, which was very popular. The Conservatives advertised it extensively. They touted it a success of their government and then they cancelled it. If the member wonders why that was done and why it has not been introduced again, he simply has to stay tuned. When the next election occurs, it will be one of the election promises of the government.

I want to ask the member a question about another aspect of this bill. In the area of environmental assessment, there are some changes that would allow the Minister of the Environment to dictate the scope of environmental assessments. It also weakens the public participation and enables the removal of assessments of energy projects from the Environmental Assessment Agency, the National Energy Board and the Nuclear Safety Commission.

This is an oil company's dream. This is all part of the overall plan of the Conservative government to deregulate the economy and industries and give corporations what they want.

Would the member like to comment on that? Certainly he could get back to the missed part of his speech on the fisheries.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here to debate Bill C-9, what we would normally call the budget implementation act. In this particular case, however, we are looking at the jobs and economic growth act.

For the next 20 minutes, I will analyze some of the material in the budget that is deficient and some that may be construed as being positive. Dare I go that far, sitting in the opposition? I will just to be fair-minded. I also want to touch on some of the major issues that have come up in the last little while in my riding and in my province in some of the more traditional industries that are facing a crisis, to say the least.

Particularly today, there is a crisis in the fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador for those who depend on the crab fishery, with the season opening and very few boats out on the water able to make a living. I will get to that a little later.

I would like to talk about the genesis of the economic action plan as described in the budget, titled “Leading the Way on Jobs and Growth”. I would not say that the economic action plan is leading the way. I do believe the sheer gist of our talented workforce, the education levels, our ability to innovate and the capacity by which we can get to the level to survive all economic crises certainly is leading the way but it is incumbent upon the individual to lead the way out of this.

However, there are areas in which there are weaknesses in our society and socio-economic factors that are at play, areas that the government needs to take action on. We need to play a role in the lives of people who have fallen through the cracks, people who are most vulnerable in situations, whether they live in Ontario, Nunavut or Newfoundland and Labrador. Many of them are going through a similar crisis when it comes to education, rates of literacy and certainly when it comes to matching the skills with a particular place or industry they want to be in.

I would like to suggest something for the House to consider and it is something I have talked about quite a bit over the past little while. We are seeing something taking place in the workforce. I will use my riding as strong example because of the talent and skills that people have developed over the past little while. A lot of work is transient in nature. Let us take the example of a particular individual with a skills set in the oil and gas industry. If people are thinking about Newfoundland and Labrador, they must be thinking that they work offshore. That is not the case. In my particular neck of the woods, a lot of people are transients from Newfoundland and Labrador who go to the oil fields of Alberta.

They work in some of the major plants, upgraders I think the term is, that go from one form of petroleum to the final product that is ready for market with regard to natural gas and oil but also for major infrastructure projects happening in Alberta because of the proliferation of the industry. I say that because even though oil prices dipped dramatically over last year, the infrastructure is in place, the people who work the industry are also in place and many of them travel back and forth. They spend perhaps three or four weeks in Alberta at the work site and travel thousands of kilometres to return home for two or three weeks. That is becoming the nature of many of the workers and jobs available at this point.

There was a dip in the demand for work simply because of the low price of oil. I say the low price of oil meaning relative to what it was two years ago when it was in some cases above $150 a barrel. Now it is at $83 a barrel and, therefore, workers have kind of slipped into a comfortable place when it comes to achieving work for those who are skilled in that industry.

How does that change the dynamic? It does in many ways. People are now taking advantage of skills training, whether it is federal or provincial, and that is a good thing. What is lacking is the ability of small, medium and large enterprises to match the work that is available. What I would implore the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to consider is a national program similar to what we would call a skills inventory database.

Let us assume for a moment that I possess a skill in pipefitting and I live in Newfoundland and Labrador. Where can I go to achieve work that allows me to stay at home but yet travel to find work elsewhere?

People need to put their skill sets into a national database, to go beyond their own backyards, in order to allow other companies to see that they exist. I know that sounds like a strange concept but work is now becoming so quick to attain. Industries are now transitioning from the old traditional style. Even the traditional industries of oil and gas and forestry are now transitioning. The forestry industry is going from not just pulp and paper or newsprint. It is transforming into furniture making, pellets for heating energy, whether it is at the home or at the business.

In the fishing industry, many of the smaller boats are now becoming larger vessels and they are fishing in areas further off shore.

Therefore, because these companies, whether they be small or big, are transitioning to a new type of work and a new type of business model, which means new types of revenue streams, it becomes problematic to find the workers who have the particular skills. The companies end up spending a lot of money, resources and time just to find those people.

However, we, as a government, can make that transition easier by providing that particular database of information so that it puts the worker, as well as the employer, into that same sphere and allows people to communicate.

There is another side of doing that which would be beneficial, and I humbly put this forward to the House as a token of debate. I will give members a good example. In Port Union in my riding, over 1,000 people used to work at the local shrimp plant, which at the time was owned by Fishery Products International, now owned by OCI. The plant went from a workforce of over 1,000 people down to about 100 or 200 people on a good day. It was highly seasonal work with somewhere between 15 to 20 weeks of work for the average employee.

Now, across the harbour there is an old plant that existed many years ago, the early part of the last century, and then was shut down. It was the focal point of a fishing industry when there were a lot more people involved in the fishery. It was owned by William Coaker, incidentally. The government is now investing into giving the place a facelift, let us say, making it more user friendly, not just for tourists but also for business. A company such as Iceberg is now going to produce bottled water. Bottled water from icebergs. My goodness. I remember a gentleman telling me one time that in his day, icebergs were the biggest nuisance around. Now icebergs have become a lifeline for bottled water and other products.

How do we go from transitioning from what was all fishery to now partially fishery and partially iceberg harvesting? We do that in the way that we spoke about, by trying to find the talented individuals who are able to work. The skill set needs to be there in order for them to set up. If a database exists, a company that wants to set up an operation, such as Iceberg or a water bottling plant, it can get a good idea about who in that community is available to work. Whether they have moved away recently or not, they can still be involved in that database by simply indicating where they come from. That would make it much easier for a company to find the workers it needs.

Mining is another example. A huge mine opened up outside of a town called Millertown and it is owned by Teck. It mines mostly for copper, nickel and zinc, but it is now mining for gold. By doing that the company needs the particular individuals talented enough to work in those mines. That is where the government could play a role.

I would like the government to consider this in its next budget or even as a policy over the summer or in the fall. If we to get serious about having a talented workforce, promoting it and ensuring it is able to mesh with anybody that wants to hire them, whether it be small, medium or large business, we need to have the playing field by which they can come together.

Let me return to the budget implementation bill and what was written in the book provided to us when the budget was released. The economic action plan promised a great deal of money for infrastructure and it promised a great deal on the back end for tertiary activity.

Intentions are paved with gold, if I may use the vernacular. The problem with that is the function of it has diminished in the past little while. Here are some of the problems we need to consider when this type of crisis happens again.

With respect to unspent monies, let me give the House a list of what was unspent in this situation. In the supplementary estimates (C), which were brought to the House, $1.4 billion worth of infrastructure funding were not spent in 2009-10. There were $870 million unspent out of the $2 billion for the infrastructure stimulus fund. There were $186 million unspent out of $200 million for the green infrastructure fund. There were $240 million unspent out of $495 million for the provincial-territorial base funding. Finally, for the building Canada communities federal component, there were $135 million unspent out of $250 million.

Let me illustrate to the House a point that I saw in particular where this money gets unspent. Cost-sharing is a large element of it. The government spends money to increase the infrastructure and improve the infrastructure for a particular community. I will use the town of New West Valley as an example. It wants to take advantage of a particular stimulus fund to upgrade its park for reasons of tourism and for its residents who take advantage of it for fitness, health and the like.

The problem with it is this. In a small town the municipal tax base is not as large as a medium or larger community. The business tax is not where it used to be. That puts it in a vulnerable position where it has to come up with its one-third share, which it cannot do.

The federal government needs to consider putting in flexibilities so smaller communities can avail the funding. Right now provinces do their part by allowing up to 90% available so the communities can up with 10%, and kudos to them for doing so.

I understand the rules and regulations of Treasury Board and all things financial, the regulations and accounting principles. However, the compassion has been taken out of this when the government insists on doing things such as major announcements, handing out cheques and the like. This is kind of a misnomer because cheques are not really handed out any more. Maybe they are, but I cannot get that straight.

Nonetheless, let me just go back to the situation we have on infrastructure. One of the other elements about this funding when it comes recreation. One-third of the spending is hard enough to come up with, but we have a program called RInC, which is recreational infrastructure.

In 1967 there was a rash of spending regarding stadiums, gymnasiums, swimming pools and municipal council buildings. Many smaller communities took advantage of the Centennial fund to build their town halls or stadiums and so on and so forth. A lot of remains. I will not say intact, because that goes too far. However, it is still there and through a patchwork of funding, not a lot from the federal government, it remains, barely in some cases.

What we proposed, and I say we meaning the colour red of Liberal, in the last election was that we have an incentive to put money back into these communities in the infrastructure we invested in 1967. I do not know if anyone has noticed a calendar, but 1967 certainly was not yesterday. We got the idea about these crumbling buildings and we were able to do that.

The Conservatives decided this, and maybe this was a good idea, but the problem was they instituted a program that was not just one-third, it was fifty-fifty. If people are to spend $200,000 to fix a stadium, and that is a meagre sum for a stadium that seats over 1,000 in a town of only 3,000 or 4,000 people, they have to come up with $100,000.

There are stipulations where they can go to the province, but that puts it on the hook too. The government said it would not clawback funds, but in a way that is a clawback. It says it believes in a stadium and gives the town the money. For example, Bishop's Falls will be, after the weekend, Hockeyville, Canada. I am somewhat biased. It will get $100,000 for winning Hockeyville. Only one stadium on the whole country, whether it is the other towns or Bishop's Falls, gets that money. It is pretty bad that for that one stadium, the major contributor to its infrastructure, on a federal level, is the Kraft corporation.

We should think about that one for a moment. Maybe we should look at this in the sense of giving these communities a fair shot at the funding they so need. They are told that they are getting $100,000 for their stadiums, then they pause and the cameras click and they get on the six o'clock news. Then when all that settles down, the lights dim and the news is over, those towns realize they have come up with $100,000 too. It is unfortunate the cameras are not around then.

I bring that up as an illustration only because I honestly think this is fixable. I would compel the government to consider these options as we go forward, whether it is a renewed program as such. It talks about program renewals. If the program where I could fix my home and get a tax credit for it were so good, so powerful and so wonderful, where is it now? Perhaps someone can find it because I know where it is.

If an evaluation is to take place and if we have to consider all the programs, let us start from scratch. Let us go right to the core of the issue here. Let us go to the spending needed for programs that are needed. What ends up happening is when program evaluators review a program review, they only look at the numbers. The faces, the stories and the communities get lost in the mix. The government program evaluators become simply black and white numbers, and all of us have to stop doing that.

I will give an example. It seems like the only time we listen to people and their stories of how good these programs are is when the programs are in trouble. Why should a program have to fight for its life when it is so good and so, in the end, salvageable? Let me give the best example I can, being a rural member of Parliament, and that is the community access program, the CAP.

I am not sure if the government wanted to cut it or not. Quite frankly, I do not think it is sure either. Let us go beyond that argument of who said what, where, when and why and what news release was correct and what bureaucrat got it wrong, whether minister or bureaucrat. Let is set that aside for one moment.

The Conservatives said that they would continue the funding for this program for another year. However, what they are doing is putting money into the other pile of money, which is all about infrastructure spending. They make it sound like it is the bottom line of just the digital world, when in fact it is a social program. It allows people with lower incomes to be on the Internet, to be engaged in the world that they endorsed.

Finally, I will talk about the fisheries very quickly. We have a situation—

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to participate in this debate on Bill C-9 to implement the budget tabled in the House a few weeks ago.

First, I will address the title of the bill. I have been in this House for 13 years, and this kind of bill is usually called a budget implementation bill. All of a sudden, the government decided to call it something else, the jobs and economic growth bill.

That is somewhat odd and ironic. It is as if the federal government was running an advertising and promotional campaign about the budget. The fact is that this is a bill to implement a budget, and not one to create jobs and promote economic growth. This growth will be done on the backs of the less privileged and at the detriment of the environment. It will also be done at the expense of the safety net that needs to be put in place.

The bill before us today is somewhat odd in that this is not a jobs and economic growth bill, but a budget implementation bill. I wanted to make that clear from the outset.

We are especially disappointed with this budget as far as the initiatives or measures it contains to protect the environment, natural resources as well as ecosystems and biodiversity are concerned. This is one of the least substantial budgets I have had the opportunity to read and analyze in recent years in terms of the environment.

There is nothing in there to improve environmental protection and nothing for Quebec. Yet, the budget provides $16 million over two years for the Great Lakes action plan.

Yesterday, the government announced the signing of an agreement with Ontario to extend the Great Lakes action plan. Yet, at the same time, on March 31, the St. Lawrence plan, designed to develop a vision and an integrated management system for one of the largest waterways in America, expired without any announcement by the government regarding its extension.

For the government, the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes system is limited to the Great Lakes. We do not think there is a direct relationship, in terms of economic activity, with the protection of ecosystems in the Great Lakes, but the St. Lawrence requires integrated protection and management. We are a little disappointed.

The budget provides $16 million over two years for the Great Lakes action plan, but nothing for the St. Lawrence, nothing in terms of strategy, nothing in terms of vision beyond 2010.

The budget is also lacking an initiative to promote renewable energies. However, in the 2009 budget, the government announced $350 million for the nuclear industry. There is considerable funding for this industry again this year, but not enough funding for developing renewable energies.

This shows that the government has not made the green shift. It has not made the commitment to “decarbonize“ its economy. Therefore, there is no money for energy efficiency. As a matter of fact, we just learned this morning that the ecoENERGY program has been cancelled. The budget does nothing to promote energy efficiency and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the source, but it gives a lot of money to one particular economic sector, namely, oil companies.

The Conservatives continue giving tax breaks to an industry that produces and extracts oil from the tar sands with impunity and pollutes our environment, without paying for the pollution it is causing. For those who believe that a price should be put on carbon and that there should be costs associated with polluting, this is disappointing.

Ultimately, when the government announces regulations to fight climate change, who will pay? Businesses that have already made the effort will have to compensate financially for the efforts not being made by the oil industry in western Canada.

One might have hoped this budget would include some sort of recognition program, whether it is called a credit for early action or compensation program. Yet there is nothing to compensate Quebec's economic activity sectors, particularly the manufacturing industry in Quebec, which has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 24%.

There is nothing. Yet the Bloc Québécois had made some proposals. What did we propose? We proposed $500 million a year for five years as incentives for converting oil heating systems. We proposed $500 million a year for five years for a green energy fund. We also called for a plan to promote electric cars to help us move towards using more electricity in our transportation, not only in public transit, but also in individual transportation, and to put money into research. That is how Quebec will be able to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions: by targeting this sector of activity in Quebec, that is, the transportation sector. The budget contains nothing for electric cars. The government ignored the recommendation and the plan we proposed.

There is nothing for shoreline erosion. As I was just saying, there is nothing for the St. Lawrence and nothing to help those living along the river, who are the first victims of climate change. Higher temperatures and extreme weather events will affect the St. Lawrence shoreline more than any other place. People living along the St. Lawrence are losing waterfront land and thus are losing an important asset. There is no help for them, even though my Bloc Québécois colleague from Matane had proposed a bill to establish a compensation fund to offset the costs of adapting to climate change. There is absolutely nothing.

They are not proposing tax credits for companies that promote the use of bicycles as an alternate form of transportation. We proposed $20 million. There is no incentive for citizens to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, such as hybrid vehicles. A few years ago, we had the ecoAuto program. Why not reintroduce this program, which would provide tax credits for the purchase of electric or hybrid vehicles? For example, Montreal taxi drivers could benefit. But, no.

This is a budget without a vision, a budget that has failed to make the green shift required for us to move to a carbon-free economy.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Members know that the Bloc Québécois has already voted against the Conservative government's budget because, once again, it does not meet the economic, social, environmental and financial needs of Quebec.

No matter the sector—forestry, aerospace, the environment or culture—Quebeckers' priorities have been completely ignored in this budget.

By presenting an empty budget that is so unfair to Quebec, the Conservative government is proving once again that federalism is of no benefit to Quebec.

The Conservatives have shown once more that, as far as Canada is concerned, it is as though Quebec does not exist.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government's constant refusal to meet Quebec's needs has consequences.

In the Quebec government's budget presented on Tuesday, $4.3 billion must be raised from taxpayers—$3.5 billion from individuals—through different taxes. There will be a 2% increase in the sales tax.

This budget has already given rise to an avalanche of criticism by civil society groups who fear the impoverishment of low- and middle-income households. In the next four years, Quebeckers will have to face increases in Quebec sales tax, fuel taxes and electricity rates, in addition to paying a new annual premium to fund the health system.

In its budget suggestions of February 24, the Bloc Québécois clearly identified the financial needs of Quebec, which Ottawa must address fairly. The Bloc identified $7 billion in needs: changes to be made to the equalization formula, increased funding for education and social programs, as well as compensation for harmonizing the sales tax. In my mind, the harmonization of the sales tax is the most pathetic issue. On March 31, 2009, exactly one year ago, Quebec's National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion asking the federal government to treat Quebec justly and equitably, by granting compensation comparable to that offered to Ontario for the harmonization of its sales tax with the GST.

In the days that followed the adoption of this motion, and in response to questions posed in the House by the Bloc Québécois, the government stated that it did not wish to conduct negotiations in the public arena.

Despite repeated requests by the Government of Quebec and numerous attempts by the Bloc Québécois to correct this injustice, the Conservative government has again responded negatively to Quebec's requests at such a crucial time in the preparation of its budget.

To make sure that the Conservative government is well aware of the situation, I will read an excerpt from the speech made by the Quebec minister last Tuesday:

Furthermore, we are determined to recover the $2.2 billion we have been claiming from the federal government for harmonizing the QST with the GST. We are entitled to expect fair treatment from the federal government, which recently granted compensation to Ontario and British Columbia following harmonization of their sales taxes with the GST.

I will remind members that the Government of Quebec cannot be accused of being sovereignist and that it has always had the support of the opposition in requesting compensation for harmonizing its sales tax with the GST.

In fact, a new motion was passed unanimously by all members of the Quebec National Assembly last Tuesday. I will read it so it is properly recorded in the Debates of the House of Commons in both official languages, as it should:

THAT the National Assembly denounces the refusal by the federal Government to offer Québec compensation comparable to that received by British Columbia and Ontario in 2009 for the harmonization of their sales tax with the Goods and Services Tax;

THAT it recalls that Québec was the first province to harmonize its tax with the federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the beginning of the 1990s and has still received no compensation in this area, even though five provinces have been compensated for their harmonization after that of Québec;

THAT the Assembly also denounces the fact that for one year, notwithstanding a similar official request, the federal Government has continued to refuse to treat Quebeckers with justice and equity.

The federal government has already signed an agreement worth $6.86 billion with five other provinces to harmonize their sales tax. Quebec, which was the first province to harmonize its tax in 1992, has not yet received the $2.2 billion compensation that it has been demanding for a year.

In his budget on Tuesday, Quebec's finance minister also pointed out that the federal government administers the harmonized sales tax without any cost to the affected provinces, whereas Quebec pays its share of the GST and QST administration costs, under an agreement signed in the early 1990s, almost 20 years ago.

The Conservative government amended its original requirements in 2009 in order to provide Ontario and British Columbia with compensation. Why can it not come to an understanding with Quebec when it was able to do so with five other provinces on the same issue?

How is it possible that, after a year of intense negotiations, the Conservative government still does not understand the importance of providing compensation to Quebec for harmonizing its tax in anticipation of its budget?

The Government of Quebec stated that it needed that compensation to reduce the tax burden on the people. Society's poorest and the middle class will not forget this injustice perpetrated against Quebec.

In addition to not responding to Quebeckers' needs and desires, the government is once again expressing its intention to encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction over securities despite another unanimous vote in Quebec's National Assembly calling on the federal government to back away from plans to implement a Canada-wide securities commission.

I want to remind the government that securities regulation is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and that the current passport system does a very good job of making a coordinated law enforcement approach possible.

I also want to remind the government that Quebec's Autorité des marchés financiers is the last bastion protecting exchange activities in Montreal.

For all of these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will have to oppose Bill C-9.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have seen some pretty brash behaviour on the part of the government last year and this year too. It introduced huge omnibus bills, 800-page bills, including things that really have nothing to do with the budget.

We have the issue of the post office remailers that was introduced last year under Bill C-44 and Bill C-14. When it could not get these bills through the House over two or three successive years, it simply repackaged it and stuck it in this particular bill, Bill C-9.

What is going through the government's mind? What is its motivation to put in objectionable bills that it could not get through any other way, sticking them into the budget implementation process and giving us no choice but to vote for them or have an election?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was just catching up on my reading of the Speech from the Throne and the budget just to make sure that my comments will be accurate and statistically correct.

The Conservatives call Bill C-9 the jobs and economic growth act. As my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood said earlier, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River and others are what we call the Scarborough team. We have been exchanging our views about what we have been hearing from our constituents and what happened at the forum the other day. At the University of Toronto Scarborough campus we hosted a meeting with respect to Canada at 150 to get input from all Canadians. Not to get off track, but the session I hosted had to do with health care. As I have said in previous presentations, health care seems always to be the number one concern for Canadians, and so it was again.

Getting back to the jobs and economic growth act, the Conservatives could have given the bill a different title. One could ask what jobs and economic growth we are talking about. What in the world is the government referring to? All people have to do is listen to the news and commentaries, read the statistics, see the types of jobs being created, see why we are losing jobs and why we are not being competitive for the jobs of the future and the will understand why I am being a little, one might say, cynical about the bill's title.

There is no real job growth. There is no real economic growth. The government pulled up a statistic. All one has to do is tune in to the news to hear the sentiments of Canadians. They do not see anything. They are not confident for today or for the future. They do not see any positive impact on their lives. I will point out why they feel that way.

Canadians are not optimistic for the future and our overall economy because they have no confidence not just in what is happening but they have no confidence in the Prime Minister and, as a result, no confidence in the government. When people are asked why, they say it is simply because there is no trust. They say that the government says one thing and does the other.

For example, the government talks about investing in the jobs of the future and the green economy. In reality, it has not invested in the jobs of the future. If anything, it has cut back on the jobs of the future.

Researchers have asked over and over again for support. I have data here and I want to be accurate. They have asked for support and unfortunately, the support is not there.

The government talks about creating jobs. The Minister of Finance has said in the past that EI premiums, or EI taxes, as they are often referred to, are increasing and are an impediment to creating jobs. We agree with him wholeheartedly. Employers have told us repeatedly to lower the rates and they will invest in creating jobs, retooling, modernizing, new equipment, et cetera.

Unfortunately, in the budget the government will be increasing EI premiums to the tune of almost $13 billion. That is almost a 35% tax hike. That is going to cost the average individual almost $900. At the same time, it is going to have a negative impact on companies, to the tune of anywhere between $9,000 to $10,000 per employee. That is a lot of money. That is not reducing taxes.

There is a graph in the budget on page 52, above which the government states, “Freeze in EI premium rate leaves money in the hands of employers and employees”. The columns in this graph start at the year 2000 and level off in years 2006 and 2007, which is when the Conservative government took over. During that period employment insurance premiums were being reduced year in and year out. When the Conservative government came into office, it simply did not decrease them, it left them as they were.

All of a sudden, as I pointed out earlier, the Conservatives plan a 35% hike in employment insurance premiums which, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, is going to cost 200,000 jobs. Yes, there were some jobs created and no one is disputing that, even though they were not high quality jobs, but a job is a job. But this tax increase is going to cost jobs because employers are going to hesitate, if anything refrain, from hiring people. That graph points that out exactly.

When the government stands and says that we have not done anything, its own graphs, and the proof is in the pudding as they say, indicate how a Liberal government between 1993 and 2006 was continuously reducing EI premiums. The GST reduction which the Conservatives provided to Canadians, they are now taking back in another manner.

There is another graph on page 86. I am pointing this out to prove to Canadians the discrepancy in the Conservatives' figures. The Conservatives say that Canada invests more directly in public R and D than does any other G7 country. That is a wonderful statement, but this is old data. They say this data is from 2007 which is the latest year for which data are available for the G7 countries. That is data from the Liberal administration. We would like to see the Conservatives' current data, which in essence shows a decline.

The graph clearly shows that up to 2007, and 2006 and 2005 were the latest years where this data was accumulated, Canada was leading countries such as Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and the United States. Thank God that was under a Liberal administration. That is why at that time we were able to not just invest in the new knowledge-based economy, but to retain our best and brightest and to attract others.

At that time I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of industry, Brian Tobin. We were at York University providing funding for research chairs. I remember a young couple. The husband had been offered a job in Germany. His wife was a researcher. She made an about-face. She decided to stay in Canada. When I asked her why she said that Canada was indeed investing properly and it was worth her time to stay. Not only did we retain our best and brightest, but we offered opportunities for the jobs of the future.

I encourage Canadians to pick up the budget book, look at page 86 and they will see exactly what I am talking about.

With respect to the new economy, I am very concerned. There are certain technologies in Canada in which we pride ourselves. The news about AECL in the last couple of days really concerns me. I happened to see an advertisement for the movie on the Avro Arrow technology. It reminded me that it was a Conservative government that sold out that Canadian technology and now another Conservative government is about to sell out a unique industry, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, where we provide the Candu technology which is not only well recognized, but well respected for its security.

The concern is that the government is moving forward through the budget to allow foreign companies to come in, maybe to buy AECL outright, maybe to buy a share. However, the moment that occurs, the government will have no say. It will have no oversight of what happens. What am I driving at?

This is what the Conservatives did with the income trusts situation because everything ties together. At the time, there were rules that Canadian companies could borrow money, like other foreign companies, and invest. There was an interest deductibilty factor built into this equation. By reneging on the promise that they were not going to touch income trusts, it took that equal playing field for all companies and removed the ability for Canadian companies to compete on equal footing, simply because they could no longer use the income deductibility factor when they chose to acquire, purchase or expand. In other words, Canadian companies are at a disadvantage today.

That means, to simplify it for everybody, that company A from country B could come in, borrow money, buy ACL and write off the interest of the moneys it borrowed, but a Canadian company cannot do this. That is a great disadvantage to Canadian companies.

I am bringing it up again only so that the government, if it believes in what it says about making Canadian companies competitive, would change that. I hope it thinks about that very seriously.

We talk about taxes. There are so many hidden taxes, it is unbelievable. Let me talk about the air travel security tax. Nobody talks about it.

The reason I am bringing these up one at a time is because if somebody had the opportunity to read a publication from the Canadian Press today, it says that the government is doing this in a sneaky way, “by sneaking in new rules in budget legislation”. It is the word “sneaking” that this budget is all about, because all of a sudden, as we go to another paragraph or turn another page, we see something in there to our surprise. Of course, we cannot analyze the budget in one day, but every day that goes by, every paragraph that we read, every segment we get into, all of a sudden there is another surprise.

There is going to be an increase of billions of dollars by taxing people who are travelling. Why? Is it for new scanners? I recall years ago, we invested billions of dollars to buy new scanning equipment for our airports. Has something occurred to say that those scanners no longer work? I will let Canadians judge that for themselves. It is the word “sneaking” that is upsetting to me. It clearly points out exactly what is going on here.

My colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood earlier today referred to the Fraser Institute and its comment. I would like to repeat that as well:

The Vancouver-based Fraser Institute concludes that the turnaround in the economy had nothing to do with stimulus.

The Conservatives stand up and use coated words such as “we have allocated”, “we have committed”, “we will assign”, but when we go out there and ask if the money has actually been delivered, the answer is no. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities complained as well, “They promised us”.

It reminds me of the commercial on television with the two young kids, and the gentleman comes in and gives one child a cardboard pony but gives the other one a real pony, because, as he says, “You did not ask”. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is asking. It wants its infrastructure fixed. It is a source of revenue for this country and it deserves its share of the pie.

I have a comment on revenue, if I may, because it is my understanding, and we all know, that the banks are talking about increasing their mortgage rates. I just want to take this opportunity because they are part of this budget as well.

Right now everybody is trying to do whatever they can to get the economy rolling, to get confidence into the nation. I say to the banks, directly, that it is wrong at this time to increase rates, when young men and women are trying to get a roof over their heads, trying to buy their first condominium, or whatever they are trying to invest in. What the banks are saying here is:

The increase does not stem directly from moves by the Bank of Canada, but rather anticipated central bank rate hikes.

I have talked to many of my constituents, and I say, “Shame on the banks” if they decide to increase their rates prematurely and without any justifiable cause.

I want to speak a little bit about health care, if I may, because that is very important. In this budget, once again, there is zero for health care. Taking us back, in the 2004-05 budget there was an committed allocation of $56 billion for health care. That was as a result of the recommendations from the Romanow report. That was a 10-year commitment by the federal government to the provinces.

Now the provinces are saying, because 2014 is the due date, they want to commence a dialogue. They want to get the discussions going, get around a table, and see where we are going post-2014.

The federal government is refusing to sit around the table. When asked what has been done with health, the response is that it will continue the funding. What funding is that? The funding was Liberal funding under the Paul Martin government. That was Liberal funding as a result of the Romanow report. We all know about that report.

I am very concerned. We are now seeing a little bit more about what the health issue in the United States is all about. It has everything to do with insurance and nothing to do with the delivery of health services. Today, we are seeing advertisements on television that say “Purchase health insurance”. I am concerned for the future and where this is taking us.

The Prime Minister is on record, and I have quoted him in the past but to save time I am not going to pull up the quote, stating, with no ambiguity, that he supports private health care. The Minister of Immigration has stated very clearly that he supports private health care.

No wonder my constituent, Mr. Frandsen, who came to my office, said, and I have used this quote in the past, “If [the Prime Minister] can behave and do what he is doing while having a minority government, can you imagine what he will do if he had a majority?”

It is scary. Health care is something that separates us as Canadians from the rest of the world. I think we have a moral and ethical obligation to ensure it is something we maintain. In order to do that, we need to have a country positioned properly with its finances.

In order for us to understand where we are today and where we are going to be tomorrow, I want to take just a few moments to take us all back to 1993 when Canada was an unofficially bankrupt country with high unemployment, high debts and deficits, and we were paying tremendous amounts, billions of dollars, in interest on our debt.

We turned that around with the help and co-operation of Canadians. Then we delivered seven or eight consecutive balanced budgets and surpluses, such as our country had never experienced before. The last surplus we left the government was $13.2 billion.

As a result of the Liberals bringing down the debt continuously, our debt to GDP ratio kept going down. We were saving an average of $3 billion a year, which we were putting back into programs that Canadians asked us to support, whether it was housing, environment, infrastructure, urban transit, health or whatever it was. According to the input we were receiving, we were providing that support.

On one of the government's graphs, it talks about the accumulated federal debt. Yes, it is showing us a graph of the debt to GDP ratio that in 2008-09 had dipped downwards. It did dip downwards, and yet again it is going up. Then we have the debt, and I will admit it was reduced by some $30-some odd billion. The Liberals reduced it by $60-some odd billion. Then all of sudden, by 2014, from $460 billion it is going to $622 billion. That is a $130-some odd billion debt.

Never mind saving the $3 billion we were saving. We are going to be paying much more. We are not getting anywhere. If anything, we are going downhill.

I would be glad to answer any questions. In this short period of time, it is difficult to get into a lot, but in closing one thing I am concerned about is the recreational infrastructure program that has been very kind in supporting various community centres. I support it myself.

I come from the Greek community of Toronto, and it has asked for funding for the first Greek cultural community centre. I believe the government is treating it in a biased and discriminatory way. It has turned its back on the Greek community and I will ensure that my community knows this.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I remind my colleague that all of my remarks were directly related to Bill C-9, which deals with employment insurance. He should know that, but obviously he has not had a chance to read it yet, which is surprising since he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. This is the subject on which I spent most of my time making my remarks. The bill also deals with the scrapping of environmental assessment in Canada.

He is alone in believing that the tar sands are a good example of environmental management. Whether it is National Geographic, which I do not think is an NDP publication, or whether it is major environmental groups around the world, everyone who has taken a look at the largest and longest sands in the world are holding back the worst pollution ever created on the planet, and nothing is being done to treat it.

Maybe his argument is that the ducks do not really die, that they are decoys just floating upside down in the water, but future generations will pay for that. His children and his grandchildren will pay cash on the barrel to clean up that mess because he does not have the political courage to include in the cost of a barrel of oil from Alberta the cost of cleaning up the environment, and that is cheating. It is cheating the Canadian economy because it pushes the Canadian dollar ever higher.

He is also cheating his own province because people in his province are getting sick. The only answer they have ever had is to prosecute the medical doctor who had the courage to describe and denounce the rare forms of cancer that were starting to appear, especially among the first nations population at Fort Chip. That is one of the most grotesque examples of the distinction that exists between the Conservatives' discourse on future generations and their actual behaviour. They all love to—

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great intent to my hon. colleague who sits on the finance committee with us. He is a good contributor to the debate at that table. However, I remind him that the majority of his speech was totally irrelevant to the debate on Bill C-9. He spent a great deal of his time talking about how much he hated the oil sands and how much he seemed to hate my great province of Alberta for its contribution to this entire economy.

I might remind the hon. member that 23 billion litres of gasoline every year is consumed by Ontario and his province of Quebec. It has to come from somewhere. Is it not better that it comes from a Canadian company that has high environmental standards and, I would argue, the highest environmental standards in the world? I remind him that his own home city of Montreal, as much as he chastised Alberta for its environmental record, dumps raw sewage to the amount of three billion cubic metres every year into the St. Lawrence River. We do not do that in Alberta. We have two of the cleanest cities in Alberta.

We have also noted lately that the largest investment of the Caisse de dépôt, and I am sure the hon. member's former pension is tied up in that, is in the oil sands in Alberta.

The member talked a lot about taxes, but he forgot to mention that we cut 100 different taxes since we came to power. We cut $3 billion off personal income tax. This is not the big bad corporations to which the hon. member keeps referring. This is the personal income taxes of the people who voted for that hon. member.

Could the hon. member comment on the remark by his colleague from Thunder Bay, “There are elements in our party that have not been adequately concerned about the health and growth of businesses?”

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to speak to Bill C-9, which gives effect to the budget announced by the Conservatives. Some of what the bill contains was in the budget and some was in the throne speech. The bill also includes provisions that have been mentioned in various forums in recent months.

Since I have only 20 minutes or so, I will not be able to go over all 800 pages of the bill. I am going to focus on certain items that fuel substantive debates in the House and illustrate members' different views on ideology and governance.

I would like to start by talking about the tax cuts for Canada's most profitable corporations. The Liberal Party and its leader are recent converts to the idea that we need to start handing tax cuts to major corporations more slowly. Last weekend, at a conference in Montreal, the Liberal leader discovered the merits of what the NDP has been talking about for the past three months.

I would like to give a little background to those listening to us, to help them understand the whole picture.

The Liberals were relegated to the opposition benches at the beginning of January 2006, which means we are beginning our fifth year of a minority Conservative government. There was a leadership race within the Liberal Party, and the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville was elected party leader.

In a now infamous speech he gave before the Economic Club of Toronto, the new leader was intent on finding an angle. The Liberals, who consider themselves the “natural governing party” and are used to being in power, were searching for ways to understand what went wrong during the election. They told themselves that perhaps the Conservatives were getting a little too friendly with their usual Bay Street base. So they decided to accuse the Conservatives of not acting quickly enough on tax cuts.

Last weekend, the same Liberal Party wondered why corporate taxes were being cut. The leader at the time—the Liberals have had five leaders in five years—the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, went before the Economic Club of Toronto and slammed the Conservatives for not cutting corporate taxes quickly enough. That was enough for the Conservative finance minister—the same one as today—to rise in this House with a smirk on his face and announce that without this push from the Liberals he would never have had the temerity to move so quickly on corporate tax cuts.

The resulting financial woes will affect Canada's public finances for generations to come. They created $60 billion worth of tax room by refusing to give back what the Liberals pilfered from the employment insurance fund.

The Liberals now admit it and the Conservatives criticize them endlessly. For the last three days in question period, the Minister of Finance pointed at the Liberals, saying that they were the ones who pilfered, who stole, $60 billion from the employment insurance fund. The problem is that Bill C-9 only finishes the job started by the Liberals. The government is going to slam the door shut and finish off the pilfering that it admonishes the Liberals for.

Some may wonder what difference it makes that the $60 billion that the Liberals called a “notional” amount was transferred. It is just obfuscation, as though the $60 billion could be anything else. They said that this notional amount was transferred from the EI fund to the consolidated fund, the government's general revenue fund.

However, there is a fundamental difference between the employment insurance fund and the government's consolidated revenue fund.

In fact, all Canadian companies and their employees have contributed to the employment insurance fund. If a company recorded a loss, it did not matter; it still had to contribute to the employment insurance fund. However, only a company with enough profits to pay tax was required to fork over corporate taxes into the general revenue fund.

In other words, the same companies—primarily the forestry and manufacturing industries, which suffered greatly because of the high dollar—that had not turned a profit and that did not have to pay tax could not benefit from the $60 billion in tax cuts given to the most profitable companies. And yet, each and every one of these companies paid for every single one of their employees, and every employee contributed to the EI fund. It is somewhat like what happens in China where those to be executed are forced to pay for the bullet. The manufacturing and forestry companies that were already suffering believed their contributions would be used for a very specific, precise and dedicated purpose. They were robbed and pillaged by the Liberals, with the benediction of the Conservatives, to provide the tax room to give tax breaks to more profitable companies.

This means that those who paid, who suffered because of the high dollar, supported the rich, particularly those in the oil industry in western Canada. Some companies, like EnCana in Alberta, received hundreds of millions of dollars, like money falling from the sky, in rebates it did not ask for because it was already making huge profits.

This is what happened with the money from the manufacturing companies in Beauce, which have since had to close their doors. The sawmills in the lower North Shore, the companies in northern Ontario and the forestry companies in British Columbia saw their money being used to help the oil industry in the west and the banks, which turned around and used that money to generate their highest profits ever. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the last three months of 2009, Canadian companies saw their profits increase dramatically, except productivity in Canada is still in a major slump.

The first thing that comes to mind when we talk about a slump in productivity is to think we are suggesting that Canadian workers are not working hard enough. No, we are not talking about the individual productivity of Canadian workers, who are among the most productive in the world. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the productivity of the company. What kind of equipment or machinery has it purchased? What has it done to make itself more competitive? Canadian companies held onto the cash they received in the form of tax cuts, because that is what it means to lack vision, to not believe in the government's role in the economy.

Since the second world war, Canada has built a very balanced economy, from coast to coast to coast. We are the only country in the world that borders three oceans. We are making serious mistakes in Canada right now, because the Conservatives, despite their minority status—having just over 30% of the vote—are being kept on life support by the Liberals, who, once again, made a nice speech against the budget today. However, they will hide just enough of their members, their cowards, behind the curtains so that the budget will pass. The same budget that they have not stopped criticizing.

Because the oil sector does not factor in the environmental costs of production, it is bringing an artificially inflated number of U.S. dollars into Canada. This has the pernicious effect of increasing the value of the Canadian dollar, which is now at or very near parity with the U.S. dollar. The high Canadian dollar is once again limiting our manufacturing and forestry companies' export opportunities.

The higher the Canadian dollar, the harder it is for other countries to buy it because it is more expensive.

But the Conservatives will not be swayed. They are completing a series of pipelines to the United States. They plan to ship crude from the oil sands through pipelines called Keystone, Alberta Clipper, Southern Lights and Enbridge.

Here in Quebec, the Trailbreaker project would have—yes, “would have”, because we are now joining together to put a stop to it—reversed the flow of a pipeline linking Montreal to Portland, Maine. There are plans in the works to build a massive pumping station in Dunham, in the Eastern Townships. Because the substance is tarry and sticky, it will not flow unless it is under more pressure, which means that the pressure in this 60-year-old pipeline will have to be increased considerably. The last time they increased the pressure, sections several kilometres long around Sutton burst. Ecosystems in the area are very large.

These pipelines are located near and beneath several watercourses that must be protected. The Conservatives, aided and abetted by the Liberals, made this choice because they are determined to export oil as quickly as possible. Their choice would also have led to the closure of the Shell refinery in Montreal, which would have resulted in the automatic loss of 800 direct jobs and 3,500 indirect jobs, as well as the death of a significant portion of the petrochemical sector in Montreal, leaving thousands of families jobless. Many of them would have been forced to leave the area. That would have been a major blow to Montreal's petrochemical sector. Everyone—except for the Conservatives, of course—is banding together to try to save the Shell refinery in Montreal.

In light of everything the Conservatives have done, it is clear that the government's vision is flawed. It plundered the employment insurance fund and used that money to give the most profitable companies tax breaks. These choices are aggravating a vicious cycle in which the high Canadian dollar is making things harder and harder for our exporters.

But the Conservatives will keep acting that same way, just like when we used to export untreated logs to the United States and it came back to us as furniture manufactured there. In doing that, value was added there, as were jobs. Among the pipelines that I mentioned earlier, Keystone alone represents 18,000 Canadian jobs lost. That is not our statistic, it comes from an independent external study.

But they are determined to start exporting. My colleagues know as well as I do that under the so-called proportionality clause in the North American Free Trade Agreement, once the flow has started, it cannot be stopped, not even a little bit, without the same restriction being enforced on us. We are currently playing with Canada's energy future, but they do not care about that either. Their one and only focus is quick development. That is why they are not acknowledging the costs.

If I took my colleagues to visit a factory where a certain product was made, if I told them it was being made cheaper here and if I convinced them to buy it, saying that it sells well but they noticed that all of the factory waste was dumped in the river behind the factory, they would say that the price of the product was not the true price, that the price did not take into account the fact that waste was being put into the river instead of being disposed of safely, at a cost. Everyone is capable of understanding that environmental costs need to be included in the price of a product. Everyone, that is, except the Conservative Party.

Not only are the Conservatives passing on to future generations a fiscal debt of $50 billion this year—instead of building something that will last and is sustainable, something related to green, renewable energy—but they are also leaving a gross debt. They are building arenas and cutting ribbons; they are putting doorknobs in churches and cutting ribbons; they are rebuilding parks and cutting ribbons. But none of that will last, none of it is long term.

Their priority is clear. The NDP's priority is also clear: have government play a constructive, objective, positive role in corporate governance in order to restore the economic balance that was destroyed by the Conservatives, with the Liberals' complicity.

Environmental assessment is another aspect of Bill C-9 that I want to focus on, in keeping with our concerns about the oil sands.

Eighteen months ago, not long after the fall 2008 election, the Conservatives came out with their infamous draft economic and fiscal update. When they denied women the right to equal pay for work of equal value and gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Liberals supported them.

We voted against both these measures, even though that might have triggered another election. The Liberals kowtowed to the Conservatives as usual and voted with them. About 18 months ago, the Liberals joined with their partners, the Conservatives, to gut the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which had been in place for 100 years so that we could leave something for future generations. They completely scrapped that law.

This year, they are trying to finish what they started by doing away with environmental assessments for most projects that receive federal funding. Several provinces have rather weak legislation and no way to conduct real inspections and assessments. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was the only way some provinces could have an assessment done. Quebec solved this problem with the federal government a long time ago. A federal assessor sits at the table with the BAPE, and this arrangement works very well.

I signed an agreement with David Anderson, who was the last Liberal who cared about the environment. He was succeeded by the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, and the rest is history.

I cannot believe we are seeing the Liberals make the same mistake. I would like to remind the House of a salient fact in the history of the Liberal Party. It is worth noting, since we saw Eddie Goldenberg at the thinkers' conference last weekend in Montreal. Eddie Goldenberg, former chief of staff to Jean Chrétien, said in a speech before the London Chamber of Commerce, in Ontario in the spring of 2007, that the Liberals had signed the Kyoto protocol “to galvanize public opinion”.

He admitted that the Liberal government of the day signed that protocol as a public relations exercise. It persisted and signed. He said the Liberals had no intention of meeting the targets set out in the Kyoto protocol.

Last weekend in Montreal, we saw Eddie Goldenberg pontificating on the Liberal Party's destiny. There is only one thing the Liberals want: to come back to power.

The Liberals in the first and second rows are waking up with a start and asking themselves: am I a minister yet? Then they realize that they are still in opposition and that they have only 75 seats. They go back to sleep, hoping that next time they wake up, their dream will have come true.

There is no renewal, there are no new ideas, no substance, no worthwhile ideas. They are here simply to support the Conservatives, waiting until it is their turn to take over.

We have the Liberal leader saying: “people are looking for an alternative”, having forgotten that he is supposed to be just that. There is only one alternative progressive voice in Canada: the New Democratic Party.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

The House resumed from March 31, consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Alain Pineau]

The complexity and interconnectedness of the various instruments set up to promote and sustain Canadian cultural expression cannot be fully appreciated by taking a scattergun approach to federal policy development. Opening up foreign ownership and control of our telecommunications can only lead to tremendous pressures to do the same in cable and broadcasting.

The potential impact of any such move through international trade must be fully understood by parliamentarians and by the government. New distribution technology opened the world to Canadian cultural products. It is crucial that we not jeopardize the ownership requirements and other regulations and subsidies that ensure such products are made.

It is for these reasons that I would ask that the amendment included in omnibus Bill C-9, modifying subsection 16(1) of the Telecommunications Act, to include satellites, not be passed. This is not the way to change the rules of the game--through the back door.

Thank you for your attention.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

moved that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)