Debates of Nov. 6th, 2009

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before oral questions, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska had the floor. He has 17 minutes left for his remarks.

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I was once again interrupted on Friday by question period. The questions were excellent. However, given the government's answers, I have to say that we might have been better off listening to speeches about bills.

However, question period did give me an opportunity to hear the Minister of Public Works and Government Services say that the Bloc Québécois is always against everything. He was not listening right before question period. I had just said that the Bloc Québécois would support Bill C-51. We are completely in favour of this measure, the act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

I would like to summarize what I said during the first three minutes of my speech. I said that Bill C-51 would implement the renovation tax credit. That was one of the proposals in the recovery program that the Bloc Québécois released when Parliament resumed. Every party in the House but the Conservative government recognized that we were in the middle of an economic crisis.

During the 2008 election campaign, the Conservative Party denied the possibility that such an economic crisis would hit us here, even though our American neighbours—with whom we conduct a great deal of trade, of course—were in the midst of a major crisis, which unfortunately, is still not completely over.

Everyone knew that the whole world was facing an economic crisis and that Canada, Quebec and all the provinces would inevitably be affected. No one was happy about that. However, we needed to take off our rose coloured glasses and prepare for the worst, and also bring in concrete, effective measures to deal with and mitigate the effects of the crisis.

That is why the Bloc Québécois presented such a plan, which was, I might add, commended by the Minister of Finance. The minister said the Bloc Québécois was the only party in the House to bring forward concrete measures, and he thanked us for doing so. However, thanking us is as far as he went, given that, when he presented his budget, there was not much left of the important measures the Bloc had developed and proposed.

Bill C-51 also introduces a first-time homebuyers' tax credit. That is a good measure that was also proposed by the Bloc Québécois in our most recent election platform, during the election campaign that ended on October 14, 2008.

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

It also includes some other measures, such as the temporary home renovation tax credit, the first-time home buyers' tax credit and an increase in the tax relief provided by the working income tax benefit.

What I also liked about Bill C-51, since I am the Bloc Québécois critic for agriculture and agri-food, is that it will also extend the existing tax deferral available to farmers in prescribed drought regions to farmers who dispose of breeding livestock because of flood or excessive moisture, and it will designate the eligible flood or drought regions between 2007 and 2009.

We are not talking about a measure that will make all our farmers rich overnight, but this adjustment will prove very beneficial when a catastrophe hits our farmers. In addition, this bill amends the customs tariff to relax the conditions relating to temporarily imported shipping containers.

These are the main measures contained in Bill C-51.

I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance just now and at first reading of the bill and also when the home renovation tax credit was announced, touting this as the eighth wonder of the world and that the Canadian and Quebec economies would get back on track with this home renovation tax credit.

However, they should not exaggerate. I realize that this government tends to use every opportunity for the marketing and branding of the Conservative Party, with its logo and all the rest.

This measure alone will not put an end to the economic crisis and solve all the problems that have arisen in recent months and years. They should not exaggerate and consider it the be-all and end-all.

There a number of things missing from the government's deficit control plan and we can discuss these in the next few minutes.

The federal government's comprehensive plan to fight the recession is incomplete and poorly targeted. However, given that the measures in Bill C-51 are good for Quebec, the Bloc Québécois, in keeping with its responsible approach, will support this bill.

With respect to the home renovation tax credit in particular, as I was saying, in the first phase of our recovery plan, we had proposed introducing a similar home renovation tax credit. We emphasized the conversion of oil furnaces to more energy efficient equipment. We had a very specific plan for decreasing our dependence on oil.

This measure, in addition to helping reduce our dependence on oil would also have rapidly injected money into the economy. The measure we are debating today, the government's Bill C-51, does not specifically target energy efficient retrofits but is still an effective means of quickly stimulating the economy.

The government could have gone farther, as I said, and introduced a real environmental plan that would have stimulated the economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and decreasing our dependence on oil.

The first-time home buyers' tax credit is also interesting, because in our 2008 election platform, we had proposed a tax credit for first-time home buyers and called for such a program. The measure the government has introduced is not as generous as what we proposed, but we feel that it is a step in the right direction. That is why we also support this measure.

Buying a home is a big step for many families. It allows homeowners to build equity and benefit from the appreciated value of their home. Quebec is significantly behind the rest of Canada in this area. Many young families often have a hard time saving for a down payment to purchase their first home. In addition, since most people who are active in the workforce see their income increase over time, they often have to wait a while before they can purchase a property.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing that the government give interest-free loans of up to $10,000 for first-time home buyers. That would have been a very significant measure, although, as I said, the tax credit is clearly a step forward.

I spoke earlier about the last election campaign. I imagine that many of my colleagues in this House and many candidates in the last election had the opportunity to meet with real estate agents, because they demanded action on the issue of first-time home buyers. While I was campaigning, I had the chance to meet with people throughout Quebec, including people in my own riding. We talked to them and listened to their suggestions. This proposal that first-time home buyers receive interest-free loans of up to $10,000 was very well received by the people I met with. They felt it could be an efficient and effective way to help people buy their first home. Real estate agents were very much in favour of this measure.

If this measure were implemented, it would complement the tax credit proposed by the government in Bill C-51 and make it easier for people to purchase their first home. Then we would have a comprehensive home buyers' program.

In terms of the economic measures presented in the budget, some of which would be implemented by Bill C-51, a bill that would put the tax credits into effect, as I started out saying just after question period, the government denied that there was an economic crisis during the last election campaign. Conservative members unfortunately showed up empty handed for the economic statement last November, which sparked a crisis. I will not dwell on it, but we came very close at one point to having a coalition government, and to returning to the polls.

They finally presented some measures, even if they were not complete, as I was saying.

We did our homework. We presented a stimulus plan that had four objectives: tighten the social safety net and restore confidence to the public, which was experiencing—and still is—an economic crisis; stimulate employment and investment; support Quebec and the provinces; and stimulate strategic spending on things like measures to reduce oil dependency.

The OECD suggested that countries with the means to do so should provide income support for workers who lose their jobs. The best way to do that, of course, is through the employment insurance system. Economists agreed that one of the best ways to stimulate the economy was to help the least fortunate and in particular, to help those who, unfortunately, because of the economic crisis, lost their jobs. Needless to say, in the forestry sector, for example, people would have benefited from more extensive and flexible measures regarding employment insurance.

We suggested improving the employment insurance system by making it easier for people who lose their jobs to collect benefits. Our proposed changes would have enabled 148,000 more people to collect benefits every year. If we eliminate the waiting period, which is something the Bloc Québécois and other parties have been calling for for a long time, people will not have to wait 14 days for their cheques. We also suggested helping the most vulnerable with an investment of about $6 billion to help seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $110 per month. And we suggested helping middle-class families by doubling the GST credit for 2009.

We know that the government has put economic stimulus measures in place. A lot of money was invested to help Ontario's auto sector. We were never against helping that sector, but according to the statistics, it is clear that the government helped Ontario at the expense of Quebec and the other provinces, but especially at Quebec's expense because its forestry sector got nothing. At any rate, there is many a slip twixt cup and lip when it comes to what Ontarians got. As of now, 100% of the $9.7 billion—nearly $10 billion—in direct federal cash for the auto industry has been spent. About 80% of the $70 million allocation has been spent developing new markets for the forestry industry across Canada. There is still a huge difference between $10 billion in support for auto workers and $70 million for the forestry sector across Canada. Moreover, while 100% of the auto sector's money has been spent, 20% of the amount announced for the forestry sector has not yet been disbursed.

So, for its economic recovery plan, it would have been in the government's interest to listen to Quebec, the provinces, the opposition parties, unions, workers and the National Assembly of Quebec. They all made urgent requests to ensure that a real economic stimulus package would be introduced, particularly for the manufacturing and forestry sectors. The Quebec forestry industry employs over 88,000 workers and is an economic driving force in many regions of Quebec.

I was talking about employment insurance earlier. We heard some good news yesterday. Unfortunately, it does not have to do with the unemployment rate. There was some bad news on that, since it increased. The good news was that here in this House, a majority—except the Conservatives, unfortunately—voted in favour of Bill C-308 introduced by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. That bill will now go to committee. It includes several measures for a complete overhaul in the context of an economic stimulus plan. It would have been great if the government had supported those changes, which are more comprehensive than the piecemeal changes it wanted to make in several different bills.

The Bloc Québécois bill proposes improving access to the system and establishing a 360-hour threshold for everyone, which would make it easier for women and young people, who are often the most likely people to lose their jobs, as well as people with unstable jobs, to access benefits. In addition, Bill C-308 proposes a benefit rate increase from 55% of earnings to 60%.

It also recommends amendments that would give self-employed workers access on a voluntary basis to all employment insurance benefits, unlike the Conservatives' Bill C-56, which offers self-employed workers access to special benefits only. Our bill contains measures that are not only practical, but comprehensive and very effective in helping the unemployed. This is what the Conservative government could have done.

We have no problem supporting Bill C-51. It is hard to be against motherhood and apple pie, even if the pie is not all there. This bill provides one piece of the pie that will help us, namely, tax credits, including the home renovation tax credit. I cannot say that people are lining up at my three constituency offices to ask for information about these measures, but I would be lying if I said that I had not answered any questions from my constituents about this tax credit.

Obviously, we are pleased to provide them with information, and some people I know have begun to consider applying for this tax credit. That is why we are agreeing to promote this type of measure by voting in favour of Bill C-51.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to a statement made earlier by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood in which he indicated that the stimulus package in the United States has a much better system of accounting attached to it, which is why, at the end of the day, it should have less problems with boondoggles than perhaps our government will be directly faced with because it does not have the accounting in place that it should have.

Does the member have any observations or comments about that issue?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I was present when the Liberal member made those comments. I have not compared the Obama plan measures, the U.S. measures, specifically on certain tax credits. One thing is certain, it is important that the government have a comprehensive plan. All aspects of economic stimulus must be considered.

What I fear, what I have noted and what people are seeing also, is that the Conservative government has decided to target certain sectors and to implement piecemeal measures in certain files. For example, I spoke for a few minutes about employment insurance, where they have decided to introduce bills one at a time to help a specific segment of the population affected by unemployment. However, there is no vision or comprehensive plan, in terms of either economic stimulus or assistance, to mitigate the effects of the economic downturn.

That is our greatest criticism of the government. It is not because they were unaware of it, even though the Conservatives denied it in the last election. It is virtually impossible that they did not know that Canada, like all other countries in the world, would be affected by the current economic crisis.

That is the main problem with the measures before us.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Bloc Québécois member. I would like to read one line from Bill C-51:

Provisions for income deferrals for farmers of breeding livestock in drought conditions and designations for regions where this applies.

We do not know when droughts will occur in Canada. We can have one good year followed by two bad ones. It varies enormously from region to region.

Does the Bloc member believe that this program should be permanent?

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

Madam Speaker, my answer to the member's question is yes. I have the French version right here. Bill C-51 includes a measure that “extends the existing tax deferral available to farmers in prescribed drought regions to farmers who dispose of breeding livestock because of flood or excessive moisture and sets out the regions prescribed either as eligible flood or drought regions in 2007 to 2009”. This measure should be permanent. We support Bill C-51 because it will enable more farmers to benefit.

Currently, there is a disaster relief program in the agriculture policy framework, but many more methods remain to be understood and implemented. That is why we are still trying to make sure that farmers will really benefit from this disaster relief program. These are known as “acts of God” or, in French, actes de Dieu. Obviously, as my colleague pointed out, we cannot predict droughts or floods.

As members of Parliament, it is our duty to be able to immediately and very quickly come to the aid of people who face unexpected weather-related problems. This could also include problems related to illness among the animals or parasites in the crops. We must be able to help people very quickly. For example, there was the case of avian flu in British Columbia when we did not react quickly enough. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food even had the opportunity to visit some of the provinces where people had lost their herds to bovine tuberculosis. The criticisms we heard from these people was that the government did not react fast enough to help them after the problem was discovered. In fact, in these cases, everything can be wiped out very quickly.

Obviously, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has unanimously called for corrective action to be taken. We are always looking for ways to help our farmers. I think that this measure from Bill C-51 is a step in the right direction that can help the victims of droughts or floods.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats are proud to support Bill C-51 because it does a number of positive things for Canadians. It brings in the home renovation tax credit. It provides a tax credit for first-time home buyers, a particularly important measure in Vancouver where I come from, where real estate is out of reach for so many young people. It has drought relief for livestock owners.

I think this legislation shows what can happen when we use public policy in a positive way to make lives better for Canadians.

I wanted to ask my hon. colleague about CPP. The Canada pension plan exists right now as an easy way for us to improve the income security for seniors. The administrative structure is there. By adding just a little under 2% in contributions from employees and employers, we could double the pension security for our seniors. We think that this is a wonderful way that we can help our seniors.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments on bolstering the Canada pension plan so that Canadians from coast to coast can have more secure futures.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from the NDP for his question. When I was talking about a comprehensive plan, the Bloc Québécois did indeed ask for certain measures to help the less fortunate. I was talking about people who receive employment insurance and also retirees, older people who could use a little extra in their guaranteed income supplement. We know that with CPP and the guaranteed income supplement combined, those people are still currently living below the low income cutoff. Increasing the guaranteed income supplement to $110 a month would at least allow them to reach the low income cutoff. That is one measure.

The measure the hon. member is talking about is quite interesting. My own bill, Bill C-290, has just reached second reading stage and will be referred to committee. This bill will help retirees who may unfortunately have lost part of their pension because of the bankruptcy or closure of their employer. For instance, a person who was supposed to get $30,000 and is getting only $22,000 and therefore lost $8,000, could get a 22% refundable tax credit. That more or less puts them on the margins of the middle class. It would allow that retired person to receive $1,760 a year. It is a type of compensation, and not full compensation, but it is better than nothing. Other measures like that and like the one mentioned by the hon. member as well, could be implemented by the government to help stimulate the economy. It is the best approach. We can start with the people who need it the most.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to report stage of Bill C-51, which, ironically, is called the economic recovery act (stimulus).

The NDP has been supporting the bill because it does contain some significant measures that were in the budget that we approved last spring but were never actually implemented. They are now included in this bill, and I will go into that later. I did want to reflect on the fact that this is called the economic recovery act and, as we heard today, there was not good news for Canadians, in terms of the number of people who are unemployed.

We know that over the last year we have had a net loss of about 400,000 jobs in Canada. That is very significant. However, the numbers today show us that there has been a further increase of 43,000 to 44,000 people who are unemployed and the heaviest losses were in B.C. and Alberta, being 13,000 and 15,000, respectively.

I raised this today in question period because I guess the one thing that really bothers us is that we have seen the so-called economic action plan and the stimulus program from the current government and yet, we continue to see these heavy losses and erosion of jobs. From the numbers that we saw released today, it is particularly difficult for women and young people. Many of the jobs that were lost were part-time jobs. That means that they were people who were already having a really hard time dealing with this economic crisis. They may be people who will not qualify for EI.

The NDP has spent a lot of time in this House bringing forward very substantive proposals. In fact, we have 12 bills concerning reform of the EI. That just shows how bad the program is. This is a program that was designed to help unemployed people and yet, we have 12 different bills on different aspects of the program because we think it so badly needs to be fixed.

So, for those unemployed folks who, over the last month, lost their jobs, just think about the impact that would mean. They might have had a part-time job in the first place or maybe they were a young person, or a woman contributing to the family's income, or a lone parent, and they have to face the fact that they cannot even rely on employment insurance.

I think it is a very serious and dire situation for so many Canadians. Juxtapose that against all of the rhetoric that we hear from the government side. We are told that the worst of the recession is over. We are told that its economic stimulus plan is working. We are told not to worry about it, that the government is going to take care of things. Yet, these jobless numbers keep rising and the impact on our local communities keep mounting. I think that we are facing a very serious situation.

I know that yesterday in question period my colleague from Winnipeg Centre had one of the doorknocker propaganda pieces that the government has been distributing, we understand, to 3.5 million households, concerning the home renovation tax credit.

That is one of the measures that is contained in this bill and is actually one of the reasons we are supporting this bill. It was a measure announced in the last budget, but it was not actually in the budget implementation bill. For some strange reason, it was left behind and then had to be introduced later through a ways and means motion, and now it is in this bill. There is no doubt that it is a very popular program. We see it advertised on TV by home improvement centres and there is probably very good awareness about that program.

There are two things here to note.

First, why is it that the Conservative government would then spend, presumably, millions of dollars on further propaganda messaging and advertising about the program when it is already very well known? In fact, people can receive information at building improvement and home improvement centres.

There has been so much emphasis on the politicization of the economic stimulus program, whether it is the oversized cheques that had the Conservative logo or individual MPs signing these cheques. These things are pretty outrageous and I think people feel pretty cynical about it.

The question from the member for Winnipeg Centre really highlighted that the government will leave no stone unturned when it comes to promoting itself and its political message, but when it comes to really, truly helping people, really digging in and finding out what is wrong or what needs to be done, the government kind of shuffles it along and says it is doing a good job.

On the home renovation tax credit, we do support it. As far as it goes, we do support it and there is no doubt that there has been a lot of pickup on the program, but we ask the question, why does it not go further? Why was it not linked to a broader green energy retrofit program, particularly for low income Canadians? There are many Canadians right across the country who live in housing that is substandard. Their heating systems are very poor. They are not energy efficient.

These are the people who need help. These are the people who would have welcomed a broader program that would have helped them maybe with some other kinds of incentives beyond a tax credit. The fact is that many people cannot take advantage of this program because they may not have the money to actually spend on that home renovation.

I know, for example, that there was some money in the economic stimulus program to help housing co-operatives. Many co-ops that were built in the seventies and eighties are facing envelope failures. Some of them were not well constructed. They are certainly not energy efficient, and although there was some money earmarked in that budget to assist those co-ops, we do know that the demand and the applications that have gone in have far exceeded what is actually available. There is a very good example of where this home renovation tax credit program actually could have been part of a much broader program that would really tackle this major question of energy efficiency and housing affordability in this country.

Yesterday at the HRSD committee, I appeared as a witness before that committee in support of my bill, Bill C-304, which calls for a national housing strategy, something that we do not have in Canada, which is really quite unbelievable. We are the only industrialized country that does not have a national housing strategy.

In putting forward this idea for a framework and a strategy for housing and leadership from the federal government, we come back again to this question of needing to have a coordinated and comprehensive approach to housing in this country. There are something like four million Canadians who are in housing insecurity. They are either paying too much for their housing, living in very substandard housing, facing eviction or one paycheque away from being on the street, or it might be all of the above. They might be in housing that is overcrowded and very inappropriate for a family situation. Certainly, that is a huge issue for remote aboriginal communities on reserve, where we have seen the most appalling conditions for aboriginal people in this country.

There is no question that we need a national housing strategy, that we need leadership from the federal government, but it is not only a question of good public policy. It is also a question of very sound economic policy, and in my mind, if we had a really good housing supply program in this country, something that we have talked about for years and that we have suffered from because we do not have it, it would be a huge economic stimulus. Generally, building housing creates good jobs for carpenters, electricians, plumbers, drywallers, architects, landscapers, and the list goes on.

The question of housing affordability and generating the comprehensive program with leadership from the federal government would be something that would be a really significant economic and social investment in the future of our country. We would actually be helping people. There is no question that having housing security and knowing that one's housing is affordable, accessible, safe and appropriate is one of the most basic things in our lives. If we do not have that, we know how hard it is to do anything else such as going to school, going to work, raising kids, and knowing what is going to happen at the end of the month.

That is one of the reasons I wanted to focus on that. It really bugs the hell out of me that there is this very small home renovation tax program that is popular and yet so much more could have been done, if we only had a government that was seriously focused on a substantive economic stimulus program that would actually help people.

There are other provisions in Bill C-51 that we are supportive of. The home renovation tax credit is one. The first-time home buyers' tax credit is another. The revenue sharing agreement with Nova Scotia is another one. Members have already raised the issue of drought relief for livestock owners.

There are also some provisions around pensions and some fairly minor adjustments in terms of pension changes. I want to spend a few minutes on this. This has been the other key substantive proposal advanced by the NDP.

We are very worried about what is happening to seniors in Canada. There are seniors who are living below the poverty line. They depend on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Even those seniors are still living below the poverty line, particularly if they live in urban areas where they do not have good housing. One can see how it relates back to affordable housing again.

I am very proud of the fact that the NDP has made very substantive proposals to reform the pension program just as we have done for EI. We see these as the basic foundations of what quality of life is about in Canada, and what human dignity means in this country. As Canadians, we tell ourselves that we live in a fair-minded country; we live in a country where there is equal opportunity, where there is no discrimination and where everybody has the right to use their own human potential, yet, we have seen so much over the last couple of decades.

We have seen a growing gap between wealth and poverty. We have seen the incomes of CEOs rise and rise, sometimes in an utterly obscene way. Just look at the pension investment board and the millions of dollars in bonuses that are being paid out. It is unbelievable. I am sure that those people are doing their jobs, although one could argue that the pension programs have not been well managed. They get these massive bonuses and yet, on the other side, there are people who are really hurting and are having a tough time getting by every month.

The pension system itself is something that I think more and more people are understanding is in serious trouble, whether it is a private pension program, or whether it is a senior who is dependent on OAS and GIS. We have seen the situation with Nortel here in Ottawa and what has happened to those people who paid in good faith into their pension plan only to now be terribly worried about whether or not they will ever be able to collect their pension or, if they were on long-term disability, only to find out that their support for that may be in jeopardy.

The proposals we have put forward are very substantive in terms of significant increases to the guaranteed income supplement and say up front that no senior in this country should be living in poverty. When one has worked for decades, whether it is in paid work or unpaid work, when people have contributed to this country, they should at least be assured that they have enough money in their retirement years to live in a decent way. Nobody here is talking about luxury or affluence. We are talking about the basic necessities of life.

The NDP did have a motion that was approved in the House last June. We did a lot of research on the proposals that we have advanced. Our member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek travelled across the country, talked to seniors and got tons of feedback. He heard and did wonderful things.

It is unfortunate that this so-called economic recovery act that we are debating today is so minuscule. It does not do the job in terms of where people need to get that support from programs, services and investment in our economy. There are other provisions in the bill. One of the provisions concerns the CBC.

How many times have there been questions, at least from our side, on the future of the CBC? This is an iconic institution in this country. It was fighting for its life in terms of financing and asking for bridge financing. We raised that issue over and over again in the House. The reply from the heritage minister was more of a brush off. We are glad to see in the bill some recognition of the financial situation facing CBC and that it will be able to have some of that bridge financing, which we called for and which it was seeking. It is obviously something that is very important to the financial stability of the institution.

I would like to speak about what the Conservative government is doing with respect to economic recovery. I am from British Columbia. I represent the riding of Vancouver East, which by and large is a low income riding. People really do struggle. They do not actually ask for a lot.

I am always amazed when I go out in the community. I hold travelling community offices. People come forward to tell me what is going on in their lives. I am always amazed at how resourceful people are. People are struggling to survive with very few resources, whether it is their housing situation, a work situation, trying to find affordable child care, or a student going to post-secondary education who is struggling with student loans and tuition fees. I am really amazed at how people get it together and keep going, but we can see how hard it is and how stressful it makes people's lives.

It has been pretty rough in B.C. We have seen the re-election of the Liberal government under Gordon Campbell who promised so many things but all he has done is attack workers, rip up collective agreements, allow privatization of health care and has not done anything to support a better child care program. Then kind of the worst happened. After the election, we suddenly learned that B.C. was going to be hit with the HST. The firestorm that has created in my province has just been unbelievable. It has crossed the political spectrum. Former premiers, such as Bill Vander Zalm, business people, small business people, the restaurant association, the labour movement, certainly the provincial NDP and hundreds of thousands of regular folks in B.C. are signing petitions.

Some of the polls that have been done show there is 80% opposition to the imposition of the HST. It is not just the HST itself, which is really a tax shift, but it is a shift from what corporations have paid on to consumers. I do not have the full list of things that it covers in front of me, but I know it includes newspapers, magazines, movie theatre tickets, haircuts, funerals, vitamins, baby diapers, food and clothing. The restaurant association has estimated that for restaurant meals alone the extra cost will be $694 million in B.C.

One issue is the tax itself. It is a regressive tax. It is a shift from corporations on to individual consumers. It is also the manner in which it was done. People are really outraged that during the provincial election there was no discussion of it. In fact, people were told there would be no more tax increases. Yet somehow after the election this issue suddenly started to appear.

We have been asking questions every day. We have been trying to find out when the negotiations took place and what negotiations took place between the federal and provincial governments. We are still trying to find that out. I think people in B.C. would be very interested to know when it was that those negotiations began to take place.

It is sort of ironic that on the one hand we have this bill before us today that promises economic recovery and yet on the other hand we have a Conservative government that is slapping people in B.C. with the HST. In fact, the Conservatives are running from it. They are trying to claim that it is not their problem, that the decision is up to B.C.

We know it originated with the Conservative government. We know it was in the federal budget. We know that the finance minister has actually been campaigning and advocating for this. We know that the Liberal members have been lining up with it as well. It feels like a slap in the face to people in B.C. who are going to feel the impact of this increased tax on the everyday items that they need to purchase.

It is the most terrible timing to think about bringing in this tax during an economic recession. The NDP has been saying loud and clear that this HST proposal must stop. My guess is that the opposition to it will continue to grow in B.C.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Perhaps the hon. member can complete her comments in questions and comments.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member whether she is at all concerned that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been effectively stonewalled with respect to the efficacy of the stimulus package. Four thousand pages were dropped on his desk and he was basically told to figure it out himself. When he asked for an electronic copy, some sorting, some organizing, the government said it could not find an electronic copy. That is question number one.

The second question has to do with the projections of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He has done a pretty good job, I think, on the revenue side of the equation. However, on the program side of the equation he has basically had to photocopy finance projections and he stuck with that. The reason that he stuck with that is that when he inquires to get the actual data behind the projections, he is told that is all cabinet confidence.

If one puts those two together, one is almost inevitably driven to the conclusion that our own Parliamentary Budget Officer, ours, the members' own Parliamentary Budget Officer is being driven into a position where his material is not as accurate as we would like it to be. He is being stonewalled and we are therefore being stonewalled. Therefore, any material that comes from the government is entirely suspect. I would be interested in her comments on that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the member raising this question.

Let us go back a little and remember that when the whole question of the need for an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer came up, the Conservatives were in opposition. I remember my colleague the member for Winnipeg North was the finance critic at the time,

There was a great push and advocacy for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be independent, to be able to advise members of Parliament to give a second opinion and to ensure that there was full transparency in government expenditures and operations, and we have public accounts and so on, and in the analysis that was being done.

There was very strong support for the idea that if committees are to do their job, typically the finance committee but not just the finance committee, there needs to be an independent officer who can provide that analysis. I have to say that the Library of Parliament and its researchers who provide information do an awesome job, but the focus on a parliamentary budget officer to provide that analysis was very important.

It is quite astounding that there has been this war going on between that office and the government as to what information is being received. The government is one that talks about ethics and accountability. This is probably the most fundamental thing we deal with. We are in a position of trust with public funds. We make decisions about where those public funds go and what the priorities are.

I think there were 17 boxes; I might have it slightly wrong, but a huge pile of boxes was handed over to go through them and sort it out. To think that financial records and information is being disseminated in that kind of state makes it very difficult to do the analysis that is required. It is pretty hypocritical to hear this from a government that is saying that it is very much into accountability, disclosure and handling the taxpayers' funds.

The member has made a very important observation. We as parliamentarians across party lines have an obligation to ensure that office has the mandate but also that it receives information in a manner to enable it to carry out that mandate. That has certainly been thrown into question in the last short while. It is very pertinent to the debate we are having today on a bill that is called economic recovery.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Vancouver East a couple of questions. One is on the home renovation tax. It says in the bill that this applies only to tax year 2009-10. We are going through a recession right now, and there are many people who would like to renovate their homes, but unfortunately because they have lost their jobs, or for whatever reason, they cannot. Does the hon. member think this should be expanded for a few more years?

Also I would like to ask about small businesses--

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Ask her if she opposed it first.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

A small business owner in my riding wants to make renovations, but there are no provisions in here for a small business owner. I would like the hon. member to tell me if this is something that could be added.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

I would ask for a little more respect while the member raises a point, to allow him to ask that question without being interrupted by questions nearby.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Hear, hear, Madam Speaker. The home renovation tax credit has been very popular and so the question arises as to what will happen after the years 2009-10 when presumably it will be over. It is a very good example of how the economic stimulus package has been designed in a way that is very short-sighted and there are many things that could have been done in a more structural way in terms of our income tax system and providing tax credits. I have already talked about the housing program.

This could have been a piece of a much more comprehensive program around housing affordability and allowing homeowners to do renovations but also ensuring that low-income people would be able to qualify, particularly for energy retrofit, where they are facing housing that is very unsafe or unhealthy. People are facing moulds and heating systems that are way out of date, and it is very difficult for them to find the financial resources to deal with those.

With regard to small businesses, this is a very interesting point. We often do not speak enough about what small businesses contribute to our society and the jobs they provide and the enormous time, energy and hours small business owners put into their operation. Often it is a labour of love, and they do not get paid a lot. There could have been a program based on a green energy outcome that might have addressed their needs in terms of the building they own or in which they operate. I am sure there are millions of small business operators who would have taken advantage of something like that. I think these are very good suggestions from the member, but they unfortunately point out that although we are supporting the bill before us as far as it goes, it could have done so much better.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest to the member that if the program is extended by the government, which I think is probable given the budget and possible election in the spring, on July 1 next year the HST is going to kick in. Is there not a question here about whether or not this will just be a wash? Any benefits that people would get by hiring renovators to renovate their houses will be taken away when the HST is put on all those renovation contracts.

The second point I would like the member to deal with is the whole issue of the program itself. Perhaps if the Conservatives do announce an extension of the program next year, they might look at some sort of tax credit system for people of low income so that the program could be expanded to apply to even more people who could use it.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, very good suggestions are being made here. I know that the NDP has proposed a retrofit program for lower-income Canadians who are living in housing that needs to be fixed up, whether they own it themselves or whether it is part of a not-for-profit housing system. This is something that we have actually advanced as a very sound economic and environmental investment.

Again, the member is pointing out the stunning sort of ironies such as on one hand giving people a small credit while on the other hand immediately taking it away by increasing the taxes they will pay on the products they need to buy in order to get the credit. Go figure.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I vaguely remember hearing a statement, something to the effect that we are getting the job done. I think thou dost protest too much, because that is as far from the truth as we can get.

For the financial year that ended March 31, 2006, the Government of Canada had a $13 billion surplus, which was used to pay down the debt. The current government came into power and we started sitting in Parliament one month later, in April 2006. What has happened between April 2006 and today? It is all in the numbers. By the following September the government was saying we would not be in a recession. In October--

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we had a discussion earlier today about relevance. We all know that at third reading, the speech one gives must reflect a certain importance and at least a semblance of relevance to the piece of legislation we are dealing with. Therefore I will leave it up to you, Madam Speaker, to advise the hon. member that he might even reflect on what we are dealing with here today rather than ranting about who knows what.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. member for the point of order. We are reviewing the bill on so-called economic recovery stimulus, or entitled economy recovery (stimulus). I would ask all members to bear in mind that we are at third reading and we should focus on the provisions in the bill and focus our comments on those.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I should have indicated that I was leading up to the reason we needed a stimulus and the magnitude of the problem we have to deal with, but I could go right to it.

We went from everything being rosy to all of a sudden looking, since the fall update, at a $56 billion deficit. The experts are saying that we have a technical recession. The projections are that in 2013-14 we will still have an annual deficit of $20 billion. I can imagine what that will do. The government undoubtedly will have to continue to increase taxes and peck away at the pensions of Canadians. I wish I had time to talk about Nortel.

The bill is supposedly about stimulus. I think everyone in this place would agree that what we needed to do when the financial difficulties started to emerge was to pay lots of attention to this. At the time, the discussion was about what we needed to do, and everybody agreed that was to make strategic injections into those areas where we could save the greatest number of jobs, to provide where there were existing jobs. That is probably the most efficient, most effective use of money: to save current jobs and mitigate the loss of jobs.

The second part was to stimulate the economy in those areas where we believed we had the best chances of creating new jobs, new productivity. Canadians can do that. We needed that injection, and one of the aspects of that was infrastructure funding.

I know that in the last fiscal year, although we were already talking about needing to get these infrastructure programs going, and members may recall the term shovel-ready, it made sense that we had to have shovel-ready programs, and so what has happened? Over $3 billion of infrastructure money was all ready for approved projects, ready for the cheque to be cut, and the Conservatives let it lapse. The money just went back into the Treasury. Those projects did not happen. They are coming back now because they have been re-announced. Now we see that only 12% of the announced projects actually have a shovel in the ground right now. That is 12%.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Next year will be a big year then, won't it?