Bill C-10 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2009

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

Part 1 implements income tax measures proposed in the January 27, 2009 Budget. In particular, it
(a) increases by 7.5% above their 2008 levels the basic personal amount and the upper limits for the two lowest personal income tax brackets, thereby also increasing the income levels at which income testing begins for the base benefit under the Canada Child Tax Credit and the National Child Benefit supplement;
(b) increases by $1,000 the amount on which the Age Credit is calculated;
(c) increases to $25,000 the maximum amount eligible for withdrawal under the Home Buyers’ Plan;
(d) introduces amendments to the rules related to Registered Retirement Savings Plans and Registered Retirement Income Funds to allow for recognition of losses in accounts between the time of the annuitant’s death and final distribution of property from the account;
(e) repeals the interest deductibility constraints in section 18.2 of the Income Tax Act;
(f) extends the mineral exploration tax credit for one year;
(g) increases to $500,000 the annual amount of active business income eligible for the 11% small business income tax rate and makes related amendments;
(h) clarifies rules relating to timing of acquisition of control of a corporation; and
(i) creates cost savings through electronic filing of tax information.
In addition, Part 1 implements income tax measures that were referenced in the January 27, 2009 Budget and that were originally proposed in the February 26, 2008 Budget but not included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2008. In particular, it
(a) clarifies the application of the excess corporate holdings rules for private foundations;
(b) increases the amount that corporations will be able to pay as “eligible dividends”;
(c) enacts several regulatory amendments that complement and complete measures enacted in the Budget Implementation Act, 2008;
(d) introduces minor adjustments to the Tax-Free Savings Account rules and the scientific research and experimental development investment tax credit rules included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2008;
(e) implements rules in respect of donations of medicines; and
(f) reduces the paper burden on businesses by allowing a larger number of government entities to share Business Number-related information in connection with government programs and services.
Part 1 also implements other income tax measures referred to in the January 27, 2009 Budget that either were themselves previously announced or flow directly from previously announced measures. In particular, it
(a) implements technical changes relating to specified investment flow-through trusts and partnerships and new tax rules to facilitate the conversion of these entities into corporations;
(b) contains amendments to take into account financial institution accounting changes;
(c) extends the general treatment of capital gains and losses on an acquisition of control of a corporation to gains and losses that result from fluctuations in foreign exchange rates in respect of debt denominated in foreign currency;
(d) enhances the carry-forward for investment tax credits;
(e) implements amendments relating to the computation of income, gains and losses of a foreign affiliate;
(f) implements amendments to the functional currency tax reporting rules;
(g) implements minor tax amendments relating to interprovincial allocation of corporate taxable income, the Wage Earner Protection Program and the Canada-United States tax treaty’s rules for cross-border pensions;
(h) provides for an extension of time for income tax assessments that are consequential to provincial reassessments;
(i) ensures the appropriate application of the Income Tax Act’s trust rules to certain arrangements and institutions under Quebec civil law;
(j) enacts regulatory amendments relating to prescribed amounts for automobile expenses and benefits, eligible medical expenses, and the tax treatment of foreign affiliate active business income earned in a jurisdiction with which Canada has concluded a tax information exchange agreement;
(k) introduces rules to reduce the required minimum amount that must be withdrawn from a Registered Retirement Income Fund or from a variable benefit money purchase pension plan by 25% for 2008, and allows related re-contributions;
(l) extends the deadline for Registered Disability Savings Plan contributions; and
(m) modifies the provisions relating to amateur athletic trusts.
Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Tax Act to implement measures to reduce the paper burden on businesses by allowing a larger number of government entities to share Business Number-related information in connection with government programs and services.
Part 3 amends the Customs Tariff to implement measures announced in the January 27, 2009 Budget to
(a) 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 machinery and equipment imported on or after January 28, 2009;
(b) divide tariff item 9801.10.00 into two separate tariff items pertaining to conveyances and containers, respectively, and make two technical corrections, effective January 28, 2009; and
(c) modify the tariff treatment of milk protein substances, effective September 8, 2008.
Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act until September 11, 2010 to extend regular benefit entitlements by five weeks. It also provides that a pilot project ceases to have effect. In addition, it amends that Act to provide that the cost of benefit enhancement measures under that Act, provided for in the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009, are not to be charged to the Employment Insurance Account. Finally, it sets the premium rate provided for under that Act for the years 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2010.
Division 1 of Part 5 amends the Financial Administration Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to take, subject to certain conditions, a number of measures intended to promote the stability or maintain the efficiency of the financial system, including financial markets, in Canada.
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to provide the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation with greater flexibility to enhance its ability to safeguard financial stability in Canada. The Division also adds Tax-Free Saving Accounts as a distinct category for the purposes of deposit insurance. It also makes consequential amendments to other acts.
Division 3 of Part 5 amends the Export Development Act to, among other things, expand the Export Development Corporation’s mandate to include the support and development of domestic trade and business opportunities for a period of two years. The period may be extended by the Governor in Council. Division 3 also increases the Corporation’s authorized capital.
Division 4 of Part 5 amends the Business Development Bank of Canada Act to increase the maximum amount of the paid-in capital of the Business Development Bank of Canada.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Canada Small Business Financing Act to increase the maximum outstanding loan amount in relation to a borrower. It also increases individual lenders’ cap on claims. These amendments will apply to new loans made after March 31, 2009.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends a number of Acts governing federal financial institutions to improve access to credit and strengthen the financial system in Canada, including amendments that will
(a) provide new authority for further safeguards to promote the stability of the financial system;
(b) enhance consumer protection by establishing new measures to help consumers of financial products; and
(c) implement other technical measures to strengthen the financial sector framework in Canada.
Division 7 of Part 5 provides for payments to be made to provinces and territories, provides authority to the Minister of Finance to enter into agreements respecting securities regulation with provinces and territories and enacts the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act.
Part 6 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for various purposes, including infrastructure and housing.
Part 7 amends Part I of the Navigable Waters Protection Act to create a tiered approval process for works in order to streamline the approval process and to exclude certain classes of works and works on certain classes of navigable waters from the approval process. This Part further amends Part I of the Act to clarify the scope of the application of that Part to works owned or previously owned by the Crown, to provide for the application of the Act to bridges over the St. Lawrence River and to add certain regulation-making powers.
Part 7 also amends the Act to clarify the provisions related to obstacles and obstructions to navigation. The Act is also amended by adding administration and enforcement powers, consolidating all offence provisions, increasing fines and requiring a review of the Act within five years of the amendments coming into force.
Division 1 of Part 8 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act and the Wage Earner Protection Program Regulations to provide that unpaid wages for which an individual may receive payment under the Wage Earner Protection Program include unpaid severance pay and termination pay.
Division 2 of Part 8 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to, among other things,
(a) require the Chief Actuary of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to report on financial assistance provided under that Act; and
(b) authorize the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to suspend or deny financial assistance to all those who are qualifying students in respect of a designated educational institution.
Division 2 of Part 8 also amends both the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and the Canada Student Loans Act to, among other things,
(a) terminate all obligations of a borrower with respect to risk-shared loans and guaranteed loans if the borrower dies;
(b) authorize the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to require any person who has received financial assistance or a guaranteed student loan to provide that Minister with documents or information for the purpose of verifying compliance with those Acts; and
(c) authorize that Minister to terminate or deny financial assistance in certain circumstances.
Division 3 of Part 8 amends the Financial Administration Act to provide express authority for agent Crown corporations to lease their property, restrict the appointment of employees of a Crown corporation to its board of directors, require Crown corporations to hold annual public meetings, clarify Treasury Board’s duties to indemnify Crown corporation directors and officers, permit more flexibility in the frequency of special examinations of Crown corporations, and require the reports of special examinations to be submitted to the appropriate Minister and Treasury Board and made public. This Division also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 9 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to set out the amount of the fiscal equalization payments to the provinces for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2009 and amends the method by which fiscal equalization payments will be calculated for subsequent fiscal years. It also amends the method by which the Canada Health Transfer is calculated for each fiscal year in the period beginning on April 1, 2009 and ending on March 31, 2014.
Part 10 enacts the Expenditure Restraint Act. The purpose of that Act is to put in place a reasonable and an affordable approach to compensation across the federal public sector in support of responsible fiscal management in a difficult economic environment.
It sets out rules governing economic increases to the rates of pay of unionized and non-unionized employees for periods that begin during the period that begins on April 1, 2006 and ends on March 31, 2011. It also continues certain other terms and conditions at their current levels. It preserves the right of collective bargaining with regard to other matters and it does not affect the right to strike.
The Act does not preclude the continued development of workplace improvements by employers and employees’ bargaining agents through the National Joint Council or other bodies that they may agree on. It also permits bargaining agents and employers to agree to the amendment of certain terms and conditions of collective agreements or arbitral awards.
Part 11 enacts the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that proactive measures are taken to provide employees in female predominant job groups with equitable compensation.
It requires public sector employers that have non-unionized employees to determine periodically whether any equitable compensation matters exist in the workplace and, if so, to prepare a plan to resolve them. With respect to public sector employers that have unionized employees, the employers and the bargaining agents are to resolve those matters through the collective bargaining process.
It sets out the procedure for informing employees as to whether an equitable compensation assessment was required to be conducted and, if so, how it was conducted, and how any equitable compensation matters were resolved. It also establishes a recourse process for employees if the Act is not complied with.
Finally, since the Act puts in place a comprehensive equitable compensation scheme for public sector employees, this Part amends the Canadian Human Rights Act so that the provisions of that Act dealing with gender-based wage discrimination no longer apply to public sector employers. It extends the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations Board to allow it to hear equitable compensation complaints and to provide other services related to equitable compensation in the public sector.
Part 12 amends the Competition Act. The amendments include
(a) introducing a dual-track approach to agreements between competitors, with a limited criminal anti-cartel provision and a civil provision to address other agreements that substantially lessen or prevent competition;
(b) providing that bid-rigging includes agreements or arrangements to withdraw bids or tenders;
(c) repealing the provisions dealing with price discrimination and predatory pricing, replacing the criminal resale price maintenance provision with a new civil provision to address price maintenance practices that have an adverse effect on competition, and repealing all provisions dealing specifically with the airline industry;
(d) introducing an administrative monetary penalty for cases of abuse of dominant position, increasing the maximum amount of administrative monetary penalties for deceptive marketing cases, and increasing the maximum fines or terms of imprisonment, or both, for agreements or arrangements between competitors, bid-rigging, criminal false or misleading representations, deceptive telemarketing, deceptive notice of winning a prize, obstruction of Competition Bureau investigations and failure to comply with prohibition orders or production orders;
(e) clarifying that, in proceedings under section 52, 74.01 or 74.02, it is not necessary to establish that false or misleading representations are made to the public in Canada or are made in a place to which the public has access, and clarifying that the “general impression test” applies to all deceptive marketing practices in sections 74.01 and 74.02;
(f) providing that the court may make an order in respect of cases of false or misleading representations to require the person who engaged in the conduct to compensate persons affected by the conduct, and may issue an interim injunction to freeze assets if the Commissioner of Competition intends to ask for such a compensation order; and
(g) introducing a two-stage merger review process for notifiable transactions, increased merger pre-notification thresholds and a reduced merger review limitation period.
Part 13 amends the Investment Canada Act so that the review of an investment will be applied only to the more significant investments. It also amends the Act to allow more information to be made public. This Part also provides for the review of foreign investments in Canada that could threaten national security and allows the Governor in Council to take any measures that the Governor in Council considers advisable to protect national security, such as prohibiting a non-Canadian from implementing an investment.
Part 14 amends the Canada Transportation Act to provide the Governor in Council with flexibility to increase the foreign ownership limit from the existing levels to a maximum of 49%.
Part 15 amends the Air Canada Public Participation Act in relation to the mandatory provisions in the articles of Air Canada regarding constraints imposed on the issue, transfer and ownership of shares. It provides for the repeal of the provisions requiring that the articles of Air Canada contain provisions imposing limits on non-resident share ownership and the repeal of the provisions requiring that the articles of Air Canada contain provisions respecting the enforcement of these constraints.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's point is well taken. I would like her to comment on the following question. The government is not introducing real ways to produce energy without greenhouse gas. On the other hand, we are still talking about research. We have nothing against research, but Canada has been conducting research for 25 years. We are ready to produce. There is no money in the budget for production.

The budget includes money to reduce the amount of water used for the oil sands. But the companies told us a few months ago that they will never be able to use less than six gallons of water per barrel of oil, so we are not going to produce greener energy that way.

I would like to know how far along we are in our search for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear in the budget that the government does not understand our potential to compete in this new green economy. What we are missing is the opportunity to actually deploy technologies that have been invented and developed in Canada, particularly in the Maritime provinces.

It is most regrettable that the majority of members from the government did not take the opportunity to attend the presentation, which I had welcomed them to last week, where very cogent, factual information was presented on these very possibilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill. Earlier, when the budget was tabled, I spoke about the agricultural community. Today, I would like to focus on what many people in my riding, Richmond—Arthabaska, have talked to me about: this government's inaction on employment insurance accessibility.

Part IV of Bill C-10 pertains to the change in the employment insurance system. The measure the Conservative government decided to take is not bad, but all it did is increase the regular benefit entitlement by five weeks from 45 to 50 weeks, which the Bloc Québécois had long been calling for.

But I wonder why the government decided to set a time limit for this measure? It says this measure will be in effect until September 11, 2010, which means that it is not permanent. All the government did was increase the regular benefit entitlement from 45 to 50 weeks, and it set a time limit on this measure to boot. That is all there is in the budget about this issue.

As far as accessibility is concerned, I have heard comments from a lot of people when I have been out and about on the weekend, or in my riding office on a Friday, about what is in the budget or more so, what is not. It is all very fine to talk of investing in this or that, but the budget must always be looked at as a whole. Overall, no one can say that everything in the budget is perfect, but neither can it be said that everything in it is bad.

However, on the employment insurance issue, frankly it is obvious that we are dealing here with a government that has no sensitivity and no intention of helping people who, in the midst of a time of economic crisis, will end up without a job and with a waiting period imposed on them. More than 50% of people are not eligible for EI even if they have contributed. This situation remains. In a period of crisis, it is worse than ever, which I will demonstrate in the minutes allocated to me.

This bill does not improve accessibility to employment insurance in any way. Still today, the majority of contributors to employment insurance are not entitled to benefits. More than half the people who lose their jobs do not have access to employment insurance, even though they have contributed to it.

The Bloc Québécois has proposed some improvements. My colleague from Chambly—Borduas has introduced a bill, and I will come back to that. We have been proposing very specific improvements for ages, ones which in fact come from the public and from organizations that deal with employment insurance recipients, or at least people who ought to be recipients. As I said, many of these are unfortunately ignored. These are often women who work part time, such as single parents. Or they are young people new to the work force who have not accumulated sufficient hours to access employment insurance. They are also heavily penalized. These are the people telling us there need to be improvements.

One of the main demands is a reduction of the minimum period of qualification, to 360 hours worked, regardless of the regional unemployment rate. As well, increased weekly benefits to 60% from 55%. And we called as well for the abolition of the waiting period, but that we did not obtain.

Especially in times of economic crisis, people must be able to obtain employment insurance benefits as soon as they lose their jobs rather than having to wait for a certain period. If they received their benefits immediately, they could help keep the economy rolling. Someone who is unemployed will look after their basic needs first and will not allow themselves much in the way of luxuries. They will buy food, pay the rent and do only what is necessary. This measure would allow people to help keep the economy going.

We also propose eliminating the distinctions between new entrants and re-entrants to the work force.

We have to eliminate the presumption that people who are related to one another do not deal with each other at arm's length. We should also allow the self-employed to opt into the system on a voluntary basis. Finally, benefits should be calculated based on the 12 best weeks.

People, especially organizations who advocate for the jobless and the unemployed, have been calling for such measures for a long time. We will table a bill in an attempt, once again, to have the House adopt such measures. This very day, my colleague for Chambly—Borduas came back with a Bloc Québécois bill to improve the employment insurance system.

We know that only a few months ago, the Conservatives denied that there was an economic crisis. We were all in an election campaign. Last September, they felt that there was no problem and no recession on the horizon. The Conservatives had some concerns, but nothing serious. Canada would be protected from everything happening in the world. Our closest neighbour, the United States, was in the midst of an economic catastrophe, but we, we would get through it unscathed. That is what we heard during the election campaign. Luckily, people are not stupid and they knew that if our American neighbour was coughing, we were going to catch its cold. And that is exactly what is happening. I am not happy about that; it is just that we have a responsibility here. The government has an even greater responsibility because it is the one making the final decisions about how to stimulate the economy and mitigate the effects of an economic crisis.

When we deny it, pretend that nothing is happening and put on our rose-coloured glasses, during that entire time, nothing is being done to help the people who lose their jobs during an economic crisis or the industries that are having an increasingly tough time exporting to the United States. The Americans are having problems and will buy fewer of our products. It is a domino effect. We could not close our eyes and pretend that everything was fine.

The economic statement that followed was a real joke. It was an ideological statement. I have always felt that the Conservatives came up with it because they saw that the Liberals' election results were mediocre. They figured that the Liberals would try to build themselves back up because they had been through a difficult campaign with disappointing results. They had debts—$18 million, some said. At the time, a leadership race was likely. Now the Liberals have decided to get themselves a new leader without going through that process—apparently there is to be a convention in May. Nevertheless, it is clear that, at the time, that is what the Conservatives were seeing. They decided to take advantage of it and kick the Liberals while they were down to make sure they stayed there.

So the Conservatives came up with an economic statement that did nothing to stimulate the economy or mitigate the effects of the crisis, as I was saying earlier. Instead, they chose to bring in measures that made pay equity negotiable, even though it is a right. A right is not something one negotiates. The Conservatives also raised the political party funding issue. Things like that were not the breath of fresh air people needed to deal with the harsh and painful economic crisis.

It has to be one thing or the other: either the government had no idea what was going on at the time and chose to be optimistic—if that is the case, I would suggest that the government is incompetent—or it wanted to hide the truth from the people. In the end, reality always catches up, and that is what happened.

Now the government cannot deny January's unprecedented surge in unemployment, which rose from 7.3% to 7.7%. That is a two-year high. In January, 26,000 jobs were lost in Quebec. Canada lost 129,000 jobs. I am very worried about this because I am from a region with a lot of small and medium-sized businesses, manufacturing businesses, and that sector has sustained heavy job losses. In January, the manufacturing sector lost 101,000 jobs.

This bill does nothing to improve access to employment insurance. Now we are asking the members of the House to support the Bloc Québécois bill to make up for the government's inaction on this issue.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to comment on how the infrastructure programs in the budget will affect his riding. While he is doing that, I want to go on the record, while the Minister of Infrastructure is here, to make sure he gets the message that municipalities and first nations want to ensure they get their fair allotment of the infrastructure funds.

I have been making this case for over a year but I have been worried recently. In talking to officials, they have suggested that there is no policing mechanism to ensure that first nations and municipalities, which have such a huge task of delivering infrastructure and the lowest tax base, get the fair share that they did in the past. The genesis of these programs in the past was to help these junior governments.

I know the minister has met with them, and I appreciate that, and I know there is a generous amount in the budget, but it is important that municipalities and first nations get their fair share to do the jobs they need to do with their limited resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the hon. member for Yukon were perhaps meant more for the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

But one thing is certain, as I was saying in my speech—and I am glad he mentioned this part of the budget—not everything in a budget is bad, nor is everything ever perfect. Although the government would have us believe that it will solve all our problems, that is not the case. Although the Liberals support it, the budget is not perfect. We saw this in question period, as well in the speeches we heard.

However, according to all the experts, in a time of economic crisis, it is completely reasonable to invest in infrastructure. That is one positive aspect of this budget.

I agree with my colleague: this must be done as quickly and straightforwardly as possible. In a time of economic crisis, we cannot wait for endless criteria to be met. The money must be available immediately and quickly for Quebec and for the other provinces, in order to get this work underway.

I spoke with the minister who said himself that any work that is already ready to begin will be given priority. I think that is a very good idea.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague further to something he said regarding what women are going through during this economic crisis. He talked about the fact that many women work in part time jobs. This is their reality, and we see that the government is not responding to it. What is more, we see that the government is taking steps that truly go against the most fundamental human rights enjoyed by everyone, enjoyed by all women in Canada for many years, in the area of pay equity.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's point of view on the matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very pertinent question. What we are witnessing is typical of so-called right-wing governments all over the world. In times of economic crisis, as in times of economic growth, right-wing governments adopt a laissez-faire philosophy. We should not expect the Conservatives to take measures to help the most vulnerable members of society. The Conservatives tell people who have lost their jobs to go out and get another one. I once heard the current Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC), when he was minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for Quebec Regions, tell people who had lost their jobs to go and work in Alberta because there was work there. Talk about a heartless thing to say.

As for women, as I said earlier, this would have been a good time—and anytime is a good time—for the government to introduce measures to improve access to employment insurance, because statistically, women most often hold part time jobs.

I said in my speech that pay equity is not negotiable. Pay equity is a right. You do not negotiate a right. Unfortunately, this government does not see things this way.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-10, the budget implementation act.

First, on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East and indeed all Canadians, I would like to express our condolences to the friends and families of the victims of the brush firestorm that has swept across the state of Victoria in southern Australia. As a fellow Commonwealth nation, we share the shock and sadness of the greatest natural disaster in Australian history. Our thoughts and our prayers are with them and, as parliamentarians, I want to assure the people of Australia that the people of Canada stand ready to assist them in any possible way.

Now on to the topic at hand, the budget implementation act.

My constituents are asking why the Liberal Party has decided to support this budget. The simple answer lies in the fact that in this time of global economic turmoil, Canadians want politicians of all political stripes to work together so that we can put the country back on the road to prosperity. Unfortunately, this has been a bumpy road indeed and it seems that the government continues to hit guardrails at every turn.

First we had an economic update in November that created the greatest political crisis in political history since the King-Byng affair. While the Prime Minister fumbled at the steering wheel, the Conservative government had to face the embarrassment of withdrawing its own economic statement that was penned entirely by partisan zealots in the PMO without any consultation with officials at the Department of Finance. We then learned that instead of running a modest surplus in the coming fiscal year, Canada would, instead, run a deficit of $64 billion over two years, even before a stimulus package was ever contemplated.

In order to make a meaningful contribution toward the shaping of the budget, Liberals fanned out across the country to consult widely with Canadians in all walks of life. People told us that we must come up with an action plan that would, first and foremost, stimulate the economy and protect the most vulnerable in our society.

I know that it is not in the DNA of the Conservatives to make social housing a priority, but that is exactly what the Liberal Party advocated as an investment in our future. To that end, the Liberal opposition welcomes the following: over $400 million over two years for the construction of social housing units for low-income seniors; $75 million over two years for the construction of social housing units for persons with disabilities; $400 million over two years for new and existing housing stock on first nation reserves; and $200 million over two years for social housing in the north.

These are the types of constructive contributions the Liberal Party supports. However, the leader of the Liberal Party has made it clear that Liberal Party support is conditional and contingent upon the proper management of taxpayer dollars.

While we do welcome the extension of EI benefits, there is a real problem with access for many workers in my riding of Don Valley East, and in Ontario in general.

In 2006, the City of Toronto commissioned a task force on modernizing income security. It discovered that the first social safety net, employment insurance, is so full of holes that only 27% of workers who pay into the system are eligible to collect benefits. In a prospering economy, that is a serious problem, but in a recession, it is a disaster waiting to happen.

Last week I took the opportunity to question the Minister of Human Resources after one of my constituents complained that it is virtually impossible to get through to the EI call centre by telephone. I received assurances from the minister that more resources are being allocated to relieve the call volume, but this speaks to the question of access.

Minimum hour requirements vary from region to region across Canada, but the government must not exclude a certain class of workers who have paid into the system for years yet receive no benefits. Before the federal government begins to download the victims of this recession on to the provinces, I suggest that the Conservatives begin to rethink access to EI benefits.

The Liberal Party also supports raising the national child tax benefit and doubling tax relief provided by the working income tax benefit to encourage low-income Canadians to find and retain jobs.

We also asked for and strongly support a provision that will reduce the minimum withdrawal rate for RRIFs by 25%.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the leader of the Liberal Party has indicated that Liberal support for this budget is conditional and we will be reviewing the government's use of taxpayers' dollars quite closely.

Accountability and transparency are key. As the official critic for national revenue, I must draw members' attention to the results of an internal audit by the Canada Revenue Agency. It revealed that paycheque errors are costing the tax department millions of dollars each year by issuing cheques to people who no longer work for CRA. As of February last year, approximately $3 million had been paid out to 2,258 employees. This translates into a 5% error rate.

Similarly, the Liberal Party is deeply concerned with how the government will properly account for the home renovation tax credit. This tax expenditure has the potential for disaster and we in the Liberal Party will insist upon proper accountability and transparency mechanisms, because it is possible that people could misuse the system, abuse the system, and leave the taxpayers with a lot of boondoggle.

It is this kind of dismal performance that has driven Conservative allies such as the National Citizens Coalition, an organization once headed by the Prime Minister, to disparage the government for poor management. In fact, the head of the NCC has called upon grassroots support of the Conservative Party, many of whom are already tapped out, to withhold political donations until they see a form of improvement on the part of the government.

I have consulted my constituents from far and wide, and they have insisted that there are major issues they want the budget to address. Some of these issues include protection of the vulnerable, protection of their pensions, protection of the jobs of today, protection of job creation and the jobs of tomorrow, and access by small businesses to credit.

Some of the initiatives the government has taken have been in response to our input to the Minister of Finance. However, 1.2 million Canadians have lost or are facing losing their jobs. Out of that number, only 27% to 30% are able to access EI. For those vulnerable Canadians, it is important that we as parliamentarians revisit the EI eligibility rules and ensure that in an economic recession, we are there to help people.

The Minister of Finance had committed some funds for access to credit by small businesses, and the Liberal Party as the official opposition will ensure that that money does transfer to the small and medium size businesses.

My time is drawing to a close, so I will now answer questions and comments.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my province of British Columbia, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has a long and storied tradition of public service, delivering broad-based community police services to the people of our province. In fact, we are fortunate enough to have the headquarters of the RCMP detachment located within the confines of my riding of Vancouver Kingsway.

The RCMP was promised wage increases by the government. The RCMP officers were counting on those wage increases. However, after the election and with this budget, the RCMP wage increases that those officers were relying on in good faith have been rolled back.

I would like to know what the member's position is on that, as well as on the other collective agreement wage rollbacks that have been slipped in under the cover of this so-called economic action plan, which again simply is an attack on the rights of workers to collectively bargain.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for asking this question because it is a very valid question. I agree with him that the RCMP was supposed to have received its wage, but it was rolled back. My hon. colleague from Ajax—Pickering posed a question and did not seem to have received a very good response from the minister at that time. I firmly believe that members of Parliament have to ensure that there is a protection of people, that we maintain our word, and we ensure that Parliament respects the rights of people.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member, my good friend from Don Valley East, said the Conservative Party in its DNA does not have social housing. The more I read this budget, it is not in its DNA to support seniors, youth, heath care or education.

I want to ask a specific question on EI, if I may. In my neck of the woods in the great city of Toronto, Scarborough, where I come from, I am proud of Ontarians. They work to earn a living. They do not work for unemployment, but in these difficult and unusual times, unfortunately some of them are getting laid off, companies are closing, et cetera.

I want to know, because they are asking me, why are we in Ontario being treated differently in terms of EI than other provinces?

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was under the Harris government, which slashed, burned and destroyed Ontario, and now he has come to the federal side. What it took us 12 years to do, the Conservatives have undone in two and a half years. They have literally brought Canada--I was not going in that direction, Mr. Speaker, but I am prepared to go toe to toe with my good friend. It is just that this is not the time nor the place.

Nevertheless, I want to know. Because their understanding is that the same dollar they pay in Toronto is the same Canadian dollar they pay in B.C., Charlottetown or wherever. Why are we treated differently?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very relevant question, and we have had a lot of questions and concerns about EI.

As I mentioned in my speech, there were people calling my constituency office demanding that we do something to change EI. Access is not available. We have to change rules and Ontario has been shortchanged.

I would like to bring attention to the heckling that was done by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

When the Liberal government was in power from 1993 to 2005, we had to clean up the absolute total mess that the Conservatives had left us. They had left a bankrupt country. IMF told us that we were the economic basket case, and therefore it was important to turn things around. When we have no money, when we are bankrupt, we need to first get our economic health back. Once we get our economic health back, then we address issues.

At that time there were many provinces that were have not provinces and they needed that formula. Now that we have come to an economic crisis, I think it is important that Ontario be treated as fairly as other provinces.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity. I think there was a far better speech in the offing a few minutes ago than may happen now.

I am glad my colleague, the member for Don Valley East, began her speech remembering the folks in Victoria state, Australia, and the terrible fires that are happening there. It is an area that I know very well, having travelled very extensively in Victoria over the years. I know the communities of Healesville, Lake Mary, Gippsland, Beechworth and the neighbouring communities very well. I am constantly thinking of the people who have died and their families, and the people who have faced such terribly destructive fires in the last few weeks.

The budget and Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill, are what we are debating now in this House. It comes as no surprise that someone sitting in this corner of the House, a member of the New Democratic Party, will be voting against this piece of legislation, as we voted against the bill.

It comes as no surprise to Canadians because we knew it was going to be a stretch to find a way to support the budget and the government, given its past record, given its complete dismissal of the economic crisis that Canada and the world were facing not so very long ago.

I am not going to make any apologies for saying before the budget was tabled that I was going to be hard pressed to support it. I have lost complete confidence in the government to address the issues that Canadians are facing and to address this economic crisis. Certainly, the budget that is before us and the budget implementation bill have done nothing to restore my confidence or make me change my mind about that. I will make no apologies for the decision I have made in that regard.

If we look at the Conservative budget in the very biggest picture, just how much money, how much of a stimulus is this piece of legislation and this budget going to offer to Canada in this period of economic crisis? Other countries, other international organizations have suggested rates that should be allocated toward appropriate stimulation in this time.

Even at the G20 meeting that the Prime Minister attended last fall, a conclusion was made there that 2% of GDP would be an appropriate level of spending to stimulate an economy and help deal with this economic crisis. We have fallen very short of that in this budget from the Conservative government.

President Obama's American economic stimulus package is at least 3% of the GDP of the United States. The Americans have taken that message from the G20 and actually increased their commitment to helping Americans get out of the troubles that have been caused by the current economic crisis.

In Canada, our economic stimulus package, as offered by the Conservative government, is only .7% of the GDP. That statistic comes from the parliamentary budget officer, a non-partisan officer of Parliament who has looked at the budget figures and looked at those calculations.

That is one third, proportionally, to what the Americans are spending to help Americans deal with this economic crisis, to help the United States get out of the crisis. It is only half of what the G20 recommended and what the Prime Minister apparently agreed to at the G20 meeting.

Even in the very broadest picture that we could look at, this economic stimulus package falls short of what is required by the analysis from experts all around the world to actually deal with the current economic crisis.

The crisis is absolute across this country. That was made very clear with the most recent job loss statistics that came out for the month of January. In British Columbia alone, the net job losses were 35,000 jobs lost in the month of January. That figure of 35,000 jobs lost really does not tell us the full impact of what is going in British Columbia.

The reality in British Columbia is that 68,000 full-time jobs were lost in the month of January. Now there were 33,000 part-time jobs created in that period for that net loss of 35,000 jobs in British Columbia.

I think we have to be very careful in how we look at those statistics. We all know that a part-time job does not replace a full-time job. It does not replace the wages of a full-time job, the salary of a full-time job, and it does not replace the benefits that are available to a full-time worker as opposed to a part-time worker. This statistic for British Columbia really tells of a very serious economic dislocation in my home province.

The rate of unemployment in British Columbia is increasing dramatically. It is now 6.1%. That is up from 5.3% in December and it is up very sharply over March 2008 when British Columbia had an all-time low unemployment rate of 3.8%. That is a very dramatic almost 3% increase over the past 10 months in terms of the unemployment rate in British Columbia.

British Columbian families are suffering in this economic downturn in very dramatic ways. Losing their jobs is one key way they are being affected by this economic downturn.

What is the government's response? In an economic downturn when people are losing their jobs, employment insurance is a key program to assist people at least initially with the effects of losing their jobs. Unfortunately, the government has chosen to almost completely ignore employment insurance in its budget and in the budget bill we are debating.

There is one measure. The government has decided that those people who qualify for EI will be entitled to another five weeks of benefits. That is something, I suppose, but it does not ensure that anyone who does not qualify for EI will be able to. It does not increase the rates of employment insurance that people are paid and it does not get rid of the two weeks that people have to wait through before their benefits start to flow.

The whole commitment around extending the five weeks is really a very tiny commitment. There were figures from one of the deputy ministers in the Department of Human Resources presented recently to a committee. It seems it is less than $15 million a year in terms of increased assistance to the employment insurance program in Canada.

That is less than $15 million a year to some of the most vulnerable people in Canada who have lost their jobs. At the same time, the government continues with its massive $1 billion program of corporate tax cuts to the most profitable corporations in Canada. There is no excuse for not having done better to help workers who lose their jobs through difficult periods and for not having better utilized the EI program.

We know that EI has been gutted over the years. It is not the program that it once was in Canada when it offered real assistance to Canadian workers. We know that far too many people who actually pay into EI are never eligible to collect it. We know that far too many Canadians never contribute to EI, either, and are not even eligible to engage the program at any level. That needed to be addressed in the budget, especially given the economic downturn and job losses being suffered across this country.

Employment insurance stimulates the economy in the sense that when people are on EI they are not saving money. They are spending every dollar they have. That money goes back into the communities that are affected by layoffs, and plant and mill closures. That money is important to communities, the broader community and the businesses in those communities to ensure the economic well-being of those communities. It is a crucial program and a huge opportunity has been lost. If for no other reason, the failure to address the EI program is reason enough not to support this budget and the bill before the House.

There is another problem arising out of the increased layoffs and job losses in British Columbia. The people who deliver what remains of the EI program do not have the resources to do the job properly. The processing centre located in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas was receiving 7,500 new applications for EI a week and it does not have the staff to keep up with that number of new applications.

Therefore, people are having to wait longer and the people delivering that program are working overtime. One can imagine, with that kind of workload and delivering an important program like this, the stress on those workers is very significant because they know how important it is to the people they deal with who need this program and the employment insurance income.

The government is totally unprepared to meet the challenge of even delivering the existing EI program given the changed circumstances that we have in Canada and British Columbia. Attention needs to be given to that immediately.

An aspect of the budget that I think is also severely lacking is the attention to the housing crisis in Canada. We know that a significant number of Canadians are homeless. We know that other Canadians are couch surfing. We know that others are underhoused and that their housing is overcrowded. We know that health conditions in a significant part of Canadian housing leave a lot to be desired.

While there are some measures in the budget, such as measures for housing for seniors, not one of these measures even comes close to being what is actually needed to address the housing crisis in Canada. Sadly, a lot of them are one-off programs. We do not yet have a long-term national housing strategy for Canada, a national housing program for Canada that commits to building homes for Canadians over a long period of time.

New Democrats have called for a 10-year national housing program that would actually build homes for Canadians. That is not delivered in the budget, and it is still an absolute requirement to help Canadians deal with the circumstances they face and are increasingly going to face because of this economic downturn.

There is no long-term national planning for housing in Canada. That is a huge failure of the government and of the budget. We need that kind of support in communities across Canada. Every weekend on street corners in greater Vancouver and around British Columbia, citizens do silent protests called Stands for Housing. Their slogan is “Homes for All”. That began before the economic downturn. It was a crisis then, and those silent witness protests are continuing.

Regarding infrastructure programs, we know there is a huge limitation on what the government has proposed. A lot of it depends on matching funds from municipalities and provinces. Unfortunately, not all municipalities in Canada have the ability to match funds.

An infrastructure program in Burnaby, the Burnaby Lake dredging program, has been readied. The environmental approvals are done, the province has kicked in, the municipality has kicked in and we are still waiting for a commitment from the federal government. That one is shovel-ready, and I hope that shortly the federal government will approve funding for that important project.

I know that all political parties have called for that in the recent election. I hope the government will move on it shortly.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Burnaby—Douglas quite closely. He was talking about the same province I am from, British Columbia.

I live in a riding that has had a lot of job loss. There is a very significant forestry community there. Our job losses do not make headlines in the same way as some of the job losses in other parts of the country. It is just a fact of life in rural British Columbia that we do not get regional or national news coverage when we lose thousands of skilled jobs.

However, I would like to talk about the fallout that occurs from that and put a different complexion on it. The reality is that the federal government has done a lot in terms of bridging to retirement programs. It is through the provincial administration, but it is federal money. We have also done a lot a lot in terms of retraining, which has gone a huge way toward addressing the concerns of people who have lost jobs that they were expecting to have for a lifetime.

I hear the member giving no credit at all to the foresight of the government in not going into a--