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.

Motions in amendment

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple explanation. It is called what Canada and Canadians need today.

I said this earlier and I will close with this. We have read and heard that this budget is not perfect. To use a computer term, the budget has bugs, but the government has made it very clear that if there are any amendments or changes we will go to the polls. I do not understand how the member thinks it is wise to have a national election when Canadians have told us repeatedly, in a very strong way, that they do not want an election. We should take that over half a billion dollars and put it into his community and my community.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is blessed with pristine wild rivers and lakes. I have canoed in many of them for many years, whether it is the Dumoine River, the Spanish River, the French River, the Missinaibi River, the Madawaska River, the Nahanni River or Alsek River. Canada has beautiful rivers that make us proud. It is almost a part of the Canadian identity.

The public's right to navigate these rivers predates Confederation. It is part of our history and heritage. It also needs to be part of our future. Why am I here talking about rivers in the middle of a serious economic downturn when today the Toronto stock exchange index fell more than 5.5%? It is because part seven of this budget implementation bill makes an amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It has absolutely nothing to do with economic stimulation. If one reads the entire 360 page budget that was presented in the House, not the implementation act, it says nothing about changing navigable water protection because it cannot justify it.

Because the Conservatives saw how weak the Liberal Party was, they snuck in these pay equity changes and changes that punish students and public servants. They snuck in changes just like they did in the 2008 budget. Some members will remember the immigration changes. They had nothing to do with the 2008 budget but the Conservatives saw how weak the Liberals were and snuck the changes in. At the time, the Liberals said that they did not want an election and that they would support the budget, including the immigration changes even though they did not believe in them.

Last June, the Conservatives tried to change this protection act but they were caught. A lot of the environmentalists saw it and wanted to know why they were not being consulted and how the government could that, The change did not pass. Then, of course, we had an election. Many of my constituents wrote to me and said that we needed to protect public access to waterways in Canada. When we do that, we are protecting the natural environment of these waterways. Navigation is entirely under federal jurisdiction. There are no laws or regulations in place, other than the federal act, to protect the public right of navigation in Canada. The provinces have no jurisdiction over navigation and no ability to protect the waters.

Millions of Canadians access our waterways for recreation. Outdoor tourism around waterways generates many millions of dollars every year. In many parts of the country, the outdoor tourism industry is a critical part of local and regional economies.

My constituents said that the proposed amendments to the act must be withdrawn from C-10 and that there needs to be meaningful public consultation because they have the historic public right to navigate our waterways. We need to protect our natural environment. We need to ensure there is access to waterways for recreation and commercial tourism. I received a letter from another constituent who said that he was a canoeing enthusiast and that he was worried that the changes would threaten Canada's natural waterways that he so loves. He said that in order for Canada to remain clean and natural for all Canadians to enjoy, the Navigable Waters Protection Act amendment must be struck out.

Another constituent wrote to say that he was very concerned that the Government of Canada was poised to deregulate the protection of waterways in Canada which could impact on the rights of all Canadians to navigate and enjoy free access to Canada's waterways under the guise of putting people to work. He said that they were doing so without consulting Canadians in an open and transparent manner.

My constituent also mentioned that the legislation had nothing to do with putting people to work, considering that most, if not all of the economic stimulus initiatives proposed by the government, were for municipal infrastructure and not governed by federal environmental laws. He did not see any connection with what we are talking about here with stimulating the economy and putting people to work.

Another constituent wrote to ask us not to mix these changes.

The letters go on and on. People are extremely concerned and yet we have a Liberal opposition that is so afraid of its own shadow that it is not negotiating any amendments or changes. The Liberals are assuming that any amendment will be a confidence vote. They have not even tried. It is really unfortunate that the budget makes changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, pay equity and students, which has nothing to do with the budget and stimulating the economy.

We would be making a serious mistake here if we were to pass this section of the bill. I just wish the Liberals would actually stand up for what they say they believe in and split out this section and vote against it. They would then be able to tell their constituents that they tried and that they did their best and allow their constituents to judge. If they do not to that, then it has all been empty words. They say one thing here in the House but they act totally different when the vote comes. That is not what we call leadership.

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

Mr. Speaker, I carefully listened to the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina speak to the budget issue. She really questioned the Liberals and asked us what we believe in and why we were supporting this.

It is not only a matter of belief. It is a matter of faith. We have faith in the DFO. We have faith in the infrastructure of Canada. We have faith in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Over and above this, we have faith in the development of the consultation process with people.

We have faith in those agencies. We have put the government on probation and we will ensure those agencies are consulted and that the rights of those people who are concerned are not jeopardized. Not only that, but the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 enshrined the rights of all Canadians in the court of law, which is why the Liberals support this particular budget.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand this. The budget was presented and, fair enough, the Liberals want to support the budget. However, what does destroying the pristine rivers or taking pay equity out of the Canadian Human Rights Commission have to do with stimulating the economy? I just do not understand it.

Could the Liberals not have even tried at the committee level to split up the bill, to take out clause 7 in this case? They did not even bother trying. Have they tried negotiating? No.

Have the Conservatives or the Prime Minister said that they would not do it? I have not heard it.

The Liberals are so afraid. I do not understand it. They say that perhaps there will be an election. No, not necessarily. The Constitution experts have said that if the government falls, we may not have an election. We may have a different kind of government.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation now. We have a coalition of sorts between the Liberals and the Conservatives over the budget. We hear some protestation on their part about this part of the budget.

Some of the comments I have heard today suggest that those members probably support what the Conservatives are doing with the Navigable Waters Protection Act. They are not standing up against it. Quite clearly their leader, who leans very much toward the Conservative side of the House, is supporting it as well.

I do not think we should be surprised by what the Liberals are doing here. It is part of their new leadership. As such, we have to accept that.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way is probably correct. After all we have a leader in the Liberal Party that believes the expansion of the oil sands will contribute to national unity. He seems to have nothing critical to say about some of the problems, like the greenhouse gas emissions being creating by the oil sands.

Perhaps I should not be surprised that the Liberals are not at all worried about the amendment on the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Even though it contains no consultation, no transparency, not one single Canadian has been asked—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Papineau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this issue, which ties into a much deeper issue of what we are doing here.

First, as a lifelong paddler, I am deeply concerned about the changes the Conservative Government has packaged into their budget on the NWPA.

Before we even get around to that, let us talk about the responsibilities we hold as parliamentarians to represent our constituents and to govern adequately and for the future of our families and our people.

The government and members of Parliament must respond to Canadians' needs. We have to be there for our fellow citizens, and we must always make responsible decisions. It is easy for the NDP and the Bloc to stand in the way, to oppose without ever having to propose, without ever having to make judgment calls and difficult decisions.

I recognize we had plenty of difficult decisions to take when faced with this budget. Throughout the fall, the Conservatives continued to say that there was no economic crisis, that they would be in surplus, that everything was well. We had to push them extremely hard to get them to admit it. We then had to get them to start spending, to start giving to Canadians some of the stimulus, some of the response that they desperately needed.

Was it enough? No, it probably will not be enough, but it is a damn site better than delaying, than putting off our interventions, than dragging Canadians through another expensive election, which would probably return a very similar result of a minority Parliament of some sort, while Canadians are losing their jobs, families are struggling to plan for the future, kids are anxious about what their parents are arguing about late into the night as the bills come in and the job prospects look less and less likely.

Canada is in a crisis. The NDP members announced even before the budget hit the table that they would in no way support it.

The Bloc Québécois proposed unrealistic, unacceptable amendments.

The Liberal Party took a good look at what the Conservatives have done. This is basically a Conservative budget; we understand that. However, the Liberal-NDP coalition, with the Bloc Québécois' support, was able to push the government to take positive steps for our economy, to propose measures we really need.

At the same time, the Conservatives have chosen to sneak some measures that will not be good for Canada into the budget. For example, it includes measures that are not good for pay equity for women, not to mention some real flaws when it comes to protecting navigable waters.

Even so, the Liberal Party decided that it was in Canadians' best interest to get the money flowing right away.

However, navigable waters is an issue, and it is an issue for me. The powers granted to the minister would allow the government to bypass some of the triggers for environmental assessment. It removes the words “dam”, “weir”, “log”, “bridge”, ”causeway” from the automatically triggering environmental assessment procedures. This is a strategy of bringing more power to the ministers. It is similar to the power brought to the minister in the Immigration Act, which the Conservatives adopted last year. This trend is absolutely troubling.

The rights of Canadians to explore their waterways is one that goes into our very identity as Canadians. Our ability to explore this great land, as generations before us have, which was allowed through our waterways, is one that predates Confederation. It goes all the way back to Roman times. To have free access to waterways is essential.

However, the NWPA is over 100 years old. It was brought in 1882. It does need a little reworking, which is why the Liberals worked hard in committee last year to bring about some positive impacts. However, the Conservative government slipped in these changes without any possibility of discussions, debate, back and forth for positive consensus. Then it said if we did not accept the package it put forward in its entirety, regardless of the fact that it is not all about stimulus, we would go into an election.

We are facing tough choices here. We can either try to protect our jobs and not protect the jobs of Canadians, or we can say that Canadians need help and they need help now. They need us to reach out to them. They need us to stimulate them economically to allow them to have safer jobs, to allow them to train for the future and to allow communities to spend on much needed infrastructure.

Are there faults in the budget? Absolutely.

It is wonderfully easy for the Bloc and the NDP to stand on their high horses and shout out that it is terrible this is going through. They do not have to make any of the tough decisions. They have absolved themselves of responsibility that way. They are happy to oppose. However, the Liberal Party intends to form the next government. Because of that, we need to be responsible. When Canadians turn to us and ask us why we do not support the budget or the money that will come from it, we will have no answer if we block it.

Pressure by the Liberal caucus and in committee allowed for a mandatory five year review clause in the NWPA, which means this implementation is not automatically forever. Indeed, the Liberal Party feels that it is time for a comprehensive overhaul of environmental assessment to ensure that we are properly protecting Canadians, that we are properly balancing economy and environment. There is no question that the economy and the environment need to be built together in the future. However, to jump and pull the trigger right now because this is not a Liberal budget would be irresponsible.

We have to give the Conservatives credit. They went a long way in acting against type by actually reaching out to help Canadians and spending on them. For that, we applaud them. However, the challenges we face mean that we need to work together. It would be wonderful if, for once, a party like the NDP would read something before it decided to vote against it. It gives the NDP members the idea that they can stand there and be defenders of the people, the way the Bloc members are defenders of Quebeckers.

We need to be actual defenders of the people. That means taking action. It means making compromises. Like it or not, Canadians voted a Conservative government in last time. What we have to do is make sure that Parliament works. That is what the Liberal Party is doing. It is making sure that this imperfect budget serves Canadians. It is making sure that the naysayers who want to trigger an election or an unstable coalition do not get their way and that Canadians get the help they need.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the enthusiastic remarks of the member for Papineau. I was curious about his characterization of the role of the NDP. I believe what we said was that we lost confidence in the government. From the speech of November 27 and over the following days, given what was going on, we had no confidence that the government could produce a budget or do anything that was going to please the people of this country.

The hon. member for Papineau, along with all his colleagues, signed the letter and agreed.

What I would like to ask the hon. member is this: when did he actually regain confidence in the government? He is concerned about reading things, so was it after he read the budget, after he read the documents that were put out, after he read the section dealing with pay equity with all the detail there? The budget said we will fine a union $50,000 if it assists any of its members in pursuing a pay equity claim. Is that when he got confidence in the budget and decided to support the government? Can the member tell us that?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member would like to know when we regained confidence in this government. It is quite simple. We did not have high hopes that the government would be able to put forward an attractive budget, one that would help Canadians. Throughout the fall, Conservatives were in denial about the problems, the environmental challenges, the need for Canadians to spend, and we were no longer confident that this government could act accordingly.

So we applied pressure. We formed a coalition that was ready to take back power if the government could not meet Canadians' needs. After consulting with Canadians and those who support us, we saw that the budget they presented was not perfect but that it did provide tangible assistance to Canadians. Yes, there are big holes in this budget. However, the challenge is to get money out to Canadians and that will be done.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Papineau is speaking with a great deal of emotion. His voice is trembling.

There are huge holes in the budget, but they are not big enough for the Liberals to vote against it. On Saturday, in Halifax, unionized public service employees held a demonstration about the huge problems in the budget. They told the Liberal leader that the measures in Bill C-10, including the pay equity measures, made no sense. That is just one of the issues they raised.

I would like to hear what the member has to say about this, about the fact that he is supporting such a budget and such a government, which reneged on its promise to the Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador. It also went back on its promise to Quebec. We know that the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed a motion about equalization.

All these people cannot be wrong. It is the Conservative government that is wrong. That is what the member is saying, but at the same time, he is going to support this bill. I would like the member to explain this glaring contradiction.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the contradiction, that is what makes it so difficult to make responsible choices as a member of Parliament. The truth is that we have to make choices here. We have to act in the best interest of the people we represent and the whole country.

Yes, pay equity is a real problem, and the Conservatives should be ashamed of what they are doing. Yes, unions are right to protest many of the things in this bill, but they are protesting against the Liberals when they should be protesting even more against the Conservatives.

The challenge is finding a balance, figuring out how we can best help Canadians. The truth is that we have to accept this very imperfect budget because we have to get money flowing to Canadians right away. We have to help them find jobs, keep their jobs and get ready for the future.

However, when it comes time for an election, everyone will see that we are only too ready to get rid of the Conservatives and form the next government.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the amendment to the budget implementation bill.

I would like to take up a little of what the member for Papineau was saying when he was concerned about the options that are available to the House at this time. He talked about one option being supporting the budget, supporting the government, showing confidence in the budget, making a compromise, et cetera. He referred to the alternative as an “unstable coalition”.

On the other hand, the argument that was made, and made quite quite strongly, was that the coalition proposed between the Liberals and the NDP had a very stable form of government that would have got us through two budget cycles without the threat of the kind of thing that is going on now, the so-called compromises against principle that the member is being forced to make. We would have an agreement that would last us through two budgets and we would have stability.

We have members from the Liberal opposition now saying that in June they will call an election. They will call an election in June, or at the first opportunity--not March, but June. They were saying they did not read the budget and were going to vote against it, but now they are saying that in June they will trigger an election.

What kind of stability is that? What kind of stability do we have with this government in power and the Liberals ready to pull the trigger at any time it suits them? When the terms of their probation are not being met, they will pull the trigger.

Every day we see members opposite, ministers, and the Prime Minister rubbing the Liberals' noses in the support that they are giving to them. I cannot believe they can get away with it. I am here every day. I hear the Liberals complaining about the government. Then I hear members of the government say that the Liberals are voting for all this stuff and that they are supporting them. They are not even thankful for the Liberals' support. They are not even giving the Liberals anything, not a crumb, even though they are asking the Liberals to go against their principles.

The member for Papineau should read this letter. I am sure he has a copy. It is a letter from CAUT complaining about pay equity. What do they say? They say that there is a breach of Canadian commitment to international conventions. They say there is a breach of section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was brought in by former Prime Minister Trudeau. It is a breach of constitutionally protected labour rights. It is a breach of the principles of democracy and all those things.

The government is rubbing the Liberals' noses in it, making them vote for it and support it. Why? Is it in the interests of stable government? This is not stable government. According to the Leader of the Opposition, this government is on probation, the terms of the probation can be broken at any time, and they will pull their chain. I do not see any chain pulled by the members opposite. In fact, they are so secure that they are ready to rub the Liberals' noses in it every single day.

The people of this country are able to watch that. They know what is going on. There is a lot of talk about being responsible and compromising and all that, but the people of this country see what is happening here. They know that prior to the budget being brought down, our leader said that if the government came up with a budget that had any merit, we would easily adapt those matters into a budget for the coalition. That could be done very quickly and could implement any measures that were desirable.

The motions before the House today to amend the budget, to remove these odious provisions in relation to pay equity, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and other things, are an opportunity for the opposition members to stand on their feet and support the principles they say they believe in, but we do not see any evidence of it before the House.

I know I have a few more minutes and the House will be moving on to other business. If it pleases you, Mr. Speaker, I can end here and let you move to other business, or I can keep on till the time is up. I see it is comme ci, comme ça. I can keep going. I might not get as enthused, knowing that I will be cut off in a minute or so.

The Navigable Waters Protection Act is now being gutted by the government, gutted in provision after provision. Even to determine whether a waterway is a navigable waterway is now at the discretion of the minister. Each and every step of the way, it is up to the minister and the opinion of the minister. If the minister makes such an order, he can do so. That takes away the protection of the waters my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, was talking about, in her experience in canoeing on navigable waters throughout this country. The changes that can be made to those waterways will now be at the discretion of the minister, instead of being subject to a proper evaluation and an environmental assessment, and that is wrong.

I urge members on both sides of the House, even government members, to vote against it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for St. John's East will have five minutes left to conclude his remarks the next time this bill is before the House.

The House resumed from March 2 consideration of Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 2.