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

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should allow you to answer that question first because it appeared that part of it was directed to you. I am sure that you, in your normal jovial way, were just smiling at the hon. members as they were voting. We certainly would not think you would take sides.

It is wonderful to see a member of the Bloc Québécois recognizing that Albertans matter. Usually those members spend their days bashing Albertans saying that we are huge polluters.

In fact, all Canadians recognize the difficult situation that all Canadians are in.

We stand up for women. In fact, we stand up so firmly for women that we do not think they should have to wait 15 years to get the same wage agreements that men have.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Frankly, the hon. parliamentary knows I do not answer questions in the House, tempting as it is sometimes, but I am pleased that he was able to respond to the comments of the hon. member for Laval.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, the Liberals will support the budget for one simple reason, that Canada is in the midst of an economic crisis with job losses that we have not seen in a very long time. I think that Canadians want Parliament to take action to support the economy, and that has to be our top priority.

That having been said, we realize that there are many problems and flaws in this budget. That is why we said that the government would be under trusteeship, on probation.

The government is on probation, and it is for that reason that we require quarterly reports from the government: so that we can monitor it and see whether it is implementing the actions promised in the budget and so that we can see the degree to which the government is responding to the five criteria laid out by our leader, those being that the federal government must help the vulnerable, must protect the jobs of today, must support the jobs of tomorrow, must be fair from a regional point of view and must act in such a way as to not create a permanent deficit.

We will be monitoring the government to ensure the money gets out the door and to ensure that it responds to the five criteria laid out by our leader. We will also monitor the state of the economy. If the economy continues to get worse, it may be necessary for the government to take additional action. That is our overall position.

Let me comment briefly on a certain number of problems we see in the budget, both in terms of what one might call sins of omission--things we think ought to have been in the budget and are not there--and sins of commission, things that are in the budget that we do not like at all. In both categories the list is potentially endless, but in view of the time, I will select just two items in each area.

First, in terms of helping the vulnerable, if there is one single thing that we believe the government ought to have done, it would have been to ease the conditions of eligibility for employment insurance. Our current employment insurance system has not been recession-tested. I do not think it is right that somebody in my riding should have to work twice as many hours to be eligible for EI as somebody in someone else's riding. This was certainly a sin of omission in terms of helping the vulnerable.

Second, we can look to the south and compare the government's measures with those of President Obama, which form a vision for the future around the importance of science; the importance of technology; the importance of research, of innovation, of access to venture capital; and the importance of serious measures to create a sustainable economy. If one compares the billions spent in the south to the lip service, or worse, in our country, this is another area in which this visionless budget does not stand up to scrutiny.

Turning now to crimes of commission, I would argue that one of the most egregious is the Conservatives' treatment of pay equity. I believe this is an attack on the rights of women. I believe that the government's claim that it is following the Ontario model or the Manitoba model is demonstrably and patently false.

On the other hand, as I said at the very beginning, the overriding reason for our support for the government is that we must, at this time of economic crisis, provide support to save or protect jobs, and many of those jobs that need either saving or protecting are the jobs of women. The fiscal measures of the budget, providing they do indeed get out the door--and we will be monitoring that--will provide assistance to women, which in a sense is a balance against the attack on women in the area of pay equity.

I will mention a second example of things we do not like in the budget. Competition policy is framework legislation that is generally reviewed approximately once every 20 years. To slip it into a budget implementation bill to ensure that there is virtually no debate in this very important area can certainly be seen as bad process, whatever one's views on the content of the legislation may be.

Some of the colleagues in the Bloc or the NDP might ask me, given this litany of things I do not like about the budget, why I am supporting it. The answer is, as I said at the very beginning, that we are in an economic crisis in this country at this time.

I do not think any of us in the chamber have seen a crisis of this magnitude in our lifetimes. At least it has the potential to develop into something far worse than what we have seen in our lifetimes. That is why we have to have our focus on this single point, which is that if the government gets the billions of dollars in the budget out the door, that money will provide support for jobs. I think that has to be the number one priority for Canadians at this time.

My last point relates to a more recent development. It is this attempt by the government to spend an additional $3 billion through the estimates through what can only be described as very unusual means.

Finally, it seems, the government has found religion. It seems it finally acknowledges there is a recession, even though the Prime Minister said during the election campaign that if Canada was going to have a recession, it would have had one now. Finally the government understands the importance of getting the money out the door, which is something we have been saying for weeks and months. Had it really been serious, it would have acted with a fiscal stimulus right after the election, or at least in November, at a time when virtually every other country in the world had already acted.

The Conservatives were in denial at that point. They did not think there was a need for any stimulus. In fact, their disastrous November statement contained cuts rather than stimulus. Now at least they acknowledge that we are in recession and we need to get the money out. That is the alleged rationale for this unusual practice on the $3 billion.

However, we have not yet given our agreement to this process. Many questions have to be raised. For example, we had a briefing by Treasury Board officials on the $3 billion. At that time we were told the measures to be included in the $3 billion were budget measures specifically from chapter 3 of the budget. They gave examples such as the regional development agency for southern Ontario, and many others.

Now that we see the black and white letters of the proposed bill for the estimates, we see it is far broader than it appears. This is one of the things we will have to look into. It appears that the $3 billion can be anything the government wants to do and is not necessarily limited to measures contained in the budget.

We have been the ones arguing from the very start that it is important to get the money out the door, but we also want to make sure that the process through which the government seeks to do that does not lead to abuse. We now see the possibility that the $3 billion could include measures other than budget measures, and that possibility certainly raises questions on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate our position that we support the budget because of the economic crisis in which we find ourselves embroiled, but we are deeply suspicious of the motives and the capacity of the government to deliver, which is why we have set up this monitoring mechanism. We support the budget, but with serious reservations both on what it contains and on what it does not contain. We will certainly have further questions on the mechanics and propriety of this new spending mechanism that the government proposed just yesterday.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the critique that the member gave from the Liberal Party, but my question is about holding the government to account as well as about improving what I would argue is an ill-conceived budget.

It is one thing for the government to say it would provide stimulus. It is another thing to see a slush fund being created, with no real oversight beyond a request to just trust the government.

I am wondering why the member's party is not supporting our party in taking out facets of this budget. This is not about confidence. This is about improving a really bad budget as much as we can. Why will the member not join us in taking out those parts and facets of the budget? That is what we are debating here today. Why will the member not join us in trying to improve something that is really ill-conceived and not put together very well?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what my colleague over there has just said, confidence is whatever the government and the Prime Minister say is confidence. The finance minister and the Prime Minister have made it quite clear that from their point of view, any change in the budget is a matter of confidence.

It is all very well for the NDP to behave in an irresponsible way that would likely cause an election and a delay of several months for any support to the economy or any help to those who are unemployed or who are about to become unemployed, but we in the Liberal Party believe our first responsibility is to support the economy, to support the unemployed and to support the potentially unemployed at this moment of economic crisis.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

There are three minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments to the hon. member, but in light of the fact that it is now 11:00, we will proceed, as the rules require, with statements by members.

The House resumed 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. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

We are on questions and comments, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

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

Madam Speaker, I would be interested in the hon. member's comments with respect to the curious spectacle of the Prime Minister yesterday responding to reporters by saying that unless the opposition gives him $3 billion to play with as he sees fit, without parliamentary scrutiny, we will all go to an election.

That was preceded the previous day by an equally curious comment by the Minister of Finance to the effect that the government is going to make some mistakes, it is likely that a few million dollars might go missing here or there, and that we should not expect too high a standard of the government in getting this stimulus package out.

I would be interested in the hon. member's comments, given those two statements in sequence, and the juxtaposition of those statements as to whether he thinks that the government has actually learned anything about a minority government in the last few weeks and months.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very good question. I would like to answer it with a focus on the Prime Minister's alleged reputation as a strategic genius.

I think all members of the House would agree that that reputation took a huge hit last November with his ill-fated November statement. I think that yesterday too, with the super-aggressive behaviour, it took another hit.

I would not ask colleagues to believe me, necessarily. I will just read a very brief comment by Strategic Counsel pollster Peter Donolo in The Globe and Mail today. He says:

I don't think you should be threatening an election when you're dropping in the polls. It's difficult for a combative politician to always mind his Ps and Qs...[but] sometimes they can't help themselves.

That is an independent pollster on our brilliant tactician, our Prime Minister. That is a good message for the government.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, is this, by chance, the same Peter Donolo, key Liberal strategist, pollster and communications genius who, just last week, released a poll showing that the Green Party sits at 26% in Quebec? Is it that same Peter Donolo?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Just because one has been a Liberal for many years does not necessarily mean that one is not highly intelligent, which Mr. Donolo is.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to rise in this House this afternoon to speak with my colleagues about Bill C-10 and, more specifically, the Group No. 1 amendments put forward by the Bloc Québécois. First of all, we would like to see clause 6 deleted as it permits the use of tax havens.

In a situation as critical as the one we are facing today, it is important to focus government intervention on the poorest among us, the people who truly need a helping hand in the economic sectors that are flagging and urgently in need of financial aid to make it through the current situation. Take, for instance, the forestry sector. These workers and businesses have been trying to make ends meet, trying to get on stable financial footing, for four years now.

As well, the Conservatives are not helping those who are newly unemployed. The Bloc Québécois proposed a simple measure to eliminate the two week waiting period for people who fall victim to unemployment so that they can immediately benefit from government support, a support system which they paid into when they were working.

Yesterday, here in this House, my colleague from Laval wanted to hold a debate on the status of women. In her speech, she said that eliminating the two-week waiting period could help many women. Yesterday, the new Liberal-Conservative alliance prevented that debate from taking place. I say “new alliance”, but as everyone knows and the Bloc Québécois has always said, Liberals and Conservatives are cut from the same cloth. We can really see this as we debate the budget. The Liberals decided to support the budget, without reading it, I imagine. Now, there is some criticism coming from the Liberal benches, but the damage is done. They decided to support this budget blindly.

It is clear that the Liberals and the Conservatives do not want to tackle the problems head-on and put in place all these measures to benefit unemployed workers and industries hard hit by the economic crisis. Instead, the finance minister is keeping all the systems that allow companies to use tax havens, depriving government coffers of tax money that would have come in handy at this time of crisis.

The minister is clearly trying to benefit his friends at the expense of our local businesses. Those friends are companies that benefit from this financial assistance and these tax havens. He wants to benefit people who likely asked him to. I will come back to that later. Members will be surprised to learn who was on the expert panel in charge of justifying this about-face by the minister.

I say “about-face”, because in his 2007 budget, the minister had said that everyone should pay their fair share of tax. Every time an individual or a company does not pay applicable tax, other taxpayers have to pony up. It is therefore clear that he had to come up with an excellent alibi to go back on what he had so rightly said in 2007. So he set up an advisory panel to review Canada's international tax system. Four of the people on the panel were from the private sector, including a former CEO of Scotiabank.

Need we say more? Scotiabank is the Canadian bank with the most branches in tax havens. If that is not a conflict of interest, it is definitely an apparent conflict of interest. As I was saying earlier, I find it at the very least peculiar that in this time of crisis, businesses are still being encouraged to use these strategies to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. We know very well that, especially now, any money that can be added to the federal coffers will be very important to support those who are most vulnerable in our society.

As a final point, I would like to talk about the older workers who are losing their jobs right now. How long have we been calling for a program for older worker adjustment? These people have worked their entire lives and cannot be retrained within a few years of their retirement. They have an urgent need for immediate help from the government through the insurance they have been paying into their entire working lives.

We would like another set of provisions to be eliminated: clauses 295 to 299. These clauses deal with the establishment of a single securities commission. At this point, it is unfortunate to hear the minister and members opposite tell us that the economic crisis dictates that we establish, from coast to coast, a single securities commission when we know very well that the Minister of Finance has been dreaming of this for a number of years, ever since his Toronto cronies asked him to concentrate Canadian economic activities in the Ontario metropolis. And once again, they decided to create a committee to examine this possibility. It is clear, since that was the minister's wish, that they had to come up with what is now in the bill: the establishment of a transition office.

The National Assembly of Quebec is unanimous on this issue: there must be no interference in Quebec's jurisdiction. Throughout the world, groups responsible for evaluating the performance of securities regulators have told us that Canada's system is above reproach and that it is one of the best in the world.

Why change what works? Why decide to turn upside down a system that works well and to initiate—that is the spirit of the bill—lawsuits if the provinces do not co-operate. It makes no sense to use the courts to voluntarily meddle in areas that are clearly the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

It is clear to the Bloc that clauses 6 and 295 through 299 must be struck from BillC-10. In this regard, I hope my colleagues have the foresight demonstrated by the Bloc since it arrived in this House.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are debating amendments to Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill. I want to discuss these amendments both in a general and a particular context. I will break my remarks into three parts.

First, in relation to the bill and these amendments which on the face of it attempt to make the bill better in the view of those proposing the amendments, as a matter of fact they probably would slow down the passage of the bill.

While I, too, have seen problems in the bill, the fact is the government very much wants to get the bill passed and I with the Liberal opposition very much want to get the stimulus package passed as well. When people pass legislation in haste, that sometimes gives rise to errors. We do make mistakes from time to time and in the view of many in the House, this bill has some mistakes.

If there is one single item that keeps the government alive, it is the stimulus package. Without the stimulus package, as I said before, the Conservative government would be what I referred to as a dead man walking. The government has twice in the last year come to the brink with the realization that the House is not working. The government does not have the support of the House.

We went to an election once, we came back. We had an economic statement and we were on the edge of another election. I do not see that a lot has changed except for that one thing: the stimulus package. The economy is in trouble and my party is determined to serve Canadians first and get the stimulus package passed, get the money out the door to stimulate the economy.

My party has insisted on report cards from the government on a periodic basis so that we can see what is happening, so that there will be some transparency from a parliamentary point of view and we can see some real things happening rather than just being announced into submission. The government is really good at making announcements. In my view it is less good at actually doing the deal, walking the walk. I refuse to be announced into submission.

I was surprised yesterday to see the government introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code that appeared on the face of it to provide protection to gang members that were being killed by other gang members.

The government is so desperate to be seen to be doing something, it will do anything. If the roof leaks, the government will want to pass a bill to fix the roof. The Conservatives just want to be seen to be doing things. They will announce a bill that prohibits roof leaks 100 times before they stop the roof leak.

My party and I are supporting the bill to make sure the stimulus package gets through as soon as we can get it there.

I had prepared some amendments. I drafted them, submitted them and then I withdrew the amendments. The amendments did not have to do with substantive measures from the budget point of view, but they did have to do with elements in the bill. As everyone knows, the bill, to the extent that it is an ambulance bringing economic first-aid and help to the country, it has a bit of contraband in the back of the ambulance. It has amendments to the Competition Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and a half dozen other statutes.

One of the things it does is the Department of Justice in drafting the bill has put in a phrase that these regulatory provisions, these regulatory empowerments in the bill, are not statutory instruments under the Statutory Instruments Act. While that does get rid of the problem of having to pre-publish and consult before the regulation and order of exemption has passed, what it does also is preclude Parliament from reviewing these things after they are put in place. That is a huge mistake and it runs contrary to everything I have seen Parliament do around here for the last 30 to 40 years.

My amendments were intended to correct that. I have discussed it with members around the House, and I think there may be an opportunity to propose amendments that will reverse the impact of these provisions in the stimulus package bill. There is a risk that if we do not do it here, the members in the other place may do it. I do not know what they will do. I hope they subscribe to the same ethic that we do and want to get this bill passed quickly.

On the issue of stimulus itself and the amendments here, I do know that in the current fiscal year, which will end on March 31, 2009, the government had 12 months to get out the infrastructure spending that was contained in last year's budget. There are hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in that budget. I have not read this with my own eyes, I have not actually followed the government accounts, but I am informed the government has only managed to get 5% or 10% of that money out the door. Even as it admits the economy needs the stimulus investment, it appears as though the government has been unable to get this money out and invested in infrastructure projects across the country. That is very strange.

Even as we look at the upcoming estimates and the stimulus package moneys referred to in Bill C-10, to be authorized by the House soon in the main estimates and supply votes I see there is a $3 billion chunk of money which has been placed at the disposal of Treasury Board. That is a departure from how the government normally spends money, because when it does it that way, we in Parliament do not actually get a chance to see it project by project in the supplementary estimates.

In this House, and I am quite sure this will happen, one or more of the committees will have to construct a protocol, a mechanism, a procedure which will meticulously review both the process and the decision making for this stimulus spending, the investment in infrastructure. That is going to happen. It may be uncomfortable for some ministers, but that is what the House is going to have to do because of the way this stimulus package money is put in the estimates and the way it has been proposed in Bill C-10.

I will close with two issues. I note that the Minister of Finance has said that in moving to get this money out quickly, there is always the possibility of a mistake. It would not be the government, but it would be governmental officials who would do the work, the calculations, check on these projects to ensure that they are good projects, and there might be a mistake. There could even be fraud. There is $3 billion sitting out there, and I am sure there is a crook out there somewhere who is going to try to get his hands on it.

I want to make sure that in the process of letting contracts, the government checks with its partners, the provincial governments and the municipal governments, for the presence of organized crime in the whole array of contractors out there. I want the government to check for crime and organized crime as this money is spent.

Last, I would only ask the question, if we are asking the auto workers to freeze their pay and benefits or take a cut, should we not be looking to organized labour in the construction industry to perhaps cap and freeze their wages and benefits during the currency of these investment projects? What is good enough for the auto workers should be good enough for the construction industry. I have asked the question, and the answers will be forthcoming in due course.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. We are all very concerned about how this money is going to be spent, the oversight, the accountability and of course the transparency.

The NDP has a proposal, and in fact in question period today our finance critic was very clear on the proposal to the government about what should be done.

I want to ask the member if he would agree with us that this is the way to go, that every single solitary nickel and penny that is being spent in the stimulus package should be accessible on the web so that any citizen can see where the money is being spent, who is spending it, to make sure we have oversight. It is good for us to have reports every once in a while, but why not have Canadians hold our government to account as well as Parliament.

Would he agree with us to have the government do what has been done in Washington and have all moneys that are being spent on a website for all to see?