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

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved 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 third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that stage of the bill is now over. It was almost painful. If that is what the opposition suggests is speeding legislation through, I hope Canadians were not watching. It is pretty pathetic and painful to hold up the money that Canadians need.

This is a great opportunity to speak to Bill C-10 at third reading, which is the budget implementation act, 2009. Hopefully this will be a very brief debate that will allow us to move quickly to a vote.

I note for Canadians watching at home that even after the House of Commons approves this bill at third reading, the vital measures in Bill C-10, which are integral parts of Canada's economic action plan, ranging from extended EI benefits to nearly $6 billion for job-creating stimulus investments in housing, as well as infrastructure and more, to initiatives to help improve credit availability for businesses and much more than that, still cannot move forward.

Once done in the House of Commons, the bill has to start the same legislative process in the Senate, from second reading, referral to the Senate national finance committee for study, report stage and ultimately third reading. Only after all these steps are completed, will the bill receive royal assent and become law.

On the government side, with the support of the official opposition, we have made the case that, due to the fragile state of the Canadian economy, Bill C-10 and its vital measures must be approved by Parliament as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, these pleas are largely being ignored by the NDP and Bloc members, who have thrown up roadblock after roadblock to delay Bill C-10 from passing in any form of expedited manner.

What is worse, we are now hearing some of the senators vowing to delay this bill for weeks on end for no other reason than because they can.

Bill C-10 was introduced on February 6 for debate. A month later we are still debating it in the House of Commons. How does a month of debate qualify as passing a bill as quickly as possible? It does not.

Seemingly unaware of the urgency of the situation facing the Canadian economy, the Senate is now musing about further delay so it can engage in, to be frank, abstract and irrelevant debate on the bill, likely the exact same debates we have already had here in the House for a month. We need to acknowledge the gravity of the situation.

Listen to Bank of Montreal economist Doug Porter, who stated:

Over the last month I'd be very hard pressed to point to a Canadian indicator that came in higher than expected or even as expected. Most have been not only below expectations, but far below.

Clearly, now is the time for urgent action. For those members or senators who would argue for more debate now instead of action, let me remind them that prior to tabling this budget, we undertook the widest and most inclusive prebudget consultations in history, open to all. This was during the months of December and January. That was the time for ideas and discussion. That time has passed. Parliament must act now.

Again, we could, as some suggest, debate Bill C-10 for weeks or months on end. We could engage in abstract discussions about the bill. We could treat this as an academic exercise divorced from the reality of today, but we would do so completely deaf to the plight of Canadians and blind to the economic challenges we now face.

It is easy for MPs, especially senators, to drag out debate and delay action for another month or so. They know when and from where their next paycheque is coming. No such luxury exists for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have recently lost their jobs. This is not time for politics as usual. We need to demand better of ourselves. Canadians are depending on it.

Stalling urgent economic stimulus for weeks or months is the height of irresponsibility. It will only hurt the most vulnerable in Canada.

For the NDP, the Bloc and those senators who would stall the bill, they should listen carefully to Canadians and reconsider. If they do not, we will ensure it is known that their inaction, their delay and their ignorance of the pressing challenges facing the Canadian economy are at fault here. This is not about a genuine debate on the issues for these parliamentarians threatening delay. This is not about some profound opposition to measures within the bill. This is politics for the sake of partisan gain and delay for the sake of delay.

While those members claim a lengthy delay of the bill is necessary for a proper debate to allow them to do their job, their actions prove otherwise.

First, content is not and was never important to them. For instance, the NDP members, weeks before seeing the budget, proudly and publicly said that they would defeat it. Reading from a news story dated December 13, 2008, approximately six weeks before the budget was tabled, it said:

Regardless of what stimulus package appears in the [Prime Minister's] January budget, NDP finance critic the [member for Outremont] said the NDP will be looking to topple the Tory government.

Second, understanding the issues is not and was never important either. For instance, we held a briefing for all members of Parliament and senators shortly after introducing Bill C-10. This four hour briefing was an opportunity for all parliamentarians to ask factual and substantive questions. We had over 36 members of the public service at that meeting to provide answers. There was not an NDP or a Bloc member in the audience.

This allowed them questions that would have allowed a better understanding of the bill. It would have allowed for more informed discussion in Parliament. Unfortunately, no NDP or Bloc MPs attended and only a few senators bothered to attend the briefing. Does this sound like a group genuinely interested in the content of the bill? Does this sound like a group that is really interested in doing its job? No, it clearly does not.

I ask and plead with the NDP and the Bloc members as well as those senators to stop the charade. Bill C-10 has been before Parliament for roughly a month. We know it will pass. We cannot wait another month. Stop the roadblocks, stop the delay and let Bill C-10 pass before Parliament rises for the next constituency week in mid-March.

For our senators, acknowledge the reality of the situation. Sit night and day, around the clock, if needed. Make it happen.

Why do we need to make it happen? How will Bill C-10 legislating vital parts of Canada's economic action plan help those hardest hit by the current recession? How will it help create and maintain jobs? Let me provide a quick overview of what is being legislated in Bill C-10 and why it merits quick passage.

To begin, numerous measures outlined in budget 2009 to lower the tax burden for Canadians are included in the bill. This tax relief will leave more money in the pockets of hardworking Canadians, while also taking 265,000 low-income Canadians completely off the tax rolls. These tax measures include, but are not limited to, personal tax relief: by raising the age credit amount by $1,000 to help seniors; by increasing the amount that can be withdrawn under the homebuyers' plan to $25,000; by increasing the basic personal amount that all Canadians can earn before paying income tax and the two lowest personal income tax brackets.

This package also includes business tax relief such as extending the mineral exploration tax credit and raising the threshold for businesses to qualify for the reduced 11% small business tax rate to $500,000. I note that a wide range of public interest groups heralded this collection of tax changes. The Retail Council of Canada, for instance, called them:

—positive steps to rebuilding consumer confidence. “These tax changes will put money back in the pockets of Canadians, boosting confidence and encouraging spending, which is critical to the retail sector and Canada's overall economic recovery”...

This legislation also seeks to help struggling Canadians who are suffering lost employment as a result of this global recession.

Bill C-10 will provide an extra five weeks of employment insurance benefits and increase the maximum duration of benefits to 50 weeks from 45 weeks for the unemployed. As B.C. finance minister Colin Hansen remarked:

—[the] extension of EI benefits...are going to be very important. Certainly as I've travelled around British Columbia, I've talked to many laid-off forest workers who were getting anxious about when their EI benefits might run out, and so the extension will help them.

As I am sure all members have been made aware by the numerous letters and calls they have received from worried constituents, these increased EI benefits cannot come into effect until Parliament allows the bill to pass.

Bill C-10 also brings forward measures to improve access to credit for businesses. As we have heard extensively in recent months, access to credit has been severely restricted during the current economic downturn. That is negatively impacting businesses and their ability to grow, and often even retain existing employees.

Our economic action plan sought to help address the situation through our extraordinary financing framework. Many of the measures from that framework are legislated in Bill C-10. For instance, it allows EDC and BDC to extend additional financing to Canadian businesses. It also increases the maximum amount for loans made by Canada small business financing program. As the Forest Products Association of Canada noted:

Access to credit is the number one issue for our industry. We are very encouraged by the Budget measures aimed at ensuring access to credit for Canadian businesses, particularly the expansion of the powers and financing authorities of the EDC...

The bill also authorizes nearly $6 billion for needed long-term investment in infrastructure, community adjustment, housing and electronic health records, investments that will not only lead to new jobs in the short term, but will also help strengthen Canada's ability to succeed when competing in the global economy. This includes $4 billion in investments to pave roads, renew our universities and colleges, fix waste water systems and repair our bridges. As the Caledon Institute of Social Policy observed:

The call for infrastructure spending...clearly was heard in Budget 2009...the substantial funding for infrastructure was welcome from the perspective of short-term employment and long-term investment in the quality of life in communities.

This also includes $500 million to help implement electronic health record systems across the country through Canada Health Infoway. Not only will this investment help create thousands of sustainable jobs throughout Canada's health and information technology industries, it will reduce errors, dramatically improve patient safety and produce cost savings. It has the potential to save countless lives. As the Association of Canadian Academic Health Care Organizations stated, this investment will “have a powerful and transformative impact on the health system”.

This constitutes only a few highlights of the many urgent measures included in Bill C-10.

Time precludes me from delving further into initiatives to help the move toward a Canadian securities regulator with willing provinces and territories, initiatives to encourage new investments and the jobs they will produce through modernizing the Investment Canada Act, initiatives to protect consumers from anti-competitive and unscrupulous business practices by adding new provisions to the Competition Act, and much more.

Before moving on, though, let me pass along to the House a sample of the strong support we heard during finance committee's consideration of Bill C-10 for the Competition Act changes. As Options consommateurs and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre noted in a joint presentation:

...the proposed amendments are quite comprehensive, they have certainly been the subject of considerable past discussion among stakeholders and represent a fairly balanced take on necessary refinements to the Act.

...this package of amendments places appropriate emphasis on the importance of deterring anti-competitive conduct, particularly in the current difficult financial environment that all Canadians are experiencing.

We all know what is in Bill C-10. We have had a month to read, review and discuss it, more than enough time, and, for those in need of urgent assistance, perhaps too much time. On balance, a fair-minded individual would have to agree that it is the right plan for Canada's renewed prosperity and the right plan to ensure that Canada exits this current global economic downturn in the same way it entered it: the strongest.

Let us get Canada's economic action plan working. Let us help those hardest hit by the current recession. Let us create jobs today by making investments now that will help create the jobs of tomorrow. Let us pass Bill C-10 without delay. In the words of Global Insight economist, Dale Orr, he said that the budget overall was a pretty reasonable compromise and that the best thing to do was pass it, get on with it and get things moving as quickly as possible.

I ask the NDP, the Bloc and those senators to heed that advice: do not delay, act and let us make it happen.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and many of the people in his own party are refining the process of insinuating things that are not true. We saw an example of that during question period when the Minister of Finance was boasting about not being able to spend a dollar until we pass this budget.

That is true but the full truth is that it is illegal for any dollar to be spent until April 1. The member then said that we had the broadest and widest consultation but that is not true because the finance committee did not go across Canada. In fact, if the government is boasting about how good it consults, where the hell was the consultation on the November economic statement? Why is it that between November 8, 2008 and January 27, 2009 a global financial crisis miraculously occurred?

This is so ridiculous. Will the member confirm to the House the earliest date on which one dollar can flow after the bill's passage at all stages, including the other place and royal assent?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of less than truths in the statement the hon. member made. I take a little bit of exception. If I am not telling the truth, is he then insinuating that I am lying? I am sure that he would not insinuate that of any hon. member in the House.

I would bluntly and blatantly argue that the prebudget consultation process that took place, in probably the shortest timeframe in history, was the broadest that has ever happened. The finance committee did not travel but there were meetings held here. People were invited to Ottawa and to many cities across this country. It was the broadest online consultation that has ever happened. We had an incredible amount of submissions that actually put forward ideas.

Speaking of ideas, we did not receive one idea from the Liberal Party of Canada. We did from some of its members but, unfortunately, some of its members did not get the message to their leader.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, Equalization Payments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite tell the Liberal member that consultations were held by the Standing Committee on Finance during December and January. I would remind him that the House was prorogued and therefore the Standing Committee on Finance did not sit. So, what consultations is he talking about? The Conservative members appointed originally to the committee may have sat, but Parliament could not have.

I would also like to ask him a question. He referred to the establishment of a single securities commission, which the Conservative government seems very proud of. It also seems in a hurry to establish it as well, injecting $150 million into it. How is it going to go about it, given the very strong opposition in Quebec, in particular concerning the constitutionality of this measure? Currently, the Constitution provides very clearly that the provinces have jurisdiction in this matter.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, by all means we will recognize Quebec's jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of all provinces in implementing a voluntary, and I emphasize voluntary, common securities regulator.

This is an interesting question considering that the witnesses who appeared before the finance committee this morning reminded us that we were the only industrialized country that does not have a common securities regulator. We had a long discussion about those people who were impacted through non-bank asset backed commercial paper. We are not certain that a common securities regulator would have prevented that frozen asset problem but could have.

We owe it to Canadians to put in place what could help protect the savings of Canadians. That is more important to us than anything we can do. We are in a financial situation where seniors and investors are coming to us and asking how they can protect what they have left. A common securities regulator is the right thing to do. Most provinces are on board. The others have the option to come on board.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member has difficulty speaking in the House to any issue without engaging in gratuitous insults and slurs. I would like to remind him that invective is the lowest form of argument.

He raises the question of facts in his speech. I will talk about some facts. The fact is that in November his government claimed that Canada was not in a recession and that we would be running budgetary surpluses this year and next year.

Another fact is that the government, which is led by someone who claims to be an economist, either did not see in November a recession coming, in which case I question his competence, or did see a recession coming, in which case I question his honesty with the House.

The member says that we did not send in any suggestions to the government. Our party sent in dozens and dozens of suggestions to the government. I personally sent in 15 suggestions about stimulus infrastructure spending from my own riding but the government persists in saying that the opposition has not been helpful in this regard, which is simply not true.

The Obama administration in the United States is putting every infrastructure project and federal dollar on the Internet so citizens of that country can see where their government is spending the money. I would ask the member if the government will do the same thing in Canada.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear because once again I have been accused of lying in the House. I find that absolutely repugnant, besides the fact that I have slurred no one here, Mr. Speaker, and you very well know that.

I do not appreciate the hon. member saying that I lied when I said that his leadership did not provide suggestions. Good for him if he provided some suggestions to the leadership of the NDP but his leadership did not give one of them to us. That is the truth.

I sat with the Minister of Finance when the NDP critic berated the finance minister but refused to offer one suggestion. It was the same thing from the Liberal Party. At least the Bloc had the decency to put forward some written suggestions. The leadership of the NDP put forward absolutely nothing and then those members have the audacity to stall this process.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Macleod, Alberta, for his dedication and hard work in getting this budget through and the economic action plan and Bill C-10. I know he sacrificed time from his family through Christmas and New Year's. On behalf of my constituents and our country, I thank him.

We had consultations, as was mentioned, from coast to coast to coast. I had the opportunity to have consultations in my riding, hosted by the Chamber of Commerce and attended by people of all ages. We had good input, including the EI waiting period, work sharing and the extension of the EI benefits. The British Columbia minister of finance, Colin Hansen, was in our riding and talked about the budget.

We heard this afternoon how the NDP has delayed the budget. Would the member comment on what the NDP has done in the past trying to form a coalition and talking about bringing forward finances for our communities and our country that are in a real economic deficit and the fact that its delay antics do not respond to its words?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Okanagan, a beautiful part of this country. I envy where he lives. I thank him for his support.

In answer to the first question, when we talk about dollars going out, the important thing is that the five week extension to EI will be available to people the moment the budget passes this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the last time on the subject of Bill C-10 As I have said a number of times, the Liberal party will vote in favour of this bill, despite its significant weaknesses, for the simple reason that the economy is in a full blown crisis. Despite its weaknesses in a number of areas, we have made it clear that the top priority for the Canadian economy and for Canadians is to support the economy during this crisis. This is why we decided to vote in favour, and we have not changed our mind. I think we have probably spent enough time on this bill, and it is not my intention to repeat all of its weaknesses, all the bad things it should not contain and all the good things it should contain.

I do not want to be repeating myself and, in this speech, I would like to address two issues. First, the fact that the government is on probation and, second, the issue of this blank cheque for $3 billion the government wants us to support.

Both the fact that the government is on probation and is subject to a number of reports, and the matter of the $3 billion fund go to the heart of the question of accountability, especially since the Prime Minister rode to office under a banner of accountability. The government ought to pay attention both to a serious approach to its quarterly reports and to resolving in a satisfactory way this matter of the $3 billion so-called slush fund.

On the question of probation, the Liberal Party is voting for the budget, but the Liberal Party, as members know, has put forward a detailed amendment that requires the government to make regular reports. I would like to indicate in the next few minutes how we propose that the government do this in a way that is accountable and transparent.

There are four items in our amendment, which was accepted by the government.

First, the government is to provide ongoing economic and fiscal updates.

Since the time of the budget, with the terrible economic news that we have had, it should be abundantly clear to all in this chamber that we have a need for fiscal and economic updates. We have had a terrible drop in GDP of 3.4% in the last quarter of 2008, the worst since 1991. We have had big job losses. We have had record bankruptcies in the personal sector. We have had big drops in housing starts.

For all those reasons, the first point, which requires ongoing economic and fiscal updates, will clearly be necessary for the reports that the government has undertaken to provide to this House.

The second point is to detail the actual implementation of the budget. That is to say, is the money actually flowing the way that the government has said it will flow? Is it flowing fast enough? Are there delays?

I would emphasize the infrastructure funding, which has been talked about frequently, but also the funding from the Business Development Bank of Canada and EDC. The government has committed some $8 billion in small business lending. We know that credit is at the core of our problems and we had a very unsatisfactory meeting in the finance committee this morning with the president of BDC, who was entirely unable or unwilling to give us any idea of the speed with which these billions of dollars in credit would get out the door.

Just as infrastructure funding is of no value if it sits under a mattress in Ottawa, neither is credit to small business of any value if it stays in the vault of a bank rather than getting out the door to the business customers who are desperately in need of credit.

Therefore, to detail the actual implementation of the budget is the second point. In this regard, the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be playing an important role. He has provided what I thought was a good report as to how he plans to proceed to help parliamentarians, to provide these economic and fiscal updates, and to detail the implementation of the budget.

The Liberal Party certainly expects the government to co-operate fully with the requests of the Parliamentary Budget Officer for information in order to permit him to do his job for Parliament, which is to provide these economic and fiscal updates, as well as to detail the implementation of the budget.

The third item is that we expect the government, and indeed the government has agreed, to itemize the actual effects of the budget with respect to the five criteria, which our leader has set out: to protect the vulnerable, to protect the jobs of today, to protect the jobs of tomorrow, to ensure regional fairness, and to avoid permanent deficits.

In each of these categories, we expect the government, as it has committed to do, to set out the ways in which its actions and its future actions will impact Canadians in these five areas.

Finally, the fourth point is to provide details on any adjustments or new measures as may be required to benefit the Canadian economy.

As our party has said a number of times, as the finance minister has said, if the situation becomes distinctly worse, then it may be necessary for the government to take further action.

This would seem to be a matter of common sense in a crisis the likes of which none of us have seen in our lifetimes and nobody knows where the bottom is. It is impossible to say whether or not further government action will be needed. If we were to base our assessment on recent events, we certainly could not rule that out.

The only one who seems to be out of step on this is the Prime Minister himself, who has spoken ambiguously, on CNN yesterday and in previous times, where it becomes apparent that he does not really believe in fiscal stimulus in the first place, which was clearly reflected in his MA thesis.

I am not sure that he, unlike his finance minister, unlike the Liberal Party, subscribes to the notion that even if the Canadian economy gets substantially worse that he will or will not be willing to provide additional support. That is a question for the Prime Minister.

In the amendment to which the government agreed, the government agreed that it would provide details on new adjustments or new measures that may be required.

This is what we mean by the role of a government on probation. The government has agreed to it and we will hold it to account for co-operating fully and in a transparent manner on all of these four points of the amendment which was accepted by this Parliament.

I turn to my second and final subject, which is the matter of this $3 billion so-called blank cheque, as we tend to call, or slush fund as others tend to call it. It is a $3 billion fund which the Treasury Board seeks to appropriate and to spend in some fashion, as it sees fit.

If there is any doubt in the minds of anybody in this House as to the position of the Liberal Party, I will just read a headline from a Canadian Press story that came out about one hour ago. The headline is, “[Liberal leader] won't bend on $3-billion 'slush fund' despite election threat”. That is a verbatim statement of the headline, except that it uses his name which I cannot say here rather than “Liberal leader”.

He has said, as the headline says, clearly that our party will not bend on this $3 billion slush fund despite election threats. Let me just make it very clear, what is involved here. This has nothing to do with the vote on the budget. There has been some confusion on this issue. It is entirely a matter of the vote on the estimates. That vote will not take place for two to three weeks, which means that there is plenty of time to make some adjustments to what the government is proposing in order to restore at least a modicum of accountability to the government proposal which, so far, is entirely lacking in accountability.

It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. That is to say, we can get the money out the door with zero delay, with zero impact on the speed with which that money is out there to support the Canadian economy, and at the same time we can make some changes to what the government is proposing, so that it is not presented with a blank cheque that is absolutely and utterly blank.

The problem is that we have heard from Treasury Board officials that, contrary to statements by the Treasury Board President, this $3 billion would be limited to expenditures on budget measures. The Treasury Board officials have told us in writing that in fact the $3 billion could be spent on anything under the sun, including measures that the government has not even thought of yet.

Especially for a government and a Prime Minister that tells us, ad nauseam, about accountability and how much they subscribe to that, surely it is unacceptable to provide totally unrestricted rules for a government to spend taxpayers' hard-earned money with no accountability to Parliament, with no scrutiny, and with no barriers around the areas in which it is able to spend.

That is why, for the Liberal Party, it is a non-negotiable issue to come to some agreement on this which will maybe not establish maximum accountability but at least a modicum of accountability, whereas as matters stand today, none exists.

We have come almost to the end of our debate on this bill. All of us must be seized with the gravity of the situation facing our economy. All of us must be seized with the importance of providing support to the economy and that is why we in the Liberal Party, notwithstanding all the errors of omission and commission contained in this budget, will nevertheless support it at third reading.

However, we are not giving a blank cheque to the government in two respects. First, we are not giving it a blank cheque because we have put it on probation. We are requiring reports and demanding that the government behave in a transparent and co-operative way in providing the required information on these reports. Second, we are demanding that it display at least a substantial element of accountability in terms of the management of this $3 billion fund.

In conclusion, I move:

That this question be now put.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my Liberal colleague's speech about Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill, which is at the third reading stage. He spoke to us about two major elements, the second being the $3 billion that the government wants to give itself. The member said he was not ready to give the government a blank cheque. He also spoke about accountability and the fact that minimal accountability, not maximum accountability, may be required.

I would like my colleague to explain exactly how he intends to show the government that it must demonstrate minimal accountability and to explain what he considers to be minimal accountability.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that I said we would require a significant and substantial amount, not a minimal amount, as if it were not important.

I believe the House leader is discussing the options with his counterpart. It is somewhat technical, but I believe that there are means to limit the government's flexibility in terms of what it wants to spend. We may have other means to come to a solution.

In my opinion, we have not yet come to a solution that both parties find acceptable, but I am relatively optimistic that we will be able to get there and reach an agreement. I hope that there will be an agreement. As I said, our leader is seeking a solution and we would prefer to have an agreement. Negotiations are ongoing and so I do not have an exact answer to the question.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Let me get this straight, Madam Speaker. After the Liberals bent over backward on pay equity and sold out the women of Canada on pay equity, after they sold out and bent over backward on employment insurance because they supposedly believe, as the NDP does, that half the workers not being able to access employment insurance is a fundamental crime, after they bent over backward on equalization in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Quebec, and after they bent over backward on virtually everything, now we are being told that this time the line in the sand that they have drawn is a very real line.

I just do not buy it because what we saw today, for the 60th consecutive time over two Parliaments, was Liberals propping up the Harper agenda, propping up the Conservative government.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I would remind the hon. member that members of Parliament are not allowed to use the name of a sitting member.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am actually referring to an agenda, kind of like Harper's Magazine and Harper's index. It describes something that is a reality, not referencing anybody in particular in the House.

However, what we have is systematic bending over backwards on everything, by the Liberals, for the Conservative agenda. We even saw the principle of the slush fund in the former sponsorship scandal. It was Liberal ingenuity, also most criminal ingenuity, that brought the sponsorship scandal to bear. We also saw with the softwood sellout, which the Liberals supported through every single stage, that the Bush softwood slush fund was supported by the Liberals.

The simple question is this: How could we possibly believe the Liberals this time?

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

Madam Speaker, Liberals do not take any lessons from the NDP members either on economics or on morality. On economics, they do not understand it and they never will. On morality, they may accuse us of propping up the government, but everybody knows it is the NDP that created the government, because it is as a consequence of NDP action that the government came into being. Had it not been for those actions, Canadians would have child care, Kelowna, and pay equity. It is the NDP members and not the Liberals who are responsible for that.

Therefore, we take no lessons from the NDP either on the subjects that the hon. member raised or anything to do with economics.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Before allowing another member to rise on questions, I would like to remind the member for Burnaby—New Westminster that he is not allowed to say indirectly what he cannot say directly in the House.

I recognize the member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, during question period the finance critic for the official opposition posed a question to the finance minister, the gist of which was following the finance minister's statement admonishing the House that we have to pass the bill because until we pass it not one dollar can flow. The finance critic posed the question and reminded him that no money under the budget implementation legislation actually can flow until April 1. As a matter of fact, it is not legal.

Interestingly enough, I asked the same question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance in commencing this debate. I asked the blunt and straightforward question, could he confirm to the House the date on which the first dollar of these monies under the budget implementation legislation can flow?

He did not answer the question, which says to me that the Conservatives will not answer straight questions because they know they have been implying and insinuating that everything is everybody else's fault, that it is a global financial crisis that has nothing to do with us, that it is synchronized somehow, that this is jingoism and it is not true.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on the accountability and the transparency that his party shows even in simple questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his good question. I believe he knows in part the answer to his question, which is that the money from the budget can legally flow as of April 1 of this year. When it will actually flow is a totally different matter.

If we were to make that assessment based on the government's past record in flowing infrastructure funding, and based on what we heard in committee this morning about the BDC's lack of concrete plans, I think we will be left to wonder whether this money will ever flow or whether it will take many months before any significant quantity of money does flow.

I think in a sense the practical question is more important than the legal question, and the monitoring function will be central for us in determining what the answer to that question will be.

The member refers to accountability. To repeat my speech, I will refer to the double elements of accountability that will be important to us going forward: first, to have the government accountable as a government under probation according to the four sets of criteria set out in the motion; and second, that the government must also be accountable in accepting substantive and significant changes in the management of the $3-billion fund.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats believe passionately in pay equity. This budget trashes pay equity. New Democrats believe in respecting our public civil servants and the sanctity of negotiated contracts. This budget rolls back negotiated collective agreements, including rolling back pay to RCMP officers.

New Democrats believe in child care spaces. This budget does not create one child care space. New Democrats believe in a national housing plan, something that the Liberal Party promised to restore in 1993 and failed to deliver, despite being the government for 13 straight years.

What does the hon. member say to the children, the women, the affordable housing advocates and the civil servants of this country in terms of his supporting the bill?

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I would like to give the hon. member for Markham—Unionville the opportunity to answer. He has 35 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, the NDP can always be counted on to speak with sanctimony. The NDP never has to exercise responsibility, and that is the fundamental problem. I have said many times that this budget is far from perfect. It is reprehensible in many ways, but the NDP never considers the fundamental point that this is an economy in crisis. This is an economy where jobless rates are soaring. This is an economy where in my office I receive requests from—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that it is very clear, as far as third reading of Bill C-10 is concerned, that the Bloc Québécois will be opposed, for a number of reasons. We have taken part in the debates at second reading, and proposed amendments, all of which were rejected. Both the Budget Implementation Act 2009 and the budget implementation plan create significant inequalities for Quebec. They have been strongly objected to in Quebec. In particular, the National Assembly passed an unanimous resolution in which all four parties in the Assembly took part.

These elements are of such importance to Quebec that they were the topic of a special session of the Quebec National Assembly. It came out unanimously against the government's intention to create, through this bill, a single securities commission, setting aside $150 million for the purpose. Quebec has always objected to this, and continues to do so. The Bloc Québécois members here will therefore continue to doggedly defend that position.

It is very clear that this is an area under Quebec jurisdiction. The Conservative government has been saying since 2006 that it absolutely wants to create this institution. We are totally opposed to this measure on constitutional grounds. What is more, we doubt that it will work.

Moreover, this morning, in the Standing Committee on Finance—which the Liberal colleague just referred to—we heard from specialists from the finance department. They told us that even if there is in the United States a commission for the entire country with a somewhat difficult to define role, it had not been up to dealing with the devastating effects of risk mortgages. These experts admitted that this type of mortgages were the source of the economic crisis we are experiencing. Even a single body in the U.S. was not able to offset the effects of a crisis everyone could see coming.

What is the real intention of the Conservative government in creating this single commission if not to be at cross-purposes with an existing process that is working very well? There are thirteen commissions working within an area that falls under the jurisdiction of their province or territory. A passport system enables communication between them. The International Monetary Fund has deemed this to be highly satisfactory and worthwhile for Canada and Quebec.

How can a government be trusted that is determined to flout one of Quebec’s clear desires and decisions? The Autorité des marchés financiers is the only remaining bulwark in Quebec protecting all securities, especially at the Montreal Exchange, which had to give up a number of functions when merged with the Toronto Stock Exchange. The government wants to deprive Quebec of a tool that is very important for its future development and concentrate it in Toronto, which paradoxically is located in the only province that refused to join the passport system because that province knew that its refusal would damage the system.

Ontario said to itself, therefore, that if a single securities commission were established, it would get it. We are totally opposed to this situation.

There is another major item that we tried to amend. That is the Conservative government’s intention in the budget implementation bill to unilaterally change the equalization system. They want to eliminate the planned $991 million increase in the 2009-10 financial year. This figure was confirmed by the Finance Minister’s people. Quebec will therefore be deprived of nearly $1 billion, which will prevent it from establishing programs and improving services in the areas of education, health and transportation. The people of Quebec will therefore once again experience this offloading of responsibilities that uses the economic crisis as an excuse, despite the fact that agreements had already been reached. Now the government says it is putting an end to all that and henceforth the provinces will have to pay, especially Quebec.

We totally disagree with this. I was talking a little while ago about the resolution unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly in January 2009 that asked the Conservative government to review this issue, because it is totally unacceptable. In March 2007, our current Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of Quebec saying that transfer payments would henceforth be predictable and Quebec would be able to plan better knowing in advance how much equalization it would receive. In November, the government put an end to this agreement, all of a sudden and without warning anyone, and cut Quebec’s equalization by a billion dollars, not counting subsequent years.

Another major, totally incomprehensible item in the budget is the favourable treatment accorded Hydro One in Ontario in comparison with Hydro-Québec. Hydro One arranges and installs electric power lines and distributes power. Hydro-Québec does the same but also builds and operates electric power generating plants. Two-thirds of Hydro-Québec’s revenues come from transmission and distribution. The government is refusing now to give equal treatment to this two-thirds of what Hydro-Québec does.

That too is completely unfair to Quebec and deprives it of about $250 million that it would receive if the same formula were applied to it as to Ontario. Once again, this is totally unacceptable.

There is another major issue. Once again, pay equity amendments, among others, were not passed this afternoon. This budget implementation bill scoffs at the right to pay equity, women's right to receive the same pay as men for the same work. This bill makes pay equity a negotiable right. That is unacceptable. Conservative government representatives told us that they had modelled the amendment on Quebec legislation, but everyone knows that in Quebec, pay equity legislation is proactive because it researches and analyzes these problems in advance. However, the federal government is trying to make women in the public service take a significant step backward. They are being told that from now on, the matter will be negotiable and the government will have to see if it can be adapted.

The Conservative members' suggestion that their bill is similar to Quebec legislation is false, and we take exception to such statements.

The other issue is capping pay raises for federal employees. The government signed salary increase agreements with a number of groups, but the budget implementation bill is a big step backward for these people too. Their employer, the government, publicly gave them the shaft. These people work for all Canadians and Quebeckers, but they have just been denied the right to the fair, equitable, proper negotiations that resulted in agreements, agreements that the government has torn up. That, too, is completely unacceptable.

Another major issue—and I should note that I am only talking about major issues, because we could go on forever if we were to discuss the details of every significant irritant in this bill—is this bill's amendment of the Navigable Waters Act. Bill C-10 gives extraordinary powers to one person, the minister, no consultations required. From now on, the minister will have the power to define navigable waterways and structures that may be exempt from environmental assessment.

This is giving far too much power to the minister, without reference to consultation or environmental studies, justified simply by the statement that we must act quickly to see that the money set aside for infrastructure is spent quickly.

Generations will follow us and rap our knuckles. They will rap the knuckles of the Conservative government and of the Liberals who support it at the moment. They will say it is crazy to have given a minister powers in this bill to circumvent the necessary environmental studies. It is highly likely that, in some respects—especially at the pace they want to proceed—the government will end up with projects that will damage the environment. No one wants this, but the way is clear for this to happen.

We mentioned as well in the budget debate that there is a major imbalance—I will point it out again—in connection with the forestry sector. The budget implementation bill has done nothing to correct the imbalance we identified in the budget. There are measures worth $170 million for the forestry sector across Canada, when $2.7 billion was paid or planned as loan guarantees for car manufacturing, which is concentrated in Ontario. That means crumbs for the forestry sector, which has been in crisis for five years, while the government taps are being opened to pour billions of dollars into the automotive industry.

It is if they were saying the forestry sector counts for nothing. That is nonsense. In Quebec, there are 140 municipalities whose livelihood depends only on the forestry sector. The Conservative government does not care about these communities. People are going to lose their jobs. Businesses will close. The economy will collapse. And yet, the government does nothing. No loan guarantees have been provided for the companies with a chance of surviving. The government is not there to help them.

Finally, I would like to speak about the entire employment insurance system. The government told us it had improved the employment insurance system by adding five weeks of benefits, going from 45 to 50 weeks. However, very few of the unemployed will benefit from this measure because the real need is felt when workers first lose their jobs. The two weeks of the waiting period are the most difficult. During the election campaign and the holidays, I met hundreds of citizens. Unfortunately, many companies are working on a temporary basis and this is even the case for some government services.

We have been told that workers are seriously affected by the two week waiting period. This occurs year after year and they are never able to recover these amounts.

The Conservative government has stated that money has to be injected quickly. Before its November economic statement, we suggested a very specific plan to foster economic recovery. The unemployed would have had money in their pockets sooner. Now, however, they are impoverished constantly because they often have recurring periods of unemployment.

I reiterate that the Bloc Québécois will not support Bill C-10.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, we were very interested in the speech by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, especially because he is opposed, like us, to the budget and Bill C-10.

The Liberal Party has actually spoken against the bill as well, while simultaneously saying it will vote in favour. This is the sixtieth straight time that the Liberals have supported the Conservative government in a vote of confidence in the House.

Can the hon. member tell me how he sees things? The Liberal Party says it opposes everything in the budget and Bill C-10 but ultimately will vote in favour of the bill.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.

It is true that the Liberal Party has been contradicting itself over and over for the last year and a half. It effectively supports the Conservative government, often under false pretexts.

We have also heard the Liberals and been repeatedly dumbfounded by both their speeches and what they have asked in question period. They say something does not make sense and the Conservatives should have included something else in the budget, but then they go and vote in favour of it.

It is as if they were saying there are some very important things in this world but protecting women’s right to pay equity is not as important as all that. It is not so important for the Liberals because they are ultimately going to allow things to pass that they oppose. It is not all that important, in their view, that Quebec has been unanimously demanding the withdrawal of the new equalization formula and the cancellation of a single securities commission. This is not very important for Quebec. That is clearly what the Liberals think because they will vote with the government to impose measures on Quebec that are unacceptable to it.

I can only say to my colleague that, unfortunately, we have heard and seen the same inconsistencies coming from the Liberal Party.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois speaking about all the problems he has determined with the economic action plan presented by our government.

I find it really strange and hard to imagine, since the budget would provide many billions of dollars to his province in various aspects, both in economic structure development and also in equalization.

My question to that member is this: why would he keep blocking the passage of Bill C-10?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have often said that the measures the Conservatives included in this budget to boost the economy will miss the mark. We presented them with a very complete plan last November. They even admitted that the Bloc was the only opposition party to introduce a credible plan. The measures proposed in this plan would have given back to older people and the unemployed the money they had been promised. This plan would have ensured that the manufacturing and forestry industries were not completely abandoned, as this budget does by leaving them only $170 million. Instead, all the assistance is focused on the automobile industry in Ontario.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain spoke earlier about part 7 of Bill C-10, which is a part that I personally find very important. Is he aware that, when this part of the bill was studied in committee, 28 witnesses were invited, none of whom were from Quebec? This is incredible given how many lakes we have in Quebec. And we have issues because the 1882 law, which became the 1886 law, was revised and became the 1985 law. But it does not reflect the reality of the majority of our lakes in Quebec.

I am very proud to hear that the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain will not support this bill, which, in my opinion, is completely inadequate for Quebec.

Is he aware that the bill does not even include secondary bodies of water even though the department's civil servants recommended them? It does not include secondary work either. I would like to hear his opinion on this.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is obviously referring to the part when I spoke about navigable waters. The most important point is that we are giving a minister, a single person, power that he would never have been given if the parts of this bill had been studied separately.

The Conservative government took advantage of the fact that it would have the Liberals' support and introduced a number of elements into its bill that are even against the Liberals' philosophy and views. But, knowing that they would support the budget, the government took advantage of that and included measures such as this one, which gives the minister, a single person, the authority to define waterway and decide which structures will not require an environmental study. The minister can decide which structures can be built where, without referring to environmental studies. That is absolutely unacceptable.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this important bill, which illustrates the profound differences between the parties in this House. This brings to light all the challenges we have with a third minority government in a row. This is the first time in Canadian political history that there have been three minority governments in a row: the Liberal minority government of Paul Martin, followed by two Conservative minority governments led by the current Prime Minister.

I say this by way of introduction to explain that, clearly, the government has had to become accustomed to this situation and find various ways to deal with the presence of other political forces in this House. Let us look at the differences in approach.

When Paul Martin came to power with a minority government in the spring of 2005, he was faced with an opposition majority. There were enough Conservative, Bloc and NDP members to defeat the Liberal minority government, so it had to find an ally.

Mr. Martin's budget had provided that taxes on major corporations would be reduced by $4.8 billion. This money was removed from Crown assets. The NDP supported the budget on the condition that the government make a drastic change, allocating the $4.8 billion to social housing, public transit and post-secondary education. This shows that the parties can work together in a minority situation, provided that the government is willing to accept its minority status and work with the other parties in the House.

What changes have we seen with the Conservatives? During their first government, which lasted from January 2006 to October 2008—there was another election last October 14—the House of Commons was the scene of daily bickering, spite, invective and constant attacks from a minority government. The leader of the Liberal Party was weak and voted 43 times for the Conservatives. As a result, it was very difficult for the Liberals to face the voters and say how bad the Conservatives were, since they had given the government a vote of confidence 43 times.

The Prime Minister had the temerity to call an election. It should first be said that this election was called contrary to the provisions of legislation that had been introduced and voted on by the Conservatives as part of what they called their ethics package. That may seem somewhat pompous, but it was as hollow as it was pompous. They said with their hand on their heart that it was not right for the government itself to decide on the date of the elections and that they were going to set the date for the next election, which would be held on October 19, 2010. That was when the next election was to be called.

They did as all the other governments have done before them, but more hypocritically, since they had a vote on legislation here in the House of Commons saying it was not right to leave it to the government to choose the date of the election and that elections had to be called on a set date. That really betrays the Conservatives' modus operandi and shows how it is they cannot work with anyone. In the 2008 election campaign, they swore to the public that they had understood the importance of working with all forces in the House of Commons. They said that this time things would be different, even if they were in a minority position. It is true that things were different. They were worse.

On November 27, right in the middle, not of what we feared might be, but what has already proven itself to be one of the worst economic crises since the 1920s, the Conservatives made a budget statement, one that required the confidence of the House. In the statement, they attacked three things. First, they attacked the right of women to equal pay for work of equal value. Second, they attacked union and social rights. Third, they attacked the very system of funding political parties. This system, it will be remembered, had been put in place in the wake of the worst political scandal in Canada's history. It was the sponsorship scandal, in which the Liberal Party of Canada stole millions of dollars from Canadian taxpayers for its own use. It has yet to pay it all back.

That is what the Conservatives decided to do, instead of proposing budgetary measures to increase economic activity, save jobs and create new ones. It was so serious that the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party of Canada announced their plans to defeat the government. That is when we saw a man who usually struts about like some tough guy run and hide behind the Governor General's skirts, asking that Parliament be prorogued, instead of facing the music on December 8. He went and saw the Governor General, imploring her to grant a prorogation unlike any other in the history of Canadian politics. That prorogation was granted only a few weeks after the federal election. He was about to be defeated. Showing a lack of respect for our institutions, he hid out at Rideau Hall and succeeded in getting his prorogation, and a reprieve. The House resumed exactly two months from November 27. On January 27, the government presented its budget.

What did the budget do? The budget attacked women's right to equal pay for work of equal value. The budget attacked union and social rights. But this time, as though there always have to be three things, instead of attacking political party financing, it attacked the environment, taking away the protection granted by legislation that even has that word in its title: the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

I will list all the things that were in the budget and ought not to have been, and the others that ought to have been in there and were not. The only thing that was taken out between November 27 and January 27, and which was of sufficient interest to the Liberals to get them to vote in favour of the budget this time, while they were prepared to vote against it in November, is abolition of the clean funding system for political parties. In so doing they managed to get their money back. We got it clearly: the only principle of interest to the Liberals is their own money. Let us keep in mind that the Liberal Party of Canada is the party that depends the most on public assets for its funding. It is, in fact, incapable of finding funding. We saw that with the sponsorship scandal: the only way it could get any money was to steal the public's money. So, there were a whole series of elements that should never have been in a budget bill.

We understand where they got the model from, however. In another Bill C-10 in another time, the Conservatives felt the desire to start imposing film censorship. This was a step back to the 1950s. The good Conservatives made the decision for the public on what films could or could not be made in Canada with funding from various tax credit programs. That had nothing to do with the budget except the fact that tax credits were mentioned, but it had everything to do with their right-wing ideology.

Then, in another bill they managed to include in a budget bill, we had an all out attack on our immigration system, a system that had been based on rights. A person was entitled to become a citizen if he or she met all the criteria. The Conservatives changed this to “may”. A person may become a citizen if he or she meets all the criteria, but the one who makes the decision is a public servant. It thus becomes totally random and discretionary, and thus at cross-purposes with all our principles of law, but that did not bother them much. For the Conservatives, none of that is of any interest.

Those are the three things they have done.

These measures were included but should not have been there. I have to say that those items that should have been in the budget are nowhere to be found.

I will make a friendly suggestion to my good friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance: he should either clean his ears or take a memory test. I was at a meeting attended by my colleague for Winnipeg, the Minister of Finance, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. They explained to him, chapter and verse, what should be in the budget—because our approach was to stimulate the economy with large public expenditures—and, knowing them very well, they did not want them to start down another path. It has been on the website for a long time. My leader met with the Prime Minister and had been discussing with him a number of measures for an hour and a half. Significantly, during the meeting, it was my colleague who, on behalf of the caucus members, pointed out, line by line, item by item, projects that were at the ready and had all been analysed in their respective parts of the country. Apparently, the Minister of Finance, who looked as though he was taking notes, was just pretending to take notes. His parliamentary secretary, who was obviously there in body but not in mind, rose in this House today to contradict one of my colleagues by stating that nothing at all had been submitted. That is false.

My colleague did indeed provide a list of things, but our approach is totally different. As our Bloc colleague has just put it so well, there is a fundamental difference between our two parties. This difference colours all of their thinking. We would have preferred from the outset that they not provide the same tax reductions across the board to all major corporations, because, by definition, a company that makes no profits has no tax to pay and cannot therefore enjoy a tax reduction. This is economics 101.

They should have targeted the sectors of the economy that needed it most, such as the manufacturing and forestry sectors. Unfortunately, these two sectors are in Ontario and Quebec, primarily, where they have no political base. So that was of no interest to them. They gave tens of billions of dollars to the most profitable companies, including the oil and gas sectors in western Canada, their political base. So, companies not needing it were bailed out with public funds, and companies with the greatest need got nothing. The figures are there. Since they came to office—even before the current crisis—over 350,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector and over 100,000 in the forestry sector in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. That is the direct result of the poor budget choices of the Conservatives. But they were not about to change their tack. That was the meeting we had with the finance minister.

His parliamentary secretary said earlier that we were rude. We do not agree with them and do not support the decision taken knowingly by the Conservatives to demolish the manufacturing and forestry sectors. That is what they have done.

At the end of January, on January 27, they presented a budget. The crisis had been full blown since September and continued in October, November, December and January, but at the end of January they still had not done anything.

They have introduced a budget with supposedly 1.9% of the GDP for public spending. Let us look at the facts. The figure advocated by the G7 and the G20 is 2%. Let us look closely at the facts, however. The 1.9% includes $8 billion that was to come from a reduction in public spending, but nothing was identified. One important point to remember is that the Conservatives have been in office for three years and, prior to the current budget, they had increased spending for government programs by nearly 25%, or $40 billion a year, with no results.

They gave $60 billion in tax cuts to the richest large corporations and increased spending by $40 billion, but this has no impact on most people. Did they eliminate the two week waiting period for employment insurance? Not at all. Did they help certain sectors of industry? They do not believe in that; they will not do so.

What is more, the 1.9% of GDP is also entirely unrealistic. They claim they will spend the municipalities' money and the provinces' money. In their little columns of numbers, they are including money from the municipalities and the provinces, which have not said a word about whether that money is available. Yet, that money is part of the Conservatives' calculations. Talk about free-loading. While all other countries are pinching their pennies and doing everything they can to sustain themselves, the Conservatives are sneaking a little here and a little there from everyone else's plate. They are not really spending to stimulate the economy. This aspect, which should have been in the budget, is totally missing.

There is a third factor. We are talking about what was in the budget and should not have been there, like the attack against women's right to equal pay for work of equal value, and what should have been there, like real spending to stimulate the economy, particularly in the area of infrastructure and refurbishing old homes to make them more energy efficient. Are we going to pass such a huge debt down to future generations? Hopefully we can at least pass down green infrastructures at the same time, along with clean, renewable energy and things they can benefit from. Instead, some would rather destroy the environment under the pretext that projects must be approved as soon as possible. Thus, they are using a real economic crisis as an opportunity to attack women's rights, the environment and social rights.

Last week, we got the icing on the cake, the cherry on top. On Thursday, we found out that by fiddling with the vote on the Treasury budgets, they were going to try to get approval for a $3 billion slush fund to be spent however they wish with no strings attached and no defined programs. They tried to absolve themselves by saying that they have to do it because measures take too long. This is like some kind of 1-800-Chuck-Guité. They have to start understanding what they have done. They are asking high-level bureaucrats to do what the Liberals asked them to do during the sponsorship scandal.

We have a parliamentary system based on departmental accountability. Since the sponsorship scandal, the rules have been changed, and what used to be implicit—deputy minister accountability—is now explicit. They are thumbing their noses at all of that even though it was in a bill that they introduced on accountability and the obligation to report to the people's elected representatives. That is what is so dangerous.

The U.S. has a different system of government and a lot has to change to make it work, but the Americans and their new President Obama are setting up an on-line system that will allow citizens to track how every dollar is spent. I made the same suggestion last Thursday. The same parliamentary secretary, the one with the memory problems, was on CTV with Tom Clark, and he said that it was a very good idea. Just two days later, on CTV's Question Period with Craig Oliver, that interest evaporated.

The NDP reproves and condemns the government because it has introduced a budget that does nothing to stimulate the economy, that attacks basic rights, such as women's rights, and that brings in several billions of dollars worth of discretionary spending. The budget is shameful. Unlike the Liberals, who have no principles, the NDP will take a stand against this budget.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, much of the debate we have had through the various stages of the budget implementation bill has meandered around the question of whether this flawed budget should be passed. I think all hon. members understand how serious everyone is about the principles upon which the budget tramples.

The budget came down on January 27. If we consider how long it will take to get through the balance of third reading and then through the Senate, it appears it will take until near the end of March before it will be in place and April 1 when the money starts to flow. That is two months. However, the process was also contracted by the budget consultations and even the debate. This means even if we were to defeat the budget, go to an election, see how it turns out, get the House back, start it all up, get another throne speech, get another budget in place and then add about two to three months on to that, it would appear we would be into October of 2009 before we would be back at the same point we are at right now, albeit with a different budget, I would hope.

I am pretty sure that the damage done to some of the principles trampled upon by the budget will be reparable by subsequent actions of Parliament. I think I am convinced that, if we do not get this stimulus out and help the people of Canada to either save their jobs or create new jobs, if the House is defeated and we go into an election, the damage done will never be reparable.

Would the member care to comment on that assessment?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an interesting experience to listen to Liberals try to give themselves a clean conscience, as they vote against women's rights, the environment and social and union rights. They try to give themselves a clean conscience by convincing themselves that somehow this is a stimulus package that will help the economy, whereas their member from Markham—Unionville, who has always been with me in committee, has said the same thing; that a lot of this is a pure fiction.

Of the 1.9% of GDP that is supposed to be in this budget, those members presume that a lot of the money will come from municipalities and provinces that do not have the money. That is a fiction. A lot of it is supposed savings in government spending. The Conservatives are the worst public administrators in the history of Canada. Prior to this budget, which has a large deficit, they had already increased public spending by the order of 25%, almost $40 billion a year, with nothing to show for it.

This so-called stimulus package has almost nothing left in it except for the $3 billion slush fund that the Conservatives keep talking about now and that has to be put through with the same urgency. They are using a very real political and economic emergency at this time in the country to try to take away the normal rules of control of public spending.

This is exactly what the corrupt Liberals did with the sponsorship scandal. There was a very real national urgency with regard to national unity in the wake of the 1995 referendum. The Liberals said that we had this unity problem, so they would spend hundreds of millions of dollars of public money. They forgot to say that they would take away all the normal controls and fill their pockets with millions of those dollars. That is the sad legacy of the Liberal Party. That is why no one who actually knows the Liberals is surprised to see them talking about women's rights and the environment and then voting against them.

One of their members, I think Toronto Beaches is the name of her riding, spoke eloquently yesterday, and I congratulated her when I saw her alone. I asked her if she would do like the members from Newfoundland and Labrador and stand up and vote against the budget. She walked away, having nothing to say. I saw her today, shamefully standing up and voting for the Conservative budget because, like all the other Liberals, she is devoid of principles. She talks a good game when it comes to women's rights, but will not back them up when it comes to a vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I found the comments by the member for Outremont very interesting and I would like to ask him about what I would call the government's deceit. He talks about the fact that the Liberals will probably vote for the budget implementation bill to keep the government in power and says that, at that point, it may even include other laws. That is fantastic because it will pass and there will be no need to revisit it.

There are many such laws. In addition to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Pay Equity Act, we find amendments to the Competition Act, the Investment Canada Act, the Canada Transportation Act, and the Air Canada Public Participation Act. And we could name others. Hence, I wonder if the member for Outremont believes that this shows contempt for Parliament.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi that there is contempt for Parliament. I would add, though, that the Liberal members have contempt for the voters. They all keep on talking in this House during question period and outside when they are questioned during media scrums after question period. They talk about women's rights and say that it is terrible that the Conservatives are taking away those rights, yet they are voting for that. They say it is terrible to play with the Navigable Waters Protection Act, yet they are voting with the Conservatives to remove that protection.

Another issue we have not had enough time to talk about is creating a new regulatory system, which not many people in Canada want. We must not forget that we are talking about a group that has never been a fan of big government. Yet the Conservatives are creating a new securities regulator. That is really something. It does not address any known problem. We have a passport system that works very well and has been praised by the G7. Canada is a regulatory model.

I would like to ask a few riddles. How many court cases were undertaken by the federal government in the sponsorship scandal? I will give you a hint. The number starts with a zero. Yes, the only court cases were those undertaken by the Government of Quebec, and the people who went to jail went there thanks to the Government of Quebec.

And how many days of proceedings have there been so far under the Criminal Code for Vincent Lacroix? Let us keep in mind that the Autorité des marchés financiers exists at the provincial level, and that it is the Criminal Code on the federal level. He is in prison for many years because of the proceedings initiated by Quebec. There are several hundred criminal charges against him, but how many days in court so far? Let me give you another clue. It starts with a zero. Yes, that is the real performance record of the federal government as far as crimes of this type go, what are sometimes called white collar crimes, that is fraud and the like. I myself have had the pleasure of seeing how the OSFI, the Office of the Superintendent of FInancial Institutions operates, when Ms. Dickson came and testified last year. We had an opportunity to question her about the famous commercial paper, and she was not able to tell us what she had to do with all that and yet this was one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated in Canada.

So. for heaven's sake, before they start preaching to us about how well the federal government can do things, could somebody at least look at the facts?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member for Outremont say that the Conservative government, unlike previous minority governments, has not learned to work with the other parties and has not considered its minority status. I think that is untrue since there is a party that has supported it 60 times. I do not understand his earlier statement. I would like him to explain it to me.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The member for Outremont has 45 second to respond.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if it is the lawyer in me speaking or the politician who hates to admit he is wrong, but my colleague is absolutely right. When the spineless Liberals, who have no backbone, consistently and constantly support the Conservative government, we are, for all intents and purposes, facing a new political party. We all remember the acronym that was invented when they formed the Conservative Reform Alliance Party. The acronym was unforgettable. Now we have the Conservative Liberal Alliance Party. I will let you figure out the acronym. It is very telling.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at third reading on the budget implementation bill for the fiscal year that will commence on April 1.

We have been on a bit of a roller coaster ride. I would like to bring us to where we are and where some of the indicators may have been had someone's eyes been open, or at least had someone read the newspapers.

Back in the 39th Parliament, there were a number of things going on in the House. There was certainly some sabre rattling by some political parties that if the government did not get its act in gear, it may face an election. Some parties did not have much confidence in the government. They thought that the government could not be trusted, that its credibility was in question, that they could not believe what the government said. Conservative times were tough times. All these things were going on, which is part of the political process that we experience in Parliament.

During the latter part of the 39th Parliament, there was an investigation going on in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics on the in-and-out scandal. The Chief Electoral Officer had ruled that the Conservative Party had broken the elections law of Canada, had overspent its advertising budget and had laundered the money through candidates, et cetera. I do not have to go through all of that other than to say that there are ongoing legal proceedings as a consequence. We did have committee hearings and we were getting evidence and testimony from people who were corroborating what the Chief Electoral Officer had found, that the government was aware that what it was doing was improper under the Canada Elections Act. This is where the term “dysfunction” came out.

In fact, the standing committee, which I chair, held summer hearings on this issue. Things were getting pretty hot and interesting to the point where we had to subpoena members of the Conservative Party of Canada to appear. They refused to honour the subpoenas of the committee. That got a lot of attention. The committee decided it would deal with it when the House resumed because the assistance of the Speaker of the House would be needed to act on the subpoenas and to determine whether contempt of Parliament issues might have to be dealt with.

Before the summer was over and before the House was to return, the Prime Minister dissolved Parliament. He said that Parliament was dysfunctional. We had an election on October 14, 2008.

The first point is there was no defeat of the government on any confidence issue. Opposition members certainly had a lot of concerns about the integrity of the government, but there was no threat to any legislation. Everything the government had wanted to pass had passed.

In fact one of the things that had passed in that Parliament is a law regarding fixed election dates which had specified that the first election was to be October 19, 2009. The Prime Minister himself said that not ever again would a prime minister have the opportunity to call an election when it was politically advantageous. He said that everybody, every party, every member of Parliament, every member of the public would know exactly when the next election would be held.

What did he do? He dissolved Parliament and called an election one year earlier than the law stipulated. I can remember why. By that time, we were already seeing indications that an economic tsunami was forming. We saw indications that the highest record of employment in 30 years was starting to crack. All of a sudden economic indicators pointed to concerns within the financial institutions and some of the major industries. We started to see some indications in the auto sector. We started to see it in some of the other program areas. Little cracks were forming.

We had that election. We came back. I remember I got a letter from my own broker with regard to my RRSPs. We had a long, good and healthy period under the Liberal government. There were balanced budgets for 10 years, tax reductions, highest employment rate, lowest inflation, lowest interest rates. Things were good, but what was going to happen, as we know now, was foreshadowed by a lot of the indicators that were out there.

In fact one of the key indicators happened to be the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That office was created under the Federal Accountability Act to make sure that the information the government had was reliable for parliamentarians and Canadians. That is a story in itself, the way the government has totally ignored the information and the advice of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The election was on October 14. On November 18 we were back here and there was an economic statement. That economic statement said, “Life is good. We carry on. Everything is going to be fine. We are looking forward to four years of healthy surplus yet again. Do not worry about it, but by the way, as long as we are at this, we are going to destroy pay equity. We are going to cut out the funding to political parties. We are going to deal with the public service and we are going to do a few other things”.

These were all things that had nothing to do with budgetary or economic measures. The government was playing games. It was poking sticks in people's eyes, trying to make them upset. But all of a sudden, the November economic statement did not have the support or the concurrence of anybody anywhere on the planet.

It was ludicrous. It was so ridiculous. As was pretty clear under the Constitution, if the government was defeated either on its throne speech or on some measure out of that economic statement, we would be into another election. However, there was an opportunity under our Constitution that the Governor General, if there had been an election in the last few months, could have approached the official opposition to form a government if it could demonstrate it had the majority support of the House.

We know where we were. There were indicators. The government said that everything was good. The November economic statement said that everything was going to be great, but I am a little concerned that the government again was saying, “We are getting a little worried about the possibility of a coalition government and getting turfed out of office. We better save our backsides”. What did it do? When it saw that there were problems coming down the pike, that the jobs of Canadians were going to be put at risk, it prorogued Parliament. It shut it down totally. No committees existed. No work was getting done. No attention was being given to the emerging issues of the day.

We came back and there was a throne speech on January 26, and the next day the budget was presented. The budget now shows four years of deficits, not four years of surplus. It shows four years of deficits, cumulatively, $84 billion of deficits.

I do not know about other members, but when we go from four years of surpluses and everything being fine in an economic statement on November 8, then on January 26 the government puts out a document, which was already a month old because it had to go through the approval process, which shows fours years of deficits totalling $84 billion, where is this coming from? How is it that the world could change so much?

The Prime Minister explained it quite simply that it has nothing to do with us, that our banks are healthy and we do not have to do anything, but what he did say also is that it is a global economic crisis. Consider what global means. Everybody who is in business, anybody who has any economic activity in the world is part and parcel of the same thing we are experiencing here.

On November 8, when the Conservatives put out an economic statement that they were having nice surpluses and everything was fine, they had no inkling whatsoever. Then all of a sudden there is this global economic crisis that in the next month they recognized and they changed their numbers and their forecasts and came out with the January budget showing four years of cumulative deficits. Can anyone imagine the ludicrousness to suggest that they did not know about a global economic crisis because it really did not happen until after the economic statement? It is nuts. It is absolutely unbelievable.

The Conservatives think that Canadians are stupid but they are not. They continue to persist that it is not their problem and they did not create that. It is pretty clear that the Conservatives inherited a $14 billion annual surplus from the previous Liberal government that had 10 years of surpluses and handed over the reins of a healthy economy. The Conservatives squandered that by their tax cuts and the spending spree that they went on, the highest spending per capita in the history of our country. They squandered the $14 billion annual surplus. They put us in a condition where we had absolutely no wiggle room. There was no cushion to help us get through difficult economic times.

That $14 billion per year would have gone a long way to handling the so-called global economic crisis. It would not have been so painful.

Now we have this wonderful budget that has a stimulus package associated with it and 40% of that infrastructure. We know that infrastructure is an efficient way to save jobs at risk, to create new jobs, generally being supportive, and to provide support to the financial sector. Other countries are doing it and we are doing it as well.

The government continues to say, in its answers to questions, that the opposition needs to put the public interest ahead of partisan interest and pass this budget, but what does it do? It decides in this budget to address the serious needs of Canadians who are faced with job loss and all kinds of other consequential impacts of a major financial crisis by loading the budget up with a bunch of other things. What is it going to do? It will basically decimate pay equity for women, equal pay for work of equal value. That has nothing to do with a budget but if it is thrown in, the Liberals and the others will not be able to defeat the budget because if they do an election will be called.

That may be true but the Conservatives also put in things like the Competition Act, changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and proposals for a national securities regulator that cannot possibly be resolved for years. It will take years to deal with that. They also had changes on equalization, a very sensitive area that affected Quebeckers and Maritimers.

The Conservatives made this an omnibus bill, which means they put in a bunch of things that are not necessarily connected. Why did they do that? Again, this is playing partisan politics, poking a stick and trying to get what they can get because they know that no responsible official opposition party would allow the budget to be defeated because it would probably take until next October before we could get back to the same spot that we are at today. By that time the jobs will be lost, the personal and business bankruptcies will have peaked, the consequences to Canadians will be enormous and the damage will be irreparable.

It would be totally irresponsible for Parliament not to pass the budget. The government knew that. it knew there was an economic crisis and it knew there would be this major downturn. It knew that it could get away with this and it continues to play partisan politics.

Every time the government talks about this, it says that the opposition needs to put the public interest ahead of political interest and yet it is the government's actions, not its words. We need to look at its actions and its actions have been totally contrary to the words that come out of the mouths of government members.

Today a question was asked of the finance minister. He said that the opposition needs to pass this budget quickly so the money can flow and that no money will flow until we pass this budget. That is true, except that this is the budget implementation for the fiscal year that will begin on April 1, 2009. Therefore, even if the bill were to pass at all stages, even in the other place, and receive royal assent, no dollars could legally flow until April 1. We still have a month for the balance of this process to take place.

It is the way the finance minister is trying to insinuate that everyone else is slowing the process down and blocking the money from flowing. What makes it even more ironic is that over the past two years $2 billion of approved, funded and appropriated infrastructure funding was promised but was never sent out. As a matter of fact, we still have another month to go in the current fiscal period. If infrastructure is so important, jobs are so important and stimulating the economy is so important, why are the Conservatives not spending some of that money in this last month? Why are they not getting it out before the books are closed?

I know why. It is because the Conservatives promised they would have a balanced budget in the current fiscal year which ends on March 31, 2009. The current budget implementation bill shows that it will be a small deficit of $1.1 billion. Members should mark my words that we will have a balanced budget reported for the current fiscal year and they will use that to say that they kept their promise. What they have done is taken away the opportunity for Canadians to save themselves, to save those jobs by having $2 billion less for infrastructure funding.

This is not integrity of government. This is not transparency, openness and accountability. The measure of success of a country is not an economic measure. It is a measure of the health and well-being of the people. With the inactions of the government with regard to the infrastructure funding, it is very clear that it does not believe that stimulus funding will do any good. It just wants to paint a picture for partisan reasons that the current fiscal year will look pretty good with a balanced budget and if it delays enough a few other things and the $3 billion slush fund it has set up in this with no accountability strings attached to it, it will be able to manoeuvre.

I wish I could pull out one of the speeches and read it into the record for members, but the Conservatives basically said that we were a trading country and that all of those countries with which we trade, the United States and others, have massive stimulus packages. Those countries have pumped a lot of money into the banks, the auto industry and into infrastructure, et cetera. They said that we would benefit because those countries will begin buying our stuff again and everything will be fine. They said that we really did not need a stimulus package. I honestly think they do not believe that the stimulus is necessary. I think they will ensure that the stimulus package does not get out on a timely basis and maybe never. It will be promised but never delivered and promised at another photo op and promised again and never delivered.

That is what the Conservatives have been doing since they were first elected in 2006. They have not been governing since 2006. They have been campaigning. It is only because of the official opposition saying that we cannot let this happen to the people of Canada, that someone must give hope to the people of Canada, not fear. It is the Conservatives who are delivering the fear to our country.

Today it is reported that the Prime Minister, in an interview with the CNN, said that what is happening right now is just a cyclical downturn but nothing that requires major government intervention. It speaks for itself. The Prime Minister is not on side. He does not believe it. He cannot be trusted. He is not credible in what he says. His caucus is right behind him in lack of credibility, accountability, transparency and openness.

The day will come when we will be able to fix all the damage the Conservatives will do with this budget, but in the meantime, the official opposition will support the budget because the people of Canada need us to be here working for them and ensuring the government is held accountable at a time of Canadians' needs.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was a very entertaining speech that we just heard from the member for Mississauga South.

We all know that the oracle of Omaha is Warren Buffett. He has been a very successful investor over the years. I heard the hon. member comment during his speech that during the election he anticipated a downturn in the Canadian economy. However, during the month of September we saw an additional 100,000 jobs added to the economy. In October, further during the election period, we saw 9,500 jobs added to the Canadian economy when the analysts, unlike the oracle here, had predicted the loss of 10,000 jobs. The Canadian economy produced 9,500 jobs.

The reason for that is that the Prime Minister took action well in advance. He anticipated the downturn long before, unlike our colleagues on the other side of the House. There was a tremendous stimulus in the form of tax cuts to keep this economy going, one of the last countries of the G8 to maintain a positive economy.

He talked about a vision for Canada. His former leader offered a vision of Canada in October called the carbon tax. One can just imagine if the carbon tax had been brought into this country. It would have been devastation.

If the hon. member was predicting the future like Kreskin, where are the comments that we would foresee this massive economic recession during the election? Would the hon. member comment on that?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, Statistics Canada just reported the results of the fourth quarter for 2008: an annualized rate of reduction in the GDP of 3.4%. That is the reality of what happened in the last quarter of 2008 under the Conservatives' watch.

I do not care how rosy the member wants to paint October, et cetera, the fact remains that we lost a record number of jobs in the fourth quarter, the economy has tanked and there is a global recession going on that is very deep and very dangerous. The Conservatives think that all they need to do is say that somebody else will take care of it.

The interesting thing is that the Conservatives feel so little responsibility to do anything about the economy, they have decided to turn their attention to perusing thousands of hours of tapes of the leader of the official opposition to see if they can come up with stuff they can use in attack ads in the next election. That is the priority of that government.

As I said earlier, since 2006, the Conservatives have not been governing. They have been campaigning and they continue to do it.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his presentation, my colleague stated that, in practical terms, in order to avoid elections, the Liberals had no choice but to support the budget. That is not true because, first of all, there was the coalition agreement signed by the three parties, which would have made it possible to take down the government and bring about change without going to the polls. Thus, it is false to state that there was no other option.

I would say that, at the very least, the Liberals could have made significant gains for citizens. What did they get besides a new cloakroom in the lobby and an end to the lawsuit against them? Next to nothing. They made a pitiful amendment asking that the government report on its work. I believe that it is the responsibility of all parliamentarians to monitor the government. Therefore, in general, the Liberal amendment asks the government to do the opposition's work.

Could the Liberals not have seized the opportunity to make substantial rather than trivial changes to the budget?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member has a point but sometimes we need to say that this is not a matter of a lust for power, that it is a matter of what is in the best interests of the country and nothing more.

Constitutionally, the coalition was a possibility and still is a possibility. However, the member will also know that the opposition was able to secure a substantial amendment and that amendment called for ongoing economic and fiscal updates, details of the actual implementation of the budget itemized to the actual effects of the budget in respect to protection of the most vulnerable, minimizing existing job losses, creation of employment opportunities for tomorrow, provision for economic stimulus, et cetera.

This was the compromise that was made by the official opposition. The official opposition has a greater responsibility than the other two opposition parties that will never, ever form a government. It is our responsibility to work in the best interests of Canadians. We have taken a decision and Canadians will judge ultimately.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us get this straight.

The Liberals sell out employment insurance, given that 50% of Canadians who lose their jobs cannot access it, and that is okay. They sell out on pay equity, rise in this House and try to defend it, and that is okay. They sell out the Kelowna accord. They did that in the last election campaign, when their election promises repudiated Kelowna, and 14 years in power did not deliver child care.

Basically what we are hearing is that every single time, Liberals sell out Canadians. Every single time, without exception, they sell out Canadians, and they are doing it again. They simply do not have any credibility whatsoever. The Liberals cannot have credibility when time after time they break their promises and sell out Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me remind the hon. member from the NDP that with its vote bringing down the Paul Martin government, the early learning and child care program never happened, the Kelowna accord to help aboriginal Canadians never occurred, and the pay equity changes that we were bringing in never occurred, because that party--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order. The hon. member for Mississauga South has the floor.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was because NDP members decided that they were more interested in going into an election than they were in serving the people of Canada.

In this budget there is $2 billion of infrastructure stimulus, a $495 million base funding program, $250 million for communities, $200 million for green infrastructure, $51 million for Atlantic Canada, $106 million for economic development in Quebec, $175 million in Ontario, $17 billion in the north, $154 million for the west, $1 billion in repairs for post-secondary institutions, $75 million for first nations housing, $125 million for CMHC, support for on reserve housing, social housing, low-income seniors, disabled persons and in northern housing, and there is more--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The length of the answer has to correspond to the length of the question.

I would like to recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour for a very short question and a very short answer without lists, please.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, there was so much in that speech. I listened to every word the member gave, and as usual it was right on the mark.

I would ask him a simple question. I know he is very interested in innovation and research. The government says it has put money into innovation and research. The facts are a little bit different. We even have the case of the university teachers, CAUT, going in to see the minister and being told to shut up, that they had burned their bridges and all that stuff.

Could my colleague tell me if that is a good idea? Is that the way to treat people?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is quite right. Unfortunately, when a minister of state for the Crown starts raising his voice and pointing fingers and telling a group representing 121 Canadian universities and colleges across the country that they do not understand the budget and that everybody loves the budget, it means one thing to me. It sounds to me like yet another example showing that the government really does not care to listen to anyone who does not agree with it. If they do not agree, the government is going to be a bully.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber has a few minutes to begin his speech, but I will have to interrupt him shortly.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will do what I can in the time that I have.

Naturally, the Bloc Québécois will not support this budget because the government has broken its promises. Once again, it is encroaching on areas under provincial jurisdiction that fall within the exclusive purview of the Government of Quebec. Take the securities commission, for example. The government's plan to impose a Canada-wide securities commission and centralize the work and the regulation in Ottawa is blatant interference. Quebec does not want this commission, and neither do many other provinces.

One reason the federal government's interference in areas under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction is so surprising is that it cannot even take care of business in areas that are under its own jurisdiction. As I have always said, should the day ever come when the federal government can manage its own affairs capably, it would have nothing more to do. Perhaps it would be tempted to get involved elsewhere. But that is not the case. Take immigration, for example.

Currently, all classes of immigrants are subject to long wait times. For example, immigrant investors are prepared to put up $400,000 to come to this country and invest in our economy. Those who go through Quebec's system get their Quebec selection certificate within a year, but they have to wait many more years for the federal government to do a basic criminal records check through Interpol before they even go to a designated doctor for a physical exam. That takes years.

I would suggest that if the government suddenly stopped interfering in areas that belong to Quebec and the provinces, and started taking care of its own responsibilities and putting a little money into speeding up case processing for immigrant investors selected by Quebec who are still waiting for confirmation from the federal government, thousands of people on these lists would come here in the middle of the economic crisis and contribute to and stimulate our economy.

That is not what the government plans to do. Instead it is getting in the way of members from Quebec and the provinces. Like the Liberals in their day, the Conservatives say they are listening to Quebec. But they are not. One hundred and twenty-five members out of 125—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member.

It being 6:49 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 3 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 third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this stage of the budget.

To say that I support the budget would be a bit of a stretch, but we have decided we will let the budget pass. We believe there are some measures in the budget that are of benefit to Canadians and we have to let the it pass. However, we also have very serious concerns, which have been outlined in our amendment, and we want to ensure that the government is kept on a tight leash. It is about time, too.

We have heard in the last few days about how the $3 billion of infrastructure spending has to be rushed out the door, that there is a special need to get it out there and it is urgent. It is about time the government took action. When the economic storm clouds were gathering in late summer, rather than do something about it, the government called an election.

When President Barack Obama was elected President of the United States in the November election, he was already talking about a massive stimulus package. People in Canada were also talking about the need for the same kind of thing. Instead of doing something then, the government came forward with an economic update that had nothing in it in the form of stimulus.

In December when Barack Obama's plan was already working its way through the United States system and people were getting excited about some of the things they were hearing, Canadians were talking about what we could do in the form of stimulus. Instead of bringing something in then, the government decided prorogue Parliament.

Finally at the end of January, the government decided to do something about it and put something together. I must admit some parts of the budget are better than what we saw in November, but some serious concerns remain. Personally the most serious of those concerns relates to the protection of those who are most vulnerable, so I will address that first.

We have literacy organizations across the country, and we do not hear as much about literacy in the House as we should. Literacy organizations, like Literacy Nova Scotia in my province, were among the first victims of the meanness of the government back in the fall of 2006 when it cut $17.7 million cut from literacy as part of the famous $2 billion cuts that it came out with.

Literacy organizations do not know where the money is. If we talk to the minister, we get one story. If we talk to officials, we get a different story. However, literacy organizations across the country need help so we can be a more productive nation, so we can educate our citizens and so we can provide support for people.

One of the saddest stories I have heard as a member of Parliament is about a person who was offered a promotion. He came to my office. He was employed and doing okay. By some people's standards, he was not doing that well, but he had a job and he was productive. He then was offered a promotion. The problem was he had to take a literacy test. He knew he could not pass it so he had to turn the promotion down. That person is asking for help.

We have literacy organizations across Canada, like the Dartmouth Literacy Network or the literacy organizations in the Annapolis Valley, that do such good work. When we talk to a learner, somebody whose life has been changed by having access to that kind of education, it is amazing we do not do more to support them.

I want to talk about employment insurance, which I have spoken to at other stages of the bill. Five weeks at the end of EI is helpful, but it is a very small measure. There is some money for training, and I give the government credit for that. However, when we think of what the government could have done for EI, it is a shame. There are all kinds of measures. The government could eliminate the waiting period. It could make EI benefits a bit higher percentage of previous earnings. It could equalize access, both regionally and across income groups.

One of the real weaknesses of our EI system is that a lot of low-income part-time workers, who tend to be women, cannot access EI. This is the perfect time to speed that up.

EI is a very positive way to provide stimulus into the economy. In fact, some studies note there is payback on EI. Ian Lee from the Sprott School of Business indicates that EI has a multiplier effect of 1.61%. For every dollar we spend on EI, it goes out and multiplies in the economy, which is higher than infrastructure and dramatically higher than tax cuts.

The tax cuts in the budget are unfair. The tax cuts help me, but in my view I am not the kind of person, nor are any other members of the House, who should be a priority for the government.

The government should have increased the GST rebate. It should have increased the child tax benefit. It should have put money into the pockets of people who most need it. It helps us all because they spend it, not because they want to spend it, but because they have to spend it. That is where the stimulus should be.

I want to talk about another issue that we have started to hear about in the last few days. This week The Chronicle Herald had an editorial with the headline, “Laid-off workers stuck in EI limbo”, and stated, “Thousands of recently laid-off Atlantic Canadian workers are paying the price”, and that is the EI wait lists.

On the weekend I was delighted to see that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was in Nova Scotia for the annual general meeting along with the next premier of Nova Scotia, Steve McNeil, the leader of the Liberal Party spoke about EI very strongly. The headline in the paper the next night was, “Late EI payments to Atlantic Canadians unacceptable”--the Leader of the Opposition--“says”.

This is a very important issue. People are waiting. I have letters from people from across the country who have been waiting for EI. The government says that 80% of EI claims are processed within 28 days. That is not the case and it is not just in the last few days. In December I wrote a letter to the Minister of Human Resources saying that people are waiting for EI. People told me that they are being told that they have to wait the standard 40 days. That is not the worst case scenario; that is the standard processing time. The standard processing time has gone from 28 days to 40 days.

I wrote a letter to the Minister of Human Resources in the middle of December. The mail must be pretty slow, because I have not had a response yet.

I received an email from somebody in my riding on January 27 which states:

Tomorrow, on day 50, I'm supposed to call back and get another update as to what is going on with my claim. When it finally does get processed, I'll drop you a line just to let you know how long it finally took.

I got an email from the same lady a few days later saying:

Thank you so much!! I did get a phone call late this afternoon actually saying my claim had been processed and approved which was a surprise because I got a voicemail when I got home last night saying there may be more delays.

She went on to say:

I just thought you might like to know that it may have been [the member for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour], not Conservative promises, who helped this first nations person get their cheque.

We have received emails in my office from across the country. We have one from the riding of the member for Halifax West, saying:

I am a resident of your riding and wanted to be sure that you were aware of the current situation in obtaining EI benefits. It is virtually impossible to reach an agent on the phone.... On several instances I waited on hold over two hours only to be cut off without reaching an agent.

I want to be very clear. I do not blame the people at Service Canada. They are working very hard. They have had to take on more responsibilities in the last few years. I do not have any problem with the people who work at Service Canada. I do have a problem with the political masters who are not recognizing that more and more people are being laid off, and if they are among the lucky ones who actually manage to qualify for EI even though they have paid into it, they have the right to get EI when they need it.

A person from Vancouver wrote:

Ceased to work at the end of November. Applied for EI January 8, 2009. It has now been 54 days. Still no final decision.”

Here is one from Prince Edward Island:

I have applied for EI sick benefits and have been told it will be eight to ten weeks to process my application and receive benefits.

I have one here from the city of St. Johns in Newfoundland and Labrador saying that our riding office has been helping many constituents who have been waiting six weeks or more in the processing of EI claims. Across the country people are waiting for their EI cheques. Even though they are entitled to get their EI, they are having a very difficult time getting it.

My colleague from Don Valley East asked a question on this in the House, if I am not mistaken. I think my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso asked a question in the House on this, about a constituent of his whose name I cannot recall, but I think it might have been Norma Peck, who was waiting and waiting.

Thank heavens that people have members of Parliament like the member for Don Valley East and my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso, who stand up. My colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche spoke in this House on behalf of somebody who was waiting, I think it was 47 days. Thank heavens there are some members providing leadership for those who actually need help the most.

On employment insurance, there is a great deal more the government could be doing to help people. I expect we will talk about that tomorrow.

I want to talk about child care. Canada is, and I want to be generous, a laggard on child care. In the last few years we have gotten worse. A survey was released in December by the United Nations and of the OECD nations, Canada ranked last out of 25 countries on 10 benchmarks dealing with early learning and child care. We were last.

I would expect that some of the Scandinavian nations that are very progressive in this area would be ahead of us, but many other nations were as well. I believe we only went halfway on one benchmark. The province of Quebec had six out of the ten benchmarks because it has an early learning and child care plan, and I commend that province for that. We need to do more.

The Leader of the Opposition came to a meeting in Halifax on Saturday. We met with about 20 child care advocates. Somebody said that child care does not stop at six either, referring to the measly $100 a month. And education does not start at six. Education has to start at age zero. Education needs to be accessible to all. If any one of us knew of somebody with a child who was six or seven years old and that child was denied access to elementary school, there would be an outcry, and rightly so. Yet every single day in every community in Canada children are being denied access to early learning and child care. That is a shame. That affects our productivity in a huge way.

I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that when the Liberals form the government, and I hope and expect that will be after the next election, he will bring back an early learning and child care plan similar to the one brought forward by my colleague from York Centre, the former goalie who was minister of human resources and skills development. It was a wonderful plan for child care. He actually implemented it but it was thrown out on the scrap heap to the consternation, dismay and the agony of people across this country to whom $100 does not mean anything. People at our session on Sunday said that the $100 does not help when child care costs $800 to $1,000 a month, but more important, they cannot find a child care space. Child care cannot be delivered in the mail.

I want to talk about a specific organization which does some great work in this country. It is called the Canadian Council on Learning, CCL. This organization is set up to measure how we are doing on education in relation to other countries and the standards that we should have in Canada. This organization has been operating for five years. It has some concerns. It is not a political organization at all. Dr. Paul Cappon heads it up. He is universally respected. He is not a Liberal, nor a New Democrat, nor a Conservative. He is just a guy who cares about education and helping us understand where we are in educating our citizens. This organization was told that its funding was not going to be renewed past the end of March or April of this year. That does not make any sense.

At committee a couple of weeks ago, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was asked by the chair of our committee, a very good chair in spite of his Conservative label, if the funding for CCL would be extended and what the status of it was. The minister said, “The funding for that has been extended to the end of next year. There will be discussions about the future”.

Two days later her officials came to committee and I raised the issue of CCL. My question was, “I want to ask about the Canadian Council on Learning. On Tuesday the minister indicated that their funding would be extended for another year. My understanding was it was going to run out at the end of March. Our chair asked the question. Is that the fact, that they have another year of funding that will take them to 2010?”

The assistant deputy minister said, “That's correct”. I said, “It is not just that they are using the money they were given before for an extra year, but they have an extra year of funding”, which is what the minister said. The answer was “My understanding is their original funding was reprofiled to extend into 2010”. That is a quizzical thing. I pursued that and said, “Reprofiled under certain governments means different things. Does that mean stretched or does that mean added?” The answer was, “It means there was no increase in the funding they received”.

On Tuesday the minister told us the funding had been extended until the end of next year, yet two days later we found out that was not the case at all. This is an organization like the Centre for Social Development and many others that are doing great work but it seems they have to fight for their funding every year.

I work in the area of human resources, and there are a number of issues that are of great concern to me.

What is happening on the research side is scandalous. The CAUT, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, went to see the Secretary of State and its members were told to shut up. They were told that they have burned their bridges. I can see shock on the faces of members opposite that one of their own would say that to somebody.

As ministers or MPs, there is a certain tone and level of respect that we have for people who are advocating when they come to see us, whether we agree or disagree. I know the people who went to see the minister. I know Jim Turk. He is the head of CAUT. I know the two people who were in that meeting. These are reasonable people. They came to see me while I was on the government side and they have come to see me in opposition. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I disagree, but I would never question their motives or suggest that anybody would use that tone of language in dealing with people who are advocating for issues like education.

I have concerns about the budget and the tone of the government. I have an awful lot of concerns about the direction of the country. My colleagues from the NDP will say that since I have all these issues, maybe I should vote against this budget. I can say with great sincerity that I support the position our leader has taken. There are some measures in this budget, such as the five weeks of EI and some of the infrastructure money if it gets out the door, that could be very positive for Canadians.

We are not supporting this budget so much as we are letting it pass. We are going to keep a close eye on it. This country is headed into difficult times. We may be there now. I can recall two or three times in the last couple of months when I have talked to people who said that they did not think it would get this worse. We hear about further losses with each passing day and week. Yesterday, we heard about the job losses in Hamilton. In my own area, we have lost the Moirs plant, which employed over 500 people. We are all going to be hurt.

We are in this together. This is Canada. We are a rich nation, but we are hurting. However, the strength of this country is that we have a social infrastructure and we believe in it. We believe in national health service. We believe in employment insurance. We believe in social supports that provide assistance to those in need, like the GIS and the child tax benefit.

I think that in a difficult time it is important that we as Canadians focus on those people who are hurting the most. We need to provide support to people who need help. We need to invest in their health, education and the social supports that make their lives livable, whether it is EI, health care, or education for aboriginal Canadians, low-income families and persons with disabilities. These are the people who need our help. Those are the measures we are going to be watching as this budget unfolds. That is how we will be holding the government to account. For now, it is a pass, but it is pretty close.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour says that he is reluctant to follow the government's agenda. He also says that he is concerned about job losses and the fact that people cannot get employment insurance, many of them because this budget does not provide for about half the workers who lose their employment insurance benefits.

I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on both of those comments that he has made. However, the next item on the government's agenda is the European Free Trade Association agreement. That is coming forward to the House. The shipbuilding industry, including his constituents in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour who work at the Halifax shipyards, is unanimous in saying that there has to be a carve-out on EFTA. If there is not, they will lose their jobs. That will mean that they will be subject to the very meanspirited employment insurance provisions that are contained within this budget.

I would like to ask the member a very clear question. There is a carve-out, an amendment that we proposed in the House. Is he prepared to vote for that amendment that is supported by his constituents in the Halifax shipyards in order to carve shipbuilding out of EFTA, ensuring that more of his constituents will not be subjected to the punitive provisions of EI that are in this budget?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to sit in on the committee last week where EFTA was discussed. The Minister of Industry came to that committee.

The member is right that shipbuilding is an important part of my community. In fact, in Nova Scotia, shipbuilding is a long and honourable tradition. I do not think that this country has done enough to support shipbuilding. The EFTA deal will take us into a deal with four countries, including Norway, who have a very strong, robust and subsidized shipbuilding industry.

Canada needs not to close its eyes to what is happening in the rest of the world but to look at Norway and ask what it did and whether we should do that here. We need a strong shipbuilding policy. Less than an hour ago, I met with members of the CAW, who were here to meet with us and people in our leader's office to talk about the shipbuilding policy we need. Whether it is putting together the SFF and the ACCA or whether it is a national procurement policy that includes direct allocation and continuous procurement, there are solutions. The shipbuilding industry, including those who own the companies, those who manage the companies as well as the workers, is aligned on this issue.

I was very disappointed that there was not more stimulus in the budget. The Minister of National Defence had indicated in December that shipbuilding would specifically be part of a stimulus plan and then we were very disappointed by the budget. In my view, we need a national shipbuilding policy that emulates countries like Norway because we have the people, the technology, and the ability to do it here ourselves.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his intervention today and for his support in previous votes on our economic action plan.

I wonder if he could inform the House how he will be voting tonight on our economic action plan.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the budget tonight on third reading. I cannot divulge any details about whether my fingers will be crossed behind my back or not but I will be voting for it tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I finally get a chance to ask my hon. colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, a question.

My colleague has been a passionate proponent of social justice. As we heard from his speech, he talked about the early learning and childhood strategies. I have heard him speak about student loans, helping the poor and helping communities in distress.

I know the budget is difficult for a lot of us because it is such a mixture of good and bad. Could the member give some indication on what he thinks of some of the other measures the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance put in, the hodge-podge things like the Competition Act, pay equity, Navigable Waters Protection Act and probably EFTA? Is the Conservative government really serious about a stimulus package or is it really playing games on the backs of ordinary Canadians?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is one of the most impressive and passionate members of the House. It is easy for us to be critical, because I know there are many good members on the other side of the House, but I believe the government has been very punitive and is gratuitous in what it put in the budget, particularly on things like pay equity.

If the government were really serious about stimulus, it should remember that we can stimulate an economy, not just through bricks and mortar, but through flesh and bone by investing in people and in the social supports that provide the safety net in this country. That money would not only go to the people who need it, but it would go right back into the economy because they would spend the money.

I think that spending in areas of social need should be the priority of any government in a difficult time.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will to go back to my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour because he did not answer the question.

The member was asked by workers from the Halifax shipyards just an hour ago, and he knows his constituents are impacted by this, to vote for the carve-out to save shipbuilding jobs in his constituency. Is he prepared to vote for the carve-out and, if not, why not?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is because it was ruled out of order. However, I will tell the House, because t I do not have any secrets on this issue, that it is my intention to support the free trade deal with the EFTA countries, but, on top of that, working with my colleagues from Kings—Hants, Halifax West and others in the House.

In the discussions I had today with members of the CAW there was no mention of EFTA. The discussions were about procurement and national shipbuilding. That does not mean that it is not an important issue to them, it is, but they also recognize that after the next election one of two parties will form the Government of Canada. One of them will have a real shipbuilding policy and one of them will not. We will.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's constituents have been very clear on this. People in Nova Scotia have been very clear that they want the carve-out. The shipbuilding industry has been unanimous. Shipbuilding yards across the country, the owners and the workers have been unanimous, as the member well knows, before the committee on international trade.

Therefore, because it is very much in order to carve out and delete certain clauses of the bill with EFTA that is being brought before the House, the member will need to make a choice between his constituents or a theory. Will the member choose his constituents or will he vote for the carve-out, yes or no?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the committee ruled the amendment on the carve-out out of order. The expectation is that it will be ruled out of order here. If it is not, then I will deal with that.

I would ask my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster to ask the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore if I believe in shipbuilding. Ask him if he believes that I listen to my constituents and try to do the best that I can for them.

Does the member not think that I want to support my constituents? The discussions I have had with them are respectful. I have never turned down a meeting. If the member were to ask them, I think they would say that the member for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour stands up for their interests. That is what I did before. I do not hide from that but sometimes it is not as easy.

Members of the NDP would like to have an election every second Friday, which is an easy thing for them. However, we will be the government in this country and we will bring in a shipbuilding policy that will be as good as any in the world, a policy that people who work in the shipbuilding industry and who run the shipyards will be very proud of.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been an incredibly passionate defender of the shipbuilding industry in his riding and across Canada. In meetings we have had together with shipbuilding companies and labour, they have said that the hon. member and the Liberal Party continue to be strong proponents and defenders of shipbuilding.

Does the hon. member agree that yesterday at committee, when the chair made a ruling on the legal advice of the clerk, to challenge the chair on that would have indicated a lack of confidence in the non-partisan clerk, the clerk who does not work for the government but who works for the House of Commons?

Not only is the NDP member economically illiterate, he has absolutely no idea of the rules and procedures in this House when yesterday at committee he accused the clerk, the legal clerk, of being partisan. The NDP member talks about defending the public service and yet yesterday he attacked the public service.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is quite well and good to have a political discussion here but to invent something that did not happen, as the member for Kings—Hants just did, is something that merits a withdrawal.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if you could ask the member for Kings-Hants to withdraw his comments that are untrue and defamatory.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I obviously was not at the committee yesterday. This was a question to the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. I would like a very short answer before we resume debate.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Kings—Hants had it right. We all know the great work and the great support we get from the staff here at the House of Commons. They do not favour one person over another.

What I want to say in closing is that I do not question the motives of my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster. I have been at that committee and I have seen how it operates. It is not the way I would do it but I do not question his motives or his belief in supporting his constituents.

If he has a reason to believe that I do not support my constituents, then he should table it. He should talk to his colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore who is passionate about this industry. I think he would tell him that this is a guy who believes in shipbuilding. I have every faith that when the Liberals form the next government, we will bring in a national shipbuilding policy that people can be proud of.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will follow on the comments that were just made in the House. In regard to Bill C-10, they were quite appropriate. However, the reality is that there will be no shipbuilding industry left if the Liberal Party does not stand up for shipbuilding when the carbon amendment comes before this House in the next few days. I certainly hope they will, and the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour has indicated that he is considering it, which is very important. We are making some progress.

Where we are not making progress is on Bill C-10.

What we have seen over the past 20 years is a slow and profound crisis in this country. Family income over the past 20 years has been steadily declining. That is even before the very sharp and acute crisis that we have all felt over the past six months and what Canadians have been living through.

Most Canadian families have been living through a slow and prolonged decline in the resources they have to feed their families, to keep a roof over their heads, to do all the things that Canadian families feel strongly about doing and all the things they hold dear.

Under both the Liberals and the Conservatives, we have seen a steady decline in the quality of life and income over the past 20 years. This comes at a time when Canadians are working harder than ever. It is up over one-third during that period but the lowest income Canadians have seen a catastrophic fall in income. On average, they have lost about a month and a half of real wages every year since 1989, which was the year of the implementation of NAFTA. Working class families have lost about two weeks of income per year over the last 20 years. We would find it hard to live on two weeks less of income than what we had 20 years ago. Middle class families have lost about one week.

In short, we have seen a slow and steady economic catastrophe developing and the last six months has put that even more clearly in the public eye. Over the past six months we have seen the collapse of many of our economic sectors, such as the softwood lumber sector, which started with the softwood lumber sellout that cost tens of thousands of jobs across this country, and we continue to pay. We saw with the arbitration last week that it was inevitable under a softwood lumber agreement that the anti-circumvention clause prohibits any sort of support for softwood lumber and the industry. We have seen Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba all having to cough up money.

Two years ago, the NDP said that was exactly what would happen but, unfortunately, Liberal and Bloc members refused to heed what we told them. They ended up voting for a softwood lumber sellout and the result has been a catastrophe.

It is a catastrophe that has hit Quebeckers particularly hard. The people whom the Bloc say they are supporting are those who are losing their jobs and whose communities are having to absorb tens of millions of dollars in penalties because of the softwood lumber agreement.

This catastrophe in an industrial sector could have been avoided if the other parties had studied the agreement more closely.

It is not just softwood and shipbuilding. We are now operating at one-third capacity and that one-third capacity will be killed off under EFTA. We are seeing in the automobile sector that our exports are falling by about a third. It is catastrophic. It is tens of billions of dollars every month in lower exports. In the manufacturing industries we are looking at about a quarter of a million lost jobs over the course of the last few months alone.

We are seeing, in short, a catastrophic and sharp economic crisis that brings to bear a focus on what has happened over the last 20 years. What is the remedy? The Conservatives, with Liberal support, are bringing forward a budget that does not deal with any of those realities. There is no industrial plan or sector-by-sector strategy being brought in.

Essentially, the Conservatives want a $3 billion slush fund to use for whatever political objectives they may have. At the same time, they want to tie any other funding to investments that are first made by municipalities, cash-strapped cities and hard-hit province, so taxpayers at those other levels of government have to cough up first before there is any relief from the federal government.

It is hard to say that this is an economic stimulus package when it is tied funding and there is a slush fund of $3 billion set aside, we fear, for political means. We have been asking for transparency around that money.

My colleague, the member for Outremont, has been calling for that in committee and here in the House. So has the NDP leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth. Yet, the Conservatives refuse any sort of transparency or clarity around the money that they intend to spend. They basically want a blank cheque from Parliament to use that money however they see fit. We saw from the sponsorship scandal that that is not a good idea.

What is in Bill C-10? If it does not deal fundamentally with the economic stimulus and the industrial strategies that we need, what is in Bill C-10? Members in this corner of the House have been saying very clearly what is in it. This is an ideological attack on many principles that the Conservatives have wanted to attack for some time.

Now, because they have a functional majority, since the Liberal Party has given up any sort of opposition role, they are making those attacks. They are attacking collective agreements and not only collective agreements in the public sector but public sector agreements that affect hard-working RCMP officers, stopping them from fairly-negotiated wage increases. All public sector workers and public servants who have been working very hard with less and less over the past few years are stymied. Bill C-10 is effectively an attack on collective agreements.

Bill C-10 attacks students. It treats them very harshly. This is the same government that believes that corporate tax cuts should be shovelled off the back of a truck. However, in this particular case what they want to attack are students who, through no fault of their own, because of a complete lack of support for post-secondary education that we saw develop under the Liberals and continued under the Conservatives, may end up with tens of thousands of dollars of student debt. Instead of the government providing some measure of debt relief, it is treating those student debtors even more harshly.

Bill C-10 allows, basically, for the fire sale of Canadian assets and businesses to go full rein. It is lessening any remaining remnants of foreign ownership qualifications. There actually is a vetting when there are takeovers of Canadian companies. Now they are opening up whole sectors that used to be considered Canadian because it was in the public and Canadian interest to do so. Bill C-10 ideologically attacks that provision for some vetting when Canadian companies are taken over and sold offshore.

We have seen over the past few years company after company purchased at fire sale prices. Canadian companies were bought up because of lax foreign ownership rules. In fact, of the foreign investment that has come into Canada, it is estimated 97% of it goes for takeovers, not for new investment or job creation but a simple takeover of what exists now.

Bill C-10 enhances that fire sale of Canada. So much for standing up for Canada. Conservatives are selling out Canada. We have seen it with the softwood lumber sellout, the shipbuilding sellout, the NAFTA amendments they are bringing forward with the relaxed foreign ownership provisions, so any Canadian company can be a target. The government will simply not stand up for Canadians.

I want to talk about environment assessments. Canadians feel very strongly about protecting our quality of the environment, our quality of life. Yet, Bill C-10 essentially strips environmental assessments from a whole range of projects. That is not in the public interest. No Canadian asked for that. In fact, if the Conservatives had promised that in the election campaign, there would be a lot fewer of them on the other side of the House. However, that is indeed what they are doing because the Liberals are giving them a functional majority with the new Liberal-Conservative coalition.

My colleague from Outremont called it the Conservative-Liberal Alliance party yesterday in the House. We remember the acronym that existed with the Conservative-Reform Alliance party, CRAP. It did not last very long. That was changed. Now we have a new one. Like the member for Outremont said so well, the acronym actually refers to venereal disease. Perhaps the budget is just as painful in its impact on Canadians.

Perhaps the worst aspect of the budget bill, the most ideologically meanspirited attack that we see in Bill C-10, is the attack on the fundamental human right to pay equity. It is simply unbelievable that the Conservatives would try to pretend that in some way, in some Orwellian twist of phrase, they are trying to save pay equity by killing it.

They have stood in the House and tried to confuse Canadians, and have pretended that in some way this is somewhat similar to something that other administrations have brought forward. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a full-fronted attack on pay equity. It eliminates pay equity. It does not in any way protect pay equity or provide recourse for pay equity.

Paul Durber, who is the former director for pay equity for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said very clearly in his letter just a few days ago that he could not imagine any party in the House knowingly adopting a measure that would contradict such a fundamental value as the equality provision of section 15 of the charter.

It is very clear that this is an attack on pay equity. This kills pay equity. So much for a so-called economic stimulus budget. This kills a fundamental principle of Canadian law and the Liberals are well aware of it. They have said with crocodile tears that somehow they feel that those provisions on pay equity are unfair, but each and every one of them is voting for these provisions that kill pay equity. Canadians will not forgive that incredible shortsightedness and hypocrisy.

Pay equity is being killed and a whole range of other, meanspirited, right-wing, ideological measures are being proposed in the budget. The budget is not one of economic stimulus. The budget is not one that helps Canadians. The budget does absolutely nothing to help the increasing number of Canadians who become unemployed. Not a single, additional person will have access to employment insurance as a result of the budget at a time when tens of thousands of jobs are hemorrhaging out of this country, tens of thousands of people and families are losing their breadwinner.

Yet, not a single new person can claim employment insurance than those who qualified prior to the budget. There is no change to the harsh qualifications that legally the government cannot put in place, but under the budget we are in this Orwellian world where the government now redefines what its legal responsibilities are and redefines employment insurance in a way that half the workers who become unemployed will not be able to access it.

Canadians are not fooled by those few who qualify getting a few extra weeks at the end. They are not fooled by that because they know that in their communities people are losing their jobs as Canadian industries shut down one after the other, after 20 years of completely foolish and irresponsible economic policies from the economic illiteracy twins of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party putting Canadian industry and manufacturing at risk with catastrophic implications today.

As their neighbours, friends and families lose their jobs, Canadians are not fooled by the fact that there are a few weeks at the end of employment insurance for those who qualify. They are concerned and the reason why they are coming to constituency offices across the country is because they know now that they do not qualify.

This is a meanspirited budget, not a budget that addresses the crisis that we are living in. It is an ideological attack on Canadians and for that reason, New Democrats are voting against this budget.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster spoke about how this government treats women. We know that this is not the first time this government has attacked the means that women have to improve their lot in society. It went after women's shelters: of the 16 shelters, there are only four left to support women's groups. And it is now taking on employment equity.

I would like to know what the member thinks about this situation. The Liberals, like all of us and like the NDP, have been highly critical of this measure that would keep women from turning to the courts to have their rights recognized. Even worse, this measure would see fines of up to $50,000 slapped on unions wanting to defend women. What does he think about the Liberals, who have suddenly done an about-face and jumped into bed with the Conservatives, setting women's rights back more than 50 years?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is disgusting. That is the only word I can use. It is the most hypocritical thing that a political party can do; that is, defend women here in House but vote in favour of a budget that fundamentally attacks women's rights. There is no other word for it. I think that the people in the Liberal Party should be ashamed of their position.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while we are on the rather broad topic of Liberal Party hypocrisy, can the hon. member tell us his how he felt when he heard a member from the Liberal Party of Canada rise during question period this afternoon and speak out against the softwood lumber agreement, which was after all supported, signed and upheld by that same Liberal Party?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question asked by the hon. member for Outremont regarding softwood lumber. It is a very important one.

Two years ago, we indicated the impact this agreement would have. We were the only party to read the agreement. The Conservative members said they supported the agreement, but they did not even read it. The Liberal members said they would vote to support the agreement, because it looked fine. I cannot help but think of the members from northern Ontario who no longer sit in this House, because the people of that region said no to the Liberal Party during the most recent election, partly because of the Liberal Party's decision to support the softwood lumber agreement. Now I know my friends in the Bloc Québécois also understand that their party made a monumental mistake in supporting an agreement that was not good for Quebec, that cost thousands of jobs, that took away Quebec's autonomy in how it managed the forestry industry, which is, after all, a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

So it is very clear and very obvious. Now that the other parties see that the NDP was right, we hope they might listen to us from the beginning next time, to prevent the kind of crisis that arises when people do not fully understand the consequences of their actions.

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

Mr. Speaker, given the Conservatives faced a coalition that would have thrown them out of office just two months ago, why would they put add-ons in the budget when all opposition parties would find them objectionable? Why would they do that given they almost lost the government a couple of months ago?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. My only answer is the Conservatives thought the Liberals would simply roll over. There is no principle that governs Liberal Party members. They are willing, at all costs, to give up any principle they support if they do not think their electoral chances are particularly good.

I think the Conservatives simply thought they could do anything they wanted. They knew the Liberals would not stand up to them. They now have a functional majority, a coalition government, Liberal-Conservative, or Conservative-Liberal-Alliance party, or CLAP, in the House of Commons. It is very unfortunate for Canadians.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by pointing out that my NDP colleague, with whom I sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade, is an expert on softwood lumber and a staunch defender of the softwood lumber industry in his region. He is also an authority on shipbuilding in his region.

In this case, my colleague has great respect for the people of his riding and his province, and he is fulfilling their expectations by trying to remove this sector from the free trade agreement. However, he still refuses to accept that the Bloc had serious reservations about the softwood lumber agreement. He should bear in mind that we, too, responded to the needs of softwood lumber stakeholders in Quebec. We responded to the needs of Quebeckers, just as he responded to the needs of shipbuilding stakeholders in British Columbia.

Now, once and for all—we have covered this dozens of times already—given that he is dealing with the same situation when it comes to shipbuilding as we did with softwood lumber, I would like to hear him say that the work we did was just as much about responsibility as the work he thinks he is doing now.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say anything bad about the Bloc Québécois. I even congratulated the Bloc Québécois on recognizing that it made a mistake by voting for the softwood lumber agreement.

All I have to go on are the facts. Thousands of people in Quebec lost their jobs after the softwood lumber agreement came into force on October 2, 2007. Since then, thousands of jobs have been lost in Quebec. Last week, a decision was made that will cost Quebeckers tens of millions of dollars. Even if it were to be distributed according to the formula proposed by the Bloc, the result would be the same: Quebeckers will have to pay tens of millions of dollars.

It is clear that the effect on Quebec will be just as the NDP predicted a few years ago. We were right when we said that the agreement should not be signed. They should have waited for the final court decision, which ruled in Canada's favour.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster keeps playing his softwood lumber tape.

There was an election campaign last September and October. The NDP had candidates in all Quebec ridings, including those where forestry is the main industry. That was their message during the election campaign and they came in dead last.

Two-thirds of Quebec MPs are members of the Bloc. This truly reflects what my colleague from Sherbrooke just said: we expressed the wishes of our citizens. We are not retreating from the decision we made. On the contrary, we will continue to represent the opinions and wishes of our constituents.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate for our Bloc Québécois colleague. We have to say that it is becoming increasingly evident to everyone in Quebec that it was a bad agreement. Last week's decision will unfortunately be reinforced by another to be given in a few weeks, one that will go against Quebec, as we said. The next time, we will campaign in all Quebec ridings and the result will be different because you made the wrong decision whereas we made the right one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. Ordinarily, members say it is a pleasure to speak to a bill, but in this case, it is more my duty to the people in my riding and everyone in Quebec. Like my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I will vote against this bill.

Quebec is the big loser in the government's recovery plan. We know that the plan includes roughly $4 billion to help Ontario. We understand that this is important to the automotive industry and all that, but Quebec is getting nothing but crumbs. The forest and manufacturing industries are very important, but the recovery plan provides only $170 million for research and development for the entire country.

Last week, Guy Chevrette, president and CEO of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance and again impressed on us that the forest industry in Quebec is in deep trouble. Companies could close in the near future and need loan guarantees like the ones the automotive industry got in the recent recovery plan. Loan guarantees would also enable forest companies to take part in research and development programs and at least survive the current financial crisis.

Mr. Chevrette mentioned that the forest industry currently accounts for 825,000 direct jobs in Canada, compared to 500,000 jobs in auto manufacturing. He talked about the forest industry's strategic and economic importance to Canada. But the budget contains no support for the forest industry in Quebec, which is why it is turning to the Government of Quebec for loan guarantees that the industry was hoping the federal government would provide but that have not been forthcoming. As members are aware, the Government of Quebec is not in a very easy economic situation at present.

I would like to talk about the immediate action on the economy that we were expecting from this recovery plan, such as the guaranteed income supplement and employment insurance. With regard to these sorts of measures, if you increase the amounts people are receiving, that money will be invested directly into the economy. People will not be able to take a trip or buy stock in a company with the extra money. This is therefore the best stimulant, especially since the government took so long to introduce a real recovery plan. That would have had a direct, immediate impact on the economy.

The budget has not yet been officially passed. It may be tonight when the bill is passed at third reading and after it goes to the Senate. If only the industry could benefit from certain measures without delay, the stimulus plan would be more effective.

The guaranteed income supplement is one of those measures. Last year, I had the opportunity to introduce a bill to improve the guaranteed income supplement. I should point out that people receiving the supplement because they do not have enough income are now below the low-income threshold, which was once called the poverty line. It is therefore unacceptable for a government not to take advantage of the fact that it has to invest in the economy to give them at least enough income to reach the low-income threshold, particularly since these are people who already need help from the government.

We also asked for automatic enrolment in the guaranteed income supplement program. Once again, the government is playing hide and seek with seniors, who, in many cases, do not know which forms to fill out. In Quebec alone, an estimated 40,000 people who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement are not receiving it because they did not apply.

Throughout Canada, 135,000 people are entitled to it. Last year, the Conservative government said that the program would cost too much. All told, we estimate the cost of implementing the program to be $2 billion, but the government thought that that was too much money.

The government should make the most of this year's stimulus plan. Since it wants to invest, it could invest that money directly and, by the same token, give these people a reasonable income so that they can live with dignity.

The same goes for employment insurance. The government adopted a measure to extend the benefit period by five weeks. The maximum benefit period will increase from 45 to 50 weeks. However, as we have pointed out numerous times, only some 10% of people receiving employment insurance benefits will collect the extra five weeks' worth of benefits. Most of them are resourceful and find new jobs. Also, fewer than half of the people who contribute to employment insurance actually collect benefits. For various reasons, many do not work enough hours. So fewer than 50% collect benefits, and of those, barely 10% reach the end of the benefit period. These are the people the government wants to help with its stimulus plan.

We in the Bloc Québécois had called for the elimination of the waiting period. Under the current employment insurance system, people who lose their jobs have to cover the first two weeks. Doing away with the waiting period would have meant a direct, immediate investment. It would have meant that, as soon as they lost their jobs, people could have counted on a reduced income, but at least some income during what is a critical time for them. Here again, the government is not looking after these people. Despite the need to stimulate the economy, these people are being ignored. The government is not going to suddenly think of these people when times get better.

I wanted to talk about social housing. Quebec alone is estimated to need 52,000 social housing units. I live in Laval, and my riding is in the eastern part of Laval. More than 1,000 people in Laval alone are waiting for social housing, because there is not enough. The current government's position seems to be that families and people in need who cannot find decent housing at market prices should be left to fend for themselves.

Yet the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has a surplus of about $8 billion. We have no idea what this surplus is used for. The Auditor General has said that a $2 billion surplus would be more than enough to respond to an emergency.

My riding has a federal penitentiary, the Saint-Vincent-de-Paul penitentiary. An old part of this institution, the Old Pen, has been unoccupied since 1989. The building has been abandoned since then. It has been shown that the building needs about $1 million in repairs to remain in good condition. I have not yet had a satisfactory answer from the minister about whether the government is going ahead with this project. A conversion project is under consideration, and that project could include social housing. But the government is turning a deaf ear. Here again, even though there is a cost involved, this would have been a perfect opportunity to build social housing.

I would have liked to talk about pay equity, which was mentioned earlier. That has been a real scandal. The dynamic men and women in my riding are very concerned about this issue. To them, pay equity is a right, not something they have to negotiate. It is truly unfortunate that the government is proceeding in this way and forgetting all about the current pay equity provisions of legislation. Not only is the government not meeting Quebec's needs, but it is also penalizing Quebec by changing the equalization formula, which will cost Quebec $1 billion.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Québec, the environment; the hon. member for Richmond Hill, the environment; the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, Air Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech in which he made his opposition clear. I would also like to point out that we are currently asking for money. I am responsible for the social housing file, and there is most likely a possibility that non-residential buildings will be converted into residential units.

I would like him to tell us to what point, in his riding, this project would answer the needs of those who are not necessarily the poorest of the poor, but who have modest incomes. I would like him to talk about that project.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I did not know about the project he mentioned. However, it is clear that we need many social and affordable housing projects. Currently, low-income families with two, three or four children cannot find housing at an affordable price. Any projects that can help these people would be appreciated.

There is a need in my riding. That is why I was questioning the government about a building it owns. It is the government's responsibility to convert it into housing units for the public.

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

Mr. Speaker, given that the Prime Minister nearly lost his government in December and we would think that he would not want to antagonize the opposition, especially not the Liberals, why does the member think he would add on all these measures that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget? Why would he want to do that if he is hoping for their support to continue his government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. NDP colleague for his question. Clearly, it would be overly optimistic to hope that any adjustments or amendments might be made, considering the current Liberal-Conservative coalition. The Liberals are supporting this budget, which offers nothing worthwhile.

I deplore that. I am particularly concerned that the 10 Conservative members and the 14 Liberals members from Quebec are supporting this budget, which does nothing to help their own region, Quebec.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Alfred-Pellan for his excellent speech and his valuable contribution to the Standing Committee on Finance.

He did not have the opportunity to address the question of equalization and the fact that, in this budget the government is reneging on its own commitment to the provinces. For Quebec, this means a shortfall of about $1 billion. Can he share his thoughts on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Chambly—Borduas for his question. Indeed, I ran out of time and was not able to talk about equalization. In addition to failing to introduce effective economic stimulus measures, the government will undermine the effectiveness and integrity of Quebec by its frankly unilateral changes to equalization payments, despite a unanimous motion by the Quebec National Assembly calling on the government not to change the formula for calculating equalization without allowing some time to discuss it and explore other solutions. The federal government simply decided to deprive Quebec of $1 billion in the next budget. This will automatically lead to a deficit in Quebec, since the provincial government was counting on that money. That is what is appalling.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada decided that revenues from electricity distribution in Ontario by Hydro One would be considered corporate revenue and would therefore not be factored into the equalization calculation, although the same calculation method does not apply to Hydro-Québec. Quebec will lose another $250 million in equalization because of this decision, which is unfair to Quebec.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

It is difficult to know where to start when it comes to Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill. This budget contains so many items that are not in the interest of major groups in society, and that penalize Quebec in particular, that it is hard to know where to start. I will first look at an issue raised previously by other colleagues, the treatment of women.

With this government we had become accustomed to policies with misogynist undertones. In the previous budget, cuts were made to programs that supported women's organizations, especially women's centres that provide support to organizations in every region of the country. There used to be 16 such centres; only four remain and they are barely surviving because they are forced to find money wherever they can. Nonetheless, over the years, our society acquired these tools thanks to the struggle—especially by women, unions, and workers' and grassroots movements—to give rights to women in our society.

Despite our reactions here in the House of Commons, the government has gone ahead with this measure. To our great surprise, this budget contains an attack against women once again. This is inexplicable and has nothing to do with kick-starting the economy. Women will no longer be able to go before the courts to have their right to pay equity within the public service recognized. It is unbelievable. What is even more unbelievable is that the Liberals will be supporting it. It is beyond comprehension, even more so because they say they oppose this measure. Under the pretext of not triggering an election, they are prepared to stoop this low and take us back to the 1940s. It makes no sense.

What is even more despicable is the clause saying that if a union dares to file a complaint before the courts, that union could be fined up to $50,000. Where is the logic in that? We tell women that not only can they not go to the courts, but that the organization that is normally there to support them and ensure that their rights are recognized will be penalized if it dares to do so. They are saying that we need to trust free collective bargaining, but if the employer refuses, where does that leave us? What is more, they are saying that if the employer does not agree with the union, if there is a disagreement and they want help and want to take a complaint before the courts, the employer will also be penalized and could face a $10,000 fine. Why should one pay $50,000 and the other $10,000? We have to find the answer. We do not know the answer, but we are faced with an illogical argument that does not hold water.

There are, of course, some embellishments around these measures to try and make us forget them. There are accessories and buffers. That is the main gist of it, however. And it is nonsensical. It is something that we cannot agree with and something that we must object to. We thought that there would be objections from the Liberals as well as the NDP and ourselves. But the Liberals just making a symbolic last stand. They say they disagree with it, but they are in a bit of a bind, because otherwise they will have to go through another election. What better than an election for having debates about our society? This is a topic for a real societal debate.

Have we, in 2009, not reached the point where we must stand up for recognition of the rights of just over 50% of the population of our society, that is, the rights of women?

I wanted to start by addressing this element. It alone ought to be sufficient grounds for rejecting this budget. There are many other measures, for example, that affect Quebec.

There are such anti-Quebec measures as the matter of equalization. Other provinces are also affected. The government has reneged on its commitment regarding the distribution of equalization. That means a $1 billion shortfall for Quebec.

Then there is the centralized securities commission. The government is going to say that Quebec can continue to have its own. But we know very well that, as soon as there is a centralized body and financial institutions or companies have the choice of registering with one or the other, there is always pressure created where the most transactions take place. This is also called the passport system. We know that in the long run, the Quebec body will be undermined. That is, moreover, the reason the Quebec National Assembly unanimously condemned this measure. The premier of Quebec backed down a bit afterward, but there was nevertheless a motion against this measure. It is the duty of the premier of Quebec to come and defend it here, along with his finance minister.

What does this budget have to offer society's most vulnerable? Sure, it has some measures, some tax deductions, but they actually benefit high income earners. These deductions will benefit high income earners more than anyone else.

For the unemployed, this budget is a disaster. That alone should prompt us to vote against it. Like us, the Liberals said that the government should improve access to employment insurance. We agree with that. They even made that one of their election promises. They debated it, and it was part of the platform when they created the coalition with the NDP, a coalition that we supported. They also talked about measures for women. This budget does nothing to improve access to employment insurance. Even so, they plan to vote for it.

Worse still, this budget contains a provision stating that workers' and employers' contributions must remain at $1.73, their lowest level since 1982. What does that mean? It means that we are giving the government permission to make it impossible to improve the employment insurance system. That makes no sense. The government is going back on yet another promise, betraying the people to whom it promised it would fix the employment insurance system.

According to Human Resources and Social Development, only 46% of those who lose their jobs are eligible for employment insurance benefits. Women, in particular, get the short end of the stick because only 33% of them have access to benefits.

I have just one minute left, so I will wrap up. This budget is a gift when it comes to tax havens. The government is getting rid of any tools it had to prevent excessive use of tax havens. This is party time for tax havens. There are measures to help oil companies and measures to help nuclear development, but no measures to reduce poverty. That is the budget the Liberals are about to support. We refuse to support this budget because it is not in the best interests of Quebec or Canadian society.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the comments by the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas. I find some parts of his speech contradictory. He speaks of the very obvious suffering of Quebeckers and Canadians who are unemployed. He is absolutely right. There is nothing worse than being out of work.

Does he think that the economic issue is an urgent one, and that jobs must be created as quickly as possible? Does he think that public sector money should be spent to lower the unemployment rate? If so, does he not think that we need to be practical right now, and get spending that money in order to raise the employment level? Would he rather have an election, with a potential eight weeks of campaigning, followed by another two months when the House would not sit until there was a throne speech? Does he think we ought to wait until fall to take practical economic measures to fight the recession?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very relevant question. First, we had a useless, or almost useless, election because the Prime Minister ambitiously thought he would get a majority government. In addition, he violated his own law on fixed-date elections. As a result, we have not sat since last June, which is quite outrageous.

This government could have taken action to kick-start the economy without coming before the House and without having an election. When it needed a mandate, all of the elements were there to take action to stimulate the economy. We all know about the government's disastrous attempt in November.

We agree that there have to be measures to create jobs. But what about the people living in regions where there are no jobs? That is the question. Should we abandon them? Is that what our colleague's question is suggesting? I hope not. We have to recognize that in this time of crisis, despite all our efforts, people will remain on the streets because they will not be able to find work. Do they not deserve to be supported, even more so given that the money is right there in the employment insurance fund? Instead of continuing to skim money from the employment insurance fund, the government should be supporting those people who are losing their jobs.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question will be simple and relates to the question asked by the hon. Liberal member for Lac-Saint-Louis. The Liberal Party was offered the chance to solve the crisis through the coalition, but they refused. That was their decision. The party decided to abandon the most vulnerable members of society. The Liberals decided not to govern. They were handed the opportunity on a silver platter. We were not even going to participate in governing; we were going to leave it up to them.

My question is simple. What does my hon. colleague think of the Liberal Party, which has, once again, abandoned the forestry and manufacturing industries in Quebec, as well as Quebec's unemployed workers?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if this is parliamentary, but I think it is when applied to a party.

I think this is an act of cowardice. The courageous thing to do would have been to consider two things. First of all, this side of the House had the majority. Also, the opposition is mandated by the people to prevent the government from deciding whatever it likes. The Liberal Party is allowing it to decide whatever it likes and, more importantly, to implement very ideological measures.

My colleague is quite right. A platform was created based on points that the three opposition parties agreed on and that would have been very beneficial. That is what should have been done. It would have been an act of courage and, more importantly, responsibility and respect for the mandate we are given here.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage my Liberal colleagues to stop and think about what they are about to do if they vote in favour of Bill C-10 this evening. They are handing out a death sentence to pay equity in the country.

Women have fought long and hard for the right to equal pay for work of equal value. By standing in the House and voting in favour of Bill C-10, the Liberals are undermining the aspirations of women for equal pay for work of equal value, throwing away their human rights, disrespecting the contribution women make to our communities and our economy. It is a slap in the face to all women in Canada.

Yesterday afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition told reporters, just outside the chamber, that he was willing to “swallow” the loss of pay equity. This is profoundly disrespectful and unapologetic to a breathtaking degree. Violations of human rights are not something we as Canadians should be willing to just “swallow”.

We are not talking about lofty academic principles here. We are talking about real people, real women who are fighting for equality right now. With the passing of Bill C-10, our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be tarnished and women will be told loud and clear that women's equality means absolutely nothing to the Liberal and Conservative members of the House.

I want to ensure that my colleagues hear the names of the groups of women who will be denied justice if they pass Bill C-10. They are not faceless or nameless. They are women who will be denied justice if we pass Bill C-10 tonight.

The first is file number 20000209 filed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 70396, against the Canadian Museum of Civilization on March 31, 2004. It involves a number of women.

Next are file numbers 2000257, 2000258 and 2000451. Again, the women involved are with the Public Service Alliance of Canada. This complaint is filed against the Treasury Board of Canada and Citizenship and Immigration. It was filed on March 31, 2006.

Next is file 20010822. Again, it is the Public Service Alliance of Canada against Correctional Service Canada. This was filed July 25, 2006.

Next is file 20021375 filed by Local 404 of the Professional Employees Union against Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It was filed on March 27, 2006.

Next is the Canadian Association of Correctional Supervisors against Correctional Service Canada. It is an employee complaint filed July 6, 2006.

Next is the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, Local 404, against Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It was filed March 7, 2007

File H30055 by Cathy Murphy against the Treasury Board was filed June 21, 1984.

I have a list of a number of complaints, as everyone can see.

File number 2000209 involves the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 70396, against the Canadian Museum of Civilization. This complaint was filed December 22, 2003, a very long time ago. This group is waiting for justice with regard to pay equity because the Government of Canada keeps appealing the decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal.

Conservatives say they care about women. They say that they want to propel these cases to a decision and not be entangled in the court, but they keep going back to the courts and appealing every chance that they get in order to stop what women are entitled to, and that is their pay equity settlements.

File No. XOO180, on behalf of Chris Jones, a real woman, was filed against the Government of the Northwest Territories on June 10, 1993.

COPEU, another union representing a number of women, filed against Atomic Energy of Canada on March 30, 2007, only two years ago, but two long years of waiting and fighting against government trying to get justice. This is justice denied.

I have a number of complaints from the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

File No. 20000257 was filed against the Treasury Board of Canada on March 31, 2006.

I will only address some of the complaints. I have at least 35 pages and all of these are complaints against various agencies of government.

The next file is No. 20050721, Arlene Abrey, against Social Development Canada, filed on November 28, 2005. Arlene also filed against the Treasury Board of Canada and the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada, again on November 28, 2005.

I will move through a few other cases.

Gloria Allan filed against Social Development Canada on May 3, 2006.

Cindee Andrusiak filed against the Social Development Canada in November, 2005. Cindee Adrusiak also filed against Treasury Board and PSHR.

Elizabeth Antony filed a complaint in November 2005 against Social Development Canada and the Treasury Board.

These last few, Arlene, Gloria, Cindee and Elizabeth are all nurses and they do important work. Unfortunately, and it is painfully clear to me and I would guess to the women of Canada, their contribution as experts and vital contributors at the Museum of Civilization, Treasury Board, Citizenship and Immigration, Corrections Canada, Atomic Energy means nothing to the Conservative government, nor the Liberal government before it. Neither does the work of hundreds of women who are nurses matter.

In the eyes of the government, or the previous government, they do not have the right to equal pay for pay of equal value. That is why both parties are supporting Bill C-10. It is a travesty perpetrated against the nurses who work for Social Development Canada Human Resources. In short, it is a travesty against the people of Canada.

For years, the government has constantly appealed these pay equity complaints. For years, justice was delayed. This evening justice will be denied.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about a true travesty. The member brings up travesty, but the real travesty here today is the NDP. Those members do not care about Canadian workers. They mean nothing to them. I listened to the member's speech and it was all fearmongering, all against the budget. Members of the NDP decided to vote against the budget before they even saw it.

I come from Oshawa. Oshawa has been hit hard by this economic downturn. In this budget we have an improvement to the EI system. We have increased benefits. We have increased work sharing benefits. Oshawa needs that right now. We have money that will flow through this budget for the auto sector and we need it now.

What does the NDP want to do? It wants to obstruct and stop the passing of the budget.

There is money for our university, our infrastructure and our research, but the NDP says no. Its members are obstructing. We need that money now. There is money for our recreational facilities. This stimulus needs to go through right away. Every time the members of the NDP have a chance to vote for our workers, they vote against it.

Will the member stand today and ask her leader to pass the budget with unanimous consent?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know how removing human rights for women is going to help a single auto worker in Oshawa.

I would like to remind the member that New Democrats stood in the House month after month and year after year asking the government and the previous government to adopt economic policies that would help workers through a green job strategy that would address the needs of the auto and construction sectors while still protecting our environment. The response we got from this bunch and the previous bunch was that they were not interested. They made it crystal clear that they were interested in nothing but their own power.

If they want to talk about obstructionist behaviour, I would like to talk about prorogation. The Conservative government had an absolutely perfect opportunity in October and November to come back to the House with something constructive that would address the needs of Canadians in this economic downturn. What did the Conservatives come in here with? They came with a throne speech that was vacuous and an economic update that was insulting, one that took away labour rights, took away women's rights and proposed to sell off assets. Then they prorogued the House because they could not get their way. They had a temper tantrum and we called them on it, so they ran out of this place. They had months, Madam Speaker, and they did nothing.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member for London—Fanshawe. The other day I pointed out that Bill C-10 was 527 or 528 pages. She categorically gave us a list of individuals, and I respect that. Then she talked about a death sentence for pay equity.

First of all, we Liberals are very respectful of that issue and have been in the past. However, I want to ask her this simple question: is she telling me that she is going to deny my constituents or people who live in the greater city of Toronto the money they need to repair their roads and sewers? The budget is a multi-faceted bill. Unfortunately, there are areas in there that we find disagreement with. I want to ask her to stop touching on these hot-button issues and move forward.

She can go ahead and laugh. How can you sleep at night? It is because of the NDP and their betrayal to Canadians that the party is where it is today. We have to work with it. Unfortunately, you know very well--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order. I would like to remind the member to address himself to the Chair.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe has about 37 seconds to respond.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would again question how on earth taking away women's fundamental human rights is going to fix a single street or help a single community. The basic truth is that this party, which is so full of bombast and self-righteousness, has a choice today. They have a choice to stand up for principles, for women and for the unemployed, and they are going to pass it up because they apparently do not have the principles that they espouse.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when we were dealing with this matter at report stage yesterday, I said it was a minute to midnight. We had an opportunity yesterday to stop this elimination of basic human rights for the women of this country, but the Liberals refused to do what was right. They refused to stand up for their principles and vote with us on those amendments to separate out the pay equity provisions of Bill C-10, the budget implementation act.

Today we are hearing that all we are doing is talking about and focusing on some hot-button issues that are really small and insignificant. We are hearing that we should just put them aside and deal with the bigger issues. I cannot think of a bigger or more important issue than the elimination of fundamental human rights in this country. That is what is happening today.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, for the benefit of Canadians, I respectfully ask the member for Winnipeg North to withdraw her comments. I never even used those words. They are putting words in people's mouths, and she should be ashamed of doing that and misrepresenting Canadians. I ask her to withdraw those words.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I did not hear the comments the hon. member is referring to, but I would ask all members to be judicious in the way they speak to each other.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Obviously the truth hurts.

What the Liberals are doing, propping up the Conservatives and in the process eliminating pay equity in this country, is a shame. I will stand in this House every minute of every hour to say shame on the Liberals and shame on the Conservatives for allowing the death of pay equity today. That is what will happen unless those Liberals clue in to what is really at stake here. This is not a side issue. This is not a hot-button issue. This a fundamental human right.

The member for Oshawa can stand all he wants and pretend that we are blowing things out of proportion and that it is really not the case. Well, when it comes to pay equity, he just has to listen to every expert in this country and every organization that deals with human rights to know that what his government is doing and what his Prime Minister has set out to do and is accomplishing today is to kill a fundamental human right, the right to be able to take a complaint or a concern about whether a woman is receiving equal pay for work of equal value to a higher body to ensure that she is able to obtain justice. That is a fundamental issue in this country.

I do not understand the Liberals. It is what Pierre Trudeau fought for years ago. Civil liberties and the charter are at the heart of everything we stand for in this place. I cannot understand how any Liberal can sit there today and smirk and try to suggest that this is a hot-button issue when we are dealing with something so basic, so fundamental. This is the darkest day I have yet experienced in the 20 years I have been in elected political life. I cannot understand how anybody can sit here and not stand and say that we will not let this happen.

In fact, the Liberals could have done so. They said they could not because this section of the budget implementation bill was deemed to be a matter of confidence by the Conservatives, and they had made this foolish commitment to prop up the Conservatives no matter what.

When they realized what the Conservatives were really doing and how they had trapped them and cornered them into supporting a budget that was not only far from adequate in terms of the question of dealing with the recession but was also filled with all kinds of poison pills, such as the destruction of pay equity, the elimination of environmental assessments when it comes to navigable waters, and more, the Liberals should have realized what was happening to them and found a way around it.

In fact, I dare say that if the Liberals had stood up to the Conservatives and said that they wanted to see this section on pay equity removed from the budget bill, set aside, and dealt with separately, the Conservatives would never have come back and said that it was all confidence and that if the Liberals didn't like it, they were going to go to the polls and to the Canadian people on a platform of eliminating pay equity. I do not think so.

I think the Liberals just lack the guts and the gumption and the courage to stand up for their principles, as has been the case for Liberals over the last 20 to 30 years that I have been around.

I may get very heated in these debates. I may express some very emotional feelings, but that is what is at stake here. This is not just a fly-by-night issue. This is not just some sideline. This is not a frivolous matter. This is not a soft social policy issue. This is fundamental justice. This is human rights. This is pay equity.

This is something we fought for in this country and achieved more than 30 years ago. In 1977, the women's movement had documented systemic discrimination in this country and had clearly shown that the only way to deal with that discrimination and to eliminate pink-job ghettos was to move toward a concept of equal pay for work of equal value. We could compare jobs dominated by men and jobs dominated by women and find a way to balance the equation.

It is a simple concept.

What do the Conservatives want? They want to take us back to the 1950s, when equal pay for equal work was the dominant way, the only way, that people compared men's and women's jobs and dealt with the wage gap.

When I started off working in this area 30 years ago, the wage gap at that time was that a woman made about 55¢ for every dollar a man made. As a result of work in this country on equal pay for work of equal value, we have been able to get that up to about 70¢.

In a province like Manitoba, which has a pervasive program of equal pay for work of equal value, we are well above 90 cents for every dollar that a man makes. We can see what a difference it makes.

We are talking about economic security for women. We are talking about bread-and-butter issues. We are talking about the ability of women to be paid what they are worth so that they can contribute to the economy, can actually ensure that their families are cared for, and can grow the economy and be a part of it. That is what we are talking about.

This is not some airy-fairy academic issue that has no bearing on real life. It is bread and butter. It is about the right of women to earn what they are worth. For the government to take this away is an absolute abomination. It makes no sense. The way it is turning the clock back to the 1950s is absolutely deplorable. I presume this fits with its ideological agenda, along with the Prime Minister who called pay equity a rip-off, who called this a stupid idea that should be gotten rid of.

The Conservatives over there, especially the President of the Treasury Board, stand up and try to tell me that what they are doing is much better and that they are going to make this happen for women.

How does that explain the nurses in the federal system, who just won their case before the Canadian Human Rights Commission? They would not have won if we did not have that provision. How is it that justice will be served if there is no avenue at all for women to pursue their rights under the charter, a fundamental right that I thought we all believed in?

Maybe we really are dealing with a group of Conservatives who, along with Tom Flanagan, believe pay equity really is one of those bad ideas that has to be gotten rid of, as he said, along with “big hair and polyester leisure suits and Petro-Canada”. Is that what these Conservatives believe? Is that why they are doing it?

I can think of no other reason, because it is not a cost savings. In fact, because they are breaching a fundamental right in society today, there will be challenge. There will be a challenge by women. There has to be one, to try to regain a right that has been taken away. It will cost the government millions of dollars to try to combat that challenge.

In the end the women will win. We will regain what has been taken away from us today, not because of the Liberals, not because we waited patiently for them to come to their senses, but because the women of this country will withstand this attack on their fundamental rights and freedoms and will decide to fight back.

We are not going to give up for one second. All my colleagues in this caucus, including our critic for the status of women who just spoke so eloquently, and all my other colleagues who believe passionately in this as a fundamental principle, will not sit idly by. My colleague, our finance critic, has spoken out on this issue in committee and in the House.

We will work together until we achieve that day when women once again will be treated with respect and dignity and will have access to the law for all their just rewards and their rights. We will ensure that pay equity and true equality reign supreme in Canada once again.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the question on the previous question is deemed put and the recorded division is deemed to have been demanded.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #23

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

The next question is on the motion that Bill C-10 be read a third time and passed.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it you will find agreement to apply the vote on the previous motion to the motion now before the House with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

There is no consent.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #24

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)