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.

The Environment

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the changes made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act are unacceptable.

The Conservatives want to prevent people who hunt and fish from freely accessing Canada's natural resources. That is an acquired right that dates back to Confederation. The NDP proposed an amendment to remove that measure from Bill C-10. Unfortunately, the Liberals agree with the Conservatives on this issue.

Why should people who hunt and fish be deprived of those activities, which are already carefully monitored and regulated?

Employment Insurance

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Prime Minister again whether he is prepared to instruct the Conservative senators to vote speedy passage of Bill C-10 so that enhanced EI will be available?

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Senate hearings discovered that eligibility for EI benefits was backdated two weeks prior to royal assent of the budget. This morning Liberal senators unanimously agreed to vote immediate passage of the budget. That way Canadians will be eligible for the help they need as early as March 1.

Will the Prime Minister instruct his Conservative senators to do the same so that Bill C-10 can get royal assent and Canadians in need of enhanced EI get the help they need right now?

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with a short comment to correct the record. Earlier, the hon. member for Crowfoot said that the NDP moved this motion to somehow delay other debates. In fact, we are not opposing debate in the House, we are generating debate. We delayed moving concurrence in this report while the House was addressing Bill C-10. We were very responsible. However, this is a particularly important issue.

I listened to the hon. member for Calgary East go on about terrorists. The type of discussion that is happening here leads one to wonder how many members of the government have decided that Omar Khadr is in fact guilty.

I want to thank the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard for his intervention. The critical importance of this debate is the fact that we are shining light on a turn the government has made, which seemingly puts the government in the position of making decisions around guilt or innocence.

We have heard from Bloc members and others talk about the case in Colorado of Mr. Smith, who was sentenced to death, and the government chose not to intervene. There is something very wrong happening in our country.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to address an issue I raised in the House that is actually turning out to be one of the most critical issues facing the life of this Parliament and facing the pursuit of equality in this country for many decades.

It will come as no surprise to many members that I rise again in the House on the issue of pay equity because it was on March 4, just last week, as a result of legislation presented to this chamber by the Conservatives and supported by the Liberals. that saw the death of pay equity in this country.

It is now up to the Senate to try to reverse the damage that has been done. I hope somehow that the folks in the Senate will see the wisdom of reversing the decision around pay equity and return to the women of this country their right to pursue equal pay for work of equal value through the courts.

I have the following questions today for the parliamentary secretary. Why kill something that is so important to the economic situation facing women in this country? Why cause a national embarrassment, which has been the case now with the Public Service Alliance of Canada raising a complaint with the United Nations? Why do something that will cost the government even more, because, if the Senate does not reverse the damage done, the women and the labour movement in this country will not stop? We will join them in helping them pursue a court challenge, which will cost the government incredible amounts of money.

I want to tell the House about the kind of correspondence we have received from individuals on this issue. I want to refer to Paul Durber, the former director of pay equity for the Government of Canada, who said, “I read part II of Bill C-10 with interest and great disappointment. Not only does it do away with pay equity, it even deprives people in the public service with pay equity of the right to have it maintained. The whole thing, quite frankly, is a smokescreen to mask the taking away of any obligation to compare the work of men and women”.

I want to reference the good work of Ruth Walden. She was part of a group of nurses called Medical Adjudicators who took their complaint for lack of equal pay for work of equal value to the Human Rights Commission beginning in 2004 and finally won that case just last year. If that case today were put to the government on a complaint basis it is likely it would be turned down and rejected because of Bill C-10.

Finally, I want to refer to Jennifer Meunier, a young woman who wrote to me and said:

You are not alone in fighting this. I may young but I am old enough to know that women have died fighting to protect our rights as equal citizens in this country. I certainly will not stand by the wayside and watch a lifetime of many women's hard work go to waste with the stroke of a pen.

I am here to tell Jennifer and others that we will not stop fighting this battle on winning equality.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You undoubtedly know that this committee used to meeting people like you. I am not officially a member of this committee, but I was a year or a year and a half ago, when we had to deal with a rather difficult situation. We understood the extent to which the rights of official language minority groups all across Canada were being undermined in terms of the Court Challenges Program. From this side of the table, it made us very critical of the government's agenda. We are looking to the future. That could be why we asked you to quantify all this, to the extent possible. Mr. Charbonneau, I understand your answer regarding the relationship between the federal government and the provincial governments.

My question is for Mr. Charbonneau and Mr. Pelletier. You have programs underway and you certainly intend to continue those programs and improve them if possible, first. Second, Mr. Pelletier, you have a protocol that the provinces and the federal government have to write and sign in the very near future. What are you hoping for? What are you asking the federal government for? Given what you understand or see from the federal government's response to other groups, how do you foresee the chances of continuing and improving your programs?

I would just like to add a little aside, even if it does take more of my time. In Bill C-10, we saw the extent to which things in the Conservative government's budget will slash programs and agreements among groups. I am talking in particular about the agreements the government has signed with the unions, for example the Public Service Alliance of Canada. How do you foresee your talks with the government going? Be as concrete as possible so that we on this side of the table can do something, if it is necessary, in a timely manner.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let us be clear that our Conservative government is protecting transfer support during these challenging economic times.

We all recall that the old Liberal government shamelessly slashed transfer payments to provinces and territories to balance their books, forcing hospitals and universities to suffer. Our Conservative government will never do that. We will ensure provinces and territories have the long-term growing support required to provide the vital health care, educational and other transfers for the social services families need.

Despite what the member suggests, there have been no cuts to Canada's health transfer. In fact, federal support for health care is at an all-time time. Indeed, in 2009-10 the Canada health transfer will rise by $1.4 billion, reaching $24 billion. What is more, that support will continue to grow at 6% annually, reaching over $30 billion in 2013-14. We are not making any cuts to this historic level of that funding, nor will we change the legislated growth path of the health transfer.

However, we are responding to a shift in the economic circumstances of some provinces, most notably in Ontario, a shift that has resulted in unfair treatment of health transfers. In budget 2009, we set out the principles that will ensure fundamental fairness of health transfers, helping facilitate the move to equal per capita cash in 2014-15.

We recognize the need for provinces to have time to adjust to this new allocation formula. We also acknowledge the provinces' desire for more consultation on how to best move forward to meet health care needs for all Canadians while maintaining fairness in the transfer program.

That is why we decided on a transitional approach to implementing the equal per capita principle. Bill C-10, the budget implementation act, will ensure fair treatment for Ontario with respect to health transfers. Without this change, Ontario would not receive its fair share of health transfers. For 2009-10 and 2010-11, fairness for Ontario will be achieved through a separate payment. This will have no impact on Canada health transfer cash for any other province.

Again, no province will see a decline in their health transfers over 2008-09 levels as a result of this change. In fact, Manitoba will receive $903 million from the Canada health transfer in 2009-10, $43 million more in 2008-09. Rest assured that provinces like Manitoba can continue to count on long-term growing support from our Conservative government during these challenging economic times.

If the member for Winnipeg North will not take my word for it, she should contact her NDP provincial cousin, the NDP finance minister for Manitoba, Greg Selinger. He said, “The federal budget is good for the province and will stimulate the slowing economy. The budget had something in it for everyone, from consumers to businesses”.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We need to clear up some confusion. As I see it, there are two issues confronting us, the first being a study of organized crime. As I understand it, once we have initiated our study on organized crime, the committee will take a full week to travel to all of the cities on the list. I don't have a problem with that. We're all mindful of the fact that Bill C-14, must be passed quickly. I remind you that the bill has not yet been referred to this committee. I am prepared to move quickly. Liberal colleagues have suggested to the House Leader that only one person be permitted to speak to the bill at second and third reading, so that we move forward quickly. We won't consent to that, because this bill provide for serious penalties for offenders. However, we are prepared to move quickly on this bill.

If, Mr. Chair, you have information to the effect that the bill is about to be referred to us this week, then I suggest we set aside the issue of organized crime—the focus of the proposed study—and get down to business right away. I think it's realistic to think that we can report back to the House in a week. Bill C-14 is a priority because of what is happening and, contrary to what Mr. Petit said, with all due respect, Montreal is not Vancouver. The two cities are not interchangeable. First, we need to know when the government intends to refer the proposed legislation to us. We've been waiting since last week and we still haven't seen the bill. The House Leader's office told us that the priority was Bill C-10. As it happens, that bill has been adopted. When the steering committee meets tomorrow, Mr. Chair, if you inform us that you have spoken to the minister or to the parliamentary secretary and we can expect the bill to be referred to us on Wednesday, then I'm prepared to make this our priority. We could begin examining the legislation as early as Thursday and new week, hold several meetings and then pass the bill. However, we cannot do two parallel studies. The two bills should be examined separately and our priority must be Bill C-14. Bill C-15 is something entirely different. But if that is what the committee wants, the Bloc Québécois will cooperate to ensure that we move quickly to study Bill C-14. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us when the House will refer the bill to committee? This hasn't yet happened.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a couple of questions.

There is an interesting opportunity for us to have a true national shipbuilding strategy. In my riding of Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, we have outstanding men and women who work on shipbuilding.

The questions I have are these.

First, a section of Bill C-10 tore up an arbitrated agreement that our shipworkers had. This agreement actually eliminates the arbitrated wage settlement for which they have been waiting for a long time. Will the hon. member bring this matter to the attention of the minister and ask his government to reinstate that agreement? It is the right and fair thing to do for the shipworkers who work in our government shipbuilding and ship repair yards.

Second, will he support a national shipbuilding strategy and the movement of the import tax that we have when we buy ships abroad so that the import tax would go into a dedicated fund, matched by the private sector, that could be used for infrastructure for our shipbuilders?

Opposition Motion -- Employment Insurance

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked a very timely question, considering we are approaching International Women's Day and should be celebrating the gains women have made.

Yesterday we saw the clock literally being turned back with the passage of Bill C-10 and the budget. The hard won gains that women have made over many decades for pay equity, for the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, have now been completely sabotaged by the government.

The member is correct. We know a woman earns about 70¢ to each $1 earned by a man. We know women's wages are lower. If they qualify for EI, and that is a big if in the first place, their benefit rates are lower too. They face barriers on two levels.

This is so patently unfair. All members of the House should feel a sense of outrage that this has been allowed to happen. We should support the motion to redress the wrongs that have taken place. We are talking about basic living standards. People are being denied a basic quality of life because of the terrible decisions that have been made around our EI system in the past decade.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague from Hamilton Mountain on proposing this motion this morning.

The debate we are holding today could be called “the dignity or deceit debate”. Allow me to explain. When I refer to dignity, I am talking about the dignity we need to give the unemployed, who did not choose to lose their jobs. When I refer to deceit, I am talking about how, since the early 1990s, the unemployed have been robbed of the tool the government created to support people who lose their jobs: the employment insurance fund.

The employment insurance fund used to be called the unemployment fund. The unemployment insurance program paid benefits to people who lost their jobs. That program was changed and given a new look. We did not want that change. Two successive federal governments changed that concept, in order to use the program in a different way.

As I said, the employment insurance fund is the only tool the unemployed have. Workers and their employers are the only contributors to this fund, which will help workers if they are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs. That is why the EI fund is also known as an insurance policy. I will not go on too long about this. I just wanted to remind this House about the nature of this tool.

This tool is structured to cover unforeseen circumstances. The unemployment rate is sometimes very high. Depending on the region, it has sometimes fluctuated between 8% and 9%, and it has reached 18% in some areas. There are even places where it has climbed to over 20%. Every time, the fund has fulfilled its commitments to the unemployed. Today, contributions are $1.73 per $100, but they have been as high as $3.20 per $100. When unemployment was higher, contributions automatically increased. Sometimes, the government came to the rescue for brief periods when contributions were not enough to cover benefits. But each time, the fund paid the government back.

In the mid 1980s, the Auditor General said that it might be a good idea to move the fund to the national budget, so it could be administered along with it. The accounting of it has, however, always been separate in order to meet obligations. The recommendation was made in 1985-86. In 1988 or 1989, the government accepted the recommendation.

Things became complicated when Canada found itself with an exponentially growing debt. When the Conservatives arrived on the scene, I think the Canadian government debt amounted to $93 billion. While the Conservatives were in office, they drove the debt to a little over $500 billion. Shortly before, Mr. Trudeau and his government had also contributed significantly to increasing the country's debt. This lack of concern over controlling the debt gave rise to public pressure, and the government had to do something.

Instead of looking for new sources of funding, however, the government dipped into a source not intended for the purpose. Beginning in the 1990s, the Conservatives began dipping into the fund. Subsequently, the Liberals made substantial use of it to the point that, by 1997, the fund had generated a surplus of $7 billion. Incredible.

And how did the fund generate a surplus of over $7 billion? The Liberals limited the conditions of eligibility so that accessibility to the plan, which was capable of providing benefits to 88% of people who had lost their job, was limited to 40% of the unemployed. According to the human resources department, the figure now is 46%.

This spells disaster for people who lose their job, their family, the regions and the provinces concerned, such as Quebec. The approach is totally disgraceful. The government paid off the debt little by little by appallingly taxing people who lost their job. They were denied a source of income that would provide a living for them, to the tune, today, of $57 billion. This is money taken from the employment insurance fund.

That is unacceptable. I find it hard to understand how the two major national parties are so comfortable with this situation. Not only are they comfortable with it, but they created it, are perpetuating it and continue to defend it. It is a huge swindle.

In legal terms, the Supreme Court ruled on it and said that, technically, the government was entitled to do what it was doing, because it had the power to collect taxes in different ways. This is one approach. Technically, the Supreme Court said it could. Ethically and in terms of its justice, however, should we tolerate this situation and allow it to continue—justice being our first concern—or should we not change tack today and correct the situation?

The deceit continues. Yesterday's vote on Bill C-10 will not correct the situation. With this budget, the two major parties have given the government the green light to keep contributions to employment insurance at their lowest level since 1982. What does that mean. It means that the government is putting a lock on any possibility of improving the employment insurance plan. Things are now twice as difficult.

We listened to our Liberal friends this morning. I am pleased with what they said but I am not pleased about what they did yesterday. It makes us skeptical about their discourse. Are they aware that what they are saying today cannot be taken to its logical conclusion without turning around and authorizing increases in contributions to keep step with needs, especially in an economic downturn such as the one we are experiencing now.

That would be quite in step with the recommendations made by groups concerned. These groups are the employers who also contribute to the fund, and the unemployed or the unions. We have to improve the employment insurance system and improve its accessibility.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, in a December 2004 report completed in February 2005, made 28 recommendations, including the measures proposed in this morning's motion. Thus, both governments, the previous Liberal government and then the Conservative government, did not follow through. They found all manner of subterfuges to not follow through. That is also a form of deceit. There is no getting around it. It is a serious economic crime.

Every riding is out an average of $30 million annually. Not only does this impoverish the unemployed, it impoverishes their families, the regions, the provinces and, as I was saying earlier, Quebec. In the end, people contributed to an employment insurance fund in order to have an income if they had the misfortune of losing their job. But they do not get their money because Ottawa is holding it back. Thus, the province has to step in and support these people who do not have an income. At that point, welfare kicks in. The same people pay twice for a service provided by their province even though the latter should not have that responsibility. But it is forced to assume it because the federal government has sloughed it off. And the fiscal imbalance increases even further.

Thus, responsibility rests with the two major parties, as I mentioned earlier.

I will begin the second part of my speech by referring to something which most of our mothers have probably told us. In any case, it is something that my mother often said to me: “My boy, if you are not able to keep your word, if you are not able to honour your signature, if you dishonour your family, then of course you dishonour yourself”. In this Parliament, there are parties that have not honoured their commitments, not kept their word, and not honoured their signature.

I will give two examples. Let us take the Liberal Party. During the election campaign, it made a formal commitment, hand on heart, to help to ensure that this Parliament adopts measures to make employment insurance more accessible and to eliminate the waiting period—a formal commitment. In a joint platform signed by the three opposition parties on December 1, 2008—three months ago—the Liberal Party undertook to ensure that the program for older worker adjustment, POWA, was restored, that the waiting period was eliminated, and that the employment insurance fund would henceforth be used only to assist unemployed persons. This was barely three months ago. The Liberal Party’s vote yesterday on Bill C-10 is flatly contrary to that—three months later. Therefore that party has not kept its word, not honoured its signature.

As a result, the other opposition parties are very much afraid that they will be unable to depend on the word and the signature of the Liberal Party. Under the circumstances, given that this motion expresses an opinion to the government, that it is not binding on the government and does not create any constraints, we are very skeptical that the Liberal Party will again honour to the end its signature and its commitment.

It is very important to continue this debate and to continue to focus on the behaviour of the Liberal Party, to make sure that it understands that the three opposition parties form the majority and that they have a mandate from the population to see to it that the Conservatives do not act as if they were the majority and do not continue to implement their ideological decisions and programs. That should be the framework of the Liberals at this time. We have a responsibility. The mandate the people have given the majority opposition is to keep an eye on the government and ensure that the programs proposed are actually carried out. That is why we were elected.

In December, the coalition’s platform was created on the basis of these programs. The opposition parties looked in their programs for points in common, constituting a platform which would gradually take us out of the economic crisis. The objective was to kick-start the economy, so that in four years we might again have a balanced budget with a deficit of $23 to $27 billion during this period, with a very specific program.

There is something here that does not respect electors' wishes. The Liberals’ behaviour denies us the mandate we have been given. This I stress very strongly—more so than the content of the employment insurance program. For it will determine the way things turn out. If the Liberals are not going to honour their commitment to the end, we will never be able to rectify the employment insurance program. This injustice must be corrected.

This injustice can be corrected, formally, by voting for two bills, among others, which the Bloc Québécois has already introduced. That is why we are pleased that the NDP is joining us on this platform. I refer to Bill C-241 introduced by my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, which concerns the elimination of the waiting period and which, incidentally, does not create enormous costs since these are only administrative expenses and there is no addition to the number of weeks.

We must therefore carry this through to the end and vote in favour of Bill C-241, which is presently in second reading. We must also vote in favour of Bill C-308 which it has been my honour to introduce myself, and which covers all the other elements of today’s motion so as to make the employment insurance system more accessible and improve it in a manner that respects the dignity of unemployed Canadians.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I'm going to continue in the vein of my colleagues. I'm referring to issue paper number 4, “Outreach and Communications”, which you may not have. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but I just want to go over the consultation process that was outlined for us. I have no reason to believe this isn't accurate.

It says that:

...it was recognized that there was a need to modernize the Indian Oil and Gas Act and Regulations. This decision was based on informal discussions that began in 1998 with the Co-management Board of Indian Oil and Gas Canada to ensure that Canada had a modern regulatory regime—

—and so on.

In mid-2000 a set of “guiding principles” on how the department will reach out to stakeholders was developed by the co-management board and tabled in September 2000 at the annual meeting of the oil and gas producing first nations in Regina. By 2001 discussions on the proposed changes to the act and regulations had been held with tribal chiefs associations in central Alberta as well as with over 50 first nations in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. As a result, first nations overwhelmingly supported the “guiding principles” and the process of modernizing the regime.

There's a lot more detail in here. It goes on to communication with stakeholders:

In 2002 the initiative begun to modernize the Indian Oil and Gas Act was established. A partnership between the department and the Indian Resource Council was formed to focus on the proposed changes.

A stakeholder involvement package was done and there was outreach done. In 2006 the IRC and the minister agreed to resume the work initiated. It went to the Indian Resource Council annual general meeting in 2006. A resolution was passed unanimously providing support to the process relating to the proposed changes. In 2007 it went to the AGM, and so on and so on and so on.

It seems to me that this process began in 1998, so I too am struggling with a process that has been going on for 11 years to suddenly find out, just before we're going into clause-by-clause, that there are proposed amendments. I think you've already talked about that. But we've only had one letter. And that's an option for people who want to communicate with the committee, to provide a written brief. We don't always need witnesses to appear. There has been over a year for people to start signalling their dissatisfaction with the bill and we've had one written brief—aside from Mr. Seymour's, which is a bit different, and I'm going to come to you in a minute—that expressed some concerns.

So I'm concerned that this information has been out here and at the last moment we're getting requests for amendments to the bill. I would urge anybody who's listening and paying attention to the committee, get your information in within the next 48 hours. If you've had concerns, you've obviously had time to work them up.

I want to come to Mr. Seymour for a minute.

I don't disagree at all with what you're presenting. However, there is an “and”. The notion of vertical integration in value-added I think is a very valuable aspect of economic development, capacity-building, business development for first nations. I'm not sure that this bill is where it belongs. It seems to me that part of what you're suggesting could be part of the economic development proposal the government has put forward. Despite the fact that I vehemently disagree with their Bill C-10, they have put forward initiatives in the bill around first nations economic development. My understanding of part of what you're asking for is that it could be integrated into the economic development package that has been proposed. So I'm not clear why it would need to be an amendment in this bill, and maybe you could explain that.

Budget Implementation Act, 2009

[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, 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--

[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.