Bill C-51 (Historical)

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

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

Part 1 implements income tax measures proposed in the Budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 but not included in the Budget Implementation Act, 2009, which received royal assent on March 12, 2009. In particular, it
(a) introduces the Home Renovation Tax Credit;
(b) introduces the First-time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit; and
(c) enhances the tax relief provided by the Working Income Tax Benefit.
In addition, Part 1 extends the existing tax deferral available to farmers in prescribed drought regions to farmers who dispose of breeding livestock because of flood or excessive moisture and sets out the regions prescribed either as eligible flood or drought regions in 2007 to 2009.
Part 2 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for multilateral debt relief and in relation to offshore petroleum resources. It also makes the following amendments:
(a) the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act is amended to implement amendments proposed by the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund;
(b) the Broadcasting Act is amended to extend the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s borrowing limit to $220,000,000;
(c) the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 is amended to clarify the purposes for which payments may be made;
(d) the Canada Pension Plan is amended to
(i) remove the work cessation test in 2012 so that a person may take their retirement pension as early as age 60 without the requirement of a work interruption or earnings reduction,
(ii) increase the general drop-out from 15% to 16% in 2012 allowing a maximum of almost seven and a half years of low or zero earnings to be dropped from the contributory period and to 17% in 2014 allowing a maximum of eight years to be dropped,
(iii) require a person under the age of 65 who receives a retirement pension and continues working to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and thereby create eligibility for a post-retirement benefit,
(iv) permit a person aged 65 to 70 who receives a retirement pension to elect not to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan, and
(v) have the adjustment factors that apply to early or late take-up of retirement pensions fixed by regulation after December 31, 2010 and have the Minister of Finance and the ministers of the included provinces review the adjustment factors and make recommendations as to whether the factors should be changed;
(e) the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act is amended by repealing section 37 and by permitting the approval of regulations made under subsection 53(1) before they are made;
(f) The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act is amended to provide for Crown share adjustment payments to be made in accordance with an agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia;
(g) the Customs Tariff is amended to change the conditions relating to containers temporarily imported under tariff item 9801.10.20 and to add new tariff item 9801.10.30 relating to temporarily imported trailers and semi-trailers;
(h) the Financial Administration Act is amended to require that departments and parent Crown corporations cause quarterly financial reports to be prepared every fiscal quarter and to make them public; and
(i) the Public Service Superannuation Act is amended by adding the name of PPP Canada Inc. to Part I of Schedule I to that Act.
Part 2 also amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and chapter 36 of the Statutes of Canada, 2007 to correct unintended consequences resulting from the inaccurate coordination of two amending Acts.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party will vote against this bill for one very simple reason: we have lost all confidence in this government not only for economic reasons, but also because of its budget and other budget statements.

I would like to take my time to go through the history of the budgetary actions of the government over the last year, which have led, in large measure, the Liberal Party to lose confidence in the government. The reason for this loss of confidence involves three aspects of the budgetary performance of the government: first, incompetence; second, dishonesty; and third, a distinct lack of concern for the most vulnerable in Canadian society.

Let us go back to last November. Do members remember when the Conservatives were still telling everybody that things were just fine, that perhaps we would have a technical recession. They tabled an economic update that contained no help for Canadians and it attacked pay equity for women, rather than providing any stimulative measures for the economy. It was an update the ripped back pay increases for the RCMP, which the government had given it just before the election.

The transport minister reminded us in the House yesterday when he stated, “we were the last ones to deal with this global economic downturn”. He is absolutely right. Last November, most other countries had already passed budgets to give fiscal stimulus to their economies. At that very moment, the government was doing the opposite. It was offering cutbacks in that November economic statement, probably at the moment when the recession was at its most severe. That is grossly incompetent.

The statement is also dishonest. We will recall that the government, at that time, said that we had nothing but surpluses. Not an economist in the land believed that statement, with the possible exception of the Prime Minister. These fictitious surpluses were created partly by cutting government spending at the height of the recession, partly by fictitious non-existent asset sales, which padded the revenue of the government in a manner that was totally against accounting rules. The proof that those asset sales were fraudulent is the fact that in the last budget the government removed them. The government admitted that they should not have been there in the first place.

The November economic statement containing fraudulent surpluses, cuts to government spending at the most inappropriate time, at the depth of a recession, was so bad that it caused three formerly warring parties, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal Party, to unite as one and to threaten to topple the government. It was only for that reason that two months later, in January, the government, under threat of death, was forced to bring in a relatively decent budget.

Had the Conservatives been a majority government, had they not been forced under threat of execution to do this, we would have been left with that November economic statement, with its cuts to government spending at a time of recession. They had no choice. They brought in a budget that was semi-decent, in our opinion. It provided a certain amount of fiscal stimulus through infrastructure and other measures and the Liberal Party supported it. We felt it was in the national interest to get that money out the door as quickly as possible to save or create as many jobs as possible.

However, that budget failed in the execution. We supported it because we wanted to get the money out the door, to save and create jobs. We now know that the money failed to get out the door.

The government uses weasel words like “commitments” or “announcements”, but what really matters is money out the door, people employed, shovels in the ground, construction workers on sites. This is where the government has utterly failed to execute its budget.

Our information from surveys from many mayors across the country is that only 12% of those funds have actually resulted in jobs being saved or created. If only for that reason, we cannot support the government and its budget anymore. We supported it on the condition that it execute it but it failed to execute it and, therefore, has rightly lost the confidence of the official opposition.

Now we come to the third report card, the one the Prime Minister unveiled this past Monday. We were hoping the government would at least provide Canadians with a glimpse of how much of the stimulus money had been spent and how far along infrastructure projects were. Instead, we got nothing. It is not as though the government does not have this information.

This is where I come to the dishonesty and lack of transparency. The infrastructure stimulus fund requires all organizations that receive funding to provide the Conservatives with quarterly reports that outline just how far along their projects are and just how much money they have spent. It is item number 10 in the program's guideline.

The government has all this information at its fingertips and could easily make this information public. However, it is deliberately choosing to hide it. Why would that be? The only plausible conclusion that can be drawn is that it is ashamed of the results. Why else would it have those results in its possession and refuse to give them to Canadians? It must be that it is ashamed of the results. It does not want Canadians to see that after talking about all these billions of dollars in projects, the Government of Canada has barely sent out any actual money.

Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an officer the government is doing its best to destroy, has been told that this information is for Conservative eyes only and that he will not be allowed to have a peek. The saddest part is that this information would not be hard to provide.

Let us consider what is happening south of the border. President Obama also asked each funding recipient to provide similar quarterly reports about how projects are progressing and how much money has been received. The difference in the United States is that on October 15, President Obama will be posting all these reports on recovery.gov so that Americans can actually see how their stimulus plan is working. Canadians will not be so fortunate under their overcontrolling and anti-transparent Prime Minister.

I cannot understand why Americans deserve to get the real facts from their government in terms of money out the door and jobs created and Canadians do not. Are we second-class to the Americans? Is that the view of the government? I do not understand why the government cannot at least provide the same information to Canadians that the U.S. government is providing to Americans.

The message is clear. The Conservatives know full well that they have failed to get the job done and they are simply trying to hide that fact from the very Canadians that they have failed.

The Prime Minister himself summed up that failure when he unveiled the third budget card last week. In his assessment of how well his stimulus package has worked, he said, “Far too many Canadians are still out of work. Too many families are suffering hardship”.

We happen to agree with the Prime Minister on this one. Far too many Canadians are still out of work and far too many families are suffering. The Conservatives have failed to get shovels in the ground, failed to create jobs and failed to protect Canadians, which is why we no longer support this budget.

While it may have had potential in January when we voted for it, the incompetent implementation of the budget is one of the many factors that has caused us to lose confidence in the government.

I will end with one other example of dishonesty. The government has said over and over again that it will not raise taxes in its quest to balance the budget some years from now. Do the members on the opposite side not understand that an employment insurance premium is a payroll tax? I used to teach economics 100 and the dullest student would grasp that point after about one week in class. An employment insurance premium is a payroll tax. How many times does one need to say this before those people across the aisle get the point?

The finance minister said directly in his report that employment insurance premiums would go up over the next five years. An employment insurance premium is a payroll tax, which means taxes will go up over the next five years and, indeed, C.D. Howe suggests that they will go up substantially, like 35% or 40%. I have asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to give us more precise information on the degree to which the Conservatives are raising payroll taxes, employment insurance premiums.

I do not understand why the Conservatives cannot just admit the obvious. They are raising taxes. They have said so themselves.

I wonder if the finance minister, at his next opportunity, could acknowledge the point that an employment insurance premium is a payroll tax and that the Conservatives will be raising those payroll taxes by 30% to 40% in the coming years?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member who taught economics 100 if he could answer a question for the House.

How can the Liberals say on one side that they stand for a 45-day work year, which would cost billions of dollars, $4 billion, and on the other side say that they are concerned about increases in payroll taxes? Where was their concern for the increases in payroll taxes when they were putting forward un-costed, un-budgeted, unaccounted for and enormously expensive proposals for EI last spring? Why are they now concerned about payroll taxes? They cannot have it both ways and the hon. member well knows that. He taught economics 100. Maybe he would like to tell the Canadian people how much their proposals were going to cost Canadians, because we would not have it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member implicitly acknowledged that his side of the House is raising payroll taxes. I did not hear him say that but neither did I hear him deny it.

His question also indicates my theme of dishonesty. He said that our proposal would cost billions of dollars, $4 billion is what he said. Four billion dollars is utter rubbish and totally dishonest. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the Liberal measure would not cost more than $1.1 billion, not $4 billion.

Once again, we have total dishonesty emanating—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. We can continue with questions and comments on the speech from the member for Markham—Unionville after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus)

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Before question period started, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville had just started the question and comment period, so he has eight minutes left for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Drummond has the floor.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Markham—Unionville before question period. He pointed out fundamental flaws in the measures proposed by the Conservatives with regard to the current economic crisis.

For example, he noted that when the Conservatives tabled their first budget, they announced cuts in government spending, when massive investments were needed because of the crisis. It makes sense. Without the threat of a Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc, there would have been no backtracking on the part of the government and we would probably have nothing in place today to face the crisis.

He also reminded us that when it comes to infrastructure programs, the government has developed the practice of announcing figures that are never correct. In reality, about 12% of the funding announced has been invested. I found on the Internet a list announcing five projects for my riding of Drummond. But I do not see anything happening right now in Drummond, so the figure for my riding is a lot closer to 0% than 12%. Moreover, when it comes to job creation, the government throws around figures that have no real basis. This is a fundamental flaw.

I understand why my colleague has lost confidence in this government and why he is voting against its measures. We are doing exactly the same thing as the Liberal Party and are saying no to the Conservative government for its performance as a whole.

However, we are talking today about a measure that will give effect to the government's proposed investments in renovation, and that seems good to us.

Can my colleague tell me why he is voting against this particular measure?

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

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with all that my colleague from the Bloc Québécois said before putting his question.

To answer his question, we will be voting against this bill because we have no confidence in this government.

However, the Leader of the Opposition has said repeatedly that we would fully honour the home renovation tax credit program.

Canadians can therefore rest assured that they will receive their credits, regardless of who is in government.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Markham—Unionville as he spoke at length and often used the word “dishonest”. I do not like to make statements using strong words like that. I am loathe to do that even though they are quite often used.

He went on to say that Canada's system and government are second class and Mr. Obama's is first class. I do not think it is second class when our government puts on websites the exact number of projects that are going ahead and the ones actually in the ground.

He talks about taxes. What is dishonest is when a person tries to portray this government's record as something else when the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and our own world-class financial institutions say that we have done many of the right things, that we are on the road to recovery, that our taxes will soon be the lowest in the G8 with the reduction of the GST, pension splitting for seniors and the guaranteed income supplement not being affected. When we took office, the GIS was $500 and it has gone to $3,500.

Was Mayor Frank Scarpitti wrong when he said, “I want to applaud this government for making budget 2009 so comprehensive when it comes to job creation” and “I think it's great news for Markham. The federal government has come forward with an ambitious stimulus package”. That was in the Georgina Advocate on January 31 of this year.

Again, the same mayor said, “Congratulations to you and your government for budget 2009. Your government stimulus funding comes at an opportune time for us”. He said that in a letter to the finance minister.

When his own mayor is saying those good things about us, how can he contradict him?

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

Mr. Speaker, that seemed more like a stream of consciousness than a question. The member does not like the term “dishonest”, so he can use whatever term he wishes.

However, what adjective would he apply to a government that says it will not increase taxes to balance the books, but has a massive increase in EI premiums? What adjective would he apply to a government that says that it will not tax income trusts and then does precisely the opposite? What adjective would he apply to a government that raises the lowest income tax rate, as it did in 2006, while claiming that it actually cut it? He can choose his own adjective. I would suggest that is not the height of honesty.

In terms of the mayor of Markham, while the government has such a punitive, vindictive attitude to any mayor who says anything bad, I think the mayor of Markham is wishing to protect such contributions that he may one day receive from the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the member realize that by causing an election, we would be starting the whole legislative process over again? In fact, we would end up freezing the flow of funds to the projects that we all want to see take place in the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member might want to check his facts before he stands. What he says is entirely false. The legislation has been passed, the authorities exist and so the infrastructure funds could keep flowing whether there were an election or not.

That is not the problem. The problem is the government simply does not have its act together and, as a consequence, has only flowed some 12% of the money in terms of actually creating or saving jobs.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

The hon. member for Markham—Unionville answered a question by my colleague from Drummond who wanted to know whether he supported this bill or not. His answer was no, because the Liberals have no confidence in the government. They do, however, intend to implement the measures contained in that bill once they are “in government”.

We in the Bloc Québécois, who voted for the ways and means motion on the same matters, which no more than Bill C-51 contained a poison pill, will be voting in favour of this bill.

We maintain that the aspects affecting the people of Canada and Quebec are very important for our constituents, whose needs and aspirations we have been monitoring on an ongoing basis, but even more actively during the campaign before the election one year ago already, on October 14.

We are capable of rising in support of things we had sought previously for the people of Quebec and which can certainly benefit the people of Canada as well.

Bill C-51 implements the home renovation tax credit. I should point out that this measure was inspired by the proposals made in the Bloc's two recovery plans. The first plan was presented around November 24, 2008, and the second around April 30, 2009.

I remember as though it were yesterday when the Minister of Finance was very appreciative that the Bloc Québécois was the only party to make proposals for the budget the government was preparing. He said something very similar when the budget was introduced. In the same sentence, or at least very close, he said that the Bloc Québécois was the only responsible party. Those may not have been his exact words, but that is what he meant: a responsible party that had submitted budget proposals with some very important points.

At the same time, he told us that he promised he would take them into account. The Bloc Québécois is a party that accepts its responsibility for the mandate it has been given by the people of Quebec. It is committed to the interests of Quebec, and submitted proposals that further the needs and aspirations of Quebec. If I may say candidly, he quite simply told us that they would take them into account, but the budget had already been tabled at that point.

In Bill C-51, the second point introduces a first time homebuyers' tax credit, a measure inspired by the Bloc's last platform. This is yet more proof that the Bloc made good proposals, always based on the needs and aspirations of Quebec, which I will repeat over and over.

It needs to be said, because Quebeckers want the Bloc Québécois to defend their interests and to promote Quebec sovereignty. We know that a lot of things can be accomplished through the sovereignty of Quebec, that is, the political freedom of Quebec.

Bill C-51 will also implement Canada's international commitments to the IMF, which were signed in 2008. It will also amend the Canada Pension Plan, from which Quebec is excluded, based on consultations with the provinces involved. It will also act on the findings of a joint expert panel made up of representatives of Nova Scotia and the federal government to resolve litigation between the parties that has been outstanding since 1984. The first two of these provisions affect Quebeckers more directly. That is why the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill.

We agree with these two provisions, but I must emphasize that our support for the measures in this bill does not mean that we have confidence in the government. Clearly, we do not. Once again yesterday, we rose to express our lack of confidence in this government. The federal government's comprehensive plan to fight the recession is not good enough. It is also poorly targeted. That is why we oppose it.

However, because Quebec does not object to the measures in Bill C-51, we, the Bloc Québécois, will remain true to our values and do the responsible thing and support this bill. We are always working to advance Quebec's interests. The measures in this bill may be a step forward, but the Conservative government still does not have an environmental plan with a 21st century vision, and its record on economic issues is terrible.

Now that I have covered the two most important measures in this bill, I would like to talk about the government's disastrous record on economic issues and the Bloc Québécois' recommendations for dealing with the crisis. I would also like to discuss the Bloc Québécois' green strategy and the federal government's bad faith and deplorable attitude when it comes to this issue.

Let us begin with the home renovation tax credit. In April 2008, during the presentation of the first phase of the stimulus package, the Bloc Québécois proposed implementing a home renovation tax credit for converting oil furnaces to energy efficient models. We felt that such a measure, in addition to reducing our dependence on oil, would help inject money into the economy quickly.

Although the Conservatives' measure does not target energy retrofits, it is nonetheless an effective way to stimulate the economy quickly. That is why we support this measure. Nevertheless, we still feel that the government lacked vision in introducing this tax credit. It could have gone much further and presented a real environmental plan that would have stimulated the economy while reducing greenhouse gases and decreasing our dependence on oil.

It is imperative. We know more and more—not only because we hear it so much, but also because we are experiencing it and seeing it every day—that the economy and the environment are inseparable and that we have to put as much energy into the one as the other.

In our 2008 election platform, we also proposed a tax credit for first time homebuyers. Although the measure introduced by the Conservatives is less generous than the one proposed by the Bloc Québécois, we feel it is a step in the right direction. That is another reason we are supporting this measure.

Buying a home is big step for many families. It allows the homeowner to build equity and benefit from the appreciated value of their home. Quebec is significantly behind the rest of Canada in that area. I do not want to focus on strictly economic aspects, but in terms of family life, it is very important to own a home in order to have a life that is not necessarily more comfortable, but has all the elements to be more pleasant. There is nothing like being at home with your children for living life to the fullest. Owning a home is very important and many families, unfortunately, often have a hard time saving for a down payment to purchase their first home.

In addition, since most people who are active in the workforce see their income increase over time, they often have to wait a while before they can purchase a property, so they end up in the rental market for many years. We in the Bloc Québécois are aware of this problem and planned—in fact, we still plan to—bring forward a program to make it easier for first time homebuyers. That is why we are proposing that the government give interest free loans for up to $10,000 for first time homebuyers. If this measure is introduced, it will complement the tax credit proposed by the Conservatives and will make it easier for people to buy their first home. However, the Bloc Québécois will continue to press the federal government to offer a comprehensive first time homebuyers' plan.

In light of these two elements, we support the bill, but of course we still have some criticisms of it. A good, self-respecting Conservative government must always make a few missteps that arouse criticism, and people need to hear about them.

While denying the economic crisis during the last election campaign, the Conservatives came in empty-handed at the time of the economic statement last November. When pressured to introduce a stimulus package, the Conservatives preferred instead to propose measures meant to reinforce an ideology rather than stimulate the economy. The Bloc Québécois, however, brought forward responsible proposals for economic recovery. Let me remind the House. The Bloc Québécois' recovery plan had four objectives: tighten the social safety net and restore confidence; stimulate employment and investment; support Quebec and the provinces; and stimulate strategic spending and reduce oil dependency.

The OECD suggested that countries with the means to do so should provide income support for workers who lose their jobs, and the best way to do that is through the employment insurance system. We therefore proposed that the system be thoroughly improved in order to facilitate access for everyone who loses their jobs. We estimated that, with these changes, 148,000 more people would have access every year. Furthermore, with the elimination of the waiting period, cheques could have been sent in under 14 days.

I would like to elaborate on this point. Rather than abolishing the waiting period, the Conservative government added five weeks at the end. Five weeks at the end is not the same as two weeks at the beginning. According to the Conservatives, two weeks at the beginning could create huge problems. The approach that the Conservatives have always preferred and continue to embrace is to launch programs and what they call improvements knowing very well that they will probably not be used very much, if at all. Most people never get to those last five weeks. Once again, they have missed the mark. Immediate assistance for workers who lose their jobs has never been and is still not in place.That continues to be one of the Bloc Québécois' demands.

We also proposed to help the most vulnerable with investments of $6 billion, starting with seniors, by increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $110 per month. For middle-class families, we proposed to double the GST tax credit for 2009.

We also proposed a series of measures to support and stimulate employment and investment. Furthermore, we proposed investments to help Quebec and the provinces maintain essential services to the public. It is never a good idea to make cuts, but this is the worst time to cut Quebec's funding. And yet, that is what the Conservatives are doing by tinkering with the equalization formula to favour Ontario and by adding even more inequities, such as refusing to compensate Quebec for the harmonization of sales taxes.

We asked that education transfers be restored to their 1994 levels both to stimulate the economy and to help Quebec and the provinces prepare for the future.

Finally, we proposed strategic investments to reduce both our dependence on oil and our greenhouse gas emissions. The Conservatives, with the support of the Liberals, on the contrary, have abandoned Quebec industries and workers in favour of those in Ontario and the West.

The federal government's bias in favour of Ontario and its auto industry is striking, as evidenced in the third progress report on the action plan. Whereas 100% of the $9.7 billion in direct federal spending for the auto industry have been spent, only 80% of the $70 billion for the development of new markets for the forest industry have been spent. In total, the government will have used only $2.1 billion from Vote 35 concurred in last spring. Yet the June report already indicated $1.85 billion in spending through this vote, which means that the government has spent only $250 million more through this vote since the last report.

I believe it is important to go back to a key point. A crisis requires quick and immediate action, particularly when jobs are lost. I may be repeating myself, but something has to be done to fix our employment insurance system. The Liberals gutted the system and the Conservatives followed in their footsteps. It is exactly because of all those things that we have no confidence in this government.

With regard to EI, what needs to be done is to reduce the eligibility threshold to 360 hours for everybody, to eliminate the waiting period, to increase benefits from 55% to 60% of earnings, to increase insurable earnings to $42,500 and to base the benefit calculation on the best 12 weeks.

Even if we support this bill, we still have no confidence in this government.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member from the Bloc. I am a little confused about his lack of understanding of what we have been trying to do in the economic stimulus package. Surely he must know that this is the most massive stimulus package in political history. We need it to get through these very difficult challenges coming to us from a global point of view.

As the member for Markham—Unionville pointed out earlier, Canada was the last one into the recession. It is because of the way this government has been run by our current Prime Minister and the ministers. They have been watching the financial companies. The banks have been in good shape. Canada is going to be the first one out of this economic challenge because of they way we have handled it.

We have made some significant changes to the EI program. We have made five week extensions for workers who are collecting EI. We have had a one year extension to the work plan. We are now introducing extensions, again based on the tenure people have had with their employer, which will benefit employees all across the country. It will mean that tens of thousands of people will get assistance they would not have received before.

These are all new measures that are being introduced by this Conservative government that were never dreamed of by the previous Liberals. We would appreciate if the members opposite would recognize that.

As far as the stimulus package, one has to understand that this government does not give out money in brown paper bags and cash like the Liberals did. There is a lot of due diligence by the federal and provincial governments and the municipalities' regional districts that goes into distributing these funds . That all has to be done. It is being done, and the money is flowing in amounts that will look after the challenges of the current global economic problems we have.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only does the Bloc Québécois not have confidence in this government, but it does not have confidence in the government's economic forecasts.

As recently as a year ago, the economic crisis did not even exist as far as the Conservatives were concerned, and they said they would not run a deficit. Today, the deficit is $56 billion or $57 billion. What is strange is that this is roughly the same amount of money that was stolen from the employment insurance fund. This year's deficit did not go toward EI to really help workers. In fact, I do not believe the government has helped the unemployed.

The Minister of National Revenue says that employment insurance programs must have a beginning, a middle and an end. With his additional five weeks of benefits, it would seem that the minister started at the end. He should have started at the beginning. He cannot even follow his own logic.

All I can say is that he had a beginning a few years ago, he has more than past the middle and he is now approaching his end. The future former Minister of National Revenue and future former member will understand that the necessary work on employment insurance has not been done and that people still have huge problems.

It is clear that the new employment insurance program, with additional weeks of benefits, was designed for people who are lucky enough to keep the same job for a very long time, but that it represents a trap for the NDP, because it targets Ontario specifically and does nothing to help forestry workers in Quebec.

We therefore do not have confidence in this government or its policies. This government needs to be a bit more open to Quebec, practise open federalism and listen a bit more to what the opposition is saying. It is acting like a majority government, when it knows it is not. Moreover, it knows full well how that sort of behaviour affects support for this government in Quebec, because almost no one there has confidence in the government anymore.