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)

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

I am rising 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. I would like to speak to a few of the policies that are covered by this piece of legislation. I am going to focus on a couple of items in this legislation, in particular, payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for offshore petroleum resources, the CBC, the home renovation tax credit, and if there is time, changes to the CPP.

The first issue I would like to address is the $174.5 million for Nova Scotia under the offshore agreement. I would like to thank our former colleague, Bill Casey, the former member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, for the time and effort he gave to this issue, and also for his commitment to keeping all Nova Scotia MPs across party lines updated on Atlantic accord issues.

The federal government did not keep its word. It did not abide by law. It completely ignored and did not honour the original Atlantic accord. I believe that Nova Scotians, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are still getting short shrift. There was an agreement and the government did not keep up its end of the bargain.

However, the government did come to a second agreement with Nova Scotia to try to mitigate the damage caused by not honouring the first agreement. We have been waiting and waiting for this money.

The NDP has been pressuring the government to at least honour the second deal. Thanks to our continued pressure the government is taking the first step toward treating Nova Scotia properly, fairly and with respect.

This money is a step in the right direction. It is a good thing for Nova Scotians, and it is a good thing for Nova Scotia. While I would like to see the next step toward honouring the Atlantic accord, and I hope that the government does work with my premier towards that end, I am very pleased to see this first step towards giving Nova Scotia the respect that it deserves. This is yet another reason that we do not need an election right now. What we need is to see this money get to Nova Scotia.

I will be very proud to stand up and cast my vote in favour of this bill if only for this measure alone, the $174.5 million for Nova Scotia. I am sure that all Nova Scotians would agree with me.

There is also a change to the loan provisions for the CBC in this bill. New Democrats have been calling for these types of changes for some time. I have spoken in this House about the cuts to the CBC in Halifax. We lost programming in the form of reduced time for Maritime Noon, a maritime-wide call-in program. It is an opportunity for maritimers to stay connected, across the Bay of Fundy and across the Northumberland Strait. It talks about issues facing our region.

It is an important show for allowing debate and discussion and the free exchange of ideas. On any given day one can tune in and hear about something as specific as regional gardening tips to ideas as broad as the international response to climate change. The cuts to Maritime Noon are a little snapshot from my corner of the country about how these cuts are affecting Canadians and our public broadcaster.

My colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay, has worked hard on this issue both inside and outside the House. In fact, he said in a speech, “These job losses were completely avoidable. All it required was his signature so that they could get a bank loan or bridge financing, and it would not have cost the taxpayer a cent”.

The Conservatives have responded by increasing the amount of money the CBC can borrow in order to bridge that financing. This is what the NDP has been calling for.

In many of our communities from coast to coast to coast the CBC is a vital part of the communication link. This measure that has been introduced will only strengthen the CBC.

I will be supporting this bill as it contains positive measures, like the home renovation tax credit, the first-time home buyers tax credit and drought relief for livestock owners. However, I am not kidding myself that this is some sort of grand vision for Canada during an economic crisis, because it is not.

I support the home renovation tax credit because Canadians are relying on it, but earlier this week my colleague from Western Arctic pointed out that he saw a rather large sign outside a hot tub emporium which stated that the tubs were available under the home renovation tax credit, that if people bought these hot tubs and installed them, they could be eligible for the home renovation tax credit. We are all trying to reduce our energy consumption and the government purports to take our international obligations about climate change seriously. This is a great example of why policy should have direction.

I believe in government. I believe that governments are there to provide direction. They are not there simply to enable more consumerism. They are there to help Canadians make good choices.

New Democrats have often called for a tax credit or for programs for retrofitting houses that would actually have a green energy focus, not just renovations, but green renovations. This tax credit does not do that. Almost anything could be done with the tax credit, like putting in a hot tub on a new deck.

Before I was elected I worked with the provincial government and the utility in our province on energy efficiency programs. Energy efficiency is absolutely our greatest resource right now. If we could reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, it would be like finding a new source of energy. It would be like an oil field's worth of efficiency.

Energy efficiency could also create jobs. The Suzuki Foundation put out a paper called “Cool Solutions to Global Warming”. In its analysis the foundation said, “Investments in energy efficiency have been found to produce four times more jobs than equivalent spending in new supplies of conventional energy”. That is an oil field's worth of jobs.

There we have it. We could have a positive impact on the environment, a positive impact on making life more affordable for Canadians. The government could have a profound impact on job creation, if only the government would realize that government has a role in providing direction to Canadians. It has a role in helping us make good choices.

I will turn briefly to the proposed changes to the Canada pension plan. This bill would make amendments that would allow people to collect their CPP without actually having to stop work. It would increase the number of low-income years that a person could drop from the calculation of his or her career earnings. Among a few other measures, it would allow people to contribute past the age of 65.

The measures introduced would allow for greater flexibility and choice for people approaching their retirement years. These are very good first steps to reforming the CPP and are worthy of support. However, I remain hopeful that these are just first steps and that the government will honour its obligation under the unanimously passed motion that my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek moved.

The motion put forward by the NDP states that we need to expand and increase the CPP, QPP, OAS and GIS to ensure that all Canadians can count on a dignified retirement. Would that not be something if people could have dignity in their retirement? Bill C-51 does not do this, but I am hopeful the government will begin its expansion of these pension programs soon, as 30% of Canadians are without retirement savings and seniors in my riding are struggling to get by on their meagre pensions.

In summary, I will be supporting this bill. The NDP has decided that it will look at each bill on a case by case basis and see if it is in the best interests of Canadians. According to the measures that have been introduced, we will be supporting it, but we are hopeful that this is just the first step toward a grander vision for understanding that government does have a role to play during this economic crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for an excellent speech, which probably was the first speech all day that dealt exclusively with Bill C-51, the bill at hand.

I would like the member to elaborate a bit on how the tax credit for green renovations would and should work. I thought that was a very intriguing part of her speech and I would like her to expand on that a little bit more.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, different ideas have been thrown around about what this would look like. It could be a tax credit that is specifically for green measures, but there has been a lot of talk in the past about actually having a program for energy efficiency retrofits.

There was the EnerGuide for housing and there was also a program that lasted about three weeks, the EnerGuide for low income households. The EnerGuide for low income households program had a few flaws. It could certainly have been improved but it was an incredible step toward trying to help low income households meet their energy efficiency needs and actually do the retrofits. A person would go in and do an assessment of a home to figure out the most cost effective measures to take and it helped people pay for those measures.

I have done work in Nova Scotia where we have shown that it is cheaper to go into someone's house, insulate the roof, replace the windows and have the energy consumption go down than it would be for us to build another coal-fired power plant in 10 years, which is really the way we are heading because of our increased consumption.

There are different models for these programs. I would suggest that we look to the United States because it is doing wonderful work on low income energy efficiency projects.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about the CPP and about how one of the measures in here would allow people to access that a bit earlier.

I am just wondering if she has any comments to make or worries with regard to whether people who are on CPP disability would find themselves at a disadvantage, and that long term care programs or insurance programs would force them to apply for CPP earlier.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am unsure about the impact that these measures would have specifically on CPP disability. However, with regard to the CPP, I met with some folks in a seniors residence a couple of weeks ago who told me that their CPP and OAS cheques had gone up by 46¢, which is not very much money when a senior is living hand to mouth and the costs of essentials are steadily rising. The interesting thing is that the same person showed me her electricity bill which had gone up by about $46. It is clear that CPP, OAS and GIS are not keeping pace with the cost of living.

We really need to move forward on this motion that was brought forward by the NDP and passed unanimously. It is time for us to take a look at the pension program to ensure all seniors are able to live with dignity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the member dealt with the CPP amendments in Bill C-51 as merely first steps. She went on to explain some other options that we as a party see that we should be developing here to improve pensions. I would like her to expand a little further on her ideas there.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we need improved averaging proposals that are not grandfathered. Currently, pensioners cannot recalculate their benefit levels to improve their pensions and this is a real problem.

We need to look at GIS and OAS enhancement, as I stated earlier, and we need to look at addressing the needs of those eligible non-claimants who are over the age of 70.

Those are just a few of the issues that we need to look at.

Again I go back to this motion that we passed and it is time for us to move forward on it.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to be sharing my time this morning with the member for Halifax, a new member of the House of Commons who has proven herself over the last couple of years as a capable, well-researched and hard-working member. She was actually recognized by Maclean's magazine and named best rookie of the year for the year 2009.

Maclean's states:

In less than six months in the House, she has attracted an unusual amount of notice—enough to win her the best rookie MP title in the Maclean’s poll of her peers.

I congratulate her very publicly for that.

However, it is not just since she has been here. I think people need to recognize this and, because of it, be willing to listen very closely to the advice that she gives in this place and to the voice that she brings to the House of Commons on behalf of so many who have no voice and cannot find the place to have their voice heard. For example, when she was back home in the wonderful city of Halifax, she was part of the Community Coalition to End Poverty. She was part of the Metro Immigrant Settlement Association's legal workshops for newcomers. She also participated in the Dalhousie Association of Women and the Law.

She also was the developer of a very unique and helpful project in Halifax called the “Tenant Rights Project” . She was also awarded for her excellent community development work and her social justice activism in Halifax.

People can get all this information if they google the member. I would suggest that anybody who wants to understand how this place works and the voices that are here, they might want to do that.

She was awarded the Muriel Duckworth award for raising consciousness of women's issues and feminism in the legal community and also the CBA Law Day award for encouraging and promoting access to justice.

As I said, I am very pleased to be sharing my time with such an accomplished, effective and now recognized member of this chamber.

I want to put a couple of thoughts on the record today on Bill C-51 that we are debating.

First, for all the reasons articulated by the member for Halifax, I also will be supporting Bill C-51 but I must say that I do it with a heavy heart. Even though there are some things in this bill that would be helpful to some people, I have some real concern about the overall agenda of the government and whether it understands fully how we got ourselves into this very difficult economic circumstance in the first place and if in fact it has a program to get us out of it.

I will use a couple of the initiatives that the government has brought forward to show the shortcomings and how it is that even though it may make a difference for some people it would not go that full distance to make it better for everybody.

For example, the renovation tax credit, which was announced to great applause in this place and across the country, it turns out that at the end of the day it will probably not benefit those at the low end of the income scale because it is a non-refundable tax credit. Therefore, if people do not get anything back on their taxes or if they do not pay taxes because their income is so low but they have already done the renovations that they thought they were going to get a tax credit back for, at the end of the day they may end up not getting a tax credit at all.

In my view, the renovation tax credit is very short-sighted. It should have been a refundable tax credit and perhaps could have been done differently. It could have focused on those who really needed it in these difficult times to renovate their homes, particularly from an energy efficiency perspective so they could change their windows and doors, put more insulation in or buy more efficient furnaces. That would have gone a long way toward helping people on fixed incomes who are trying to stay in the little homes they have been able to purchase over the years and are struggling now to pay the bills on. That is just one of the initiatives in this bill that I would suggest the government take another look at.

On the other end of the age spectrum, the initiatives in the bill that my colleague from Halifax has spoken to, such as the improvements to the CPP program, will help some seniors but for other seniors who have worked all of their lives, many very hard in workplaces that were very challenging, the government is saying that instead of increasing the CPP or OAS or giving a little bump to GIS that would cover the increasing cost of energy to heat their homes, as the member for Halifax suggested, the government has come up with a plan that actually makes it easier for seniors to continue to work.

It has been said that McDonald's was from birth to the grave work for people. That in fact will be what we will see in this country.

I understand that some seniors will appreciate this but for my money it would have been better had we focused on how it is that we might help seniors who have already done their life's work, raised families and helped build their communities. We need to allow them to enjoy some comfort and dignity in their senior years and those senior years should start earlier rather than later if for no other reason than it creates space for younger people to pick up good well-paying jobs.

Those are just two examples of why it is that even though we will support this, in a very unique and particular time with the economy still falling apart and many people being affected more and more every day we should, as a House of Commons and as different parties, be working together to support things that will be helpful, we think this does not go near far enough.

In my office in Sault Ste. Marie I am beginning to hear the voices of those who have been on employment insurance for a significant period of time and who are looking at it ending. There will be no new jobs for them so they will have very few choices to make. One choice will be to go on welfare, which we know is not nearly sufficient. EI in the first place is not sufficient, but when people fall onto welfare it becomes a different world altogether. People who will fall onto welfare will find that it is a difficult challenge to make ends meet, to keep body and soul together and to look after their families.

The other option they have will be to take on part time jobs. We already know that people working full time in many of those part time jobs that nearly always pay minimum wage are already living in poverty. If people are working part time at one of those minimum wage jobs, they will be falling even further into poverty. The government has no comprehensive program or role to play in eliminating poverty or dealing with poverty, particularly in these very difficult times for hundreds of thousands of people across the country. I find it unconscionable that we would not be putting our minds to that and moving quickly here in this place as we debate initiatives that could be helpful to those most as risk and the most vulnerable.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks of the member for Sault Ste. Marie. I tried earlier to ask questions of the government side but members seemed to produce answers straight out of the PMO. I know the member always gives direct answers.

In his remarks, the member seemed quite reluctant to support Bill C-51 and said that he did not think it went far enough. He talked about unemployment and the fact that it is a serious situation. As the member would know, people in Atlantic Canada would not benefit from these new measures and it is a problem. I am wondering if the people in Sault Ste. Marie would benefit from these new measures. Would they get the additional time?

Second, the government has now put Canada's economy into the biggest deficit in Canadian history. One of the ways it envisions getting out of that deficit is to increase payroll taxes to the tune of billions of dollars down the road. I wonder what the member's thoughts might be in that regard on the increased burden--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate and enjoy my interaction with the member from Prince Edward Island, and his passion about agriculture and agricultural issues.

Some in my community will benefit from the changes to EI but not many. There is a lot more to do.

I could not in all conscience, given that this difficult economy is affecting so many people, say no to the $1 billion for the people who will benefit from it. I appreciate that coming from his part of the country, it is going to be even worse, which is unfortunate.

He raises one of the million dollar questions, and there are a lot of questions to which we are not getting answers, about what we do as we move forward. How are we going to deal with the deficit that we are running up and what are we going to do about it? How are we going to fight it?

He suggests, as we have detected in some of the material and conversation with the government, that perhaps a payroll tax is forthcoming. My concern is it will be similar to what previous governments have done to deal with deficits, and that is programs will be cut, particularly programs that support those who are most at risk and vulnerable in our society. That will be absolutely and totally unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are some benefits as far as CPP improvements are concerned. There is greater flexibility and choice for people approaching their retirement years. There is reduced incentive to early retirement, increased incentive for staying longer in the workforce, an improved averaging formula to boost pensions below the max and the voluntary contributions for post-65 claimants allowing for secure pensions to age 70.

This does not amount to a significant increase in security for seniors. In fact, 30% of Canadians are without retirement savings. Clearly more improvements need to be made in the area of pensions. Would the member elaborate on that point?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Even though the amendments, which we support, will go a distance to help those seniors find decent work to help them pay for the increasing costs of energy, food and the many other things they need when they get to that age in life, my concern, as is his, is what do we do for the larger majority of seniors who have finished their work, who will not get other jobs except perhaps some part-time minimum-wage jobs? How will we reward our seniors who have done their work, built their communities, fought the wars and are looking for a dignified life and some comfort?

I agree, we need to be looking at an overhaul of the pension and retirement system. Our caucus member from Hamilton has tabled a very comprehensive package of reforms to pension and retirement income. Everybody in this place should look at that.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

It is an honour to rise in the House today and give thanks to the people of my riding of Etobicoke North, the community where I was born and raised. We are proudly one of the most diverse ridings in the country. We rank fifth of 308 Canadian ridings in terms of the 74% of people who are first generation Canadian, born into a Syrian, Italian, Somalian and other vibrant cultures.

Sadly, however, we also have major hurdles. Almost 20% of our residents are not yet citizens and often face language and job barriers. About 25% of families are headed by single parents who regularly work two jobs just to put food on the table for their children. Almost 20% of the riding is engaged in manufacturing, the second highest percentage for the entire country. In stark contrast, only 5% are involved in management, the 301st ranking of 308 ridings in Canada.

Etobicoke North is also one of 13 at risk neighbourhoods identified by the city of Toronto and United Way. Our community wrestles with many socio-economic issues related to unemployment, namely affordable housing, education, family breakdown, poverty and violence. In mid-August we tragically experienced three murders within only a few weeks.

Many Etobicoke North families struggle to make ends meet when the economy is booming, but the economy is struggling and the government's policies have hurt our families. For example, the government promised it would not raise taxes, yet it announced a $13 billion EI payroll tax grab.

Last September, the government said that there would be no recession. In October the government said that there were some good buying opportunities. In November it promised a surplus. However, 12 days later the Bank of Canada announced our country was in a recession. In December the government admitted it would run a $20 billion to $30 billion deficit. In January it was a $34 billion deficit. By June a $50 billion deficit and last month a $56 billion shortfall.

The government put Canada on track for a deficit before the recession hit and now holds the record of the largest deficit on record, at $56 billion.

Canada is the worse performing economy of the G7. EI enrolment has increased 63% since October 2008. Young people under the age of 25 have been particularly hard hit, with those receiving EI benefits increasing by 108%.

Statistics are clean, neat, tidy and do not adequately convey human suffering. My office serves 65 families each day. Last week, we met a young man who was accepted into university but who could not afford to go because his mother was out of work after having worked over 10 years in her company. Today she cannot find a job, he cannot find a job and they are at risk of losing their home. On Friday, we met a man age 59 years of age who had been living in his car for two years because he could not find a job.

It is not just those in manufacturing who cannot find a job. To date I have met over 75 internationally trained doctors who are working to earn their Canadian accreditation to practise. I have also met over 50 university professors, one who has two masters degrees, one PhD., two teaching certificates, speaks four languages and yet cannot find a teaching job in Toronto.

In the meantime these talented individuals work in call centres, drive taxis, wait tables or do whatever is necessary in order to support their families. Then they are laid off from call centres and they come to our office desperately looking for employment leads and help for their families. Many after seven years of contract jobs give up their dream to practise medicine in our country.

The last year has taken a tremendous toll on many of our Etobicoke North families that have lost work because auto, manufacturing and steel plants have closed. There are 450,000 more unemployed Canadians today than a year ago and the Conservatives' fiscal update predicts another 200,000 will join them in the coming year.

Our Etobicoke North families need jobs. Our youth see the opportunities other families have and ask, “Why not us?” In June I had the joy of attending the graduation at a local high school. Sadly, the valedictorian's speech was not like others, namely bright, full of hope and waiting for the next phase of life. Rather it was based on Dylan Thomas' Do not go Gentle into that Good Night. The theme was even if one was not from the right family, the right school or the right community, graduates should “rage, rage” and fight for what is duly theirs. I left saddened, distressed that our graduates thought that they were from the wrong side of the tracks, that they would never have the same opportunities as others their age and that some had already given up dreaming.

What makes change happen? It is investment and economic stimulus for community projects to create jobs for families.

Unfortunately, only 12% of the government's $4 billion infrastructure program is getting shovels in the ground and actually creating jobs. Only $71 million, or less than 1%, of the $1 billion green infrastructure fund has been allocated. Only $80 million, or less than 0.5%, of the $2 billion municipal infrastructure lending program has been allocated. Only two projects, totalling $5.4 million of the $400 million set aside for housing for low-income seniors, have been announced.

The Liberal opposition supported economic stimulus spending, but withdrew confidence in the government after it used the money for political favouritism.

The government had the opportunity to invest in communities across this country, create jobs and make a difference to families. More jobs would have meant fewer hungry children. In Toronto we feed 90,000 children, up from 83,000 last year, every morning because hungry children cannot learn.

This week is Feeding Toronto's Hungry Students Week. It is proclaimed by Mayor David Miller to highlight the sad fact that one in three Toronto students lives below the poverty line and 41% of students arrive at school every day hungry. In the city's most at-risk communities, 68% of children go to school without breakfast.

Toronto District School Board trustee Howard Goodman shares, “The kids are hungry for a whole bunch of things. They're hungry for knowledge. They're hungry for experience and independence. They're hungry for affection, recognition and respect, but they hunger above all for food. If that core hunger for food is not fulfilled, they can't satisfy easily any of their other hungers.

We are the only industrialized nation that does not have a breakfast program for our children. Less hunger would mean healthier children, more students staying in school, less youth looking for belonging in gangs and more young men and women eager to improve their lives if only they are given a chance.

We need jobs for the 23% of women-headed, single-parent families in my riding of Etobicoke North, who scramble every month just to make ends meet, yet lose almost a quarter for every dollar a man is paid. What would jobs for these women mean to their children, who are poor because their mothers are poor, and to child care and early childhood education? We know there is a return on investment of $2 for every dollar invested.

Real economic stimulus means needed projects for communities and jobs for families. This is development. It is not something abstract. It is real change in the lives of real people.

In closing, the future of Canada depends considerably on investing in families, as their economic health, physical health and social well-being determines the health of their children, who are the adults of tomorrow. As a first step to protecting the next generation, let the government fight for creating jobs for families.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's speech from across the way. I want to commend her on her voice in the House. I appreciate the fact that we have been able to work on other things and have conversations about things that matter to our respective constituents.

I am concerned that we as members of Parliament come to the House in order to debate policy and do what is in the best interests of our constituents. The hon. member discussed at great length the necessity to create jobs immediately, to get people employed and hungry kids fed. I share those concerns with the hon. member.

We come here to discuss these kinds of policies. Our constituents do not want us to come here to debate politics. It seems like the hon. member's leader has engaged in a political debate over the last little while as to whether the government should survive or not.

What I can guarantee is that the jobs she is talking about will not be created by forcing an unnecessary and very costly election. Our constituents demand that we come here to debate the things that she was talking about.

We understand that this bill will pass, so I wonder why the hon. member will not stand, in the interests of her constituents, and support the measures that will ensure that hungry kids get fed, that her constituents do have jobs and that stimulus money does flow into her community. Why will she not support this bill so that we get on with the real work that our constituents—