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)

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand today to begin third reading debate on Bill C-51, the economic recovery act.

Ideally, this will be a short debate ensuring this important legislation, which includes key provisions from budget 2009, along with other vital initiatives, continues on its path to becoming law.

I want to begin by thanking all members of the finance committee who put partisan politics aside on this legislation. Acknowledging how important this legislation was for Canada's economy, we worked together to expedite our consideration of Bill C-51 at committee stage. We, nevertheless, had the opportunity to hear from strong witnesses who spoke in favour of the economic recovery act. These witnesses spoke of the importance of its timely passage. I will highlight a few of those comments later in my time today.

Why is the economic recovery act so important? As an extension of Canada's economic plan, this legislation continues our Conservative government's focus on the economy, a singular focus that people who elected us here have demanded, a focus from which we will not be distracted.

Implementing Canada's economic action plan, protecting the economy must be our top priority. Our plan is rebuilding Canada's infrastructure, slashing taxes, investing in research and development, supporting the unemployed and much more.

This multi-year plan is working. It is protecting and creating jobs and it is helping shield Canada from the worst ravages of the deepest economic downturn since World War II. Indeed, nearly all independent observers are uniform in their assessment that Canada has remained and will continue to remain in one of the strongest positions to weather this economic storm.

During his recent appearance before the finance committee, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, declared, “--it is likely that Canada will return to our path of potential quicker than the other crisis-affected economies.... ...that's something one sees over the fullness of time and that's what ultimately will matter”.

A Canadian Business magazine editorial pronounced:

--Canada has come through this economic crisis in relatively robust health. Our recession promises to be shallower and briefer compared with many others;....

...we're in an enviable position compared to other developed countries.

Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer asserted, in his recent economic and fiscal assessment update, said, “Thus far, the Canadian economy has weathered the global recession better than most economies”.

While we have recently seen early signs of a potential global economic recovery on the horizon, they are merely that, early potential signs. In the words of IMF managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, “The good news is that in our view the recovery really has started. That does not mean, and I want to be crystal clear, that the crisis is over. It's too early to crow victory”.

Clearly, we need to stay on track. Early progress made in securing a Canadian recovery will be lost if we allow ourselves to be lulled into distraction and deviate from the course that we have set.

In the words of the recent G7 finance ministers and central bank governors communiqué, “In recent months, we have started to see signs of a global economic recovery and continued improvement in financial market conditions. However, there is no room for complacency since the prospects for growth remain fragile.... We will keep in place our support measures until recovery is assured”.

The economic recovery act is one way we are staying the course and helping to secure a strong sustained economic recovery.

As I mentioned, not only will it legislate measures from Canada's economic action plan but also it contains other diverse but critical measures. In my time remaining, I will highlight the importance of but a few of these measures.

Among the most high profile and popular measures in the economic recovery act is the temporary home renovation tax credit, or the HRTC. This job-creating measure has been overwhelmingly well received by Canadians assisting them to improve and add value to their own homes.

It is estimated that, through the temporary HRTC, millions of Canadian families will receive significant tax relief on eligible renovation projects. Already we have clear statistical proof that the home renovation tax credit has had a measurable impact on the economy.

According to Statistics Canada, even as the overall economy contracted, the volume of home renovation investment had spiked by over 2% in the second quarter of 2009, an increase of 9% on an annualized basis. Without a doubt, the home renovation tax credit has been an awe-inspiring success since our Conservative government first introduced it last January.

All MPs have heard stories of how this tax credit is working in their own communities. They have heard how it is encouraging their constituents to invest in their homes, how those investments are helping employ men and women in the construction and other skilled trades, fueling the purchase of building materials from Canada's forestry sector, supporting local hardware stores and stimulating the local economy when it is needed most.

Indeed, during the finance committee hearings on Bill C-51, all members on that committee heard witness after witness sing the praises of the home renovation tax credit. The Canadian Home Builders' Association told us, “The HRTC is having a significant and positive effect on the level of home renovation activity across the country. In their work with customers, renovators report that the HRTC is a significant factor in motivating homeowners to initiate home renovation projects. This view is reinforced by building material retailers, who also report increased sales as a result of HRTC”.

“I think there's no question it's increased economic activity, it's created jobs, it's definitely shown consumer confidence in renovating their homes, and I think it's done a lot of good for the industry and for consumers as well”.

“I think it obviously has kept the industry stronger in these tough times and in job creation as well”.

Home Depot Canada reported to the finance committee that the HRTC, “--has been a motivating force for consumers”.

“We have seen the results of the stimulus in increased demand for products and services and believe the stimulus did much to temper the impact of a rapidly worsening sales environment across our industry....”

“From the beginning, the HRTC captured Canadians' interest, but the HRTC has done more than capture interest. It kept many contractors in work, and put other contractors back to work. It restored consumer confidence, improved retail sales, and directly and positively enhanced the sustainability and growth of the Canadian home improvement industry”.

Home Depot Canada also revealed at committee that the HRTC has been so successful that, “--we're in a situation where our sales are growing versus the prior year and we're actually having to hire in order to be able to look after the sales that are coming into our stores. I'm sure our competitors are feeling the same”.

We also heard from the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Ken Georgetti, not someone usually supportive of our Conservative government, however, when asked about the home renovation tax credit he said, “--there's no doubt anecdotally that a lot of people are accessing and conducting home renovations. I'm sure the program is an incentive. We've encouraged and endorsed it as a good incentive to help offset the job losses that are occurring in manufacturing”.

However, this is not the only important tax relief included in the economic recovery act. For instance, to help alleviate some of the costs associated with buying a home, we have introduced the first-time homebuyers' tax credit that will provide up to $750 in tax relief to first-time homebuyers.

Another important provision will relax conditions regarding temporarily imported shipping containers by increasing the amount of time that such containers can remain in Canada on a tariff and tax-free basis from 30 days up to 365 days.

We are also enhancing support for those struggling to get ahead with our improvements to the working income tax benefit, or WITB, as our finance minister likes to refer to it. This was originally introduced in budget 2007 by our Conservative government. The landmark WITB is a refundable tax credit that supplements the earnings of low-income workers. WITB helps ensure that these workers are financially better off by getting a job, and thus helps people stay off social assistance.

The economic recovery act would enhance WITB by $580 million for 2009 and subsequent taxation years, effectively doubling the total tax relief provided by the working income tax benefit.

The OECD, in its September 2009 employment outlook, heralded this measure, noting:

[r]ecent moves to increase the generosity of Canada's Working Income Tax Benefit are welcome, particularly given that the benefit is strongly targeted to the lowest-income households.

Other measures in Bill C-51 include steps to modernize the Canada pension plan. These reforms were unanimously agreed to by federal, provincial and territorial governments, which jointly manage that plan.

The reforms would provide greater flexibility for older workers to combine pension and work income if they wish to do so, expand CPP coverage, and improve fairness in the plan's flexible retirement provisions.

We are improving transparency and accountability in the way government uses taxpayer dollars.

Fulfilling a commitment included in our Conservative Party's 2008 election platform, we are legally requiring all federal departments and crown corporations to produce and publish quarterly financial reports, an idea individuals like Tom Axworthy, chair of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen's University, have advocated for.

Axworthy, writing an op-ed article in a major national newspaper, said:

Canadians will be surprised to learn that quarterly financial reports, a standard accounting requirement in the private and not-for-profit sectors, are not [in fact] required in the public service....

Parliament has many duties, but one of the very first, since the Magna Carta, has been to assess the spending decisions of the executive and provide resources to the state through taxation. Yet this first function of Parliament has, somewhat amazingly, sunk into decrepitude. By depending primarily on reports of the Auditor General, which are made years after the fact, Parliament does eventually fix problems, but millions of dollars are wasted in the meantime....

Quarterly reports would certainly have alerted Parliament to the exponential rise in spending for the [long] Gun Registry program.

Bill C-51 would also mark the historic resolution to the crown share saga for the benefit of the people of Nova Scotia.

It would fully implement the crown share agreement and authorize an initial payment of nearly $175 million to Nova Scotia for 2008-09, as well as 2009-10.

We all understand this is tremendous news for Nova Scotia which, after a decade-plus of neglect under the previous Liberal government, has finally found a partner in our Conservative government to resolve this issue.

Indeed, the NDP premier of Nova Scotia, Darrell Dexter, cheered:

Nova Scotia is seeing progress on the Crown share file. The federal government introduced legislation...that will pave the way for regulations to be enacted.... I congratulate the federal government for moving forward to seal the deal. This is good for Nova Scotia, and good for Canada.

Considering the landmark nature of this measure for Nova Scotia, I am very surprised that the five Liberal members of Parliament from Nova Scotia actually voted against it, and so casually.

Clearly, the Liberal Party of Canada never cared enough about this important issue for Nova Scotia to fulfill its original promise.

I would be remiss if I closed without quickly reviewing other initiatives in the economic recovery act to help provide the stability our economy needs. They include helping farmers by extending the existing tax deferral currently available in regions affected by drought to those in regions affected by flood or excessive moisture as well; ensuring the dependability of public broadcasting by increasing the borrowing limit for the CBC; promoting global growth and cooperation by giving small and low-income countries a bigger voice at the IMF while strengthening Canada's commitment to debt relief; and there are many others.

Our Conservative government has been clear. We are ready to do whatever is necessary during these tough economic times to protect Canadians. The economic recovery act would build upon that commitment and help lay the foundation for long-term growth.

I urge the House to give this legislation its quick approval, allowing Bill C-51 to be introduced into the Senate in a timely manner.

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

Madam Speaker, I was much charmed by my hon. friend's happy little speech about all the sweet and lovely things that are going on in this place. I congratulate him on his immense work of fiction.

Unfortunately, the hon. member did not mention that under the Conservative watch, we have gone from a position of surplus to a position of endless chronic deficits, probably totalling in the neighbourhood of about $175 billion over the next five years.

The government has run the fiscal framework into the ditch. Its excuse is that it had do this because of this worldwide recession. It put in all the stimulus money and the world has been raining Conservative cheques, Conservative logos, Conservative signatures and Conservative happy faces all over the place.

When the Parliamentary Budget Officer asked to be shown how this was working, the government's response was to stonewall and then to dump 4,000 pages' worth of stuff on him. Then in this morning's paper we read that Canada now has the highest rate of unemployment it has had in 11 years.

I ask the hon. member if in fact he can stand in his place and tell the House that anyone should have confidence in the government's management of our nation's economy.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague on the other side was rather instrumental in making sure this bill finally passed through committee, and I urge him to speak to his colleagues in the Senate to make sure this economic recovery act gets through the Senate when it clears this place.

As to the question of whether Canadians should have faith in this government and believe that there is hope, the answer is that they absolutely should, and this is the government that is willing to provide it to them.

Canadians elected a Conservative government in 2006 and re-elected us again even though we were going into a recession. No one knew how serious the recession was, but they voted for a Conservative government because they knew there was leadership there. There is a reason that the Liberals are not in power and have lost in two elections. It is because Canadians are not confident that they understand the economy in this country.

Liberals talk about having handed a surplus to the Conservative government. That is because they overtaxed Canadians and Canadians are not happy with that. Canadians expect us to provide services to them. They do not expect to be overtaxed and not know where those dollars are going.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the Conservative member's speech. It was clear that there are some major oversights in Bill C-51, and the forestry industry is one of them. When the government gives the entire Canadian forestry industry $70 million as part of the economic stimulus, and then turns around and gives the Ontario auto industry $10 billion, that is a double standard.

Then there are the unemployed. People have lost their jobs, for example in the mining industry, or in other industries where they had job security. With the economic crisis, plants and paper mills have been shut down. Given the current economy, the Bloc Québécois proposed much easier access to employment insurance. We wanted to create a 360-hour eligibility threshold and to eliminate the two week waiting period.

The parliamentary secretary is bragging that with this bill, the Conservatives have done everything to stimulate the economy, but they forgot about workers, the unemployed and the forestry industry.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is certainly a false accusation.

Our economic action plan that was put forward in January reflected the seriousness of this global recession, and it reflected it to each and every sector of this economy. We put in place assistance for the forestry industry. We put in place assistance for the auto industry. We put in place tax cuts for individual Canadians.

Through our actions since we have formed government, we have taken 950,000 Canadians completely off the tax roll. That is more money in their pockets so they can choose to either invest it or spend it wherever they like. That is what we need to stimulate this economy.

To suggest that we are not respecting all sectors of this economy is an unfair accusation when we represent all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We have put in place measures that will help those who are unemployed, and we are very troubled by the numbers we see this morning regarding more job losses. However, we have said all along that this worldwide recession is impacting Canada, just as it is impacting other countries. Our neighbour to the south has lost far more jobs than we have. We need the United States to see recovery to help Canadians' recovery as well.

We put forward legislation this week to extend the time that Canadians can be on EI, and that will help those people who have received that bad news in this last month, but unfortunately, the Liberals actually voted against the economic recovery bill in this House. They voted against extended support for those on employment insurance.

I am glad I'm not going back to their ridings to speak to their constituents who have lost jobs, to try to explain to them why the Liberals voted against the bill. I am glad I am going home as someone who supports people who have lost their jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, while the home renovation tax credit is hardly a new idea, certainly we have had critical home repair programs in Manitoba since the seventies, it has proven to be very successful, particularly at times when the economy is in some difficulties.

I would like to ask the member whether at this point he has any idea as to how many people are taking advantage of the program and what the tax losses would be to the government.

I would also ask him if he is prepared today to announce, because I noticed he said it was a temporary program, that he is planning to extend it for another year.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, that question does not surprise me at all because I believe, in the debate on the first budget bill, I had the same question from the hon. member. I respect his tenacity.

We have made no decision at this point as to whether or not it will be extended. It is tremendously successful. It has instilled confidence in consumers, in homeowners, the likes of which we have not seen before.

Canadians are concerned. They are very concerned about this economic recession, about the impacts to their livelihoods, about their jobs. We need to be able to make sure that we can quickly pass this bill through this House and deal with it at this point. Soon we will be looking forward to a new budget coming up.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, as further evidence that the government is razor-focused on recovery, the Windsor area, which has the highest unemployment in Canada, has the highest stimulus investments in the country.

Is that not proof to the member that the government is getting the job done?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do need to recognize the hon. member's work. He is doing whatever is within his powers to make sure that those people who were unemployed in his region may actually have an opportunity at some new jobs and actually see some stimulus money going into that community.

That is partnership. That is working as a member of our government. That is working with us to make sure that his constituents receive the support that they need and they deserve.

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

Madam Speaker, unlike the previous speaker, who was a work of fiction, I will be a work of fact. I am going to chronicle how our party has come to the position of losing confidence in the government. It is an interesting exercise.

In 1993 we took over from the Mulroney government. At that point, there was a $42 billion deficit that had accumulated over the eight or nine years of the Mulroney government. Each and every year, that government ran a deficit and added to the national debt. At the end of 1993, when the government changed, Mr. Martin and Mr. Chrétien had a nasty little surprise and it took them about four years to dig out from that hole.

The election of 1997 was a critical election. We barely held on to a majority government because of the decisions that Mr. Martin and Mr. Chrétien had to make with respect to getting the nation's finances under control. Thereafter, we ran about 10 years of surpluses and paid down the national debt significantly.

That is how we got to the change of government in 2006. In 2006 we had a nice little gift for the incoming government: a $13 billion surplus. It immediately took it without any thanks and added it to its own little rhetoric. The history is made of Conservative deficits and Liberal surpluses, and here we are four years later into the most massive deficit that this nation has ever experienced.

How did we get from there to here? One would have to work at it. The first deficit was not actually this year. It was last year, for the fiscal year beginning March 2008 and ending in March 2009. It was a $6 billion deficit. In two short years, excluding the year it inherited from the Liberal Party, the government was into deficit again. Things were back to the good old Mulroney years where spending could not be controlled, the revenue base was reduced and, Bob's your uncle, we were into deficit.

One of the reasons why it does not seem to be able to walk away from its fixation with deficits is that it does not seem to be able to control its spending. Many commentators were making the observation that the revenue base cannot be flatlined while expenditures were simultaneously running at a 7% or 8% increase on an annual basis. Revenues were being flatlined by the government.

In any household, we cannot carry on spending more money than we take in unless we run up the debt. That is what we are doing here. We are running up debt. The first deficit was not this year. The first deficit was last year. Now, we are into some rather massive amounts of deficit.

It is kind of interesting to quote the Prime Minister on these sorts of things. Apparently, in September of last year, he said that there would not be a recession in Canada and that we would be fine as long as we did not do stupid things such as running a deficit. That was only September 2008.

In October he suggested that the market represented good buying opportunities for Canadians. In November, exactly a year ago, his failed economic statement promised a surplus for the next five years.

The government projected a surplus for the next five years. Finally, it was up to the Bank of Canada to tell Canadians, because the Prime Minister would not, that we were in recession in November of last year. By December, after a bit of a political crisis, he admitted that he would probably be running a deficit in the order of $20 billion to $30 billion. In the budget that was passed in January, it projected a deficit of $34 billion.

That was then and this is now, and $34 billion became $54 billion, $54 billion became $56 billion, and we still have not finished the fiscal year end and we do not know what the deficit will be.

It is a pretty impressive list of incompetent statements, possibly even misleading statements, and it speaks to the issue of confidence. If I stop right there, people may say that maybe the Liberals actually have it right and maybe they should not have confidence in the government. Indeed, that is the situation. We have ceased to have confidence in the government, and this litany of incompetence and misleading information just keeps on keeping on.

Then the excuse has become that it is a worldwide recession and because it is a worldwide recession and because all of these other countries need to stimulate the economy, we need to do the same thing. We in the Liberal Party say that is possibly a good idea, but only if it is a timely stimulus with, as the phrase goes, shovels in the ground. Stimulus two, three or four years from now is actually useless. Stimulus now and stimulus in the last number of months, when the economy was shrinking is, in theory and in practice, a useful exercise. We agreed that if we stimulated the economy with a temporary deficit, then fine, let us do it, and maybe we will ride through the recession as best we can.

That was the theory going into it, and then suddenly a whole bunch of Conservative cheques started raining down on the heads of Canadians, Conservative cheques with Conservative logos and Conservative MPs, and Conservative signatures. We had signs and cheques, and cheques and signs, et cetera. Clearly, the thing that has been most stimulated in the last few months has been the sign making industry and the cheque writing industry. However, it does not seem to have had really any impact on the economy.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer was asked to see whether he could establish whether the stimulus money that had been injected into the economy would have any impact, any real and measurable impact on the economy. First, he was sort of stonewalled. He asked and asked and did not get any response. Then after a period of asking and asking, he got 4,000 pages of incoherent documentation dumped on his lap and was told to figure it out. He said that was an unacceptable disclosure and asked for electronic formatted material. Apparently the government is unable or more likely unwilling to actually produce the numbers and disclosure with respect to the stimulus projects in any kind of fashion that would allow a coherent analysis.

It is one thing for the Government of Canada to stonewall the opposition. It is another thing altogether for the Government of Canada to stonewall the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is exactly what it is doing. That is essentially an insult by the government to every member of Parliament in this chamber.

Let me read from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's observations with respect to the attempt to get information. He puts it in much better language than I could. He points out that we have uneven information regarding the implementation process, relevant benchmark outputs and expected outcomes of measures of the stimulus package. Uneven information, what does that mean? Unmeasurable outcomes of the stimulus package: inconsistent in its presentation, some measures have been dropped or renamed; lack appropriate disclosures regarding major components of the stimulus package, including infrastructure spending. What does that mean? The only thing that it can mean is that 4,000 pages were dumped on his desk and he was told to figure it out.

If the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an officer of the Parliament of Canada set up by Parliament, is unable to discern whether stimulus has actually worked in this country, it does not lie in the mouths of government members, particularly the parliamentary secretary, who say that everything is wonderful and it is all working. There is no way to tell whether it is working.

The parliamentary secretary went on at great length about the home renovation tax credit and all that sort of stuff. He could not tell the NDP member who asked if it was actually working whether it was working or not. He cannot tell whether it has had any impact at all. The only thing he knows for sure is that the government has run up the deficit by $56 billion. That is the only thing that is a factual truth.

The hon. parliamentary secretary, and I assume Conservative speakers who will follow, will talk at great length about how this stimulus package is working, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an officer here to serve us, cannot tell. Nobody can tell.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer then goes on to say that we should compare how the Americans disclose their stimulus package with how Canadians disclose theirs. The U.S. has a recovery, accountability and transparency board. Canada does not.

With respect to government-wide reporting, the U.S. has quarterly reporting on oversight and quarterly reporting on economic impact by the council of economic advisers. Here, we get a note from Finance Canada once every three months. There are agency recovery websites, agency recovery aid plans, agency IG recovery work plans in the United States. Canada has nothing. The U.S. has program specific recovery act plans and other activity reporting tied to agency level reporting. We have nothing. Recipient reporting, risk management reporting, award level reporting, all of that is available in the U.S. We have nothing.

When hon. members on the government benches say that stimulus is working, we on the Liberal side of the House will have to be pardoned for saying we have no confidence in what the Conservatives say about the effectiveness of stimulus. If the Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot analyze it, and if the government will not disclose it, then it does not exist. But it gets worse.

We have chronic deficits as far as we can see. We cannot measure the effect of stimulus. Then, in this morning's paper, there is a report which says that unemployment is at its highest point in 11 years.

The Globe and Mail states:

The recession has killed hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada since employment peaked last October, with the jobless rate hitting an 11-year high of 8.7 per cent. More than 1.6 million Canadians are now out of work, with the steepest job losses among factory workers, though no sector has been spared.

There we have it. We have run up a huge tab on the government's dime, which is really our dime. We have chronic deficits as far as we can see. We cannot measure whether stimulus works or does not work, and unemployment is at the highest level in 11 years.

I do not know what would be required to turn one from confidence to a lack of confidence, but those seem to be rather fundamental parts of being in government. The government has to be able to run the fiscal framework of the nation. It cannot spend more than it takes in. It cannot run up the deficit endlessly.

We need to be able to measure the stimulus effects, where they are, how effective they are and whether they have impacted the economy. We want a recovery where the jobs are there and people are available to do them.

What do we have? We have a jobless recovery, if there is a recovery at all. We have a huge run-up in our deficit. We have a Parliamentary Budget Officer who has been stoned each and every day when he has asked for more information.

It is a pretty damning indictment of the competence of the government. I do not quite know how the parliamentary secretary will face his constituents. He will a lot of explaining to do to the folks in Alberta, who are generally of a Conservative persuasive, that he has run the bills up by $175 billion. Then he will have this cute little argument that the government paid down an amount of debt. The government only paid down about $39 billion of which $13 billion was left over from the Conservative government. Therefore, it has not done much of a job. Net, the government is probably up about $130 billion to $140 billion in debt.

Let us hope that the Governor of the Bank of Canada can keep the lid on the rates. I do not know if he can always do that. It is pretty low right now and we are pretty fortunate. Having racked up and anticipating racking up more and more debt, if the rates take off, then the problems of the government will pale in comparison to either inflation or the cost of borrowing.

It is pretty difficult to express confidence in a government that cannot control its spending, flatlines its revenues, runs up the debt, taxes the futures of our children, cannot and will not tell us whether stimulus actually impacts the economy and has an unemployment rate that is starting to go through the ceiling.

Forgive me if I express a lack of confidence in the government. The litany of incompetence, the litany of misleading information and this relentless propaganda machine that comes from across the other way would do credit to a totalitarian regime. There were $100 million spent on telling Canadians what good, fine folks the Conservatives were. Meanwhile the debt is through the ceiling, unemployment is rising and the government cannot tell us whether stimulus works.

I appreciate the opportunity to express this lack of confidence in the government.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood begged forgiveness near the end of his speech because he needs to do that.

I know the Speaker listens intently to all speeches in the House but, Madam Speaker, as you and I know at third reading one is supposed to speak somewhat about the bill being debated. I did not hear a word in there that actually addressed Bill C-51.

I would ask, with all due respect, to either approve his forgiveness or not, whichever the Speaker sees fit, because I do not think his constituents will forgive him. He stood in the House and voted against the economic recovery act. Now he will have to go back and explain that. He referred to me going back to my constituents. I am going back proudly to say that I am standing up for Canadians and I am ensuring that they have all the tools available to them to withstand this economic downturn.

He talked about job losses. The United States lost 190,000 jobs last month. He says that he is worried about our jobs. Absolutely, we are worried about the jobs we lost in Canada, but did it help that when he and his party, just this week, voted against extending EI?

Now I am not speaking to the bill, but I have to ask if the member knew anything that was in that bill. We have seen both sides of it. In the House he voted against it and he supported us at committee. I wish him all the luck in the world when he goes home this week.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I will take this opportunity to remind all members that we are at third reading. There is less latitude and members should speak more specifically to the bill, although this is not a point of order as the member raised it after the speech.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

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

Madam Speaker, it is rather amusing. I do not know how the hon. member will go back to his riding. I know where it is and it is a wonderful part of the country, although it is poorly represented.

He will have to tell his constituents that the Conservative Party of Canada has run up the debt to $175 billion. That is pretty impressive. He will tell them that the government cannot really tell them where the stimulus has helped the economy and it cannot tell them because it either has not analyzed it, or it will not tell the Parliamentary Budget Officer or it will not give the Parliamentary Budget Officer any information to make an intelligent analysis.

Then, when all the unemployed folks start traipsing into his office, he is going to say that the Conservatives are really good at managing the economy, that they have taken it from a Liberal surplus and have run it right into the ditch. It is brilliant.

If I do not express the greatest confidence in the government, please forgive me.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to focus a bit on the home renovation tax credit.

During the last campaign, New Democrats travelled across the country and advocated very strongly for a program that would allow Canadians to retrofit their homes in an energy efficient way. It is our belief that not only will this help create the green jobs of tomorrow, but it will also help Canadians improve their single biggest assets, their homes, and save energy at the same time.

I am very pleased to see the government brought in the home renovation tax credit because it allows Canadians to pursue this laudable goal. What does my hon. colleague think about the benefit of this program in helping Canadians make their homes more energy efficient and does he think it is a good idea?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks a good question. On the face of it, the home renovation tax credit enjoys a lot of support among Canadian, certainly among contractors, who love it.

The problem is nobody knows whether it works. The idea of the home renovation tax credit as part of the stimulus package was to get shovels in the ground. On the face of it, that is a good idea. The trouble is the government will not tell us whether it works. There is a significant component of taxpayer-funded dollars in that program.

The government should let the Parliamentary Budget Officer find out whether it works. The point of stimulus, the point of the member's party sometimes support and sometimes opposition was the stimulus money would be timely, in the ground and effective. It may be, but nobody really knows.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the member who just spoke said, in 1984 when the Conservatives were in power under Brian Mulroney, Canada's debt was $150 billion. By 1993, when the Liberals took over, the debt had risen to $750 billion. The Conservatives incurred that debt over a period of nine years. They took the $150 billion debt and grew it to $750 billion.

In his speech, the member who just spoke also pointed out that when the Liberals took power in 1993, with Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, they had trouble keeping their majority in 1997. Why? Because the Liberals chose to reduce transfer payments to the provinces to pay down the debt that the Conservatives had accumulated at a rate of $54 billion per year. That affected the provinces, including Quebec. Funding for education and health was slashed. They also appropriated $6 billion in surplus cash from the employment insurance fund.

Was taking money that should have been transferred to the provinces, money that went along with the transfer of certain responsibilities to provinces and municipalities, a good way to manage the nation's finances? Was cutting funding to the provinces and taking $6 billion from the employment insurance fund the right thing to do?

The Auditor General said that when the previous Liberal government was in power, annual contributions in excess of $58 billion from employees and employers produced a $58 billion surplus. Unemployed and seasonal workers have been denied access to that money.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member will recollect that in 1993 the Wall Street Journal designated Canada as an honourary member of the third world because it did not control its finances. Therefore, it was with some great difficulty that cuts were made to programs, transfers, et cetera, and that did have an impact on people.

However, we cannot have it both ways. We either have a financial system that is coherent, a financial framework that works, or we do what the current government has done, which is let it run and run and go into chronic deficit.

I actually addressed this question with the finance minister when he came to committee. He has said that he will not raise taxes, that he will not to cut transfers and that he will not to cut pensions. That only leaves programs. His program spending is running at 7% or 8% on an annualized basis. He has said that maybe the government could get $100 billion of it to 3% on an annualized basis.

If we parse that answer, we will have deficits for the foreseeable future, as far as the eye can see. That is what we get with a Conservative government, no fiscal discipline. The fiscal framework for the country is a wreck. We are at the edge and we are about to go over.

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

Madam Speaker, members know there was a worldwide recession last year at this time. In fact, Iceland actually declared bankruptcy.

However, while all this was happening, the Conservative government was totally oblivious to the state of the economy. During the election, the Prime Minister was saying that the land was strong and that the stock market crash was creating buying opportunities.

It was not until January, under the combined pressure of the opposition parties, that the Conservatives in fact introduced a stimulus package.

However, he is right that the Americans have a better reporting system—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I have to give the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood equal time to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, very briefly, the member's point is well taken on the stimulus disclosure. The Conservatives have it. We do not. They can do it. They will not.

On the issue of the Prime Minister and his fantasy life, this time last year, during that “necessary” election, the land was strong, we were free and only the stupid ran deficits. Here we are, 12 months later. Who is running the deficit?

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska may begin his speech.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, like last Friday, I see that I am coming just before question period. I would not want this to become a habit, but question period is obviously very, very important. I will be back after question period to finish my speech on Bill C-51, which the Bloc Québécois supports. It is 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 preface my remarks by explaining a bit about what Bill C-51 entails. As I said, this bill implements the renovation tax credit. We in the Bloc Québécois had come up with similar proposals in our two recovery plans. When Parliament resumed, the House talked about the economic recovery plan, which contained provisions about implementing a renovation tax credit. Our actions are always consistent with our demands.

When the government introduced this bill, we supported it. Often, our adversaries say that the Bloc Québécois is all about blocking legislation and is opposed to all measures. We hear that regularly, especially during election campaigns, but it is totally false. When a measure is good for Quebec, as this bill is, of course the Bloc Québécois will support it.

However, when Parliament resumed in the fall, there was this election psychosis. The leader of the Liberal Party decided that Canadians and Quebeckers suddenly wanted an election, even though he himself had said not long before that Canadians needed an election like they needed a hole in the head.

Journalists, who always get a bit excited at such times, asked the Bloc what it was going to do in response to the economic measures that had been put forward. The Bloc did what it has always done: it voted in favour of the measure, because it was good for Quebec. A bit later, when the Liberal Party introduced a motion saying that the House had lost confidence in this government, we supported it, at the risk of triggering an election, because we could not say that we had confidence in this government.

We are guided by consistency, and we acted accordingly. Now, there is less election panic, because the Liberal leader realized that people did not want an election. I believe that the public felt the same way a month earlier. In any case, let us look at Bill C-51, which implements a tax credit.

I will come back to this later, Madam Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will have approximately 17 minutes remaining when debate on this bill is resumed.

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 third time and passed.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Before oral questions, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska had the floor. He has 17 minutes left for his remarks.

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I was once again interrupted on Friday by question period. The questions were excellent. However, given the government's answers, I have to say that we might have been better off listening to speeches about bills.

However, question period did give me an opportunity to hear the Minister of Public Works and Government Services say that the Bloc Québécois is always against everything. He was not listening right before question period. I had just said that the Bloc Québécois would support Bill C-51. We are completely in favour of this measure, the act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

I would like to summarize what I said during the first three minutes of my speech. I said that Bill C-51 would implement the renovation tax credit. That was one of the proposals in the recovery program that the Bloc Québécois released when Parliament resumed. Every party in the House but the Conservative government recognized that we were in the middle of an economic crisis.

During the 2008 election campaign, the Conservative Party denied the possibility that such an economic crisis would hit us here, even though our American neighbours—with whom we conduct a great deal of trade, of course—were in the midst of a major crisis, which unfortunately, is still not completely over.

Everyone knew that the whole world was facing an economic crisis and that Canada, Quebec and all the provinces would inevitably be affected. No one was happy about that. However, we needed to take off our rose coloured glasses and prepare for the worst, and also bring in concrete, effective measures to deal with and mitigate the effects of the crisis.

That is why the Bloc Québécois presented such a plan, which was, I might add, commended by the Minister of Finance. The minister said the Bloc Québécois was the only party in the House to bring forward concrete measures, and he thanked us for doing so. However, thanking us is as far as he went, given that, when he presented his budget, there was not much left of the important measures the Bloc had developed and proposed.

Bill C-51 also introduces a first-time homebuyers' tax credit. That is a good measure that was also proposed by the Bloc Québécois in our most recent election platform, during the election campaign that ended on October 14, 2008.

Bill C-51 implements Canada's international commitments to the International Monetary Fund, which were signed in 2008.

It also includes some other measures, such as the temporary home renovation tax credit, the first-time home buyers' tax credit and an increase in the tax relief provided by the working income tax benefit.

What I also liked about Bill C-51, since I am the Bloc Québécois critic for agriculture and agri-food, is that it will also extend 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 it will designate the eligible flood or drought regions between 2007 and 2009.

We are not talking about a measure that will make all our farmers rich overnight, but this adjustment will prove very beneficial when a catastrophe hits our farmers. In addition, this bill amends the customs tariff to relax the conditions relating to temporarily imported shipping containers.

These are the main measures contained in Bill C-51.

I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance just now and at first reading of the bill and also when the home renovation tax credit was announced, touting this as the eighth wonder of the world and that the Canadian and Quebec economies would get back on track with this home renovation tax credit.

However, they should not exaggerate. I realize that this government tends to use every opportunity for the marketing and branding of the Conservative Party, with its logo and all the rest.

This measure alone will not put an end to the economic crisis and solve all the problems that have arisen in recent months and years. They should not exaggerate and consider it the be-all and end-all.

There a number of things missing from the government's deficit control plan and we can discuss these in the next few minutes.

The federal government's comprehensive plan to fight the recession is incomplete and poorly targeted. However, given that the measures in Bill C-51 are good for Quebec, the Bloc Québécois, in keeping with its responsible approach, will support this bill.

With respect to the home renovation tax credit in particular, as I was saying, in the first phase of our recovery plan, we had proposed introducing a similar home renovation tax credit. We emphasized the conversion of oil furnaces to more energy efficient equipment. We had a very specific plan for decreasing our dependence on oil.

This measure, in addition to helping reduce our dependence on oil would also have rapidly injected money into the economy. The measure we are debating today, the government's Bill C-51, does not specifically target energy efficient retrofits but is still an effective means of quickly stimulating the economy.

The government could have gone farther, as I said, and introduced a real environmental plan that would have stimulated the economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and decreasing our dependence on oil.

The first-time home buyers' tax credit is also interesting, because in our 2008 election platform, we had proposed a tax credit for first-time home buyers and called for such a program. The measure the government has introduced is not as generous as what we proposed, but we feel that it is a step in the right direction. That is why we also support this measure.

Buying a home is a big step for many families. It allows homeowners to build equity and benefit from the appreciated value of their home. Quebec is significantly behind the rest of Canada in this area. Many young families 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.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing that the government give interest-free loans of up to $10,000 for first-time home buyers. That would have been a very significant measure, although, as I said, the tax credit is clearly a step forward.

I spoke earlier about the last election campaign. I imagine that many of my colleagues in this House and many candidates in the last election had the opportunity to meet with real estate agents, because they demanded action on the issue of first-time home buyers. While I was campaigning, I had the chance to meet with people throughout Quebec, including people in my own riding. We talked to them and listened to their suggestions. This proposal that first-time home buyers receive interest-free loans of up to $10,000 was very well received by the people I met with. They felt it could be an efficient and effective way to help people buy their first home. Real estate agents were very much in favour of this measure.

If this measure were implemented, it would complement the tax credit proposed by the government in Bill C-51 and make it easier for people to purchase their first home. Then we would have a comprehensive home buyers' program.

In terms of the economic measures presented in the budget, some of which would be implemented by Bill C-51, a bill that would put the tax credits into effect, as I started out saying just after question period, the government denied that there was an economic crisis during the last election campaign. Conservative members unfortunately showed up empty handed for the economic statement last November, which sparked a crisis. I will not dwell on it, but we came very close at one point to having a coalition government, and to returning to the polls.

They finally presented some measures, even if they were not complete, as I was saying.

We did our homework. We presented a stimulus plan that had four objectives: tighten the social safety net and restore confidence to the public, which was experiencing—and still is—an economic crisis; stimulate employment and investment; support Quebec and the provinces; and stimulate strategic spending on things like measures to reduce oil dependency.

The OECD suggested that countries with the means to do so should provide income support for workers who lose their jobs. The best way to do that, of course, is through the employment insurance system. Economists agreed that one of the best ways to stimulate the economy was to help the least fortunate and in particular, to help those who, unfortunately, because of the economic crisis, lost their jobs. Needless to say, in the forestry sector, for example, people would have benefited from more extensive and flexible measures regarding employment insurance.

We suggested improving the employment insurance system by making it easier for people who lose their jobs to collect benefits. Our proposed changes would have enabled 148,000 more people to collect benefits every year. If we eliminate the waiting period, which is something the Bloc Québécois and other parties have been calling for for a long time, people will not have to wait 14 days for their cheques. We also suggested helping the most vulnerable with an investment of about $6 billion to help seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $110 per month. And we suggested helping middle-class families by doubling the GST credit for 2009.

We know that the government has put economic stimulus measures in place. A lot of money was invested to help Ontario's auto sector. We were never against helping that sector, but according to the statistics, it is clear that the government helped Ontario at the expense of Quebec and the other provinces, but especially at Quebec's expense because its forestry sector got nothing. At any rate, there is many a slip twixt cup and lip when it comes to what Ontarians got. As of now, 100% of the $9.7 billion—nearly $10 billion—in direct federal cash for the auto industry has been spent. About 80% of the $70 million allocation has been spent developing new markets for the forestry industry across Canada. There is still a huge difference between $10 billion in support for auto workers and $70 million for the forestry sector across Canada. Moreover, while 100% of the auto sector's money has been spent, 20% of the amount announced for the forestry sector has not yet been disbursed.

So, for its economic recovery plan, it would have been in the government's interest to listen to Quebec, the provinces, the opposition parties, unions, workers and the National Assembly of Quebec. They all made urgent requests to ensure that a real economic stimulus package would be introduced, particularly for the manufacturing and forestry sectors. The Quebec forestry industry employs over 88,000 workers and is an economic driving force in many regions of Quebec.

I was talking about employment insurance earlier. We heard some good news yesterday. Unfortunately, it does not have to do with the unemployment rate. There was some bad news on that, since it increased. The good news was that here in this House, a majority—except the Conservatives, unfortunately—voted in favour of Bill C-308 introduced by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. That bill will now go to committee. It includes several measures for a complete overhaul in the context of an economic stimulus plan. It would have been great if the government had supported those changes, which are more comprehensive than the piecemeal changes it wanted to make in several different bills.

The Bloc Québécois bill proposes improving access to the system and establishing a 360-hour threshold for everyone, which would make it easier for women and young people, who are often the most likely people to lose their jobs, as well as people with unstable jobs, to access benefits. In addition, Bill C-308 proposes a benefit rate increase from 55% of earnings to 60%.

It also recommends amendments that would give self-employed workers access on a voluntary basis to all employment insurance benefits, unlike the Conservatives' Bill C-56, which offers self-employed workers access to special benefits only. Our bill contains measures that are not only practical, but comprehensive and very effective in helping the unemployed. This is what the Conservative government could have done.

We have no problem supporting Bill C-51. It is hard to be against motherhood and apple pie, even if the pie is not all there. This bill provides one piece of the pie that will help us, namely, tax credits, including the home renovation tax credit. I cannot say that people are lining up at my three constituency offices to ask for information about these measures, but I would be lying if I said that I had not answered any questions from my constituents about this tax credit.

Obviously, we are pleased to provide them with information, and some people I know have begun to consider applying for this tax credit. That is why we are agreeing to promote this type of measure by voting in favour of Bill C-51.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to a statement made earlier by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood in which he indicated that the stimulus package in the United States has a much better system of accounting attached to it, which is why, at the end of the day, it should have less problems with boondoggles than perhaps our government will be directly faced with because it does not have the accounting in place that it should have.

Does the member have any observations or comments about that issue?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I was present when the Liberal member made those comments. I have not compared the Obama plan measures, the U.S. measures, specifically on certain tax credits. One thing is certain, it is important that the government have a comprehensive plan. All aspects of economic stimulus must be considered.

What I fear, what I have noted and what people are seeing also, is that the Conservative government has decided to target certain sectors and to implement piecemeal measures in certain files. For example, I spoke for a few minutes about employment insurance, where they have decided to introduce bills one at a time to help a specific segment of the population affected by unemployment. However, there is no vision or comprehensive plan, in terms of either economic stimulus or assistance, to mitigate the effects of the economic downturn.

That is our greatest criticism of the government. It is not because they were unaware of it, even though the Conservatives denied it in the last election. It is virtually impossible that they did not know that Canada, like all other countries in the world, would be affected by the current economic crisis.

That is the main problem with the measures before us.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Bloc Québécois member. I would like to read one line from Bill C-51:

Provisions for income deferrals for farmers of breeding livestock in drought conditions and designations for regions where this applies.

We do not know when droughts will occur in Canada. We can have one good year followed by two bad ones. It varies enormously from region to region.

Does the Bloc member believe that this program should be permanent?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer to the member's question is yes. I have the French version right here. Bill C-51 includes a measure that “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”. This measure should be permanent. We support Bill C-51 because it will enable more farmers to benefit.

Currently, there is a disaster relief program in the agriculture policy framework, but many more methods remain to be understood and implemented. That is why we are still trying to make sure that farmers will really benefit from this disaster relief program. These are known as “acts of God” or, in French, actes de Dieu. Obviously, as my colleague pointed out, we cannot predict droughts or floods.

As members of Parliament, it is our duty to be able to immediately and very quickly come to the aid of people who face unexpected weather-related problems. This could also include problems related to illness among the animals or parasites in the crops. We must be able to help people very quickly. For example, there was the case of avian flu in British Columbia when we did not react quickly enough. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food even had the opportunity to visit some of the provinces where people had lost their herds to bovine tuberculosis. The criticisms we heard from these people was that the government did not react fast enough to help them after the problem was discovered. In fact, in these cases, everything can be wiped out very quickly.

Obviously, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has unanimously called for corrective action to be taken. We are always looking for ways to help our farmers. I think that this measure from Bill C-51 is a step in the right direction that can help the victims of droughts or floods.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats are proud to support Bill C-51 because it does a number of positive things for Canadians. It brings in the home renovation tax credit. It provides a tax credit for first-time home buyers, a particularly important measure in Vancouver where I come from, where real estate is out of reach for so many young people. It has drought relief for livestock owners.

I think this legislation shows what can happen when we use public policy in a positive way to make lives better for Canadians.

I wanted to ask my hon. colleague about CPP. The Canada pension plan exists right now as an easy way for us to improve the income security for seniors. The administrative structure is there. By adding just a little under 2% in contributions from employees and employers, we could double the pension security for our seniors. We think that this is a wonderful way that we can help our seniors.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments on bolstering the Canada pension plan so that Canadians from coast to coast can have more secure futures.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from the NDP for his question. When I was talking about a comprehensive plan, the Bloc Québécois did indeed ask for certain measures to help the less fortunate. I was talking about people who receive employment insurance and also retirees, older people who could use a little extra in their guaranteed income supplement. We know that with CPP and the guaranteed income supplement combined, those people are still currently living below the low income cutoff. Increasing the guaranteed income supplement to $110 a month would at least allow them to reach the low income cutoff. That is one measure.

The measure the hon. member is talking about is quite interesting. My own bill, Bill C-290, has just reached second reading stage and will be referred to committee. This bill will help retirees who may unfortunately have lost part of their pension because of the bankruptcy or closure of their employer. For instance, a person who was supposed to get $30,000 and is getting only $22,000 and therefore lost $8,000, could get a 22% refundable tax credit. That more or less puts them on the margins of the middle class. It would allow that retired person to receive $1,760 a year. It is a type of compensation, and not full compensation, but it is better than nothing. Other measures like that and like the one mentioned by the hon. member as well, could be implemented by the government to help stimulate the economy. It is the best approach. We can start with the people who need it the most.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to report stage of Bill C-51, which, ironically, is called the economic recovery act (stimulus).

The NDP has been supporting the bill because it does contain some significant measures that were in the budget that we approved last spring but were never actually implemented. They are now included in this bill, and I will go into that later. I did want to reflect on the fact that this is called the economic recovery act and, as we heard today, there was not good news for Canadians, in terms of the number of people who are unemployed.

We know that over the last year we have had a net loss of about 400,000 jobs in Canada. That is very significant. However, the numbers today show us that there has been a further increase of 43,000 to 44,000 people who are unemployed and the heaviest losses were in B.C. and Alberta, being 13,000 and 15,000, respectively.

I raised this today in question period because I guess the one thing that really bothers us is that we have seen the so-called economic action plan and the stimulus program from the current government and yet, we continue to see these heavy losses and erosion of jobs. From the numbers that we saw released today, it is particularly difficult for women and young people. Many of the jobs that were lost were part-time jobs. That means that they were people who were already having a really hard time dealing with this economic crisis. They may be people who will not qualify for EI.

The NDP has spent a lot of time in this House bringing forward very substantive proposals. In fact, we have 12 bills concerning reform of the EI. That just shows how bad the program is. This is a program that was designed to help unemployed people and yet, we have 12 different bills on different aspects of the program because we think it so badly needs to be fixed.

So, for those unemployed folks who, over the last month, lost their jobs, just think about the impact that would mean. They might have had a part-time job in the first place or maybe they were a young person, or a woman contributing to the family's income, or a lone parent, and they have to face the fact that they cannot even rely on employment insurance.

I think it is a very serious and dire situation for so many Canadians. Juxtapose that against all of the rhetoric that we hear from the government side. We are told that the worst of the recession is over. We are told that its economic stimulus plan is working. We are told not to worry about it, that the government is going to take care of things. Yet, these jobless numbers keep rising and the impact on our local communities keep mounting. I think that we are facing a very serious situation.

I know that yesterday in question period my colleague from Winnipeg Centre had one of the doorknocker propaganda pieces that the government has been distributing, we understand, to 3.5 million households, concerning the home renovation tax credit.

That is one of the measures that is contained in this bill and is actually one of the reasons we are supporting this bill. It was a measure announced in the last budget, but it was not actually in the budget implementation bill. For some strange reason, it was left behind and then had to be introduced later through a ways and means motion, and now it is in this bill. There is no doubt that it is a very popular program. We see it advertised on TV by home improvement centres and there is probably very good awareness about that program.

There are two things here to note.

First, why is it that the Conservative government would then spend, presumably, millions of dollars on further propaganda messaging and advertising about the program when it is already very well known? In fact, people can receive information at building improvement and home improvement centres.

There has been so much emphasis on the politicization of the economic stimulus program, whether it is the oversized cheques that had the Conservative logo or individual MPs signing these cheques. These things are pretty outrageous and I think people feel pretty cynical about it.

The question from the member for Winnipeg Centre really highlighted that the government will leave no stone unturned when it comes to promoting itself and its political message, but when it comes to really, truly helping people, really digging in and finding out what is wrong or what needs to be done, the government kind of shuffles it along and says it is doing a good job.

On the home renovation tax credit, we do support it. As far as it goes, we do support it and there is no doubt that there has been a lot of pickup on the program, but we ask the question, why does it not go further? Why was it not linked to a broader green energy retrofit program, particularly for low income Canadians? There are many Canadians right across the country who live in housing that is substandard. Their heating systems are very poor. They are not energy efficient.

These are the people who need help. These are the people who would have welcomed a broader program that would have helped them maybe with some other kinds of incentives beyond a tax credit. The fact is that many people cannot take advantage of this program because they may not have the money to actually spend on that home renovation.

I know, for example, that there was some money in the economic stimulus program to help housing co-operatives. Many co-ops that were built in the seventies and eighties are facing envelope failures. Some of them were not well constructed. They are certainly not energy efficient, and although there was some money earmarked in that budget to assist those co-ops, we do know that the demand and the applications that have gone in have far exceeded what is actually available. There is a very good example of where this home renovation tax credit program actually could have been part of a much broader program that would really tackle this major question of energy efficiency and housing affordability in this country.

Yesterday at the HRSD committee, I appeared as a witness before that committee in support of my bill, Bill C-304, which calls for a national housing strategy, something that we do not have in Canada, which is really quite unbelievable. We are the only industrialized country that does not have a national housing strategy.

In putting forward this idea for a framework and a strategy for housing and leadership from the federal government, we come back again to this question of needing to have a coordinated and comprehensive approach to housing in this country. There are something like four million Canadians who are in housing insecurity. They are either paying too much for their housing, living in very substandard housing, facing eviction or one paycheque away from being on the street, or it might be all of the above. They might be in housing that is overcrowded and very inappropriate for a family situation. Certainly, that is a huge issue for remote aboriginal communities on reserve, where we have seen the most appalling conditions for aboriginal people in this country.

There is no question that we need a national housing strategy, that we need leadership from the federal government, but it is not only a question of good public policy. It is also a question of very sound economic policy, and in my mind, if we had a really good housing supply program in this country, something that we have talked about for years and that we have suffered from because we do not have it, it would be a huge economic stimulus. Generally, building housing creates good jobs for carpenters, electricians, plumbers, drywallers, architects, landscapers, and the list goes on.

The question of housing affordability and generating the comprehensive program with leadership from the federal government would be something that would be a really significant economic and social investment in the future of our country. We would actually be helping people. There is no question that having housing security and knowing that one's housing is affordable, accessible, safe and appropriate is one of the most basic things in our lives. If we do not have that, we know how hard it is to do anything else such as going to school, going to work, raising kids, and knowing what is going to happen at the end of the month.

That is one of the reasons I wanted to focus on that. It really bugs the hell out of me that there is this very small home renovation tax program that is popular and yet so much more could have been done, if we only had a government that was seriously focused on a substantive economic stimulus program that would actually help people.

There are other provisions in Bill C-51 that we are supportive of. The home renovation tax credit is one. The first-time home buyers' tax credit is another. The revenue sharing agreement with Nova Scotia is another one. Members have already raised the issue of drought relief for livestock owners.

There are also some provisions around pensions and some fairly minor adjustments in terms of pension changes. I want to spend a few minutes on this. This has been the other key substantive proposal advanced by the NDP.

We are very worried about what is happening to seniors in Canada. There are seniors who are living below the poverty line. They depend on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Even those seniors are still living below the poverty line, particularly if they live in urban areas where they do not have good housing. One can see how it relates back to affordable housing again.

I am very proud of the fact that the NDP has made very substantive proposals to reform the pension program just as we have done for EI. We see these as the basic foundations of what quality of life is about in Canada, and what human dignity means in this country. As Canadians, we tell ourselves that we live in a fair-minded country; we live in a country where there is equal opportunity, where there is no discrimination and where everybody has the right to use their own human potential, yet, we have seen so much over the last couple of decades.

We have seen a growing gap between wealth and poverty. We have seen the incomes of CEOs rise and rise, sometimes in an utterly obscene way. Just look at the pension investment board and the millions of dollars in bonuses that are being paid out. It is unbelievable. I am sure that those people are doing their jobs, although one could argue that the pension programs have not been well managed. They get these massive bonuses and yet, on the other side, there are people who are really hurting and are having a tough time getting by every month.

The pension system itself is something that I think more and more people are understanding is in serious trouble, whether it is a private pension program, or whether it is a senior who is dependent on OAS and GIS. We have seen the situation with Nortel here in Ottawa and what has happened to those people who paid in good faith into their pension plan only to now be terribly worried about whether or not they will ever be able to collect their pension or, if they were on long-term disability, only to find out that their support for that may be in jeopardy.

The proposals we have put forward are very substantive in terms of significant increases to the guaranteed income supplement and say up front that no senior in this country should be living in poverty. When one has worked for decades, whether it is in paid work or unpaid work, when people have contributed to this country, they should at least be assured that they have enough money in their retirement years to live in a decent way. Nobody here is talking about luxury or affluence. We are talking about the basic necessities of life.

The NDP did have a motion that was approved in the House last June. We did a lot of research on the proposals that we have advanced. Our member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek travelled across the country, talked to seniors and got tons of feedback. He heard and did wonderful things.

It is unfortunate that this so-called economic recovery act that we are debating today is so minuscule. It does not do the job in terms of where people need to get that support from programs, services and investment in our economy. There are other provisions in the bill. One of the provisions concerns the CBC.

How many times have there been questions, at least from our side, on the future of the CBC? This is an iconic institution in this country. It was fighting for its life in terms of financing and asking for bridge financing. We raised that issue over and over again in the House. The reply from the heritage minister was more of a brush off. We are glad to see in the bill some recognition of the financial situation facing CBC and that it will be able to have some of that bridge financing, which we called for and which it was seeking. It is obviously something that is very important to the financial stability of the institution.

I would like to speak about what the Conservative government is doing with respect to economic recovery. I am from British Columbia. I represent the riding of Vancouver East, which by and large is a low income riding. People really do struggle. They do not actually ask for a lot.

I am always amazed when I go out in the community. I hold travelling community offices. People come forward to tell me what is going on in their lives. I am always amazed at how resourceful people are. People are struggling to survive with very few resources, whether it is their housing situation, a work situation, trying to find affordable child care, or a student going to post-secondary education who is struggling with student loans and tuition fees. I am really amazed at how people get it together and keep going, but we can see how hard it is and how stressful it makes people's lives.

It has been pretty rough in B.C. We have seen the re-election of the Liberal government under Gordon Campbell who promised so many things but all he has done is attack workers, rip up collective agreements, allow privatization of health care and has not done anything to support a better child care program. Then kind of the worst happened. After the election, we suddenly learned that B.C. was going to be hit with the HST. The firestorm that has created in my province has just been unbelievable. It has crossed the political spectrum. Former premiers, such as Bill Vander Zalm, business people, small business people, the restaurant association, the labour movement, certainly the provincial NDP and hundreds of thousands of regular folks in B.C. are signing petitions.

Some of the polls that have been done show there is 80% opposition to the imposition of the HST. It is not just the HST itself, which is really a tax shift, but it is a shift from what corporations have paid on to consumers. I do not have the full list of things that it covers in front of me, but I know it includes newspapers, magazines, movie theatre tickets, haircuts, funerals, vitamins, baby diapers, food and clothing. The restaurant association has estimated that for restaurant meals alone the extra cost will be $694 million in B.C.

One issue is the tax itself. It is a regressive tax. It is a shift from corporations on to individual consumers. It is also the manner in which it was done. People are really outraged that during the provincial election there was no discussion of it. In fact, people were told there would be no more tax increases. Yet somehow after the election this issue suddenly started to appear.

We have been asking questions every day. We have been trying to find out when the negotiations took place and what negotiations took place between the federal and provincial governments. We are still trying to find that out. I think people in B.C. would be very interested to know when it was that those negotiations began to take place.

It is sort of ironic that on the one hand we have this bill before us today that promises economic recovery and yet on the other hand we have a Conservative government that is slapping people in B.C. with the HST. In fact, the Conservatives are running from it. They are trying to claim that it is not their problem, that the decision is up to B.C.

We know it originated with the Conservative government. We know it was in the federal budget. We know that the finance minister has actually been campaigning and advocating for this. We know that the Liberal members have been lining up with it as well. It feels like a slap in the face to people in B.C. who are going to feel the impact of this increased tax on the everyday items that they need to purchase.

It is the most terrible timing to think about bringing in this tax during an economic recession. The NDP has been saying loud and clear that this HST proposal must stop. My guess is that the opposition to it will continue to grow in B.C.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Perhaps the hon. member can complete her comments in questions and comments.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member whether she is at all concerned that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been effectively stonewalled with respect to the efficacy of the stimulus package. Four thousand pages were dropped on his desk and he was basically told to figure it out himself. When he asked for an electronic copy, some sorting, some organizing, the government said it could not find an electronic copy. That is question number one.

The second question has to do with the projections of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He has done a pretty good job, I think, on the revenue side of the equation. However, on the program side of the equation he has basically had to photocopy finance projections and he stuck with that. The reason that he stuck with that is that when he inquires to get the actual data behind the projections, he is told that is all cabinet confidence.

If one puts those two together, one is almost inevitably driven to the conclusion that our own Parliamentary Budget Officer, ours, the members' own Parliamentary Budget Officer is being driven into a position where his material is not as accurate as we would like it to be. He is being stonewalled and we are therefore being stonewalled. Therefore, any material that comes from the government is entirely suspect. I would be interested in her comments on that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the member raising this question.

Let us go back a little and remember that when the whole question of the need for an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer came up, the Conservatives were in opposition. I remember my colleague the member for Winnipeg North was the finance critic at the time,

There was a great push and advocacy for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be independent, to be able to advise members of Parliament to give a second opinion and to ensure that there was full transparency in government expenditures and operations, and we have public accounts and so on, and in the analysis that was being done.

There was very strong support for the idea that if committees are to do their job, typically the finance committee but not just the finance committee, there needs to be an independent officer who can provide that analysis. I have to say that the Library of Parliament and its researchers who provide information do an awesome job, but the focus on a parliamentary budget officer to provide that analysis was very important.

It is quite astounding that there has been this war going on between that office and the government as to what information is being received. The government is one that talks about ethics and accountability. This is probably the most fundamental thing we deal with. We are in a position of trust with public funds. We make decisions about where those public funds go and what the priorities are.

I think there were 17 boxes; I might have it slightly wrong, but a huge pile of boxes was handed over to go through them and sort it out. To think that financial records and information is being disseminated in that kind of state makes it very difficult to do the analysis that is required. It is pretty hypocritical to hear this from a government that is saying that it is very much into accountability, disclosure and handling the taxpayers' funds.

The member has made a very important observation. We as parliamentarians across party lines have an obligation to ensure that office has the mandate but also that it receives information in a manner to enable it to carry out that mandate. That has certainly been thrown into question in the last short while. It is very pertinent to the debate we are having today on a bill that is called economic recovery.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Vancouver East a couple of questions. One is on the home renovation tax. It says in the bill that this applies only to tax year 2009-10. We are going through a recession right now, and there are many people who would like to renovate their homes, but unfortunately because they have lost their jobs, or for whatever reason, they cannot. Does the hon. member think this should be expanded for a few more years?

Also I would like to ask about small businesses--

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Ask her if she opposed it first.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

A small business owner in my riding wants to make renovations, but there are no provisions in here for a small business owner. I would like the hon. member to tell me if this is something that could be added.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

I would ask for a little more respect while the member raises a point, to allow him to ask that question without being interrupted by questions nearby.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Hear, hear, Madam Speaker. The home renovation tax credit has been very popular and so the question arises as to what will happen after the years 2009-10 when presumably it will be over. It is a very good example of how the economic stimulus package has been designed in a way that is very short-sighted and there are many things that could have been done in a more structural way in terms of our income tax system and providing tax credits. I have already talked about the housing program.

This could have been a piece of a much more comprehensive program around housing affordability and allowing homeowners to do renovations but also ensuring that low-income people would be able to qualify, particularly for energy retrofit, where they are facing housing that is very unsafe or unhealthy. People are facing moulds and heating systems that are way out of date, and it is very difficult for them to find the financial resources to deal with those.

With regard to small businesses, this is a very interesting point. We often do not speak enough about what small businesses contribute to our society and the jobs they provide and the enormous time, energy and hours small business owners put into their operation. Often it is a labour of love, and they do not get paid a lot. There could have been a program based on a green energy outcome that might have addressed their needs in terms of the building they own or in which they operate. I am sure there are millions of small business operators who would have taken advantage of something like that. I think these are very good suggestions from the member, but they unfortunately point out that although we are supporting the bill before us as far as it goes, it could have done so much better.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest to the member that if the program is extended by the government, which I think is probable given the budget and possible election in the spring, on July 1 next year the HST is going to kick in. Is there not a question here about whether or not this will just be a wash? Any benefits that people would get by hiring renovators to renovate their houses will be taken away when the HST is put on all those renovation contracts.

The second point I would like the member to deal with is the whole issue of the program itself. Perhaps if the Conservatives do announce an extension of the program next year, they might look at some sort of tax credit system for people of low income so that the program could be expanded to apply to even more people who could use it.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, very good suggestions are being made here. I know that the NDP has proposed a retrofit program for lower-income Canadians who are living in housing that needs to be fixed up, whether they own it themselves or whether it is part of a not-for-profit housing system. This is something that we have actually advanced as a very sound economic and environmental investment.

Again, the member is pointing out the stunning sort of ironies such as on one hand giving people a small credit while on the other hand immediately taking it away by increasing the taxes they will pay on the products they need to buy in order to get the credit. Go figure.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I vaguely remember hearing a statement, something to the effect that we are getting the job done. I think thou dost protest too much, because that is as far from the truth as we can get.

For the financial year that ended March 31, 2006, the Government of Canada had a $13 billion surplus, which was used to pay down the debt. The current government came into power and we started sitting in Parliament one month later, in April 2006. What has happened between April 2006 and today? It is all in the numbers. By the following September the government was saying we would not be in a recession. In October--

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we had a discussion earlier today about relevance. We all know that at third reading, the speech one gives must reflect a certain importance and at least a semblance of relevance to the piece of legislation we are dealing with. Therefore I will leave it up to you, Madam Speaker, to advise the hon. member that he might even reflect on what we are dealing with here today rather than ranting about who knows what.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. member for the point of order. We are reviewing the bill on so-called economic recovery stimulus, or entitled economy recovery (stimulus). I would ask all members to bear in mind that we are at third reading and we should focus on the provisions in the bill and focus our comments on those.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I should have indicated that I was leading up to the reason we needed a stimulus and the magnitude of the problem we have to deal with, but I could go right to it.

We went from everything being rosy to all of a sudden looking, since the fall update, at a $56 billion deficit. The experts are saying that we have a technical recession. The projections are that in 2013-14 we will still have an annual deficit of $20 billion. I can imagine what that will do. The government undoubtedly will have to continue to increase taxes and peck away at the pensions of Canadians. I wish I had time to talk about Nortel.

The bill is supposedly about stimulus. I think everyone in this place would agree that what we needed to do when the financial difficulties started to emerge was to pay lots of attention to this. At the time, the discussion was about what we needed to do, and everybody agreed that was to make strategic injections into those areas where we could save the greatest number of jobs, to provide where there were existing jobs. That is probably the most efficient, most effective use of money: to save current jobs and mitigate the loss of jobs.

The second part was to stimulate the economy in those areas where we believed we had the best chances of creating new jobs, new productivity. Canadians can do that. We needed that injection, and one of the aspects of that was infrastructure funding.

I know that in the last fiscal year, although we were already talking about needing to get these infrastructure programs going, and members may recall the term shovel-ready, it made sense that we had to have shovel-ready programs, and so what has happened? Over $3 billion of infrastructure money was all ready for approved projects, ready for the cheque to be cut, and the Conservatives let it lapse. The money just went back into the Treasury. Those projects did not happen. They are coming back now because they have been re-announced. Now we see that only 12% of the announced projects actually have a shovel in the ground right now. That is 12%.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Next year will be a big year then, won't it?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

I thought that we were talking about saving current jobs. We have over 100,000 construction workers out of work. Why is that? Talking about employment, in October, it was just announced, we lost another 43,000 jobs. We now have the highest rate of unemployment in 11 years.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

What happened last month? Where were you last month?

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would ask hon. members to restrain their comments until questions and comments.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I suppose it is fair to say that the government really does not like to hear the facts. Conservatives react. I am encouraged by the fact that they like to shout me down when I put the facts on the table. That is okay. I will carry on and see how they perform.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer provides independent financial expertise to Parliament and lets members of the House know whether the projections the government puts on the table are reasonable.

Why does the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer exist? Because when the Conservatives were in opposition they said that the Liberals kept having surpluses but their budgets were not showing that high of a surplus, so we were obviously cooking the books. Each and every year there was a $3 billion contingency in Liberal budgets. If there were no extraordinary, unforeseen circumstances, there would be a $3 billion surplus, although the budget showed balanced books.

There also was a performance reserve. The government used the average of the economic forecasts for growth and interest rates, but it also took the low end of that so it was a conservative, cautious projection of how we would perform. If we achieved those targets, if it was as good as we thought, then the reserve would be used to ramp up additional programs on behalf of Canadians.

What has happened to the Parliamentary Budget Officer now? In the last article I saw, he said “Fund me or lose me”. The government has—

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the risk of sounding repetitive, the hon. member is talking about the Parliamentary Budget Officer. If he has read Bill C-51, he would know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is not even referenced in it.

With all due respect, I wonder if the hon. member has even mentioned Bill C-51 in his comments. There is some relevance. Is it because the Liberal Party has no position on the bill? Is that why those members are skirting around it, not even speaking to it or against it?

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I believe we are entering into debate on that question. I am sure the hon. member will take the parliamentary secretary's comments to heart.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government says that it wants to do something on the EI side, so it decides to change things a bit. It decides to slap on a $13 billion tax grab on the backs of hard-working Canadians, many of whom are struggling to get back into the workforce. They are going have to eat up that $13 billion, which is in the bill.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Some of us have made the trek here today to hear debate about the bill before the House today. I am not sure if the member is trying to mock you, Madam Speaker, but I would ask you to ask him to get to the bill. He is referencing everything but the bill.

A valid point was made earlier. Perhaps the Liberals should talk about their position on the bill, which they do not seem to have. We would really like to hear their position so we can actually have some debate on it rather than this kind of wandering and meandering, which that member seems to be doing.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. member for his comments. I am sure no mockery is intended as that would be a very serious breach.

As the hon. member has only three minutes left, I would suggest he begin to conclude his comments on this bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will conclude them when I finish my 20 minutes at some later date.

There are some key items in here, for instance the Canada pension plan changes the government has proposed. When people take early CPP now, they get a certain reduction in the rate that they can earn it at.

What the government has done, the mechanics of it in plain language, is if people take early retirements, they will be penalized by the changes in the bill. If they defer it for up to five years, the government will give them a bonus. The incentive is to have more people continue to work past age 65. Those who really need the money and have to take early retirement will be penalized for doing that and for protecting themselves. I do not like that.

On the CBC, the government is increasing the borrowing authority of the CBC to $220 million from $25 million. Why? We might think it is so the CBC can be more productive. No. It is simply a technical requirement. Now, because the government will not fund the CBC when it really needs it to be competitive, the CBC will now be forced to sell the leases on buildings it owns but does not use.

The government is discounting future lease payments. It is mortgaging the future of the CBC, and this will continue.

In the last moments, let me leave this thought with Canadians. I quite honestly believe that the fuse has been lit on the CBC to the future privatization of it. The Conservatives have never supported the CBC. When there are lockouts or strikes and Canadians do not have this unifying body, it shows how important the CBC is to Canada. The Conservatives could not care less.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from November 6 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 third time and passed.

Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus)

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Mississauga South has seven minutes remaining in his speech.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 is an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

As members will know, from the debate that has gone so far, this bill touches on a broad range of subject matters, some of which I have mentioned in my previous remarks.

Before I move on to my final remarks, I would like to note that on page 6745 of the November 6 Hansard, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance raised a question about whether or not I had even read Bill C-51.

In my defence, I would remind the member that he chaired a briefing session for members of Parliament the day before it was tabled in this place and, as he will recall, I was sitting in the front row throughout the meeting and was one of the members asking most of the questions. He may want to withdraw the remark about my presence at the meeting or about reading the bill.

In reviewing some of the other matters that the members have talked about in debate and why it is relevant, because members have obviously raised it, was certainly to go back and remind Canadians about the November economic statement a year ago, which is where we need to understand where we came from and why we are here today.

The economic statement contained projections of surpluses and it included cuts to government spending at a most inappropriate time. It is really amazing what happened. The members will know the litany of changes we have undergone. A budget was brought in that ultimately included a fiscal stimulus through infrastructure and other members and the Liberal Party supported them. However, what did not happen was the execution of the matters in that budget. I remember raising in the House that, even with regard to the last fiscal year, some $3 billion of infrastructure funding did not get out the door. It was approved project by project, ready to go. We talked often about having shovel ready projects so that the money could get out quickly so we could save current jobs. That was one of the key elements of the infrastructure program.

We did not get the money out. We let the money lapse, which is a shame because it just goes back into the treasury, even though it was already announced, promised, funded and ready to go. Talk about shovel ready, that was it and they let it go.

We also know it is the same situation with regard to the current program of infrastructure spending. Only 10% of the projects that were submitted for funding are underway and have shovels in the ground. It is the government's term “shovel ready”.

In my own city of Mississauga, I just looked at the listing from the manager of the City of Mississauga who keeps the members of Parliament informed. There are a large number of projects in the sixth largest city in the country, Mississauga. However, in my own riding there are none that have any shovels in the ground yet, but they do have signs everywhere announcing them. It is really a shame because, as we have seen with the unemployment situation, we have gone from having the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years to now having the highest in our history. We are approaching 9% and expectations are that it could hit 10%. It means that we are still losing jobs when the stimulus program should have been saving those jobs, should have been creating those jobs through the infrastructure programs and through other initiatives. It has not. It has been a terrible execution.

It just strikes me that the Prime Minister once mused that Canada did not need to get on side in terms of stimulus, in terms of this overall so-called global financial crisis, because we are a trading nation, which means that other countries that are doing all the stimulus spending are creating an economic activity and they will trade with us and we will benefit from their economic spending.

However, we also need to do our share but now, instead of having a surplus in the current fiscal year, we are now up to a projected deficit of some $60 billion for Canada. It is outrageous that the current government has allowed this to happen.

The Prime Minister says that his government will not raise taxes and it will not cut government spending, particularly in transfers to the provinces for health care and other things. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that we are in a technical recession. This means that we cannot grow out of it.

Projections show that even five years hence Canada will still be running a $19 billion to $20 billion deficit. This should be of concern to Canadians. This shows the government is incapable of managing the financial matters of the country. The government's responsibility is to be fiscally responsible. The Conservatives have spent all their time advertising things that have not happened.

I have some grave concerns about the government's ability to do the job. I have concerns about the EI commission, which the government wants to start up in 2010, with $2 billion in seed money. After that, all the premiums would go into the commission and all the expenses would come out of it.

With an unemployment rate that high, it is very clear to me, and I am sure to all Canadians, that the commission will operate at a deficit itself, and I hope members will ask about this. It will not have the resources to pay the employment insurance benefits to which Canadians are entitled. The government will have to make further transfers into the commission. It shows how incompetent the Conservatives really are.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague's comments in regard to these important issues interesting.

Would he elaborate a bit more on the issue of the commission and its workings? We do not know a whole lot about it. What would happen when it started to run into a deficit position? Who would be responsible? Obviously, it would be taxpayers.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

The member is quite right, Mr. Speaker. Although the government has said that it will not raise taxes, it has announced that it will raise the premiums on EI to generate an additional $13 billion a year. This is a contradiction of its promise that it would not raise taxes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, in answer to a question in the House regarding whether an increase in payroll taxes, basically EI premiums, would be a tax, he said that it was not a tax. If that is not a tax, then I do not know what is.

We are probably going to have a $60 billion or $70 billion deficit. The $2 billion to be transferred into the commission would also be charged to the consolidated revenue fund, which means it would further erode the fiscal position of Canada. However, $2 billion is not going to be enough. The premiums are going to go into the new commission and the payments are going to come out.

When we are running an 8% to 9% rate of unemployment and when we are looking at increasing benefits for long-tenured workers, it is clear it is going to operate at a deficit and the money is going to have to come from the pockets of Canadians.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. I heard the first part of it the other day. He barely touched on Bill C-51. He does not seem to really want to deal with it at all, and I think there are a number of reasons why. Even today he has talked about a whole lot of other things other than the bill.

One of the main reasons he does not want to talk about it is that it contains the home renovation tax credit. This is probably one of the most popular tax reduction measures that has been brought in for years. People across Canada have taken advantage of it, but the Liberals have opposed it and voted against it.

Many people across the country are using the home renovation tax credit to renovate their homes and it is creating jobs. Given that it is as popular as it is, could he explain to Canadians, since millions of them are watching, why the Liberals are opposed to the home renovation tax credit?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are opposing an incompetent government for its fiscal mismanagement. That is the issue.

When the government runs a deficit the way it is, I do not know how it will operate the home renovation tax credit once people start to file. I do know there are already some problems in it. We have raised some of the issues. We are very concerned about people getting scammed by disreputable businesses that have gone into it because there is such a high demand.

The renovation program is about two sentences in the entire bill, which is quite a substantive bill. Other issues are extremely important. The CBC will have its borrowing authority increased to $220 million. Some people might say that it sounds pretty good, but the only reason it is being done is to allow the CBC to sell its rental revenues over the next few years on properties that it owns but does not use. It is mortgaging the future.

As I said the last time when I spoke on this, I believe that when we mortgage the future of the CBC, it is the very first step to privatizing the CBC at fire sale prices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member say earlier that when the Liberals were in power, they were expecting that the system the government had put in place to provide some kind of EI fund or an alternative management system for that fund would soon run out of money because there were a great many unemployed people.

I have a question for the member. When the Liberals were in power, they did not accept repeated requests made by unemployed groups for the creation of an independent EI fund. The Liberals collected billions of dollars in EI contributions and put the money into the general revenue fund to lower government deficits. That was a major misappropriation of EI money.

How can he say what he said, considering the fact that the Liberals could have acted a long time ago?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the collapsing of a stand-alone bank account for the EI fund was mandated by the auditor general during the tenure of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. It was operating at a deficit at the time.

Who would have known we would have, under the Liberal government, not only balanced budgets by 1997 but 10 years of surplus and paying down debt. However, all that money is still being kept track of and it is the Conservatives now who are taking that money and locking it into the consolidated revenue fund. They will now set up a commission to operate on a stand-alone basis, just like it was when the auditor general closed it down. That is the problem. The Conservatives are taking the money from employers and employees because they do not have a way of paying back the $50 billion that is still outstanding. The money is still there and it is being used to pay down debt, reducing interest expenses and trying to manage the finances of the nation. However, it is still owed, and the member knows that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen with great interest to my hon. colleague, but I think we need to back up a little to see where the Liberal Party has been. When it came to siding with the Conservatives on stripping pay equity for women, the Liberal Party stood and supported that. When it came to stripping basic environmental protection on Canada's river ways, the Liberal Party stood with the Conservative Party and supported that. When it came to stripping the fundamental obligations on Kyoto, the Liberal party went along with that.

The Liberal Party always looks through the prism, not of a national vision but of how to get back to power. Now we have a situation where the Liberal leader, perhaps he was seeking employment benefits himself, suddenly announced that the Liberals would oppose everything from here on in.

The Liberals are opposing changes to EI, which would help unemployed workers. Many in my riding have asked me about supporting it, but the Liberal Party does not support that. The bigger issue is getting the visitor from Harvard elected. Now the Liberals are refusing to support the home renovation tax credit, even though it is out there, because the visitor from Harvard sees this as a path to getting to power.

The Liberals have supported the government on everything that is wrong. When it finally has done one or two things right, the Liberals oppose it. I cannot understand their hypocrisy on this.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition has a greater role to play than the other opposition parties because it has two responsibilities. First, it is to hold the government accountable. Second, it is to show Canadians that it is a government in waiting.

The accountability aspect is where the government has failed miserably. For example, what did the Prime Minister say about Kyoto? He said that it was a socialist plot trying to suck money out of rich countries and companies.

There is no commitment of the government in terms of addressing climate change, which is so important. Canadians want us to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Even the environment minister, when he talks to the oil sands people, says that the government wants to do its share on climate change but it wants to do it in a way that does not impact their businesses. The dirtiest, most polluting business in Canada is the oil sands.

I do not need to take any lessons from the member. Responsible opposition is to hold the government accountable and to point out where it has failed Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased 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.

Bill C-51 was introduced by the Minister of Finance on September 30 and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance on October 7. The members of the Standing Committee on Finance have already begun to study it.

The purpose of Part I of this bill is to amend various aspects of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations, namely with respect to taxes for certain livestock producers, the home renovation tax credit, the first-time home buyers' tax credit and the working income tax benefit.

Part II of this bill includes provisions to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 2009, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, the Customs Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. It is clear that this bill amends a number of existing acts.

I would like to speak more specifically to the home renovation tax credit. That aspect of Bill C-51 is rather important to the Bloc Québécois. It is because of that measure in particular that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. What is more, this concept was part of a recovery plan submitted by the Bloc Québécois in 2008. A second component of this recovery plan was also submitted to the Conservative government in April 2009.

The part concerning the creation of a home renovation tax credit was included in the recovery plan and it is extremely important. At first, the Bloc wanted to encourage people to convert their oil furnaces to more energy efficient models. When we presented that measure, the Bloc members emphasized that this would help reduce our dependence on oil, which is extremely important. We have often said that Quebec would do well to reduce its dependence on oil. Even though the home renovation tax credit does not exactly achieve that goal, it does allow certain adjustments to be made. This measure does not strictly target energy efficient retrofits, but in this economic crisis it is an effective way to stimulate the economy rather quickly.

As we have already indicated, this budget was unacceptable to Quebec. The Conservative government has clearly favoured the automotive industry concentrated mainly in Ontario, to the detriment of Quebec's forestry industry. Compared to the $10 billion given to the auto industry, only about $70 million was given to the forestry industry, which is going through a major crisis.

Yesterday I met with some private woodlot owners who earn a living by making good use of their land. These people told me over and over that they have received almost no support from the Conservative government. To pass along what they told me, they are extremely disappointed.

They really expected to see a fairer distribution of the money they send to the federal government. I am convinced that the federal government is making these people poorer, since it is doing nothing to help them. It has also left them completely disillusioned, because of the unequal measures offered to certain groups in the country, particularly in Ontario and Quebec.

Coming back to the home renovation tax credit, we definitely support that measure. As I was saying earlier, it is a way to stimulate the economy to some degree. Even though this is not only about energy efficient retrofits, many people will benefit from this tax credit, for window products in particular.

So, part of this measure will improve energy efficiency. Indeed, people will be able to use this tax credit to improve the energy efficiency of their homes by putting in new window products, that is, windows, doors and skylights. Of course this can also help people significantly improve the comfort of their homes. When properly applied, this measure can considerably decrease both household energy consumption and the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, a major problem for all of us.

Purchasing higher quality windows, doors and skylights will ensure the right balance between cost, ease of use and maintenance. Owners of homes that are 15 or 20 years old and even older are already experiencing maintenance problems. This tax credit will allow these people to make their homes more energy efficient and easier to maintain. People often choose maintenance-free doors and windows, which improves durability, aesthetics and energy efficiency.

I insist on that because this measure has been very popular, particularly in Quebec. In my riding, many people told me that they thought it was an interesting measure and that they used it to varying degrees. It is not a cure-all for our economic woes, but it is a good support measure.

These changes will reduce energy costs. It is estimated that, for the residential sector, energy bills will be reduced by 7% to 12%. This will obviously have an interesting impact in terms of reducing greenhouse gases.

We talked earlier about the comfort of our homes. We all live in a rather difficult climate.This measure will help eliminate cold drafts in our homes, which is very beneficial. In terms of prevention, efficiency and maintenance, it will help reduce condensation. When new windows are put in, the air exchange is better, which means less condensation in the homes and less deterioration of materials. It also reduces external noises.

However, the home renovation tax credit still raises some questions.

This tax credit is supposedly effective but it does have limits. Eligible expenses are those covered by contracts completed after January 27, 2009, when the budget was tabled, and before February 1, 2010, and must be directly related to eligible renovations to an eligible dwelling or property. An eligible dwelling generally consists of the taxpayer's principal residence or that of one or more family members.

The maximum tax credit is $1,350 for one year only. Certain questions come to mind—questions that have not yet been answered—and it would be appropriate for the government to address them because they are important to citizens. Given that this tax credit was designed to temporarily encourage renovation projects or to accelerate projects already planned, should the credit not be available for more than just the one year? Should it not be extended for another year? It is an economic stimulus measure and the economy is still in trouble. According to the statistics, a great number of people are still unemployed. However, statistics do not tell the whole story. They indicate that the level of unemployment has stabilized but what goes unsaid is that many people are not eligible for unemployment benefits and are not even included in the statistics.

The government's proposed changes to employment insurance have not made it possible for many people to have access to the program. Even now barely 50% of those who pay into the employment insurance program qualify for benefits when they lose their jobs temporarily or permanently. Thus, the government's changes to employment insurance have not improved accessibility at all. Too many people are still denied benefits and government support after having contributed for many years. For all sorts of reasons, they are not eligible for employment insurance benefits.

There is also the issue of the two week waiting period. Once again, the government is refusing to make changes even though we know very well that this measure would truly support and stimulate the economy. Rather than waiting two weeks, recipients would receive benefits much more quickly and would not have to strain their resources to cover this period.

As we know, in some communities, in many places, the two breadwinners of some families, namely the father and the mother, both find themselves out of work and must wait the two week period. These people often go back to work later on during the year and then, five or six months later, they are once again laid off. This means that, two or even three times a year, these families do not have any income for a period of two weeks each time.

That is totally unacceptable and that is why the Bloc Québécois has proposed changes and keeps asking for an in-depth reform of the employment insurance system that must include the abolition of the waiting period. We must also allow these people to receive EI benefits based on their good faith, and we must stop thinking that EI claimants are crooks trying to defraud the system. Let us stop trying to find all sorts of ways to delay the payment of benefits as long as possible, because some people must wait several weeks before getting that first cheque, even though they are entitled to it.

If I am now talking about the EI system it is because of our suggestion to the government to consider extending this tax credit.

It would be important to look at the actual impact of this tax credit over a longer period of time.

There are other questions that remain unanswered, but that should still be answered. Currently, how many Canadians qualify for the proposed credit? Are estimates available?

As we know, this tax credit is non-refundable. If, strictly for home renovation, Bill C-51 proposed instead a refundable tax credit, what would be the impact on the government's total tax expenditures? What would be the pros and the cons of a refundable home renovation tax credit? Surely there must be government studies that could help get a clear understanding of the impact of such a tax credit. However, as always with this government, we are getting as little information as possible. In fact, we do not have any information. We can always try getting more information indirectly, because with this government we never get answers to our questions.

I said earlier that the Bloc Québécois submitted a proposal, in a recovery plan, for home renovation incentives to improve energy efficiency and real estate value. Are there elements in such a program which should lead us to believe that there will be a real decrease in total greenhouse gas emissions?

The government of Quebec also introduced a home renovation tax credit, but it is very different and it applies differently. The fact that the federal government did not adjust its tax credit to the tax credit already introduced by the Government of Quebec has caused some confusion among Quebeckers. Why was the credit capped at $1,350? Was this amount determined to be the optimal one to allow for the best possible economic recovery?

To what extent will this tax credit help the economy to recover in Quebec and in Canada? These are other questions for which we have not been able to get answers from the government.

Part 1 of Bill C-51 also deals with the first-time home buyers’ tax credit. The same questions must be asked. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a refundable tax credit for first-time home buyers? It would be interesting to have this information. Why has the proposed maximum been set at $750? This is a very small amount for the purchase of a first home. It would need to be much higher for housing construction to really have a stimulus effect on the economy. These are important questions to which no answer has been provided.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-51 strictly because of the home renovation tax credit, which is the most important part of it.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain for his excellent speech.

During the past few years, we have proposed several measures to improve the employment insurance plan. The member said that the government has invested very little money to support workers affected by job losses mostly in the forestry industry. The member and I intervened on several occasions because many forestry workers in the Mauricie region have been hit very hard.

I would like to hear what the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain has to say on that topic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Earlier, when talking about the EI system, I said that the measures introduced by the government to stimulate the economy, such as the home renovation tax credit, will not be enough to completely restore the economy, particularly in Quebec where there is a serious crisis in the forestry sector. This is a major crisis and people are complaining because the Quebec forestry sector received only $70 million compared to the $10 billion Ontario's auto sector received.

We see that many unemployed workers in Quebec must get through the crisis without the help of the government, even though they contributed for many years to the EI system. They are ineligible for the benefits that would help them to better weather the crisis. We know that the successive Liberal and Conservative governments diverted $57 billion from the EI system and put it in the consolidated revenue fund to reduce the debt. The unemployed and employers have been taken hostage. They are the ones who contributed to the system. Their money was used to reduce the debt and, on top of that, transfers to the provinces were cut. That is totally unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with great interest. I know he is very supportive of the home renovation tax credit. It is certainly not a new idea; it has been tried by many governments in tough times and even in good times in the past. The member is on to something in that the government recognizes that this is a very popular program. In fact, the government is going to announce an extension of the program. I think the Conservatives are planning to play politics with this. I think they are planning to hold off on the announcement until budget time next spring or whenever they feel an election is imminent. I believe the decision has already been made to extend the program. The Conservatives are just looking for a good time to announce the extension.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said he believes the government would be willing to extend the program. I talked about the fact that such a home renovation program helps stimulate the economy to a certain extent. The question is whether or not it should be extended. Such a measure should be combined with a measure proposed by the Bloc Québécois. It must not be restricted to home renovation. We proposed that the federal government use wood in the construction and renovation of federal buildings. I think that it would really help stimulate a struggling economy in Quebec, an economy linked to numerous communities and towns that rely solely on the forestry industry. Such a measure would be extremely beneficial not only in allowing people to receive the EI benefits that are obviously difficult for them to obtain, but also in allowing them to get their livelihood from forestry products, as they did for many years.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today's debate on Bill C-51 gives us the opportunity to look at what happened during the last session regarding the government's budget measures and to understand why, this time, the New Democratic Party can support a motion that relates to the previous budget. As everyone knows, our party voted against that budget.

Let me remind the House that almost exactly one year ago, on November 26, 2008, the Minister of Finance announced that the government would enjoy a budget surplus. That was rather surprising, because the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, had said that it was absurd to anticipate a surplus. Rather, we were headed for a major deficit.

We learned—once again—that when the time comes to look at the government's books, it is better to rely on Kevin Page, our Parliamentary Budget Officer, than on the Minister of Finance, who suffers from the Pinocchio syndrome when he has to face these realities.

So, the minister was off by a mere $60 billion. But since the Conservatives had just been re-elected—and even though they were a minority government—they included in that budget exercise a number of things which they knew would upset the opposition. Of course, what followed is now part of the Canadian parliamentary history.

I should mention, for the purpose of today's review, and because this relates directly to Bill C-51—which is why we can support it—that the Conservatives had proposed a series of measures. Among other things, they had decided to scuttle the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the Liberals supported them. They also decided to scuttle the right of women to equal pay for equal work, and the Liberals supported them again.

When budget time came, they insisted and persisted again. A series of measures were approved, including some that are on the table today. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities went so far as to say that the Navigable Waters Protection Act was killing jobs. He was absurdly pitting the environment against the economy, as if we could not promote economic development without adversely affecting the environment, as the Conservatives were proposing to do.

We preferred to vote against a budget that was depriving women of their right to equal pay for equal work. We decided to vote against a budget that was going to scuttle the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

What we have before us today reflects the sort of work we proposed to do at the end of August. When the Liberals withdrew from the proposed coalition that would have enabled us to give a voice to the 70% of Canadians who had voted for something other than a right-wing government, we knew what we were doing, but the Liberals decided to pull out.

Hon. members will recall that at the end of August, in a now-famous address in Sudbury, Ontario, the leader of the Liberal Party said that the Prime Minister's time was up. He was prepared to trigger an election. But he had forgotten one thing, and that was that the Liberals held only 25% of the seats in this House, which meant that they could not trigger anything but laughter.

We in the NDP decided to sit down with the Prime Minister. Our leader met with the Prime Minister and told him that if, with a minority government, he was prepared to make the House of Commons work in the interests of Canadians, we would do our part. If they did their part, we would do ours. We indicated some areas of concern, particularly regarding finance, where we thought we could work together.

First and foremost was employment insurance. With the current crisis, many people's benefits were coming to an end, and these people needed more help. We also wanted better protection for pensions.

There have been many cases where employee pensions have not been protected, the classic one being Nortel, where many people retired and thought they were guaranteed a certain amount, but learned that they would not be receiving that amount because of the crisis. Better pension protection for the future was one of our priorities, as was the issue of credit cards.

Since the NDP extended a hand on these issues, we have seen movement on employment insurance, with the announcement of $1 billion to help 190,000 families. I say “families”, because the person who receives EI benefits will of course be able to help the other members of the household.

Is that enough? The answer is no. However, it does help all regions of Canada, including Quebec, where tens of thousands of families will benefit from this significant change.

With respect to credit cards, something is just starting to happen, but because this is a federal government responsibility, the usurious rates imposed by credit card issuers will have to undergo thorough review. These rates are highway robbery and completely unacceptable.

As to retirement pensions, some good work is under way. An important report is going to be delivered in Whitehorse next month during the federal-provincial conference of finance ministers. The Standing Committee on Finance has already decided to build much stronger alliances with respect to this issue once the report is released. I think that this is a great example of an issue that both sides of the House can work on.

We have before us today a new budget measure that the New Democratic Party will vote for. But what is this measure about? What is the difference between this bill and the budget we voted against in the spring? This bill only covers measures that will actually help people. We have no problem with that. For example, the home renovation tax credit is part of Bill C-51. Amendments are being presented to improve retirement pensions.

Let us not forget that the home renovation tax credit for Quebec residents is in addition to a similar program implemented by the province. This credit is having a major impact in the sense that the black market, which tended to keep significant amounts of money out of the legal economy, is being suppressed simply because people cannot claim a tax credit without a receipt and due payment. People who are having home renovations done are insisting on hiring above-board workers. For example, in Quebec, people only want to do business with workers who have paid their dues and comply with the Régie du bâtiment du Québec's codes. All of the rules that are in place to protect the public, to protect consumers, must be followed. This protects people in two ways: it ensures higher standards of work and, fiscally speaking, protects the public. In the past, billions of dollars have flowed outside of the normal channels meant to collect funds to be spent in the public interest. That is becoming less common, which is good news.

There are some provisions that have convinced us to vote in favour of this bill, and there are more to come. As the Conservatives introduce these so-called ways and means resolutions to implement parts of the budget, we will see whether they have listened to the message delivered by the NDP leader in August. We are prepared to make this House work in the best interests of the public, and in doing so, we are preventing a fourth general election in five years. The other side seems to be positively receiving our message. The main thing we are looking at today with Bill C-51 is the implementation of the budget.

Aside from the consideration of this bill, if we look at everything that influences our economic choices, there is a profound difference between the Conservative government and the NDP: we believe that the government has been going in the wrong direction for the past nearly four years. Members will recall that before this crisis hit, before the fall of 2008, the areas of Canada with the largest concentration of companies in the manufacturing sector, Quebec and Ontario in particular, had already lost several hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs.

Furthermore, sustainable development is not just about the environment. Our generation has an obligation to ensure that future generations do not face a disproportionate burden. We are killing not only well-paying jobs, but also jobs that carry pensions. We are replacing well-paying jobs with pensions at General Motors along Highway 15 in Blainville with sales jobs, for example, in the shopping centre that replaced the General Motors. It does not take a genius to know that the people who are now earning $12 an hour selling clothing are having a harder time supporting their families. Plus, these jobs do not have pensions.

Another debt is being passed on to future generations, in addition to the fiscal debt. On top of that, the primary growth strategy proposed by the Conservatives—I say “proposed” because it has never worked—was to introduce massive corporate tax cuts. Doing a critical analysis of this decision does not take long. I would remind the House that when the Minister of Finance announced the largest corporate tax cuts in Canadian history, he was encouraged and applauded by the Liberal Party of Canada. The Minister of Finance came back to the House and said that he never would have thought he would be able to reduce corporate taxes so quickly, but thanks to the fact that the Liberals were asking him to go even further, he proceeded faster than expected.

Canadians will remember this decision and they will tell us what they thought of it in the next election. The basic error was giving $60 billion in tax cuts to the most profitable corporations. Why did I say “the most profitable corporations” and not “all corporations”, as the government prefers to suggest? The reason is very simple. By definition, if a company does not make a profit, it cannot benefit from tax breaks because it does not pay taxes.

How did the Conservatives manage to create tax room to give tax breaks worth $60 billion? It is not complicated. They raided the employment insurance fund. I would remind the House that, once again with the culpable complicity of the Liberals, they took $57 billion from the EI fund and put the money into the government's general revenue fund. Some may argue that this does not change anything, because it was public money and it remained public money. We must be careful. Money from the EI fund was paid by every employer, every corporation and every employee. A business that was losing money or breaking even did not pay taxes and could therefore not benefit from any tax breaks, but it did in fact pay for every employee.

Even if a company is losing money, it is required to contribute to the employment insurance fund for every employee.

The Conservatives have raided the employment insurance fund to the tune of $57 billion. They transferred that money to the government's general revenue fund, which gave them the tax room they needed to provide major corporations with a $60 billion tax cut. Then, all of a sudden, we were in a global crisis. It is no coincidence that we are heading toward a $60 billion deficit this year. This same government has also come to realize that the employment insurance fund will be short $19 billion. Who will pay for this shortfall in the EI fund? It will be all the companies, all the employers and all the employees. A new tax will be imposed on all the companies, even brand new ones and those that are losing money. They will be on the hook again for this new $19 billion tax. The major corporations that benefited from the $60 billion will also have to pay, but the others, who were already struggling, will not get a penny in tax cuts and will be on the hook again. They have to cover an additional $19 billion for all Canadian companies.

That is the lunacy of the Conservatives' doctrine. When one is guided by right-wing ideology instead of facts, with no regard for the fate of the citizens and all human beings, that is when decisions like this are made. Companies like EnCana in Alberta got millions of dollars in windfalls thanks to the tax cuts. The same cannot be said for manufacturing and forestry companies in Quebec and Ontario. There have also been many job losses in the forestry sector in other provinces. Just look at New Brunswick, or British Columbia, which has suffered terribly and not received a single penny.

The Conservatives are ideologically opposed to any intervention by the state in the economy. That is what guides all of their choices.

Since World War II, we have always understood that, being the second largest country in the world, Canada needs a government that makes sure that the imbalances in the economy are corrected and that stability, which would otherwise not exist, is achieved.

Through their ideological choices, the Conservatives are destabilizing the balanced economy that has been built throughout Canada since World War II. They are giving their preference to the oil industry and to banks, to the distress of provinces where part of the economy is based on the manufacturing sector. Yes, the primary sector is important, and natural resources must be exploited, but it must be done in a responsible way.

I spoke earlier about sustainable development, which is the obligation for a government to review the social, economic and environmental impact of each decision. When people refuse to acknowledge the real environmental cost of greenhouse gas emissions caused by oil extraction in the tar sands, the profit in American dollars looks much bigger than it really is. The environmental cost should be paid for according to the principles of sustainable development, but it is not. Thus, the value of the Canadian dollar goes up, making it more difficult to export our manufactured products and aggravating the already serious difficulties in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. This is what happens when we do not have a comprehensive approach.

Between now and the next budget, we will have a chance to see the Liberal Party's true colours, given this Conservative approach. We will likely see that the Conservatives do not enjoy managing public affairs. For them, it is an anathema: they feel the government has no role to play regarding this issue. That is what allowed the Minister of Transport to say that the Navigable Waters Protection Act was killing jobs. The fact that it is utterly false does not change anything to the fact that he can actually make such a claim. That has not prevented the Conservatives, with the culpable complicity of the Liberals, to abolish the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

In the next budget, we should expect even worse, a Conservative chain saw massacre. They do not believe in targeted action by the state, and nor do they believe that the government can make choices to generate wealth. They have this doctrinaire vision to the effect that the free market can deal with all these issues. In the next budget, instead of a surgeon's knife, expect the Conservatives to use a chain saw.

The Liberals will have to face their own contradictions. Those who have the word “liberal” in their political party's name have, time after time, supported the Conservatives on despicable ideological measures such as depriving women of their right to equal pay for equal work, and abolishing an act that had been protecting Canada's navigable waters for a century.

Today, we see the result of the NDP's reaching out approach. There is nothing ideologically despicable in what is being proposed. These are measures that we can support openly and with our heads up high. The NDP has always been consistent. It is out of the question for our party to behave like the Liberals and vote to deprive women of certain rights and to destroy the environment. If such measures were on the table, the Conservatives know what would happen. An election that no one wants would take place in the midst of an economic crisis and during a flu pandemic. The fact is we do not need that this fall.

The NDP will always remain true to itself, its principles and its commitments. We cannot wait to deal with the Conservatives when they deliver their next budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member for Outremont touched on the whole issue of pensions. New Democrats have put forward a proposition for how to deal with pensions in this country. I wonder if the member could specifically address the fact that often there are employees, from coast to coast to coast, who for all of their working lives, 30 or 40 years, have worked for one company. Now the company is in trouble and is looking at filing for bankruptcy or protection.

There are pensioners who worked at a pulp and paper mill in my own riding and who are looking at the fact that their pensions may be substantially reduced. They may get only 40% or 50% of what they are currently getting. Often we are talking about workers in their seventies and eighties. These are not men and women who can go out and find another job. They have established a lifestyle based on what they could reasonably expect to get from their employer and their pension contributions.

I wonder if, notwithstanding the proposed changes, the member could comment on what he sees as being essential to protect men and women who have worked all their lives.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question from my friend and colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan. It allows us to remind ourselves that in terms of public administration, one always has to look at cost versus benefit.

The most important thing we can do is take care of people for the long term. That is the number one thing that governments exist to do. It is not very difficult to imagine a structure of insurance, which is one of the propositions the NDP is putting forward, that would be similar to the deposit insurance that already exists. It is a light structure that is self-financing, and the burden is shared.

When people deposit their money in a chartered bank, they know it is guaranteed. There are certain sums and limits involved. Something similar could be designed.

What is also interesting about the deposit insurance structure in Canada is that it is the provinces that regulate credit unions. In Quebec, for example, the Desjardins Credit Union movement is the bank of 80% of Quebeckers. The deposit insurance exists under the federal scheme because the two have been able to work together.

It would, therefore, be very easy to come up with a light structure to which the provinces could adhere, because a lot of the pensions that exist in Canada are indeed under provincial jurisdiction. A lot of people work under federal structures. There is a federal labour code and a provincial one, and the jurisdiction changes, but it would be quite easy to imagine a solution that would not cost too much, would be fairly light and would provide the needed protection. That is what governing should be all about.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of our colleague from the NDP.

As we know, Bill C-50 does not meet the needs of the forestry workers in Quebec. They have told us so. The bill was designed more for automobile workers in Ontario. We are not against that, but we wanted the government to support the forestry workers as well. Bill C-56 does not help self-employed workers in Quebec at all, since they already have access to a parental leave insurance plan.

My question is quite simple. Does the member not agree that the patchwork reform of the employment insurance plan, proposed by the Conservative Party in Bill C-50, is of no help to workers in Quebec?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question because it is an important one.

He is right when he says that a sector of the economy that has been affected by successive layoffs and where workers needed to draw EI benefits over the years does not necessarily benefit from the extension that has just been given. However, one cannot say that Quebec workers will not benefit as much as other Canadians from the improvements included in Bill C-50. Tens of thousands of Quebec families will benefit from the bill and that is the reason why I was so disappointed to see that the Bloc voted against the measure. I really do not understand why the Bloc did that. Earlier, I alluded to the ideological approach of the Conservatives. Sometimes, the Bloc also has an ideological approach to issues.

As for Bill C-56, it has already been shown that the contributions will vary from one jurisdiction to the other. Since Quebec already pays, the contributions asked from Quebec workers will be lower than in the other provinces. I can illustrate that with the example of daycare centres that have received subsidies from the federal government. Since Quebec already had its system in place, the money was simply transferred to the province. On that issue, we succeeded.

As for the member's last question, I will say that, yes, we must once again make major reforms in the EI system in the best interest of protecting the entire population.

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

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to the Liberals, because I know it bothers them to be in a position of voting against Bill C-51 and particularly against the home renovation tax credit, knowing full well that the government will be out there with its ten percenters just flooding their ridings, especially the close ones, with information on something that is this popular.

Could the member make some observations as to how the Liberals got themselves into this mess in the first place?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, talk about an open ended-question, trying to figure out exactly the parcours that the Liberals went through to get themselves into so much trouble.

I will say that when I was debating the budget earlier this year, I heard one of the Liberal members who had once been responsible for the Status of Women in Canada trying to ask us questions about our position on the budget when she and all of her colleagues were about to vote to remove from women in Canada the right to have equal pay for work of equal value. I learned everything I needed to know about the Liberal Party of Canada, so I thought.

Last week the same Liberals presented a private member's bill, which they know will have absolutely no chance of ever producing an effect, because we all know the calendar of private members' bills and that bill will never be adopted. They have tried to buy themselves a fig leaf to hide their shame for having voted with the Conservatives to remove from women in Canada the right to equal pay for work of equal value.

When I saw that the Liberal Party would prefer a sword strike into water as their solution to try to justify what they had done, which was shameful, then I really knew everything that I needed to know about the Liberal Party and its sense that everything is due to it, and that nobody will ever pay attention to what it does. I think on that the Liberals are right, but it will take the next election to finally get rid of them.

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

Mr.Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures. It is important for those listening and for you, Mr. Speaker, to fully understand the situation.

First of all, for political reasons, the government decided to take part of what it had already announced in the budget and to make it a bill. We are talking about Bill C-51, which includes certain budget measures already adopted with the support of the Liberals.

Some may ask why the government decided to take certain provisions and create another bill. Quite simply because the government believed that it was very likely that an election would be held. It wanted to show that certain budget provisions had the approval of Parliament. It is always rather troubling to see the way the Conservatives manipulate public opinion. They have followed in the footsteps of the U.S. Republicans and they are good at it.

This allows them to shift the focus of debate. From the media's point of view, the debate is shifted to a new subject. We know that the latest budget adopted by the Conservatives contained important measures for the automotive industry. However, they have abandoned the forestry and manufacturing industries. In Quebec, there are a few automotive parts companies remaining but the only automobile plant, the GM plant in Ste-Thérèse—Boisbriand, shut down many years ago. The automotive industry was not a major player compared to the forestry industry, which affects 26% of the Quebec economy.

The Conservatives, in light of the Liberals' election threat, decided to take the most popular budget measures and create a separate bill to show that they were doing a good job of governing or that they had some interesting ideas. We will be reviewing them since the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-51. It is a good way for our audience to understand this better.

Yes, a political party may decide to vote against a budget, even though it contains some worthwhile measures. Why? Because you have to look at the big picture.

The Bloc Québécois is the only political party in this House that defends the interests and values of Quebeckers, and we analyzed the latest budget brought down this past spring with that in mind. The government had ignored the forestry and manufacturing sectors and employment insurance in favour of the automotive industry. The latest budget did not contain any worthwhile employment insurance measures.

Why was this so important to Quebec? Because there had been many plant closures in the forestry and manufacturing sectors as a result of the recent crisis. In addition, the forestry sector had been hard hit for many years. Plants had been closing one after another in many parts of Quebec for the past three years. This crisis in the forestry sector has been going on for five years. Conservative members and ministers from Quebec said that the market was to blame for the forestry crisis in Quebec. The same was true of the auto sector. The North American automotive industry was ailing, primarily because it had not adjusted its products. Inevitably, the market for cars was affected as a result.

In a move calculated to win votes, the Conservative government decided to help the automotive sector and ignore the forestry sector. It is always disturbing to see Conservative members from Quebec make a show of saying that the forestry crisis will resolve itself and the market will recover. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party decided not to leave the market in the auto sector alone, but to help the industry. That is why the Bloc Québécois opposed the budget. All we wanted was for the government to invest as much money in the forestry sector as in the automotive sector—just over $9 billion.

We saw the numbers in the government's famous recovery plan, the famous incentive measures the Conservatives brag about. While it invested more than $9 billion in the automotive industry, money that was paid out in September, it earmarked only $70 million for forestry, and only $53 million of that money has been spent.

As members from Quebec, when we read these numbers, listened to the Conservatives' speeches and saw this inequity between the forestry and automotive sectors, we could not remain indifferent, especially since much of the forestry industry is in Quebec. The Liberals and the Conservatives could, but not the Bloc Québécois. We wanted to be comfortable when we met people on the streets of our cities, and we wanted to be able to tell them the truth to their faces. We have never been afraid to do so. That is why we stand up every day to defend their interests.

That said, because of the imbalance between the Conservative government's investments in the auto industry and the forestry industry, the Bloc Québécois was not in favour of the last budget. But that does not mean that there were not some interesting measures in the last budget. As I was saying, one morning, the Liberal leader arose and decided, at the last caucus meeting of the summer, that he was strong enough to trigger a general election. When the Conservatives saw that there was a threat of an election, they decided to take some measures out of the budget, which they put into Bill C-51, the bill before us today.

I will speak about some of these measures. Bill C-51 implements the home renovation tax credit, a measure inspired by some of the proposals in the Bloc's two recovery plans. Once again, the opposition parties can call us any names they want, but they will never be able to accuse us of not doing our job. Our party was the only one to release a recovery plan before the last budget, even before the Conservatives released one. They had the brilliant idea of asking the parties to make suggestions. Since the Bloc Québécois is always the first party to proudly defend the interests of Quebec, we proposed measures for the recovery plan. One of them was the home renovation tax credit. It is not surprising that this measure is in Bill C-51 and that the Bloc Québécois is supporting it. Since we suggested it to the government and included it in both recovery plans submitted to the government, we are very interested in supporting this measure in Bill C-51.

Bill C-51 introduces a tax credit for the purchase of a first home, a measure that was part of our platform during the last election. I am not making that up; it is available on the Bloc Québécois' website. A similar measure was in place in Quebec for a time under the Parti Québécois. The government did not reinvent the wheel. It just borrowed a good initiative, followed a good example. Quebec has come up with a lot of good initiatives. It is always disappointing to see how often Parliament ignores good ideas that come from the Government of Quebec, from Quebeckers, but we must not forget that there are six Canadian provinces and three territories. The territories are being given more and more powers even though they have fewer inhabitants than pre-amalgamation Montreal.

So there are six provinces and three territories with fewer than one million inhabitants. Our neighbours are nice people, and we like them a lot, but Quebec has made decisions based on its population and its economy to support, among other things, residential construction. Quebec society has the means to create programs to foster investment. At the time, the goal was to promote residential construction.

The Bloc included these measures in its platform, and now the Conservative Party is adopting them. I hope nobody forgets that the Bloc Québécois supports this measure. All too often, people come up with all kinds of excuses for ignoring Quebec. I want the members who make those excuses to listen up here. Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec all have excuses for ignoring Quebec's demands. Even so, Quebec has a very strong economy and has planned for the future with hydroelectricity and wind energy. Our society made this choice, and it will be a very profitable one if Canada decides to respect its international agreements.

If Canada had decided to comply with the Kyoto protocol, Quebec would already be collecting payments for its efforts. Many Quebec businesses have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions compared to what they were producing in 1992, in accordance with the Kyoto protocol.

Once again, Quebec has access to a little less than half of its resources. As we know, over 50% of the taxes paid by Quebeckers goes to Ottawa, because the federal corporate income tax rate is higher than that of Quebec, among other reasons. If Quebec had full access to all the taxes it collects, imagine what an economic powerhouse it could become in the context of a new, global environmental industry.

We are in the new, global environmental economy and Canada will always be dead last. Canadians have decided to put all their eggs in one basket: logging. They will pay a high price for this decision in the years and decades to come. We will see this very soon in Copenhagen.

We must show some foresight. In the years to come, some countries will penalize factories or businesses that manufacture products from countries that do not comply with new international environmental agreements, as they should. The European countries have decided to pay the high cost of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, which Canada has not done and the Conservative government is not about to do. This government is earning more and more “fossil of the day” awards and ranks dead last in environmental rankings.

That was the government's choice, but it is not Quebec's choice. Quebec recently reached out to New Brunswick for its hydroelectric development and is really turning to energy sources of the future, to the economy of the future. Those who chose to follow Quebec's lead will do well. The others will be kicking themselves one day and will lose a lot of money because they made poor choices regarding energy development.

We can try to hide from this and tell ourselves that it will not happen in our lifetime. That is what some of our Conservatives colleagues are saying. But things are moving fast.

That is not how I want this planet to be left to my children and my grandchildren. I became a grandfather a few weeks ago and I am going to work hard to leave my grandson a healthier planet than we have now, the one the Conservative government is currently polluting.

We have to take up this battle because Quebec is still in Canada. One day, when it can take flight and be its own country, Quebec will be able to work with the new industries in Europe. It is up to Quebeckers to decide, of course. A new opportunity will likely come up in the next few years.

This is all because Canada lacks vision and does not listen to Quebec enough. Again, this House would do well to listen more and more to the Bloc Québécois.

I was talking about Bill C-51, which uses the measure that was in our platform, namely a first-time homebuyer's tax credit. The bill also implements Canada's international commitments to the International Monetary Fund that were signed in 2008. Obviously, we agreed with Canada's commitment. The government knew we would be in favour of that measure in this bill.

This bill also amends the Canada pension plan, from which Quebec is excluded because it has its own pension plan. For those watching us, Quebec has its own pension plan, the Quebec pension plan or QPP, and it manages its own pension fund. The rest of Canada's provinces have their program. The provinces, in consultation with Canada, who are under this Canadian plan, which excludes Quebec, have adopted certain measures and the Conservative government wanted to include those in Bill C-51. We have a lot of respect for our neighbours. It was their choice and we will not vote against a measure that was chosen after consultation with the federal government. We are in favour of this measure.

The fifth and last measure implements the report of a panel of experts, which included representatives of Nova Scotia and the federal government, on the dispute between those two governments dating back to 1984. Naturally, we will support these measures. Nova Scotia and the federal government have decided, pursuant to long discussions held since 1984, to implement the report of a panel of experts. We will support this in the hope that when the day comes for Quebec to hold negotiations, the other parties in the House will do the same for Quebec. It is not difficult to understand. On the contrary, the Bloc Québécois position is easy to understand. When the Quebec National Assembly adopts a unanimous resolution or motion, we are proud to defend it in this House. What we always find surprising is to see members from Quebec rise and vote against measures proposed by the Quebec National Assembly.

I was the president of the Union des municipalités du Québec in the early 2000s before being elected to this House. Given that I have two minutes left, I can tell you a story. I had the opportunity to take a poll. The question was simple. I asked people which area of politics would they like to see their children enter: municipal, provincial or federal politics. Only 11% wanted their children to be federal members of parliament. That is the reality for Quebeckers. The most important government for them is that of Quebec, followed by municipal government. The government of Canada is last. It is important for my colleagues to understand Quebec. The federal government, for Quebeckers, is not the most important area. I can definitely understand, as I was saying at the beginning, that the six provinces and three territories with smaller populations than the former city of Montreal need the federal government. However, the people of Quebec do not. All they need is to keep more tax dollars than they send to Ottawa to create their own programs and their own plans and to make the society they desire the society of the future, focused on reducing greenhouse gases and protecting the environment and benefiting from all of Quebec's investments in hydroelectricity and wind energy.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. I do not have much to say in response, because I thought his speech was very well done and very sincere. The one question I do have for him concerns Quebec. Of course I would like my colleague to explain to the House the main differences in terms of the economic approach Quebec would take and could take if it were to have access to all the taxes paid by Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give an example. This week, the Bloc Québécois leader and our environment critic held a press conference to say that our automobiles should go electric. This means that we would need to set up electric charging stations to plug cars in at service stations, in order to develop a vast network and a major industry focused on electric cars.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois called on the federal government to do its part for the simple reason that, for decades, it has been paying hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the oil and fossil fuel industry, among others. Quebec paid between 22% and 24% over the course of the development of Hibernia. Quebec paid its share to develop the oil sands through funds, tax credits and government assistance.

If Quebec had its own revenues and all of its own taxes, it could make investments and, for example, create a real network for the development of electric cars. If there is anywhere in the world that would be able to create a network of charging stations, it would certainly be Quebec, with its hydroelectric capacity. It could be a world leader in the development of electric cars.

This is a societal choice that needs to be made, a choice that is being discussed in Quebec, but not in the rest of Canada, where they are still working on developing fossil fuels. Investments are being made in automobiles with combustion engines, while Quebec would prefer investing in cars with electric motors.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend our colleague on his excellent speech.

On the front page of Le Devoir on Saturday there was an article about the Conservative Party's lack of respect for Parliament, here in the House of Commons. I would also like to remind hon. members that last week in this House, the majority of hon. members supported the Bloc Québécois bill to improve the employment insurance program.

In that context, should the House of Commons not grant royal recommendation to this bill and show that this House is functioning and respects certain democratic values and rules of ethic?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his question.

The newspaper articles are quite something. The Prime Minister is leaving. He probably will not be here today and for several days as he is leaving on a mission abroad. The media are reporting that he prefers to be outside rather than inside the House of Commons. That is obvious when he speaks in the House. Participating in the debates is not his cup of tea. That is a sign that governing with Parliament is not how the Conservatives want to do things. That is the political reality.

The weekend piece in Le Devoir was interesting. An increasing number of political columnists, those who follow politics, are beginning to notice that the Conservative Party will do anything to avoid any public debate. We had the saga of tough on crime bills that were presented outside the House. The Speaker even admonished them and told them to stop. The Conservatives are doing this more often and are copying the Republicans. They are trying to avoid any debate in the halls of democracy, and attempt to hold debates directly in the public arena because they can control the debate without being required to answer real questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-51. The comments made by other members illustrate how out of touch and out of tune the government was with the new realities that it faced one year ago in October 2008.

As a matter of fact, up until that time I think the government felt that it was doing reasonably well because it t was applying its right wing economic model to an economy that had been expanding for the better part of 10 years. As has been mentioned by Liberal speakers, the Conservatives were left a surplus by the previous Liberal government so they felt that by applying their Reaganomic principles to the economy it would increase the expansion of the economy. Therefore, they proceeded with tax cuts and all the typical measures that a right wing approach to government can take.

In fact, the Conservatives can point out statistically that the measures they have taken have actually helped the economy, and they gain adherence by that argument. However, the fact is that governments of all stripes, right wing, centrist and left wing governments, can do a very good job of governing when they have an expanding economy because, basically, it is dividing up a pie that is growing every year.

The problem comes when the good economy stops and we get into a recession. The government then needs to take measures at that point in time. I think it is the right wing type of government that is ill prepared for an economy when it starts turning bad. There were signs that the Prime Minister was completely out of touch with the realities of the economy. Other than that, he was simply trying to ignore what, in all likelihood, he knew was about to happen.

He went through the election. The election campaign showed him as a relaxed politician who wore sweaters. When he was asked in the middle of the campaign why the stock market was dropping, he said that it was a buying opportunity and that it was time for Canadians to get out there, buy stocks and buy Nortel when it was down to 25¢. That was his flippant response to the crisis that was surrounding him.

At about that time, we knew that economies, such Iceland's economy, were on the verge of declaring bankruptcy but for some reason he managed to ignore the problem. The government then had to play catch-up to try to get back in the game.

I saw Preston Manning a few months ago and if he were still around I wonder what he would have to say about the current type of government. A strong right wing Conservative would be looking at a government that owns General Motors and is running a $56 billion deficit. I am sure he would not approve.

If the government had achieved the majority that it was looking for, I think it would have tried to apply the right wing economic approach to the problem. Fortunately for the people of the country, that is not what happened. The Conservatives were short of their majority government and therefore had to come to terms with the reality that was in front of them, which was an economy that was faltering badly and their status as a minority government in the Parliament. The Conservatives proceeded to move as though they had a majority, acting very high and mighty I might add, to the point where they almost lost their government because of it.

What we have seen from the government since the beginning of the year has been a big improvement, a big improvement in its approach and in its attitude. It has a way to go yet but it is showing signs. As I have said before, if the government acts in the proper fashion to try to make a minority government work, it is conceivable that it could last the entire four years. I know that is highly unlikely but it could have a longer lifespan than it thinks.

The government is also aware that going into an election is a two-edged sword. However, we know it will try to prod the opposition into voting against it whenever it sees blips in the polls that show it could win the government.

The government recognizes that people do not want a $300 million election expense. It is so lucky that it got out from under that problem the last time. We can all recall the great fanfare when it brought in legislation that fixed the election date for October of this year. We were all waiting for this fixed election, planning our campaigns and nominations based on this date, and the government turned around and torpedoed its own legislation by calling an election that cost the taxpayers $300 million. That is something the government must wear and will continue to wear. If the government does prod and poke at the opposition to force a premature election, I think it is aware that it works both ways here. The government may carry the can for calling or causing that election, causing a $300 million expense that the public did not want or need, and it may lose some seats over that.

Regardless of how well the government thinks it is doing coming out of the Quebec byelections or other blips here and there, I really think a number of Conservatives over there are hunkering down for a longer period of time and are starting to develop a proper approach to making this Parliament work.

We have seen some signs here that the government has been moving in the right direction, which is why our party is supporting Bill C-51 and some of the measures in it. We have a spectacle here where we have the official opposition, the Liberal Party, being kind of caught. They must have slipped out of the barn door when it was open and then the door was shut and they could not get back in. Now they are trying to get back in here to be on the right side of voting on Bill C-51 to ensure the other parties are not sending out ten percenters and campaign brochures in the next months reminding people that it was the Liberal MPs who voted against a very popular home renovation tax credit plan.

I know there must be a lot of queasiness and uneasiness on the part of a number of Liberals over there because they know that, unlike some other political decisions and issues that we deal with in this country, the home renovation tax credit is very simple, and the Conservatives know this very well. This is not a complicated problem that the Liberals can say that they voted against it because there was something else in the bill that they did not like. There is room for interpretation and that is what they must deal with.

This is very black and white. Either the Liberals vote for this popular measure or they vote against it. I can see the Liberals being very unsure of themselves. A few days ago, one of the members of the Liberal Party was speaking to Bill C-51 and I do not remember if he even indicated which way he would vote on this particular bill. We will see when the time comes.

The bill does a number of things. One of the major things that it brings in is the home renovation tax credit. That particular program is certainly not a new program. It is a very cost effective program. Over the years we have seen governments of all stripes, provincially and, I believe, federally, bring in programs such as this.

Way back in the 1970s, the Manitoba government under the NDP had the critical home repair program. My minister was in charge of it and it was my job to ensure that people had applications. I remember having to fill out applications for people. I would get calls at the legislature from people who had been approved asking why the carpenters showed up late and things like that. That type of program was targeted toward keeping Manitoba's senior citizens in their houses a few years longer, keeping them from moving out of their houses and going into senior citizens buildings. It was very cost-effective and worked very well. The government approved the applications. The homeowners paid a portion. It was a cost-shared program.

That is just one example of a program that was very popular at the time. In fact, it helped in the re-election of the government in 1973. I am sure the Conservatives already know that, or if they do not, they are making notes of it. That home renovation program was extremely popular and extremely cost-effective and it did help us to win re-election.

This program is a bit different. I have heard different criticisms about the program, as far as there being a refundable tax credit option and the fact that it is not user friendly for people with lower incomes.

We know the government is going to re-announce this program. That is an obvious fact. It has been a popular program. We do not know how much it is going to cost the government in taxes at this point, because the government does not know how many people have actually used it and it will not know until people file their income taxes next year. That will be past the date of the budget of next year. Regardless of what it costs, it is going to be too enticing for the government not to announce an extension, especially when there may be an election shortly thereafter or certainly within the period of time that the extended home renovation tax credit program for next year would cover.

There is one interesting point which members should note. With the collusion of the federal Conservative government and the provincial Liberal governments in British Columbia and Ontario on the HST, what we are going to see in those provinces effective July 1, exactly when the government's extension of this home renovation tax credit program will be in full swing for next summer, is that the tax benefits homeowners would be getting will be taken away. Currently home renovations are not covered under the tax. When the taxes are combined, we are going to see a broadening of the tax base which is going to include dozens of new items. Some of the items which are going to be included are the very home renovation projects, such as painting, stucco and roofing. Currently they are subject to only one tax but next year they would be subject to the blended tax. What the government is giving people with one hand will be taken away with the other hand. Personally, I do not see that as being smart economics. It sure is not smart politics if an election is called around that time.

If the government is going to re-announce the program, I would suggest that it take the advice of one or two of our members that it retool the program so that people with low incomes can take advantage of the program. I would suggest that the government look at extending it. By that time, the government may have some idea of what this will cost in terms of loss of tax revenue.

I would say this is not a real big loss in tax revenue. There are spinoff benefits. This is one program that will show enormous amounts of spinoff. That is what the government needs and wants in this program.

As a matter of fact, I notice that the Bloc members are on side with this program. They claim that they had it in their election platform last year. It is the Liberals who have found themselves on the outside looking in wondering how this all happened. The vote has not yet happened but we will see if they vote against the bill.

In the remaining time I want to deal with some of the other important issues that are dealt with in the bill.

The bill introduces the first time homebuyers tax credit. This is something the real estate associations have lobbied for and very strongly support across the country. We want to facilitate making it as easy as possible for first time homebuyers to buy that first home. Particularly at a time when the economy is in big difficulties, this is something that is very important.

In addition, there is tax relief through the working income tax benefit.

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. It sets out the regions prescribed either as eligible flood or drought regions in 2007 to 2009.

This is certainly one provision of the bill that has not received a lot of comment in speeches. Most members have focused on that important issue of the home renovation tax credit. They have not dealt to a great extent with some of the other provisions of the bill.

In addition, part 2 authorizes payments to be made to the consolidated revenue fund for multilateral debt relief in relation to offshore petroleum revenues. It allows for $200 million per year to be paid to the multilateral debt relief fund for a total of up to $2.5 billion from 2009 to 2054.

I am not going to be able to finish all of the points dealing with Bill C-51 but I want to make the point that $174.5 million is being allocated to Nova Scotia as negotiated with the provincial government. This is a good idea and something that should be done.

Finally, there are also amendments to the Bretton Woods and related agreements. They are being amended to implement amendments proposed by the board of governors of the International Monetary Fund.

As well, the Broadcasting Act is being amended to increase the borrowing limit of the CBC. There was a rocky period of time at the CBC with budget cuts over the years and with threats of closure. The CBC is vital, not as vital perhaps in the urban areas, the big cities of Canada, but it is extremely vital in the rural areas of Canada and particularly in the far north where it might be the only station that some people can receive in some places.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51, which I will be supporting, has some very good things in it.

There is the home renovation tax credit, the first time homebuyers tax credit and the income deferral for drought conditions for farmers.

I was elected by the people of Nickel Belt to represent them in the House of Commons and to advance their causes. Perhaps the hon. member could explain to me why the Liberals are not supporting the bill. They were sent here for the same reason that I was, to represent their constituents and to make Parliament work. Why would the Liberals vote against this bill? It seems to be a good bill to me.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a mystery to all of us in the House and it may be a mystery to some members of the Liberal Party.

As I indicated, I listened to my good friend from Mississauga South the other day when he spoke to this very bill. I do not recall him at any point indicating that he was going to be voting for the bill or against the bill. I expected there would be a nugget somewhere and that he would let us know, but he kept us in a state of mystery for his entire 20-minute speech and the 10 minutes of questions and comments. If somebody could get the answer for me, I would sure like to know what it is. Other Liberal members have indicated they will be voting against the bill. There is still a long time between now and the vote on the bill, so there is some potential for them to change their minds.

Just think of all those ten percenters. My riding has already started to sink under the weight of the ten percenters sent out on the gun registry alone. I supported the bill, but I was going to support it anyway. They did not have to send out any ten percenters. They did not have to advertise on radio stations. I am glad they did as it has made me very popular with the duck hunters in my area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly interested in my colleague's comments with regard to the CBC.

This evening people from ACTRA will be in Ottawa. A number of us will be meeting some very significant and talented people, many of whom have worked on CBC productions. The programs the CBC produces both on television and radio are our voice. The CBC is the voice of Canada. It tells our stories. The CBC is essential to our culture and to the continuance of that culture.

I would like my colleague to comment on the importance of the extension of the financing for CBC and how it will impact all of our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. The member knows the hacking and slashing of the CBC did not start with the Conservatives. That was well under way a number of years before that under the Liberals.

There has been a battle within the country for a large number of years where the private sector feels it is coming of age and wants to be given all the cream and gravy associated with the advertising revenues available in this country. By the same token, it does not want to have to provide any service to areas where there is not a large listening audience. It expects the taxpayers of the country, through the CBC, to provide programming to sparsely populated areas where there is really not a lot of advertising revenue. Yet it would like to have almost exclusive rights to the heavily populated markets that have huge amounts of advertising revenue. That is basically the way businesses operate. They want to take the cream but they do not want the responsibilities for the poorly serviced areas in the case of the television business.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona talked at length about the home renovation tax credit.

In my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan there are many challenges facing people who cannot afford to buy their own homes. Many often live in substandard rental accommodation. There is no way for those in rental accommodations to get the benefit of the home renovation tax credit that could make their accommodations more energy efficient. I wonder if the member could talk about that gap in this program.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. I indicated in my speech that while the home renovation tax credit is a very good program, it is a copy of other programs that have operated very successfully over the years under governments of different stripes.

When the government retools the program and re-announces it, it should be looking at the different aspects. The government should be asking the opposition for input to improve the program for next year to get even more bang for the buck.

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 third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When the matter was before the House for debate the last time, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona had the floor for questions and comments consequent upon his speech. There are four minutes left in the time remaining for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of this bill has to do with extending the borrowing authority of the CBC to what I believe is $220 million from a nominal amount. I thought it was something like $2 million.

In any event, this appears to be simply a facility for the CBC to be able to discount a future revenue stream from rental payments on buildings that it owns but does not use. In effect, I believe it represents that the CBC is mortgaging its future even further as a consequence of not being able to get the support from the government for its operations during this difficult time.

I would like to ask the member whether he shares my concern that we are hurdling toward the privatization of the CBC at fire sale prices?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is probably accurate in his assessment. Even under the previous Liberal government, the CBC was downgraded somewhat and being forced to rationalize its services, I thought in the interests of having the private sector move into the more profitable parts of the business. Certainly, with a Conservative government in place, that is even more cause for alarm because of its propensity to sell off crown assets.

In particular, the member will recall that last year the government made a statement that it was looking at selling off crown assets. It did not give a list of crown assets. The government did not decide to start selling off crown assets in 2006, 2007 or 2008 when the market was in pretty decent shape. It waited until Iceland declared bankruptcy and the world is in the worst recession in many years. All of a sudden, surprise, there is a list of government assets that it might be willing to sell off.

That gets to the question of the member's reference to the issue of a fire sale. Many people would support the government selling crown assets under certain conditions. However, Conservative governments always tend to sell public assets at fire sale, cut rate prices.

If I had time, I would explain what happened with the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System in Manitoba. The government, under Gary Filmon, valued the shares at half their price and sold them. Shares which were worth around $23 a piece and even today are trading in that vicinity were sold for $13 and half of that $13 was subsidized. That is exactly what happened. It was a big reward to the government's friends in the investment business.

So yes, the member is absolutely right.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the home renovation tax credit is pretty popular, but there are many small mom and pop businesses in Canada and these small businesses have not been included. I would like the hon. member to tell me, if this temporary renovation tax credit were expanded, should the mom and pop businesses across Canada be included so these businesses could be renovated to be more energy efficient?

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

Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times, the home renovation tax credit program is extremely popular, but it is not a new idea. Governments of all stripes have brought out programs like this over the years.

We think the government is about to announce the launch of an extension of the program into next year. We would hope that before announcing the program it would have the good sense to come to us in the opposition and ask for ideas.

The idea put forward by the member for Nickel Belt is an excellent idea. It is something that the government should consider. It should consider expanding the program to include small businesses and also look at applying the program to people at the low end of the economic scale through a tax credit system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to the House why the Liberal Party voted in favour of the first budget bill but will vote against the bill that is now before the House.

If we go back to the budget last January, we will recall that the Canadian economy was at the height of fears of recession and that the G20 had agreed that all countries should do fiscal stimulus to help to protect and save jobs. Moreover, unlike what it did last November when it had an absolutely disastrous economic statement that actually cut spending, the government in January at least proposed to expend many billions of dollars on infrastructure and other measures to support the economy and save or create jobs.

Given that we were at the height of fear and concern about the economy, it was our view that while the budget was highly imperfect, it would nevertheless have been irresponsible to provoke an election by bringing the government down, thereby delaying fiscal stimulus for at least a couple of months. That is why, notwithstanding some flaws in the budget, the Liberal Party decided to support it.

If we flash forward 10 months to today, why does it appear that we have changed our minds and decided to go against the budget? It reflects a triple-failure in implementation of this budget on the part of the government.

First of all, there is a failure to get the money out the door. This is important. We can have a stimulus of $50 billion or $500 billion, but if we do not get the money out the door, we stimulate nothing and create or save zero jobs. Therefore, the first failure is that the government did not get nearly enough of this money out the door to actually save or create jobs.

Second, and this point has been emphasized by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government failed in its responsibility to be accountable to Canadians for how taxpayer money is spent.

The third failure is the government's failure in managing the nation's finances.

Let me take each of these three failures in turn. At the time of the finance minister's budget, he said that to be effective the stimulus had to be out the door within 120 days. We are now approximately 300 days since the budget. The construction season is coming to an end. Therefore, one would have hoped that the vast majority of funding for infrastructure would long have been out the door and at work for months in terms of shovels in the ground and the creation and saving of jobs.

Far from it, the fact of the matter, thanks to research done by our infrastructure critic, is that only 12% of this fiscal stimulus is out the door and put to work in the form of actual jobs, actual shovels in the ground, and actual jobs being saved or created. Only 12% of the money is out the door some 300 days after the budget, despite the finance minister having said that the money had to be at work within 120 days.

That is entirely unacceptable. That is a big, fat juicy F for failure. The recession is now. The job losses may still increase in the future, but they have occurred in large numbers in the last 12 months. The fact that some 300 days after the budget only 12% of that money has been put to work illustrates and proves a lamentable failure of execution and implementation.

The second failure is one of accountability. This government makes a big deal about accountability, but it has been extraordinarily unaccountable in explaining to Canadians how their taxpayer dollars are being put to work. The government uses words like “implement”, but their website and their reports say nothing about money actually out the door and put to work.

That is why our infrastructure critic had to get the information directly from the mayors. The government refuses to provide this information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It has pulled off a stunt of dumping some 5,000 pages of information in his office as if we were in the 19th century rather than the computer age. Day after day, the government has stonewalled and refused to give the most basic information to Canadians on what it is spending Canadians' money on.

Compare this with the United States, where citizens can go onto the U.S. government website and find out, in huge detail, in exactly what states and regions and on which programs the stimulus money is being spent and how it is being put to work. It is unclear to me why Americans are deserving of so much information, accountability and transparency from their government while Canadians, it would appear in this government's view, are undeserving of the kind of information our neighbours to the south are being provided with.

The third source of failure amounts to the government's management of this nation's finances. One year ago, at the time of the November statement, the government actually said this country would run nothing but a long string of surpluses. Then it was $34 billion. Next it was $50 billion. Then it was $56 billion. I do not know what it will be next, but the reliability of the government's deficit forecasts is about the same as the reliability of its statements on the timing of H1N1 flu shot deliveries; in other words, totally unreliable.

In conclusion, yes, we supported the first budget bill because it was urgent to get the money out the door, but now, with the passage of some 10 months, we have seen this triple failure: failure to get the money out the door when it was needed, failure to be accountable to Canadians, and failure to have competent management of the nation's finances.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville says that the Liberals are flip-flopping on Bill C-51. First they voted for it and then they voted against it.

The home renovation tax credit is very popular. The first-time homebuyers' tax credit is very popular also. I am not sure if the member has any farmers in his riding, but I know I have, and I know that dealing with drought conditions is also part of this bill.

I would like to know if the member is going to support the constituents in his riding who have renovated their houses and to support first-time homebuyers. Is he going to vote for this bill so they can get the money they deserve?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it was Winston Churchill who once said, “When the information changes, yes, I change my mind, sir”.

As I explained in my speech, it is not a flip-flop to support something in principle, and then to observe that it is badly implemented or not done, and then to withdraw one's support. That is our Liberal position. That is a perfectly principled position.

The Liberal Party has said many times that we support the home renovation tax credit and that Canadians can be assured that they will get that credit no matter which of our two parties is the government.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disappointed today to hear my hon. friend's words, since we share a riding together and many of the same projects that he references.

He will know that across my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham, there are a number of projects that have started, including new ice rinks, and Hoover Park roads, which have been started. Many of the projects that people from his riding have advocated are actually under way, including a skating rink at Markham City Hall and an emergency measures centre. We have a new GO Train parking lot, which a number of his constituents actually use.

Thus I was disappointed to hear about all of the projects he referenced as not having started. I know he spent some time in the riding, because we were together last week at a number of Remembrance Day functions, and I know he would see many of the same projects that have started. But now that he is withdrawing his support, I wonder which projects he will no longer be supporting and if he will be making some suggestions to the mayor of Markham, who has been very supportive of what we have done together with the province.

Will he be making some suggestions as to which projects he would like to see wrapped up and no longer be completed as a result of his party now withdrawing its support for all of these wonderful job creation projects that are happening across my and his riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I are neighbours and we share a good number of events, like Remembrance Day and other occasions.

Notwithstanding his fine work, I think he is a bit subject to the same weasel language that comes from the government he is a member of. I know that the budgets in Markham have been approved. I know that in order to get that approval, the only thing the government was concerned about was to have its signs up, and it had very explicit directions as to when and how to erect the signs.

However, when I speak to the people of Markham and ask if the shovels are in the ground and if the people are at work on construction, the answer is no. Yes, there has been approval. Yes, there has been some engineering and architectural planning going on; but do they have shovels in the ground, do they have construction ongoing? Not in my riding. That is what counts in terms of the creation of jobs.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two areas that perhaps the member could comment on. Bill C-51 is changing the rules of the game with regard to early withdrawal or commencement of CPP benefits. The effect is that if one takes CPP early because one needs it, one is being penalized; but if one defers it beyond age 65, one actually gets more. Therefore, the people who really need it get penalized and those who do not seem to need it get a premium. That confuses me about the government's intent.

The second one is probably equally as important, which is the EI commission and the so-called non-tax, according to the government, of increasing premiums on EI to enable the government somehow to start working its way back from this terrible deficit. It appears that rates will have to go up by something like 35% to 45% to deal with the problem the government has created.

I wonder if the member could enlighten the House as to whether or not we have third party testimonials to these problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second point the member raises is a hugely important one.

The government is proposing a massive hike in payroll taxes, beginning in the year 2011. It acknowledges that this is going to occur in its budget. It is now a part of its fiscal plan.

The impact of that on a two-earner family is that their EI premiums will go up some $1,200. For a small business employing 10 people, the EI premiums will go up some $9,000.

Those are large penalties, large increases in taxes on jobs, especially if the economy continues to be fragile and unemployment continues to be high. The government should at least consider, if the Conservatievs are the government at that time, which I do not assume they will be, increasing those premiums at a slower rate.

While we all agree that EI premiums have to be balanced over the cycle, it is all a question of defining what is the length of that cycle. The government has an extreme measure producing punitive hikes in EI premiums, whereas an alternative could be more gradual increases to balance the EI books over a longer cycle.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and if I am correct, I could actually spend some time with the hon. member this week and tour some of the massive amounts of construction happening around York region. The member might then actually consider changing his mind yet again and voting in favour of the bill.

Alternatively, and I know he can answer the question, which of the projects is he now considering going to the mayors in the towns of the York region and the regional chair to say he is now no longer willing to support? Is it the new arena that we are building? Is it the new tennis courts that are being built? Is it the repaving of Highway 27 that we should stop? Is it the soccer bubble and artificial turf that are going into Richmond Hill? Or should we cancel the emergency management centre, or cancel once and for all the largest outdoor ice rink being built in his riding at city hall, a project that was on hold for 20 years and that we finally got done and the mayor and the town are ecstatic about?

I wonder if the member might help me with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague mentioned soccer fields, I will tell him about one project that we on this side of the House would never have done. We would have never paid $500,000 for a soccer field for a private school with 160 students. I believe it is in Collingwood. If he is asking me about projects that I would not do, there is a project that would have liberated $500,000 for something more worthy.

The member does not seem to listen. As I said in my speech and have repeated several times by now, it is not that we are opposed to these projects that he described; it is the fact that, in 300 days since the budget, the government has put money out for such a lamentably small proportion of those projects. Twelve percent of the money has been put to work for projects across this country. In our view, that is a totally inadequate result, and the government has failed in implementing this project.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-51 especially following my colleague with the Liberal Party.

This gives me a chance to point out to my other friends in the House of Commons what an odd and strange thing it is that after voting for the Conservative government 79 times in a row, the Liberals should choose this bill on which to vote against the government when this bill contains a number of features in which we in the NDP find enough merit in to warrant our supporting the bill. It is an odd set of circumstances to find the Liberals arguing against a populist initiative like the home renovation tax credit.

We can criticize the home renovation tax credit. We can point to lots of things that we might have done differently. But no one can deny the fact that the general public is enjoying it, using it, and in fact renovating their homes as we speak so that they can get in under the wire and get the deduction in their income tax.

We are mystified that the Liberals would now be voting against the initiatives in Bill C-51 that deal with drought and flood relief for farmers.

Granted, Bill C-51 is an omnibus kind of a bill, a ways and means motion that acts like an implementation act for the budget. I cannot imagine the political sense in voting against some of the initiatives in this bill that are clearly popular and clearly in demand across the country.

One of the other initiatives in this bill, which we can support in some measure, is the provision that would provide first-time homebuyers with that much more access to the home ownership market.

It is just hard to fathom the reasoning, if there is any reasoning, or logic behind the Liberals' position to date, in supporting the government 79 times on all kinds of initiatives with plenty of reasons not to support them and then doing this 180-degree flip-flop and voting against the government on Bill C-51.

With what little time I have for this speech, I would like to tell the House some of the things that we in the NDP would have done differently with respect to the home renovation tax credit for example.

We suggested to the Minister of Finance during a prebudget consultation that there should be a home renovation initiative, but it should be geared toward energy retrofitting, not toward anything one could imagine in terms of redecorating a house.

We did not really agree that it was necessary to provide a tax incentive for people to redo their sundecks at their summer cottage for instance, but we did agree that there would be merit in providing a tax incentive so people could replace their energy-inefficient windows, put in a new furnace, insulate their homes, change their lighting ballasts to more energy-efficient lighting, or put computerized thermostat controls in their homes. Any initiative that had a green lens would have had a lot more merit.

A lot of us feel that the work that needs to be done to save the planet is the work that could be done to get us out of this economic slump. In other words, the economic stimulus money that we put forward should have had, and could have had, a transformative effect on the way that we conduct ourselves with our finite energy resources.

I remind members that a unit of energy harvested from the existing system is indistinguishable from a unit of energy created at a new generating station except for a few key considerations: first, it is available at about one-third the cost; second, it is available and online immediately to sell to some other customer. The moment a light switch is turned off in a room, that unit of energy can be reused somewhere else without the lag time necessary for building a new generating station. Third, and perhaps most important in this environmental climate, a unit of energy harvested from the existing system instead of being generated at a new generating station would create as much as seven times the person years of employment. We could accomplish all of these virtuous things at once.

We could harvest energy out of the existing system. I would remind members that the largest single untapped pool of energy in North America is that being wasted out of our inefficient homes, buildings and smokestacks. If we could reclaim that energy, it would be available at one-third of the cost; it would be online immediately, and it would produce three to seven times the number of person years of employment. That would have been a win-win situation that we could have enthusiastically supported instead of being tepid as we have been in our support for Bill C-51 with a number of provisos and our very qualified support.

Another thing we should have seen in the home renovation tax credit is an emphasis on removing asbestos from our homes. We know that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known, and yet it was the federal government from 1977 to 1984 that subsidized and paid for the installation of Zonolite asbestos insulation in over 350,000 Canadian homes. The government promoted it and said it was a miracle product that people should put in their attics to make their houses warm and to save money. What it did not tell people was that asbestos kills. Zonolite insulation was loaded with the most virulent type of asbestos known to man, tremolite. The government contaminated and stripped away the value of 350,000 Canadian homes at the minimum. That is just counting the ones that were directly subsidized by the government, never mind the ones where some innocent homeowner went to Beaver Lumber and got a couple of sacks of Zonolite and spread it around in their own attic. We do not know how many homes were contaminated that way.

Again I come back to the point that the work that needs to be done for environmental remediation or greenhouse gas emission controls is the very work that we could have launched into to get ourselves out of this economic slump and put the country back to work. God knows there is enough work to do. There are environmental disaster areas all over the country from the Sydney tar ponds to the place where I had a job, in Canada's Arctic, flying around in helicopters picking up all the old barrels of jet fuel left behind by the American military which are rotting into the tundra today. There are mine sites and tailing ponds, and there are Canadian homes that are unfortunate enough to have Zonolite in their attic. That would have been a very good target for the home renovation tax credit if we could have used it to make our homes more energy efficient and less dangerous by getting Zonolite out of attics so it will not take away from the value of homes.

We support Bill C-51 when it comes to a vote, partly because we believe in some of the issues such as the revenue-sharing agreement with Nova Scotia. The newly elected NDP government of Nova Scotia is anxiously looking forward to a $175 million transfer payment, the enabling legislation for which is Bill C-51. We can support that, and I cannot believe that my Liberal colleagues in the House of Commons are not supporting something that the province of Nova Scotia has been waiting for and looking forward to so anxiously.

One of the things that also could have been done, if we were really serious about getting money into circulation quickly, and that should have been contemplated more thoroughly in these enabling measures is expanding eligibility for EI. As an aside, leading up to other comments on Bill C-51, when the Liberals gutted EI in the mid-1990s, and they made it so that virtually no one qualified anymore, the impact in my federal riding of Winnipeg Centre alone was a loss of $20.8 million a year. That was just in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, not in all of Winnipeg. Federal money in the amount of $20.8 million a year that used to flow into a low-income riding was now sucked back out by the federal government. Liberals did not use that money to provide income maintenance to other people in other places. They pulled that money back and used it to pay down the debt, pay down the deficit, give tax breaks to corporations, give tax breaks to the wealthy. They robbed Peter to pay Paul. It was like some perverse form of Robin Hood. They robbed the poorest people in the country, in the inner city of downtown Winnipeg, and they sucked that money out and gave it to their friends for political partisan purposes. That is what happened. That was the experience of EI during the 1990s.

Can anyone imagine the impact that had? The eligibility for EI was one thing but the amount per week under the new rules was another. The amount people were allowed to collect was reduced.

If we put a dollar into poor people's pockets, they will spend it the same day on the basic needs to support their family. Had the Liberals made the EI system fair so that eligible people actually ended up getting the benefits that they paid into all their lives, it would have had a dramatic impact on the amount of money that was in circulation in our communities and certainly in my riding of Winnipeg Centre.

As a carpenter by trade, one of the things that has always bothered me about the EI system is that for tradesmen on the tools who go to community college for apprenticeship training, the six weeks of school every year for four years, there is a two week waiting period. It is as if they have been laid off or lost their jobs. A lot of apprentices are struggling to get by on apprentices wages. I had two kids and a family when I was an apprentice. They cannot afford to have that two week interruption in their incomes. Many of them know it is their turn to go to community college now but they wait until they can save up some money.

There is no reason to penalize apprentice carpenters just because they are going to community college. They did not quit their jobs. They are not unemployed. Why are they being penalized? That would be one way to keep more people in the apprenticeship system with more income maintenance coming into our communities to apprentices and in the best interests of everybody concerned.

I am finding it hard to see any coordinated effort to address many of the social problems in my riding that stem from chronic, long-term poverty. I am not proud of the fact that my riding of Winnipeg Centre is the second or third poorest riding in Canada, depending upon what measurement we use regarding the incidents of poverty or the average family income. As a low income community, we have many of the predictable consequences that stem from chronic, long-term poverty and many of the social conditions that are not desirable in any way, shape or form.

The only response that we have seen from the Conservative government to date to address many of these social conditions is getting tough on crime and building more prisons. In the absence of a national housing strategy, the government seems to have a new housing strategy. The choice will be minimum security, medium security or maximum security.

Let me say how critical we are of this, not only because of the appalling lack of understanding of the social conditions that are the root causes of crime, but also the disproportionate impact this has on the aboriginal people in my community.

Twenty per cent of the people in my riding self-identify as first nation, Métis or Inuit. This is a statistic that will shock members, but 66% of all the inmates in the province of Manitoba's correctional institutes are aboriginal, first nations, Métis or Inuit. My riding has the highest concentration of aboriginal people in the province with 20%. Overall, only 8% or 9% of the population is first nations and aboriginal and yet they are 66% of the people in prison. They are going to jail at a rate that is nine times higher than the general public.

When we start putting in mandatory minimum sentences for property crimes, such as theft over $5,000, substance abuse or drug offences, we will exacerbate what is already a national disgrace in terms of the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in those prisons and we will exacerbate it to the point that it will go from national disgrace to social tragedy.

Members can mark my words that this is so wrong-headed that we can find no one anywhere in the community of social development and social welfare who thinks for a moment that getting tough on crime by putting more people in jail for a longer period of time will do anything to make the streets of Winnipeg safer. If longer jail sentences resulted in safer streets, the United States would have the safest streets in the world. Let us face it. It locks up people at a higher rate than any other country in the world, and going that way is folly.

I said that as an aside to talk about Bill C-51 and some of the initiatives that the government has undertaken and some of the situations that it is trying to address. No one is denying that the world experienced an economic downturn but I suppose the only place we differ is in how we deal with it and the best way to stimulate the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I think you would be interested in the witnesses we are having tomorrow at the committee on government operations and estimates. We were unable to find out how many person years of employment are in fact being created by these stimulus proposals, infrastructure proposals and the spending put forward by the government so we decided to go to the industry itself.

In the absence of any other concrete way to measure job creation, we decided to invite the Canadian Construction Association to be our witnesses and the Building and Construction Trades Department, which is the plenary organization for the building trade unions. They monitor and keep very careful track of the people working in the industry mostly because they run dispatch union halls with job boards. They can tell down to a person how many people have been dispatched out to these jobs and they can also track the number of hours worked by each employee because of the dues check-off that comes into their building trade union offices.

We might be able to measure the efficacy of the infrastructure spending strategy of the federal government by using management and labour, the two actors in the construction industry. If we cobble those two together, we should be able to get an accurate picture. We are not convinced at this point in time that the type of infrastructure proposals and spending committed to by the federal government to date are the best bang for the buck that we will get from our tax dollars to stimulate the economy.

In fact, in many regions of the country, the construction industry was already quite busy. My home province of Manitoba did not feel any appreciable drop in the jobs in that industry's sector. There were jobs lost in light manufacturing, but the stimulus spending associated with new construction will not affect the light manufacturing sector. The same could be said for the province of British Columbia and regions of Quebec where there were terrible job losses in forestry and in light manufacturing.

However, if a bridge is being built in that community, it will not necessarily put the unemployed loggers back to work. This is where there may be a disconnect. Even though billions and billions of dollars are flying out the door at breakneck speed with very little accountability and true tracking of the efficacy, and even where the money goes, we would like to be able to measure with some degree of certainty that these dollars are being spent wisely.

Let us talk about the elephant in the room here. We now have a structural deficit of tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars that we will need to somehow find a way to cope with when the economy begins to recover. We have spent a bundle of money.

I am as guilty as the next in saying that the government needs to do something to help us through the economic downturn but was the money spent wisely? Did we get the best bang for our buck? Did we achieve any secondary objectives that would have been beneficial, such as a transformative shift in our energy policy, as I made reference to before? The work that needs to be done to save the planet could have been the work to do that would get us out of the economic recession in which we find ourselves.

Those are some of the flaws that we find in Bill C-51.

However, the House will note that the NDP is in support of the economic recovery act because it would put into effect things such as the home renovation tax credit, the first-time home buyers' tax credit and the revenue sharing agreement between Nova Scotia that will result in $175 million of federal money being transferred to the newly elected NDP Government of the Province of Nova Scotia. Darrell Dexter is a happy guy because of this and so it is no big surprise that we are voting for it. It is a big surprise that the Liberals are voting against it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one day when I leave this place I will remember the member for the work that we did together on the whistleblower legislation. We actually saved that and it became law in Canada because of the work of two opposition members.

The member has laid out his laundry list of some of the things that he specifically likes in this bill but also laid out some of the problems with Bill C-51. I think that has been the concern of all of the opposition parties.

The only difference right now is that members of the official opposition have the role of holding the government accountable and we cannot afford to pick and choose a little menu, which one do I like and which one do I not like. There needs to be a voice within this place at all times that shows that we are keeping the government accountable with regard to raising EI premiums on the backs of Canadians and changing the CPP by hurting Canadians with regard to taking CPP early.

The government is doing a number of things on a platform that has a $60 billion deficit and the highest unemployment rate that we have ever had.

I hope the member will understand and perhaps comment on the need to keep the government accountable for its incompetence and mismanagement of the finances of the nation.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Mississauga and I have worked shoulder to shoulder on any number of issues in the House of Commons and I have a lot of respect for his views and the comments he makes today.

It is worth reminding Canadians that Conservative governments historically, provincially and federally, have been the most wasteful, overspending, deficit-building, debt-building governments in Canadian history. No one exploded the national debt like the Mulroney Conservatives.

We all know that the Grant Devine Conservatives in Saskatchewan not only exploded their debt and deficit and almost bankrupted the province, they now hold their cabinet meetings in prison. The premier should be--I will not even go there.

However, successive Conservative governments have been the most wasteful in Canadian history. There is no question about it. It is worth reminding ourselves of that as billions and billions of dollars go flying out the door with breakneck speed with only the faintest hint of accountability to it.

We are frustrated at the government operations committee just as they are frustrated at the public accounts committee and the finance committee trying to track where all this money is really going. We are not sure that it is being spent well.

All we know is that the bill at the end of the day will be unprecedented. I am afraid of what programs the government will cut to pay off this debt. It will be all of its favourite bugaboos that it does not support in any event, whether it is public health care or who knows what is in its crosshairs when the dust settles on this debt.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the member talking about the money going out, the stimulus funds and the economic stimulus package as being administered in an incompetent way.

We are working with our provincial partners right across the country, with the provinces, the municipalities and the universities with the knowledge infrastructure fund. Which of those partners is the member calling incompetent?

Unlike the previous government that sent money out the window to individuals for advertising purposes, we are working with responsible agencies in every area of the country to ensure that projects of high value to Canadians are delivered.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member from Nanaimo is getting my speech mixed up with some previous speaker because I never used the word “incompetent”. I did criticize the priorities set out. In fact, I spent most of my speech saying that there should have been more emphasis on energy conservation and some transformative way to change the way we shift from a carbon based economy to one that is sustainable over time.However, I did not use the word “incompetent” at all in my speech. That was the member from Mississauga.

However, I will reiterate that we had a missed opportunity because I do not think we will see this kind of free for all spending coming up again for decades to come. There will be an era now of belt-tightening. I am concerned about the things the government will choose to cut to deal with the deficit that it created.

We should all take a deep breath and gird ourselves for the onslaught of cutting, hacking and slashing of every social program by which we define ourselves as Canadians because that has been the hallmark of previous Tory governments and we have every reason to believe that sort of attack is about to begin today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member about his speech, in which he referred to the home renovation tax credit, and said that the NDP was in favour of this measure.

I would like to know, based on the assessments he and his party did, whether this measure is as important as one might imagine, and whether it is worth carrying it over for another year.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is very real and practical.

I do not think there is any way to measure whether the renovation work being done by homeowners today would have happened anyway without this tax credit. I do not believe the tax credit is big enough to actually change a homeowner's mind. If a homeowner installs a $20,000 kitchen, the tax credit would be $1,350. I do not think that is enough to make or break that home renovation.

It has created some excitement and advertising, but I honestly do not believe they are dollars well spent unless the program is targeted toward energy retrofitting. Building a new sundeck is something the homeowner probably would have done anyway. If a homeowner needed a small addition to his or her house and was going to spend $30,000 or $40,000 on the addition, the $1,350 from the federal government would not be the determining factor.

Therefore, the billions of dollars spent on the home renovation tax credit may be popular and may buy the Conservatives votes, but I do not think it will stimulate the economy in any way that would not have happened on its own accord.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre a question on the home renovation tax credit, which is very popular but, he is right, does not go far enough.

He said something about asbestos. A lot of homes and small businesses today are infested with asbestos. Could the hon. member to tell me his thoughts on the following? If the home renovation tax credit is expanded, should homes that are filled with asbestos be included, maybe at 100% of the cost to remove it? As we know, asbestos is a burden on our health system and people have cancer because of it. Could I have his thoughts on that?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the asbestos issue is very serious. In the 1970s and 1980s the federal government subsidized the installation of asbestos insulation called Zonolite. At the same time, it subsidized the installation of UFFI, urea formaldehyde foam insulation. As soon as it learned that UFFI was irritating to some people, it began a nationwide campaign to eradicate UFFI from all the homes it was put into and paid 100% of the cost.

Sometimes it was an enormous amount of money. People had to take off exterior siding, scrape off the UFFI and install new insulation and siding. André Ouellet, the minister of consumer and corporate affairs, within months of learning that UFFI was irritating, began a huge UFFI removal program.

We are calling for a similar program for asbestos. UFFI was irritating. Asbestos is deadly and is in just as many homes. There should be 100% financing to people to remediate their homes and make them safe and free of asbestos so their children can grow up in the safety and security of not being contaminated by a deadly carcinogen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-51, which is before the House today.

It is no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill. I say it is no surprise, because it contains a number of elements that the Bloc itself proposed in the two recovery plans it released a while ago now, even before the last election.

For example, the home renovation tax credit was inspired by the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois; I will come back to this in more detail. We would have liked to see this credit primarily for renovations that aim to improve energy efficiency, but overall, we are satisfied with the measure.

The same goes for the first-time home buyers' tax credit. Although the government's proposal does not go as far as the Bloc's, it is still a first step.

The bill would implement Canada's international commitments to the IMF, which were signed in 2008. This bill also amends the Canada pension plan, which Quebec is not a part of. So that does not affect Quebec.

I really want to emphasize that the Bloc Québécois supports the measures in this bill, many of which were in fact proposed by the Bloc. There is no poison pill in this bill. Unfortunately, many of the other bills that the government has introduced have contained interesting measures, but in many cases, they have also contained little measures that the government knew the Bloc Québécois or another opposition party could not accept. Unfortunately, people got caught up in political and partisan debates. That will not be the case today: we will vote for this bill because we are satisfied with it.

To those watching on television and the brave souls in the gallery, that might seem logical. We support these measures, so we will vote in favour of the bill. That sure makes sense to me. But apparently that is not always the case for all of the parties.

I want to go back to some of the things Liberal Party members have said. Last spring, the Conservative government introduced its budget. The new Liberal Party leader, the Leader of the Opposition, said that the budget was bad for Canada, that it was inappropriate, that it lacked vision and scope given the challenges we were facing. We agreed with the opposition leader that the budget was bad.

We had a hard time understanding what happened next. If they thought the budget was bad, then logically, they should have voted against it. However, the Liberals said that the budget was bad but that they were going to vote for it. And that is what happened. During the summer, the Liberal Party adopted a number of strategic positions. Then the government came back with Bill C-51, and the opposition leader said that his party supported the measures in the bill.

So supportive was he that, in the heat of new session of Parliament in September, when people thought the government might fall and we were all wondering whether there might be an election, the Liberal Party said that it was so supportive of the measures in Bill C-51 that if the government fell and the Liberals were elected, it would implement those measures.

So it was not only in favour of them, but it thought they were good measures. So they think they are good measures, yet they vote against them. So when they are in favour of something, they vote against it, and when they are against something, they vote for it. That is a strange thing to do, and I think they are increasing public cynicism. Such behaviour smacks of partisanship and political strategy. It discourages citizens, who think they cannot trust politicians, because no one knows where they stand.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has always, since its inception, made a point of voting in a very simple, logical and understandable way. If we think it is good for the people we represent, that is, Quebeckers, we vote in favour; if we think it is bad for them, we vote against. It is simple. We have been doing this from the beginning. It is not always easy or strategic, but people know they can count on their Bloc Québécois members to fulfill the most important and fundamental duty of a member of Parliament, which is to vote in the House, to pass legislation and to approve the government's budgetary measures. What purpose do the 308 elected members serve if they vote only strategically and not based on what they think is best for their constituents?

I say this because I am not happy about the behaviour of these political adversaries, who ultimately, are tarnishing the reputation of all politicians. This kind of behaviour unfortunately sometimes leads people to believe that we are all the same, that we say one thing before the election and do the reverse afterwards.

Even though technically this is a matter of confidence—a vote that could bring down the government and trigger an election—we will support Bill C-51, because it contains good measures. That does not mean that we have confidence in the government. When the Liberals proposed a motion of non-confidence, we supported it, because overall, we have lost confidence in this government because of everything it has done. When a motion says that, we vote according to our convictions.

But let us come back to the bill that is before us today and the best-known and probably most popular measure it contains: the home renovation tax credit. As I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois had been calling for such a measure for quite some time. We would have preferred that it be more specific and focus more on home improvements that help improve energy efficiency. Instead of coming up with a moderately generous program that applies to all kinds of renovations, the government could have introduced a more generous program that focused on certain areas or certain types of renovations to boost the energy efficiency of our homes.

We believe that this is important, because as a society and as individuals who want to leave the world in good shape for our children, we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, in Quebec and Canada, because of our climate, the energy efficiency of our homes has a major impact on our greenhouse gas emissions, especially if we really want to reduce global warming and the resulting climate change, which even the most conservative expect will be increasingly catastrophic. I am not talking about the Conservatives on the other side of this House, but about the most conservative, least alarmist scientists. Everyone agrees that we are headed for disaster.

We have to do this for the environment, and we have to do it for our economy as well. In the future, the best-performing, most prosperous economies will not be the ones that burn the most oil. If some members of this House do not believe that, then I am sorry to have to bring them back to reality. In 40 or 50 years, a country's economic performance will not be measured by the amount of oil it can burn and the amount of greenhouse gas it can spew into the atmosphere.

That is clearly a dead end since hydrocarbons such as oil are a non-renewable source of energy. Such a source inevitably costs more, is more difficult to find and will eventually run out. There needed to be a response at the turning point and we would not have been alone. A number of countries have devoted a significant part of their recovery plans to a green shift. I am not talking about the Liberals' green shift, but a true willingness not just to stimulate the economy or protect our planet, but to do both and position ourselves for the economy of the future, which will be based on sustainable development. When we improve our home's energy efficiency, we decrease our energy consumption, which is good for Quebec's society and economy.

In Quebec, we have a wealth of hydroelectricity. We can export it to the U.S. Nonetheless, if we do not want to harness every river in Quebec to export even more hydroelectricity, then we simply have to consume less. This will leave us with more to sell abroad and will allow us to become wealthier. Socially this is good. It is also a good measure for individuals. I do not know many people in this country who are truly excited when they receive their energy bill. Energy is expensive. It is a significant expense.

Speaking from experience, this summer the home renovation tax credit applied to my personal situation. Like anyone else who can afford to own a small home, I wondered how I could benefit from this program. I was true to the Bloc Québécois position and asked myself how I could improve the energy efficiency of my home. I decided to convert my heating system to geothermal. This is still a very expensive undertaking. For new homes it is not so bad, but to convert an existing home, it is rather expensive.

Let me explain to make this clearer. Geothermal heating or cooling, because this applies in the summer as well, works the same way as a heat pump. In a heat pump, there is a compressor with a radiator inside. A liquid circulates through a second compressor and a second radiator outside. In the winter, it draws heat from outside and brings it into the house and in the summer it does the opposite. It draws heat from inside and sends it outside. Heat pump systems are more affordable than radiant heating with those good old electric furnaces or hot water radiators in our homes. Using a little energy, it is possible to get more energy from outside to heat our home than we consume.

How does geothermal energy work? The energy comes from the ground. For example, near the entrance to my home, a 300 foot well was drilled in a U loop in which a liquid circulates. Depending on the season, there is a thermal exchange using the liquid to either heat or cool the house. At that depth, the temperature in the soil and rock is fairly constant, hovering at about 7^oC throughout the year. That temperature may seem cold but an air-source heat pump would have to draw heat from the air when it is -10^oC. It is obviously going to be easier to obtain heat from a source that is 7^oC.

Conversely, in the summer, when it is time to cool the house, the heat from the house is sent into the ground, which is still 7^oC. It is easier to put the heat into ground that is 7^oC rather than putting it outside where the temperature could be 30^oC. Geothermal systems have the advantage of using only one compressor. The second heat exchange is passive and simply uses a pump to circulate the liquid through the tubing in the soil.

Why am I explaining this? Because geothermal technology allows us to significantly reduce our energy consumption. That is but one example. I could have given others but I only have a few minutes left and I have personal experience with this system.

Depending on the model and specific applications, the energy savings can be between 50% and 70%. We can also save on hot water heating and air conditioning.

Geothermal is a good application for Canada and Quebec. In fact, it is rather unusual that it is used so infrequently and that we have done so little in this area.

The United States uses geothermal energy more for strictly air conditioning purposes than Canada does. But in Canada, it is useful for air conditioning and heating. We are behind. How can we explain this? Obviously, attitudes need to change. In the beginning, although the volume is not high, it is expensive. We need to introduce incentives to encourage people to make the transition. Unfortunately, that is not yet being done on the large scale. I must admit that there are grants to encourage this type of energy, but more could be done.

The program before us, the home renovation tax credit, could be used to help move this type of technology forward. This is not the only technology; there are many others, but this is the one I had the time to talk about and that I have personal experience with. This type of technology is becoming more common. We could significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and our energy consumption, make money and be more prosperous.

These types of measures are lacking in the Conservative vision. Obviously, this government does not believe in the science of climate change. The Prime Minister once wrote to his constituents that the Kyoto protocol was a socialist scheme—and probably even a separatist scheme as well.

Do you really think that the people who signed the Kyoto protocol, that is, the leaders of governments around the world, have been manipulated by the environmentalists? I personally doubt it. The reality is that this government is largely controlled by the oil companies and that the Liberal Party also gives in to the blackmail used by the oil companies.

I would like to quote the leader of the Liberal Party. When he was in Montreal, he said, “The stupidest thing you can do is to run against an industry that is providing employment for hundreds of thousands of Canadians.” He was talking about the oil sands industry. According to the Alberta government, the leader of the Liberal Party is the best defender of the oil sands industry; he is even better than the Prime Minister.

There is a lot of work to do. The Bloc will support the bill, because it is a step in the right direction. However, we must continue to vigorously defend a greener economy and truly sustainable development.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the member make his speech on Bill C-51.

I recall him talking about the fact that he had installed geothermal heating in his house. I am really super impressed with that because I believe roughly 50% of all geothermal housing installations are in our province of Manitoba. We are very keen on the whole idea. As a matter of fact, a new hydro building, which is an award-winning building, has just been opened in the last two or three weeks. It is, in fact, being heated and cooled with geothermal heating.

Waverley West is a huge housing development. The announcement was made about five or six years ago that we were going to put that throughout the development, but complications arose. It is great to have the intention of doing these things, but sometimes there may be technical problems. There were technical problems with the level of the water tables and so on, so that it could not be done.

Geothermal, as the member knows, is still quite expensive. It does cost about $15,000, for example, to install it, but then the payout is over a longer period of time. It is great for the environment when we do these things. I want to really applaud the member for doing this. I would like to see many other people do the same thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments and for applauding what I have done.

I must say I did it for environmental reasons and because of my convictions, but as he pointed out himself, it also has clear economic viability. I am no more virtuous than the next person; I am equally concerned about where my dollars and cents are going.

I would like to tell everyone watching us that, although converting to geothermal or building a new home with geothermal heating requires a relatively substantial initial investment, it pays for itself rather quickly. It remains a very valuable investment in one's home, especially given that, as energy costs increase, the value of this kind of equipment will also increase and as a result, when people sell their homes for example, they will get back much more than they originally paid for it.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the speech by my colleague, who spoke about the public's lack of trust in politicians. He was speaking rather sarcastically about politicians. And yet he had the opportunity to rise in this House to support the economic action plan, which helps workers, provides home renovation tax credits and tangible measures to help Quebeckers make it through this global downturn. He says that his party defends the interests of Quebec but when the time comes to rise and to vote, he remains seated.

I would like him to explain why he will not vote for Canada's economic action plan, a real measure to help the people of Quebec in these tough economic times.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for nearly four years, and I have been present for the vast majority of the votes held here. Every time I have been present for a vote in the House, I have risen. I have voted every time. When the measures are bad, I stand up to vote against them. The home renovation tax credit is a measure we find to be useful and I am going to stand up and vote in favour of it.

Yes, the budget is a major piece of legislation. It is several hundred pages long. We have to look at the overall thrust of the budget. Yes, some of the measures in it are good, but unfortunately, the budget was developed primarily for the oil industry and auto workers in Ontario. It contains precious little for Quebec. It contains precious little to help Quebec's manufacturing industry. The same goes for the forestry industry. And there is still nothing for the environment and sustainable development, nothing to suggest that a carbon exchange might be set up in Montreal anytime soon. Before we can do anything else, we need absolute greenhouse gas emissions targets and a carbon exchange.

I have never remained seated here in the House. I will continue to vote against bad measures, and I will be glad to vote for good measures whenever the government introduces them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Conservative member's question to my colleague about not rising to support certain measures. I would like to ask my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, who just gave an excellent speech, if it was not the member opposite who should have risen more often in his Conservative caucus to more forcefully defend the interests of Quebeckers. He could have ensured that the Quebec manufacturing and forestry industries were given the same treatment as the Ontario automotive sector, which received $10 billion in assistance. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that in the Conservative Party, as in other parties, there are party lines and the members are often obliged to vote against their constituents' interests. For example, it is sad to see the Conservative caucus from Quebec, which is proud and aggressive even when it sometimes votes against unanimous resolutions of the National Assembly. The same is true of the Liberals. If memory serves, the members from Newfoundland and Labrador were able to break ranks and vote against the budget. But the members from Quebec, who knew that the budget was just as bad for Quebeckers, were unable to do so. In my opinion, this is deplorable.

Let us consider a recent vote on the gun registry. I see the member for Lévis—Bellechasse smiling. This is not really a laughing matter. The National Assembly has taken a unanimous position. All the Quebeckers elected to represent the Quebec nation are in favour of maintaining the gun registry, yet the Conservative members proudly voted against that position. That is nothing to laugh about.

We in the Bloc Québécois have defended every consensus in Quebec. We have never opposed any unanimous resolution passed by the National Assembly. But the Conservatives and the Liberals have ignored dozens of unanimous resolutions of the National Assembly with the utmost disdain.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois to explain something to me.

We know that the budget bill was bad for a number of reasons. We voted against the budget and one of the main reasons was the absence of fair pay for women, which did absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. However, there were some good aspects to the bill, such as the renovation tax credit, the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, and measures for Radio-Canada/CBC.

The hon. member has been here much longer than I have. Could he explain to me why the Liberal Party would vote against that part of the budget that helps so many people?

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is quite surprising. I touched on that in my speech. It is even more surprising because the leader of the Liberal Party clearly said that he was in favour of the measures before us and that if he were in power, he would implement them. He shows enthusiasm for these measures, but for purely partisan reasons, because he wants to bring down the government or does not want to align himself with the government or whatever the case may be, he felt he needed to vote against this. We do not share that attitude and I hope that other parliamentarians in this House will not have this same crass partisan attitude.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Minister of Natural Resources; the hon. member for Willowdale, Canada-U.S. Relations.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the stimulus package, parts of it arising from the government budget, the implementation of a package that is really a mirage. The fact that the government of the day stands with a lot of audacity and pretends with fervour that it is doing something for ordinary Canadians does not make it any more substantial.

I am a bit surprised by the position my Bloc Québécois colleague took, which indicated he was somewhat satisfied with the approach and methods used by the governing party.

It is funny to see some of the opposition parties satisfied with the crumbs of the appearance coming from the government of the day, a government that would rather spend money on advertising than help unemployed people actually have substantive access to jobs at a time when they could sustain their dignity and their ability to work in the marketplace. It is a government that seems completely given over to the politics of pretending that it has taken on a role for government.

Let us just rehearse from where the present bill comes. It comes from a commitment by the government in budget 2009 to take “immediate” action. On behalf of the government, the finance minister said that it had to be measures that took place within 120 days. Did one member opposite stand behind that warranty? Did one of them apologize to his or her riding and other ridings across the country when in fact not one substantial measure of employment was ready by May 26, by the 120 days. The only thing that had started by then was an advertising blitz.

We have seen the depths of cynicism plumbed when a government first flip-flops on what it says is its philosophical position. It did that for what some people would credit pragmatic purposes. Whether political or genuine revisionist concern for the economy, it was acceptable if the government would actually take the action. However, it is frankly reprehensible when a government, in a calculated fashion, fails to create the jobs it said it would.

Look to the credibility on which the bill is built. The report of the Prime Minister was not made in the House, suborning the privileges of every member of Parliament. It was not made in the House because the Prime Minister could not warrant it as being factual. In fact, it does not say that jobs have been created. If we shake it upside down, if we look for the actual facts and figures, we see only a promise for jobs next year, and there is a reason for that. The jobs do not exist.

The bill is about committing further dollars. Only 12% of the dollars committed so far are even creating any jobs. That does not mean 12% of the potential jobs. We contacted directly over a thousand projects and posted on a website. The is the most comprehensive status available to Canadians because of step two of the government's mirage of an economic program, this economic inaction program, this excuse not to make government act when it should, when Canadians and communities out there need it. Step two is to be able to cover up, to actually change people's perception by trying to bend the reality, hoping that people will not be looking under the covers, will not be looking more closely. That is fundamentally what people have started to discover. The government has failed to divulge any of the information that it has collected. It has collected information. It knows its jobs creation program is a failure. It knows that in community after community it is making this recession worse.

The government has worked on a well orchestrated chorus of how this is a synchronized international recession. What it does not say is how it is a synchronized effort to camouflage its failure to put even a modicum of competence or effort behind being able to assist people. At 12%, that means fewer than 4,800 jobs at a time when the country has lost jobs at a rate of 5,000 per week. For 10 months, the government has held the reins of power, was given the benefit of the doubt by Canadians and by members in the House and failed utterly.

The other stuff in which it failed is this. It is one thing not to do well and it is one thing to say that this is the factors and the reasons for it. Then there might be a modicum of faith that the government might repair itself, might fix its problems, might actually bring things out, but no. Instead it has devoted a tremendous amount of effort in ducking even the smallest amount of accountability for billions of dollars, something in the order of $11 billion new dollars over two years. That is the context in which we have to see the bill today. Dollars are being requisitioned for suspect purposes.

In fact, a breach of trust with Canadians is what each member opposite wants us to go along with, a breach of trust with the unemployed, their very misery and their loss of jobs, which has deepened in the months since the budget. Notwithstanding some lightening in recent months, it is still tremendously worse off out there for those communities and families that have been hit hardest by the recession.

The government promised Canadians it would target communities and individuals most in need. This was the express commitment the Prime Minister and the finance minister said that they would uphold for Canadians, with the billions of dollars they borrowed on behalf of Canadians from the next generation. They said that they would deliver those results to people. We cannot match the grants. There are so few of them that have actually put shovels in the ground. There are so few that the government quakes in fear of releasing the data.

I challenge any member opposite to stand and enumerate, to release a list, to show anywhere where there is substantial job creation activity, paid for with federal dollars.

It was not until yesterday, 11 months after the budget was introduced, that the Government of Quebec announced the start of infrastructure projects in municipalities in Quebec. That is unbelievable. For most Canadians, that is unacceptable. But there is a problem: Canadians do not know the actual conditions.

The government thinks it is going to get away with a conceit, a camouflage, a misuse and abuse of government authority to conceal the failure of its job creation program. Instead of targeting communities and individuals most in need the way it said it would, it has taken out ads in the millions of dollars to conceal the fact that the only correlation between the dollars is with ridings it has chosen, not all the ridings that are Conservative but ones of certain cabinet ministers and of certain seats that have been recently acquired.

It is a political strategy that runs the gamut from 300% as much money in British Columbia to 40% more money in Ontario for the recreation funds, and huge piles of money for ministers like the Minister of Industry to have in his own riding for a variety of purposes which are not linked to the public interest. The members opposite in the government ranks stand united in favour of that kind of behaviour with public funds. They celebrate it in an unseemly fashion.

I would challenge each and every member opposite who held up cheques with their signatures on it to let the communities they handed it to cash that cheque. That is right. It is legal tender. If members' signatures are on them, they should stand behind them. It is not their money. Do they not realize it is not their dollars? It comes from taxpayers, hard-working Canadians, and it is an abuse to pretend it comes from their personal largesse or that of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is nothing less than an abuse.

The members opposite, who once upon a time advertised themselves as people who held forth a critique of government, now meekly go along with the public relations machine, meekly sell off their principles to hide from their voters this job creation failure because it is massive. Billions of dollars were spent and there is no yield. Nothing is happening for average Canadians. Average Canadians are being thwarted in their ambitions.

The Conservative government is full of itself at the moment because it thinks somehow it has gotten away with this. It thinks somehow that Canadians are not, in their instincts, starting to appreciate what is happening, that the Conservative Party is not looking after them, that some time ago the switch was flipped, and it has decided to look after itself, to maintain itself in power, to do whatever it takes.

There is no line on the principles that the Conservative Party used to talk about. The fact is that it has abused the apparatus of government, spent scarce dollars, all of it borrowed from grandchildren of members in the House and, more importantly, from people right across the country. That is when it is going to be paid back, with all this reckless advertising the government is doing.

Some of the members opposite spent $80,000 in five months last year bombarding their constituents with print ads, but that is just the beginning. Huge amounts are off that budget and have been used by the government in a propaganda play. It is not ethical. It is not moral, it is not acceptable when it is at the suffering and expense of families who are going without.

The government could have decided to distribute dollars in an arm's length fashion through the gas tax, for example. The Canadian Construction Association implored the party to do it and said, “If you want jobs and good infrastructure, do it that way”. The government, instead, took five months to set up a scheme, a system that it could control and identify the projects. A government that used to believe in communities reached right into those communities and chose the projects that it wanted, chose the communities it wanted to have them in, instead of actually helping the people and communities it said it would.

This is not ambiguous. The facts are clear and not only by the research put forward by the Liberal Party but by the Halifax Chronicle Herald, by the Ottawa Citizen, by The Canadian Press, and by the Globe and Mail. Every single time they added up the dollars, there are two things absolutely clear: the jobs have not been created and the dollars have gone astray.

It may be that the people opposite somehow think they are immune, that it is not going to catch up to them, that their sanctioning of this behaviour is just how politics should be done and has always been done. I say to them that they sit here only at the pleasure of Canadians who are looking for something else from the House. They are looking for bipartisanship. They are looking for people to actually roll up their sleeves and get the job done.

Time after time in committee the minister in charge of infrastructure, this $11 billion trust fund, was asked on behalf of Canadians to expose what was happening, to prepare Canadians for problems, to let Canadians know about opportunities to improve. Instead, he covered up and hid the facts on behalf of all members opposite.

Some members opposite might think they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. They are bringing home the bacon. They are getting money for people in their ridings so therefore they are doing a good job. Members opposite know the difference. They know what is coming at the expense of the majority of Canadians who live in other ridings. They know there are hard-working Canadians who are being short-changed. Projects that could benefit Canadians, that could put them to work, that could help their neighbourhoods, are not being funded simply because the representative is from the wrong hue of political party. Those are tactics of the 1890s and maybe the 1990s. Canadians are not prepared to put up with those tactics today.

In 1991 and 1992 there was a government on its way out the door that the Conservative government would rather forget. The Conservatives really do not remember that a government that once rode high went low very quickly. The seeds of the same kind of arrogance that reduced the former Conservative Party to nothing are here now. To say it is a question of their just desserts in self-justification is for them to be doing the one fatal thing that brings down governments time after time and that is discounting the Canadian public.

This is a different age. The Conservatives cannot get away from the facts even if they wished to. The facts are there in black and white. Incredibly, the Conservative government thinks it can get away with spending money on advertising. It might help them win one or two byelections where that kind of firepower makes a difference, but when all Canadians are focused, when all Canadians are sitting in judgment, they will ask: At a time of difficulty, did the Conservatives look after me or did they look after themselves? Unfortunately, the government has passed the point of no return.

In province after province, in program after program, the Conservatives have tried to look after themselves even if the programs they pick take longer to happen, even if they could be coming for those who still have a shred of interest in the real economics of this, at the wrong time in the economic cycle.

What Mr. Flaherty said was actually based on a reasonably sound approach, that investments should be made--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. The member knows not to use the proper name of any member of Parliament.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I meant to refer to the august finance minister whose words in the spring indicated that the money had to be spent or it could be harmful to the economy. Now that same finance minister is trying to justify why none of the projects took place, why none of them are actually happening.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer applied a model from the United States. He looked to see if there was any economic evidence that the flattening out of the recession has anything to do with the efforts of the Conservative government. The answer is no. There is no evidence because the government has been so late in getting the dollars out to the field.

Yet, the government did not have to change administrations the way the Obama administration did. The Conservative government did not have to fight to get requisitions for dollars from the House. Those dollars were expedited. They were put on a platter for them. What did the Conservatives do? Did they live up to the finance minister's promise? They did not.

I am sorry, I am used to the finance minister in another context. I have heard some of these promises before in another House. We found out then that we had a $6 billion deficit. We now have ten times the range of that deficit.

Canadians were prepared to go with the government and the House and take on debt if it was for a worthwhile reason. What will Canadians do now when they find out that the basic objectives have not been met? What will Canadians do now when they find out that the government failed in its principle assignment to make Canadians more secure? The government's principle assignment was not to make the Conservative Party of Canada more secure, not to give away recreation grants to some people, not to stimulate construction in some areas because it is set with the Prime Minister's Office. That is not good enough. That is not the standard under which the Conservatives were sent here. That is not what the circumstances of this economy demand from each member of this House.

Which committee of the House is even bold enough to look straight at the facts of the stimulus package?

Some members from the other party, from the Bloc Québécois, refused to accept the results of the examination of stimulus spending. Why? Who is afraid of the results?

I unfortunately understand the government members' concerns here. But what about the other members?

Each member here has a responsibility to stand in this place. This $11 billion is a trust that has been broken and been replaced with the thinnest of gruel. This $100 million advertising program is a re-creation of reality that the government hopes will stand up instead.

I think the government does not realize that when people are not paying attention or are hoping for a better outcome, they extend that goodwill to the government of the day. They say that they will put it on better behaviour. They said that they did not want an election right now. They said that they would extend the full measure of goodwill. However, the government ought not to mistake that for the success of its policy of misleading Canadians.

It is a mirage. Not one member in the House, in defence of this bill or any other measure of the government, can point to concrete results such as the pouring of concrete, the lifting of shovels or the actual generation of substantial jobs. The Prime Minister made 16 announcements leading up to this session of Parliament and 14 of them were not about stimulus infrastructure. They were about the lack of spending of the government on regular infrastructure.

When the government was leading us and teetering into recession, did it put the money out the door more expeditiously? Did it move consistently with what it said? No, it underspent infrastructure spending last year by $1.5 billion, according to public accounts. Most of it was spent in the last two quarters and most of it was spent when Canadians could have been working. That is the choice the government made, against Canadians and, sadly, for itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot of criticisms in the member's speech. The one suggestion he did offer was around the gas tax funding. He did not specify any details beyond that, such as whether he recommends provincial and municipal support under the current system. All three levels are in the projects together. I wonder if he could comment on that.

The riding of Huron—Bruce, which I represent, is a rural riding. It is a very big, broad riding. There are over 22 arenas in my riding. There are over 10 municipalities. There is a lot of road to cover. I understand that the staff of one road paving company alone has increased to nearly 70 employees. It is a 50% increase.

First, I wonder if he could comment on his gas tax funding. Second, I wonder if he could comment about all of the jobs that have been created, just like the ones I have described, all across this country.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite may realize, there was a motion put constructively forward in the House by myself on behalf of the official opposition that he and all members of his party voted against. It was to use the gas tax, work with the provinces, work with the municipalities and not have it go out on September 1, when the entire construction season is gone.

If there are any hirings taking place, they are hirings that could have been done in April and May. There are tenders that could have been let. Only 12% were in the construction phase by the beginning of September. That is a miserable failure of a record. The provinces could have matched and the municipalities do match the gas tax more often than not, but I do not know why the member opposite, who represents many small municipalities, would want municipal property taxpayers to be forced to pay the cost of the recession.

Why not let those who can participate and help out relieve some of those high property taxes for people, especially at this time, when businesses are still hurting and still finding it difficult? That was our proposal. Unfortunately, he voted against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the member's speech, which attacked the Conservative government. However, it seemed to me to be slightly incoherent. I will say why. Just a few days ago, we saw in the byelections that the Liberal vote basically collapsed across the country. In my neighbouring riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam, the Liberals did not even get their deposit back. It is a riding that they used to hold.

Part of the problem is this difference between the rhetoric and the reality. On the one hand, Liberals are saying that they disagree with the government. On the other hand, they are supporting it on the HST. We have the harmonized sales tax, which in British Columbia and Ontario is going to cost the average Canadian $500. That is $2,000 for a family of four, taken right out of their pockets as a salve to big business.

My question is very simple. Why are the Liberals supporting the HST when people in Ontario and British Columbia see it as unfair?

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the question. I can understand the member is a little reluctant to address directly why he is planning to vote for the government on stimulus. He would like to change the subject to the HST.

I am not sure if he is going to vote for the government on this, but let me just say we are not. We are not voting for the government on those measures.

On measures of finance and confidence, when the government betrayed and breached the trust of the Canadian people, even before it became widely known, and we are going to make it widely known, that was the turning point. There is a very thin line linking us across, but it was the principle of whether they would put Canadians first. According to this member, I believe, there are several tests.

If members pick the test that they like and if it is one that they are comfortable with, then it allows them to vote for the government. That is not how we feel, not at all. In fact, the only championing we are doing here is the championing of Canadians' interests.

It has been such a colossal failure that I do not see where members opposite find that wiggle room. It is very artistic. The member has been here longer than I have. Maybe there are methods, means and devices one uses to go to sleep at night, but frankly when there has been a failure of this size, it is catastrophic for Canadians and it is important that they get the message that it is not being condoned by other parties.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I make my comment, the NDP members can be assured that we will tell Canadians how they betrayed them.

The member for Parkdale—High Park talked about the Prime Minister making announcements during the campaign and so on. There was all this money that was supposed to be put out. As I recall, and perhaps the member can correct me, at the time the Prime Minister and the finance minister were campaigning, and even right after the election, they were telling Canadians, “Don't worry. Be happy. There is no recession. We don't have to worry about anything”.

Could the member take us back to those comments and to what the Prime Minister said at that time? The member referred to how the Prime Minister misled Canadians during the campaign. Could he touch upon that?

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can.

I cannot understand, on the basis of this question, how it is that the members opposite abandoned their principles. They think that because misdirecting the Canadian public and telling them what they want to hear instead of what is really happening has worked before that it can work again and again and again.

The last election, which should have been about the economic future of the country, was instead about a government denying, from its official position, what it could clearly see, that the recession was upon us. Every other objective authority said so.

There is nothing wrong with a government changing its mind if its actions match its words.

What I am saying today is that the evidence is very clear. In the stimulus package so far, the money has not been spent where they promised it would be. Therefore the jobs have not been delivered. The government has pretended otherwise and the jobs instead have been put on a future promise, mainly where the government thinks they will do it some partisan good.

That is a debasement of the promise just as what the Prime Minister said is a debasement, not a change of heart, not a healthy change, but rather a debasement, of the whole way we do politics and interact with the public.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the member of Parliament over there is angry. He is obviously angry that we worked together closely with our provincial partners, a government that he once served in. He is angry that we worked with our municipal partners, the mayors and councillors across the country. He is angry that university presidents and college presidents support our initiatives.

He is obviously angry that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has suggested that 1.2% of our economic growth in the third quarter was as a result of the government's interaction with the economy.

He is angry that thousands of Canadians have taken advantage of the home renovation tax credit, which he did not support and clearly will not support.

However, I wonder if the member will have the guts to stand up in this place today and be honest with the people that he represents. Is he now suggesting that he wants the government, he wants the province in which he was once a member of the government, he wants the city of Toronto to stop construction of a subway? Does he want them to stop construction of the Sheppard Avenue light rail transit? Does he want to stop the construction of the reference library? Does he want to stop the expansion of the Boys and Girls Club of Scarborough? Does he want to stop the expansion of Seneca College? Does he want to stop the expansion of Centennial College? Does he want to stop the emergency measures centre in my riding? Does he want to stop the construction of the new arena in my riding? Does he want me to go back and take away all--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the member was cut off in mid-sentence because his enthusiasm shows how desperate he is. The provincial government in Ontario did not take political advantages. There is an analysis in the paper today showing that they did not do what your government did. Municipalities had no choices. They put in their projects. You chose the ones you wanted. You put them over a barrel. You made them do it, and look at the result. It is clear.

The universities receive funding on a per student basis--

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know that the debate is quite heated, and I know this is obviously an issue the member is trying to score some points on, but you would know and he should know, not only as a member of this House but as a previous member of a legislative body, that all questions and comments should be directed through the Chair.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, and I would remind all members that all comments ought to be directed to the Chair.

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park to finish his answer.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, university presidents are going to say thank you even when they get less on a per capita basis if they happen to be in the riding. Forty per cent more money goes to Conservative ridings. The thumb is on the scale even there, even for students, even for people we should look to because they do research and so on. There is 40% more.

As far as the idea goes that we would somehow stop projects, they have to be started first. When was the Spadina subway promised by the government? It was in 2007, two years before the recession started. The government stands up again and again and pretends there is fairness. Eight billion dollars' worth of transit is planned for the Toronto area and only 10% will be paid for by the federal government. That is the lowest amount by any federal government for a major transit expansion in the country.

There is no fairness. There are no jobs being created. There was a colossal failure and a colossal cover-up and each member opposite unfortunately knows that and chooses to do nothing about it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise and speak on Bill C-51.

I know that some children come home from school and rather than watch Hannah Montana, they watch the Parliament of Canada and hope to learn something. Just for the youngsters at home, “No, you did not fall through the rabbit hole and you are not sitting and having tea with the Mad Hatters in the Liberal Party.”

We are talking about the implementation of a budget that was decided last spring. For the youngsters back home, I will just put it in context so that we are very clear about what this is about. The Budget Implementation Act that is being examined now includes some of the key elements that were in the Conservative budget back in the spring.

The New Democratic Party will be supporting this implementation because there are some key elements of the budget that we think will be very important for Canadians, for example, the home renovation tax credit. That was promised to Canadians in the spring. Canadians went out and spent money based on the belief that when tax time came around, they would be able to make the most of the home renovation tax credit.

Our colleagues in the Liberal Party, however, are telling Canadians “No. Do not look to the home renovation tax credit. Look to giving us government. If we are given government, then down the road we will implement the home renovation tax credit.” It is the Liberal Party putting themselves and their power ahead of average Canadians.

It is the same thing for the first-time homebuyers' tax credit. It was in the budget. Canadians who believed it would help them went out and bought homes. The leader of the Liberal Party said, “No, little people wanting to buy your first homes, you are not going to get that until we get government.”

We see the issue of income deferral for farmers breeding livestock in drought conditions. Anybody who represents a rural riding knows the crisis we are seeing in agriculture. That is something we in the New Democratic Party would support.

There are changes to the working income tax benefit.

These are elements that will help average Canadians. Again putting this in the context of last spring's budget, the Liberal Party supported the budget, and we are going to work through how it was that they supported the budget. The New Democratic Party at that time opposed the budget because we felt that the government was on a very rocky and erratic course in terms of Canada's economy.

I am going to go back to how that budget came about, but I want to say that at this point in the life of this Parliament there are elements in that budget, the overall vision of which we opposed, that will help average Canadians. Our job as members of Parliament, especially in a minority context, is to examine the various pieces of legislation and say, “What is the overall impact? Will it help or will it hurt?”

In terms of the overall implementation of these key areas, we support that. It does not mean we support a blank cheque to the Conservative Party to carry on as they have.

Let us go back for the youngsters at home who are watching, just so that they get a sense of how things unfolded here. Some day in a history lesson they will probably read about the famous finance minister's fiscal update when he came into the House soon after this Parliament was reconvened and said he was going to bring an economic update. Now, that economic update was happening as the world economy was melting down.

We had seen the warning signs in the U.S. for some time with the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market. We saw the U.S. market going south long before it happened in Canada. As the stock markets began to crash, and Canadians' private equity and savings were eaten up at a staggering rate last September, our Prime Minister was saying there were going to be lots of good bargains out there and that people should pick up some good bargains.

I am sure that if Canadians had taken the Prime Minister's advice then, they would have seen what savings they had disappear even further. This was the sense of bizarre unreality that the Conservative government had.

In November the government came in with its economic update. Now, of course we put this against the threat of a complete global meltdown and what do we have? Well, it said we were in surplus and would remain in surplus. We now know that the government was already $10 billion in the hole because of its bizarre spending habits in terms of giving everything over to the corporations in tax cuts. So we were already in the hole, and the government said that in order to get out of any further holes, it would just sell off all our public buildings, which we know is a fundamental action of these free marketeers.

However, in terms of the November economic stimulus plan the government had four key elements. It was going to cut pay equity. How that was going to help the economic stimulus, I do not know. It was going to strip environmental protections on our river ways and waterways. How that would help the economy, I am not sure. It was going to cut the rest of Kyoto. We know that party basically exists to protect the tar sands. It was going to cut funding for the political parties of Canada.

For those back home who are paying attention, there were four issues the Liberals could have stood up on: cut pay equity; strip environmental protection of river ways; gut Kyoto; and cut funding for political parties. What did the Liberal Party decide to get up on its hind legs over? It was not about pay equity. The Liberals stood with the Conservatives and supported it. It was not about protecting the acts that were in place to protect our river ways. The Liberal Party said there was no problem with that. It was not about gutting Kyoto. The former leader of the Liberal Party almost had to put down his dog named Kyoto. The Liberal Party supported the government.

However, when it came time to rolling over about the funding for the Liberals as a political party, that is when the Liberal Party said no, that it would form a coalition.

The Conservatives were howling in outrage. I remember some of my dear colleagues over there said that I should be taken out and hung for providing an alternative such as a coalition. They were howling at the moon. They were pounding their chests. They were saying that this was unconscionable. However, we knew the Liberals were not going to follow through because the Conservatives rolled over and said that they would not take our electoral funding away. At that moment, it became okay for the Liberals to back everything that was in the budget. They were fine with that.

For the folks back home, I noticed all day long the Liberals have kept referring to themselves as the official opposition. Because branding is so important in politics, I think they are concerned people will forget exactly who they are. Seventy-nine times in a row, they did whatever the Conservative Party wanted until this last September.

Again, we will jump forward to another piece of very strange political history, about which I am sure the future Pierre Bertons will talk. It is that famous weekend in Sudbury, when the Liberals decided they were once again, and I do not know how many times they decided to do this, going to reinvent themselves. Going into that caucus meeting, they were saying that people did not want an election, that they had to get this thing through and that they had to stay stable. Nobody had heard from the great Liberal leader for some time. He had been off at his cottage, thinking great thoughts. He came out and said that from now on the Liberals would oppose everything. It did not matter, but they had to reassert themselves because they wanted the government.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Your time is up.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

He said, “Your time is up”.

I have to admit I thought it was a pretty bizarre and erratic piece of behaviour from the Liberal leader, but, no, his troops got their marching orders. When we came back to Parliament, the NDP said that we needed some action to help the unemployed. The Conservatives said that they would move forward with the 15 to 20 weeks extra. However, the Liberals said that the unemployed could wait. It was about them forming government.

Now we have a bill that would bring forward the home renovation tax credit. It would bring forward support for farmers in drought. However, the Liberal Party is saying, “You little people, you peons, you have to wait till we get government again”.

I find that absolutely unconscionable. However, it speaks to the erratic nature of our Liberal leader. There is this myth that the Liberals always used to put out there that they some how embodied the best of what Canada was, they were somehow the vision of Canada. However, when we read the writings and we hear the speeches of the Liberal leader, we wonder what the Liberals were they thinking.

For example, let us talk about arts. The Liberal leader, when he was a writer in England, was asked how he felt about state support for arts organizations. He said. “While the level of arts funding was miserly in Thatcher's Britain, the principle of weaning the arts of public subsidy to the greatest possible extent was surely right. After all, the moral independence of culture” itself depends on it.

Here is a man who quotes Maggie Thatcher about arts funding. This is the same man who was basically a front piece for George W. on the invasion of Iraq.

I have looked at our present Prime Minister. I have looked at all the crazy crackpot things that came out of the National Citizens Coalition. Even with him, I cannot find anything where he says that we should starve the artists for moral independence. I know some of his backbenchers probably believe that. That is red meat to some of the old Reformers. They go home to their summer barbecues and say that when they get a majority government, they will starve those artists and it will teach them to be morally independent. They could look to the Liberal leader and say that here is a man who has stood up to say it.

This is the kind of erratic nature of the Liberals. They elect a guy to be their leader who will say things that the Prime Minister would never have the guts to say in public. Maybe he would say it if he had a glass of sherry on his own, but the Liberal leader did.

I want to stay on this because this is about what happened with the budget and the erratic nature of the Liberals now coming in and flipping themselves inside out, saying that they have to stand up against the home renovation tax credit, that they have to stand up against EI. Why? Because they want to be government again. It is erratic. They have to call themselves the official opposition because people do not really know where to place them in any political panorama.

I would like to continue with a bit of history.

On the same day that the horrors in Abu Ghraib were exposed to the world on 60 Minutes, which was April 28, 2004, the present leader of the Liberal Party was being interviewed on Charlie Rose. The same day the stories of the horrors of Abu Ghraib were broken internationally, he was speaking about being able to draw clear lines between stress and sleep deprivation, not called torture. He said that it was okay, as long as some basic rules were set on how to mistreat these people, they would not be mistreated too much.

That same day that the story of Abu Ghraib broke, he talked about the need for target assassinations, as long as it was done in a democratic context. I am not sure what the backbenchers of the Reform Party might say at a barbecue function in the summer, but I have never heard the Prime Minister stand and say that as long as the government brings to Parliament a list of people to be shot, targeted assassination is okay. However, the man who is now leading the Liberal Party said that on Charlie Rose on the same day that the whole world was recoiling in horror, regardless of one's political stripes, of what was happening at Abu Ghraib.

In terms of a foreign policy vision, the same day that he was on Charlie Rose, he was trying to explain what went wrong in Iraq. He said that we should go into Iraq. He believed in it. He said that he thought the Iraqis would greet us as liberators. A lot of other people in the world did not think that, but he said that he believed the invasion was worth it. He tried to explain why there was a sudden backlash against America for the invasion of Iraq. He said, “America is deeply hated because we are supposed to have magical powers. The assumption is that the minute we take over a piece of real estate like Iraq, the lights are supposed to go on”.

The world was not angry at George Bush because he took over a piece of real estate. The world was justifiably outraged that the U.S. believed that a sovereign country, anywhere it was, regardless of whether it was run by a tinpot dictator or not, was treated as a piece of real estate. Yet this is the view of the present Liberal leader. I would think those views are very erratic. They have been proven very wrong and they are deeply out of touch with what average Canadians feel.

We are on Bill C-51, the budget implementation bill, and that party, which has never stood up on anything that I can recall, is now suddenly standing up to fight the home renovation tax credit. I wish those members good luck. How do they explain that to average Canadians? Good luck in telling farmers that the deferrals they are asking for after the drought can wait because it is more important for him to be leader than for them to get support.

Once Canadians begin to realize the erratic views, and frankly very outrageous views, they will think twice about accepting the piece of advice that we should vote down support for EI because it is inconvenient, because we should be supporting the Liberal return to power.

I will not gloat, but in the recent byelections the Liberals were fighting with the Green Party to get their deposits back in some ridings. I do not think average Canadians are falling for it either. What we are supposed to do if we are politicians and we have hit a dead end is to go back and revitalize ourselves. We need to start being honest. We need to look in the mirror. That is something the Liberal Party could do right now.

There are a lot of serious problems with the Conservative government. There is a serious lack of vision on the environment, of where we go with Copenhagen, of how we deal with the tar sands, of how we deal with the fact that we are now some $50 billion and climbing in structural deficit and how we get out of it. However, I do not think we can sell to the Canadian people that the best way forward is to oppose measures, which the Liberals have already supported, that will actually help them. That is not being an effective opposition. That is being erratic. We have to move beyond that.

The New Democratic Party, in terms of the House and this parliamentary minority situation, is continuing to look for the opportunities, regardless of political stripe or party, to move forward an agenda that benefits Canadians.

Right now there is deep unease in the country about pensions. People are worried. They are frightened and they are justified in being frightened. We need to move forward an agenda on pensions. We have been trying to do that. There is serious unease about EI reform. I believe the New Democratic Party has 12 bills that try to address the various shortfalls in EI. We recognize the importance of getting a win in one area, taking it and continuing to advance the cause. Our Liberal colleagues are saying that it does not matter. If there is one element of the government's offer for EI, they will reject it all unless they get the whole enchilada. They know very well they will not get it. That is not being an effective opposition.

We are continuing to work on the areas of pensions. We are working on the issue of seniors. Too many of our seniors live in poverty. We want a green strategy, so that at the end of this, Canada is not just like the hangover after all the wild spending by the Conservatives. There needs to be a plan to retool our economy, to rebuild our cities, our municipalities and our rural areas. That is where the green strategy is so important, the need to have a vision so what we are spending money on today, which is putting us into structural deficit, is going to create benefits down the road.

I would not be one to stand up in the House and say that I think the Conservatives have had this vision. I do not believe they do. They have made serious mistakes on how they have spent the money and how they will spend the money. We will continue to hold them accountable for that.

However, on the basic issues of what is in this budget implementation bill, the home renovation tax credit, the first-time home buyers tax credit, the revenue-sharing agreements with the province of Nova Scotia, which includes $175 million payment, and drought relief for livestock owner, these are elements we will support because they will help average Canadians.

As elected representatives of our people, how can we go back to our ridings and say that we are sorry, that we had the chance to get them help but we decided to take the advice of the very erratic Liberal leader and jump off the political edge with him. That is not our job. Our job is to fight for clear, winnable goals and we will continue to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, it was with great interest that I listened to the comments of my New Democrat colleague. He was speaking about being erratic and the importance in opposition to be constructive and to support the government, when necessary, to advance a good policy.

I can remember when the member's party and his leader voted against the throne speech and wanted to defeat the government three weeks after the last election. In fact, I remember the hon. member and his leader speaking and voting against the government last January during the budget when many of these measures were proposed during the depths of a global financial crisis.

I can remember 79 times that the member, his leader and his party voted against the government on the basis that it was the government proposing legislation and they were going to vote against it. Now he is saying that the government is good, that he and his party will support and work with the government.

It is like he considers the Prime Minister and the government like a wine that will age well. He may view the government as some nice Bordeaux but I think it is plonk and aging very badly. Only good wine ages well but he may not understand that.

My point is that I would like him to explain why his party and his leader voted against the government's throne speech and wanted an election three weeks after the last election if his party is sincere about being constructive in opposition. Or, is his party simply playing political games?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if my hon. colleague is in his cups with his references to wine, but I am glad that he mentioned the 79 times that the Liberals rolled over, because hey got nada, nothing. They were not interested in getting anything. They were just trying to buy themselves some breathing space.

When it came to cutting pay equity for women, the Liberals rolled over. When it came time for cutting Kyoto, the Liberals rolled over. When it came time for cutting the waterway protections for Canada, the Liberals rolled over. They rolled over again and again and again.

Suddenly money is being put on the table for EI and they are saying that they need to take a principled stand and stop these monsters. Suddenly there is a home renovation tax credit and the Liberals are standing up. Why are they suddenly standing up when they never stood before? It is because their erratic leader said that he could not stand sitting at the cottage all summer with nothing to do and that he wants to be prime minister. That is not a principled position. That is absolutely crazy.

I would suggest that the member lay off the Liberal wine for a while and get some political sobriety so he can really see what is happening to his party.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very hypocritical, regardless of whether we are on that side or this side, to listen to a party that defeated the opportunity to have an early learning program that the Liberals had put on the table.

[An hon. member]

And Kelowna.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Aside from Kelowna and so many other good initiatives around the table.

We all have a responsibility, whether in government or the official opposition, to conduct ourselves in a proper manner. It is very easy for that irrelevant party to stand and make all kinds of accusations and the rest of it because it will never be government.

The member talks about all these other issues that are so important. Does the member think about the children who still do not have early learning opportunities or early learning centres and about single mothers who want to work but do not have a safe place for their children? When he goes to bed at night does he not remember the way the NDP voted? Otherwise, we would have an early learning child care program in this country.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am concerned for my hon. colleague because she continues to fall into that terrible Liberal trap. Whenever the Liberals look at the New Democratic Party, they somehow give us the credit for finally throwing them out. However, we did not throw them out. The Canadian people threw them out and they threw them out for their corruption and for their red book of promises that they stood up election after election and promised an early learning program. They promised to meet all the Kyoto objectives and they promised to help first nations. However, they did nothing because they were not interested in that. They were interested in power.

After how many red books covers were ripped off and dates changed from 1993 to 1997 and then rip that off and put on 2000? They just changed the date and just scratched it out. Canadians were fed up because they wanted some action.

The member can say what she wants but the Liberals were never willing to move until they were lying on their deathbed and begging the Canadian public to give them one more chance. They said that if they were given one more chance they would do everything they never did in 13 years but the Canadian public said that was enough.

If the member wants to give the New Democratic Party the credit for finally fumigating the Houses of Parliament of a Liberal majority, I will take that credit, but I believe it belongs to the average smart Canadian citizen at the Tim Hortons, the gas stations and the restaurants who finally said “enough of this lot, throw them out”.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to something the member for Timmins—James Bay said about arts funding. I want to quote the member's very good question in the House about the CBC. He said:

Mr. Speaker, we are now seeing crippling losses at CBC in Windsor, Sudbury and Thunder Bay. While we are talking about pink slips, he should be giving them to the Conservative MPs from Quebec who will pay for his decision to blow 260 jobs yesterday in Montreal alone.

I wonder if the member could talk about the importance of something he called for in terms of providing the CBC with the ability to borrow some money to stay in business. I wonder if he could talk about the importance of that part of Bill C-51 and the importance of ensuring that there is adequate support for the CBC.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is an element in Bill C-51 for the CBC to start to deal with some of its structural problems but it does lead us back to the overall issue of why we are here tonight. The government does not have a coherent vision for where we need to go. The CBC will continue to be in shortfall. We will continue to see the bleed off of jobs at the crown corporation. It is vital that we have a national strategy to ensure a robust public broadcaster. Even the private broadcasters recognize that we need a complex infrastructure in place to maintain the diversity of voices.

The government does not get it. It has made a few steps in Bill C-51 in terms of addressing the terrible fact that CBC is having to sell some of its assets, but we will definitely be looking for it in future budgets. A budget to the folks back home is a vision statement for the government, of where the government is in terms of its willingness to invest in our public broadcaster. That is something we will be watching very closely next spring.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's comments about Liberal broken promises. I would like to give him the remaining time to reflect on those Liberal broken promises and maybe expand on the promises made and the promises broken.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very difficult question to answer because it is the sheer audacity of the party in assuming its basic natural governing right. The only governing right that exists in this country comes from the people and the only way to get that right is by living up to basic commitments to those people. We are bound to those people back home. We see a party that has cut itself adrift from that fundamental sense of obligation.

The Liberals now have a new guy, Donolo, who is the new saviour of the party. I think he is the fifth guy they have had this year. It is not about finding the saviour of the party. That was the mistake they made bringing in the guy from Harvard. The saviour for a party is to go back to the grassroots when their trust was betrayed. We go back and listen to people. We find out why they are angry and we build a new vision. That is the only way to get out of palookaville politically. It is not by bringing in some guy from Harvard, a guy who, for the record, said that when it came to national arts funding he supported Maggie Thatcher because she cut the artists off funding, which is something that should be done. That is not something we in the New Democratic Party would support and we challenge the Liberals on their support of a leader like that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate because I certainly support the measures in Bill C-51 that we have discussed, particularly the home renovation tax credit. Many people in my riding have availed themselves of this tax credit. I will support it because these people have pursued it in good faith.

Unfortunately, however, this budget bill did not go nearly far enough. It was very limited in terms of its application. I regret that it did not focus on home retrofits, energy saving, money saving and environmentally saving our communities in terms of making a real effort to be practical, and retrofits would have done that. They would have also created green collar jobs. With home retrofits, we would have seen new windows, new doors, insulation and perhaps the installation of solar panels that homeowners could then utilize to save energy and even generate their own clean energy.

What was missing in terms of this bill was the increased investment in not just retrofits but in the technology around the new green jobs and the training for green collar jobs like computer control operators who can cut steel for wind turbines, mechanics trained to repair electric engines and manufacturers of solar panels. These are good jobs. They pay enough to raise a family. They are jobs with purchasing power that in turn create more jobs.

Another positive component to this is that these jobs are very difficult to outsource. Unlike the current corporate strategy of sending jobs to low wage jurisdictions with lower environmental regulations, these jobs stay in the community. A house cannot be picked up and sent to China to have energy efficient windows, doors or solar panels installed. It simply cannot be done.

That is unlike the Ford motor company. In the riding adjacent to mine, Ford Talbotville is closing down. We are losing 1,600 direct jobs and 8,000 indirect jobs because Ford is saying that it cannot make money or that it cannot afford to retrofit the plant. Meanwhile, it is spending $500 million to build a plant in China. These are jobs that are gone. These are jobs that we will sorely miss and that will impact our community. However, green jobs and retrofits would have helped and supported us.

Transportation costs are another consideration when one starts to look at all of this. With the decline in the supply of fossil fuels and the increasing expense associated with oil and gas production, it makes more and more sense to develop local industries that provide local goods and services; hence, back to these green jobs. Unfortunately, that is where the government missed the boat. With the help of the official opposition, it voted against my made in Canada bill. It deemed it protectionist and completely ignored the fact that we are the only G20 country without a local procurement policy.

When all Canadian businesses have been undermined by a government that ignores their needs and the needs of Canadian workers, who will be left to produce the goods that will be needed for the green economy? Who will be there to make those turbines locally? Who will be there to grow the food products locally? When we have cut off our own people and said that they do not matter and that we do not want to be protectionist but that their jobs are insignificant, who will be there to produce this green economy? Who will be there to save our environment? Who will be there to keep our communities strong?

There has been no interest from the government on that, nor has there been any interest in going to Copenhagen with something substantive. The fact is that the government is going empty-handed because it has refused to take any kind of leadership role when it comes to the environment. Instead, the Conservatives quietly tabled their so-called Kyoto protocol implementation act but it does nothing. It imposes no binding target, delays actions on emissions from coal-fired power generation and grants broad exemptions to industry.

The Conservatives could have brought forward the NDP's Bill C-311. That bill sets out a very clear path for Canada to help fight climate change. It provides greenhouse gas targets consistent with those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

One of the members of that panel comes from my city of London, Professor McBean, a University of Western Ontario professor and a very respected Nobel Prize winner. Unfortunately, he and the other Nobel Prize winners were ignored by the government.

At any rate, our bill is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and would impose legally binding, tough but achievable, reduction targets. Instead the government is trying to stop our bill in committee and is refusing to acknowledge that this kind of inaction is no longer acceptable.

All of this is despite the urgent call for action from Canadians, from scientists, from environmentalists and from the international community.

We have lost our international reputation. We have lost our reputation as being progressive and a leader. There was a time when the world looked to Canada. Whether it was with regard to women's rights, children's rights, environmental protection, or the kind of services that we provide in our health care system, we were leaders. People looked to Canada as the peacekeepers, the peacemakers, the leaders. Now we are scorned. We are scorned across the globe for our inaction and our apparent complacency.

We need budget measures that are directed at environmental protection. We need a government to create budget measures that could and should create opportunities for a better economy, a green, strong, sustainable economy with all the dividends of energy conservation, job creation and environmental protection.

We did not get those and we are not likely to get them, but I want Canadians to think about what could have been.

New Democrats also support the first time-home buyers' tax credit. It is a very important step. There are a lot of young Canadians who would love to be able to provide their family with a home, and they cannot. Therefore, this is a positive thing, as is the income deferral for farmers breeding livestock in drought conditions.

It is interesting that this tax credit is here when, again, the government does not seem to understand that we need to have local procurement policies. We need to support our farmers. We need to support production in order for our communities to thrive, but that is beside the point.

As well, it is very good to see the changes to the working income tax benefit that increase the percentage of the tax credit and increase the top-up of the payment. This will help low-income families. There has been precious little to help low-income families from the government.

All of these are very important and all will have a significant impact on the lives of people in our communities.

However, we need to be cognizant about what is missing from this bill and I would like to go back to that. While the CPP adjustments are very good, providing an increase in security for seniors, some flexibility, and a reduced incentive for early retirement, these are still lacking. They are lacking because they do not provide enough security for seniors.

As CARP says, 30% of Canadians are still without retirement savings. The proposals that have been put in place are not grandfathered. They do not address the need for enhancement of the OAS and GIS, and there is no retroactive claim beyond the current 11 months.

In Quebec, the QPP allows for a five-year retroactive claim. I can tell the House that there are people who have come to my office who did not understand their rights and their pension benefits, and who were cheated out of a secure and decent standard of living and could not claim back any further than 11 months. That is simply not acceptable.

I would like to say that as acceptable as this is, what New Democrats presented to the government last spring and what we would still like to see is preferable, and that is the expansion of and increase to the CPP, OAS and GIS.

In fact, it has been shown that a 15% increase to OAS and a doubling of CPP would create the kind of income security that seniors absolutely deserve.

This country can afford it. Since 1996, $400 billion has been given away in tax cuts to profitable corporations. That is four hundred thousand million dollars given to profitable corporations, to those deserving banks and oil companies. Imagine if just some of that $400 billion were invested in those seniors who had invested their lives in the building of this country.

We would also like to see the self-financing of a pension insurance program to make sure that when companies fail or choose to abandon retirees, there is a plan in place to protect our grandmothers and grandfathers from poverty. It would have helped the people of Nortel. It would have helped if the government had thought of that.

It would have helped if the government had thought about violence against women and had invested some money in women to prevent the violence these women feel, instead of spending millions and millions on their campaign to undermine the very few protections we have.

There is a great deal that the government could have done and chose not to do. I regret that very much, because it had the opportunity. It has had many opportunities.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for at least itemizing a number of things, both for and against, and also for her support for this bill.

I must ask the member, as she was talking about the $400 billion we gave away in tax breaks to profitable business, who does she think takes a tax break but a profitable business? Who does the member think keeps people working in this economy, but profitable businesses?

I want to ask my hon. colleague, does she really believe that the right thing to do is to overtax Canadian businesses, both small and large, so they do not have the capital to hire the people we need working in our economy?

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

Madam Speaker, I wish the member had listened very carefully. I said $400 billion since 1996, which implicates the Liberal Party as well.

In terms of profitable corporations, it would seem to me that they are doing fine. I have a real problem with this notion that somehow the oil sands, and Imperial Oil and the Bank of Montreal need the largesse of the people of this country.

I have very significant problems when I look at the struggling companies, the struggling businesses. Small business creates jobs in this country at a rate far exceeding that of any of these big corporations, and yet there has been no mention of how they should be treated. There has been no benevolence to them in terms of the kinds of tax breaks that we have seen for the large corporations, the $60 billion from the government alone in the last couple of years.

We could have done a great deal to generate jobs and to secure communities. We could have built affordable housing for the 200,000 Canadians who are homeless. They are families with children. We could have done that. We could have put in place a national child care program so that young families could get back to work, get jobs, create wealth, but no, it had to be tax cuts instead. That is regrettable.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, like my colleague, we certainly appreciate the NDP members who, after many years or 79 votes, have actually come to their senses and are recognizing the very important things our government is trying to do for Canadians.

I listened with interest. I know that my colleague across the aisle is sitting on a committee with me, where we are looking at pensions for seniors. We recognize that our system, compared with other countries, is very generous in terms of the GIS and OAS.

Does the member recognize that the things supporting our seniors on top of our pension system are those profitable corporations, and maybe the small dividends that the seniors make from them? If she actually took those tax breaks away from corporations, it would actually be taking money out of the pockets of the seniors she says she is trying to protect.

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

Madam Speaker, I am afraid I have to say that is chop logic. It is an interesting proposition.

The maximum that a senior can gain from OAS and GIS is about $11,000 a year, which is about $7,000 below the low income cut-off. We do not call it the poverty line because, I think, we are a little timid about calling it the poverty line, but it is.

In terms of those seniors who have investments in these profitable corporations, does the member mean a corporation like Nortel? I can remember a time when Bell stock or Nortel stock meant something, but it certainly does not mean anything now. People have taken a bash from the stock market.

The same thing goes for RRSPs. People were told to save in RRSPs, put money away, and benefit from freedom 55. What has happened to those RRSPs? In the last few years we have seen them decline significantly, to the point where seniors feel duped. They feel duped by the promises.

RRSPs in a 35 to 45 year period are charging 40% for management fees. Imagine that. That is nearly half. People thought they were saving for a secure retirement and they were duped into believing that somehow giving money to big banks, to those profitable corporations, to invest on their behalf would secure their future. They found out differently, and it is to our great shame.

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

Madam Speaker, there is not a lot left to say after hearing my colleagues from London—Fanshawe and Timmins—James Bay speak to this issue, but I would like to add a few notes.

I do not think the Conservatives are going to like my presentation as much as they liked some of the others about the lack of action and erratic nature of the Liberal Party. That is a matter of public record. Certainly the byelection results last Monday show that most Canadians agree. We saw a collapse of the Liberal vote across the country. In New Westminster—Coquitlam, as everyone well knows, the Liberals did not even get their deposit back. That is a seat they used to hold. Now, west of Toronto they have a handful of seats and east of the West Island of Montreal they have a handful of seats. Basically, they have been reduced to two areas of the country. I do not doubt they will be competitive in those two areas, but generally speaking, the Liberal Party simply does not reflect Canadian values and where Canadians want to go.

On the harmonized sales tax which is gouging Canadians in Ontario and British Columbia, the Liberals simply say that they are supporting it. Sure, they support it; it is a great idea to rip $500 out of the pockets of each and every person in Ontario and British Columbia.

Enough about the Liberals. I think the verdict from the electorate in four parts of the country was very clear. The verdict also was very clear in New Westminster—Coquitlam. The issue of the harmonized sales tax was front and centre in that campaign.

The Conservative Party dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars of partisan Conservative material into the riding. It spared no expense. It simply flooded the riding with partisan political advertising. The Conservative Party sent in its members of Parliament and ministers. It had a good local candidate. What the government was saying was that British Columbians should not be concerned about the HST.

The verdict from British Columbians was clear. In what was a very competitive riding, there was a landslide for the NDP. Fifty per cent of the vote went to the NDP. A split that was only 3% went to 15%.

If we apply the results of the byelection in New Westminster—Coquitlam across British Columbia, there are a dozen Conservative MPs in B.C. that would lose their seats. There is also a handful of Liberals left in B.C. and they would lose their seats.

My point is this. For the Conservatives to say that somehow the HST is not an issue and that British Columbians should just forget about it as it will be imposed come hell or high water would be a serious mistake, because British Columbians said no to the HST last Monday. That is something that will have an impact whether we talk about Abbotsford, Kamloops or any other riding in British Columbia.

The Conservatives, working with Gordon Campbell, trying to force the HST on people is simply not going to wash. I hope they will heed the very clear message from the byelection in B.C. and that they will step back from the brink on this because British Columbians do not want the HST.

I need to mention that the reason the NDP is supporting Bill C-51 is to try to save the government from itself. With a great deal of pomp and circumstance last spring, the government announced the home renovation tax credit and the first time homebuyers tax credit.

Particularly with regard to the home renovation tax credit, the Conservatives went out and picked up buckets of money from the Canadian taxpayers, ran off to build their signs and put up their Internet ads and all their partisan ads that are paid for by taxpayers, but they forgot one thing. They forgot the paperwork. They were telling Canadians to use the home renovation tax credit, that they would actually get their money back, but the Conservatives did not do their paperwork. They did not actually introduce the legislation for the tax credit. Can anyone believe that? Can anyone believe how irresponsible a government would be to tell Canadians to do their renovations and then the government does not do the paperwork to put the tax credit in place?

All of those Canadians who in good faith saw the buckets of money the Conservatives put into those huge signs that they love to put up everywhere, the Internet ads and all the other ads that they put in with taxpayers' money, thought that meant the Conservatives had done their paperwork, but they had not. If this bill does not pass, people will be left high and dry, having budgeted for the home renovation tax credit, having budgeted to make those renovations. Because the Conservatives did not do their paperwork, we would essentially be having people go even further into debt.

The average Canadian family over the past 20 years of Liberal and Conservative financial mismanagement has seen the family debt load double. That is a crisis. Many of the families who sorely needed renovations to their homes got them on credit. The NDP, because we are the conscience of this Parliament and often the only party that actually reads the legislation being brought forward, realized that if we did not adopt the bill, Canadians who in good faith went through the process would be stuck with the bill, and that is simply unacceptable.

On the home renovation tax credit, on the first time homebuyers tax credit, on the income deferral for farmers, on the working income tax benefit and on all those measures announced in pomp and circumstance, we are voting yes because we simply believe that Canadians need to see government keep its commitment.

We are appalled that the Conservatives did not do their paperwork, that they just ran off with their partisan advertising rather than do the first step, which most responsible Canadians would do, which is after they promised something they should introduce the legislation to make it real, but no, they did not do that. They spent all their time running off with buckets of money and putting up signs to advertise themselves. They got those big cheques with the big Conservative “C” logo on them and they ran around the country showing them, but they did not do step one, which was to introduce the legislation.

Of course, we will be voting for this in an effort to save the government from itself, but does that mean it has a blank cheque, as the Liberals have done 80 times? Does it simply mean we will let the Conservatives do anything they want? Certainly not. We have been very, very clear.

For example, the harmonized sales tax will have a profound negative impact on Canadians living in British Columbia and Ontario. The governments are in damage control. We saw the Conservatives and Liberals in Ontario announce that they are giving Timbits that are HST-free, but it is absurd to give back a few pennies when they are ripping $500 off the average individual, and $2,000 off the average family of four.

When they take all that money in a tax shift to appease the biggest companies in the country, the companies that love to offload their money and their jobs into the Caribbean, or Houston if it is an energy company, they are essentially saying to ordinary Canadians that they have to pay for this massive tax largesse that they are giving out for free. There is no performance required. The companies do not have to keep jobs. They can shed jobs; they can cut jobs; it does not matter. They will give those companies a gift in Ontario and British Columbia. It is a gift from the Conservative government to the biggest companies and there is a shift in the tax burden, because we always have to balance our books. As a financial administrator in the past, I know that well. The money has to come from somewhere. The Conservatives said that they would give all this largesse and ordinary British Columbians and Ontarians will have to pay for it.

It does not only impact the families. Two thousand dollars for an average family is a horrible impact. That is why the results in New Westminster—Coquitlam were so clear. Any time there is a byelection, or if there is an election in the spring, it will be the same verdict coming back to the Conservatives, unless they reverse engines and pull back from this phenomenal unjust tax imposition, this tax shift on the backs of ordinary Canadians.

We have said we will not support the HST. We will vote against it. Unlike the Liberals and the Conservatives who are working together on this, we will simply fight the penalty of the HST because of what it does to ordinary families, and also for what it does to community businesses.

In my prior life before coming here, I was very fortunate to be honoured with two business excellence awards. I have worked with the local Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Trade, and I have worked in the business community with social enterprise. I believe profoundly that community businesses need to have the tools for growth. The NDP's approach has always been to provide an educated population that provides that additional level of productivity to ensure that community businesses prosper, because when families prosper, community businesses do. We do not believe, unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals, that we offload money to Houston and the Caribbean and that somehow magically creates a strong economic development initiative here at home.

What we are saying is when there is more support for health care services, more support for social services, when people in the community have a higher quality of life, that has a positive impact on community businesses.

The HST does exactly the opposite. By ripping off ordinary British Columbians and ordinary Ontarians, there are people in the community who have less money to spend. I have not talked to a single small business owner in Burnaby or in New Westminster who supports the HST. I have talked with the hairdressers and barbers who are really concerned because, of course, there will be an increased tax on their products. I have talked to people who are involved in restaurants, not just in the Lower Mainland but also in places like Kamloops and Calgary. They are concerned that when we have an HST increase like that, essentially their clientele has less money to spend and it affects the community business and starts a vicious spiral downward.

For those reasons, this is not a blank cheque for the Conservative government. We are saving the government from itself on Bill C-51, but we are going to be fighting in this House to ensure that the HST is not brought in. British Columbians have very clearly told the Conservatives to stop the HST. British Columbians have told them to roll back this misguided, irresponsible attempt to give even more big business largesse and tax credits to the largest companies and to put the focus where it needs to be, on a better quality of life for Canadians and on more supports for community businesses. That is where we want to see this government going. We are going to vote yes on this bill, but the Conservatives are on notice that they have to start acting responsibly.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the House is very impressed with the accolades the member has received from business organizations.

In Ontario the manufacturing sector is collapsing. The hollowing out of the city of Toronto, in terms of the loss of jobs, is extremely traumatic.

The bill does not deal with the HST, but the bill does deal with the stimulation of confidence and the creation of capital investment. I would point out to the member that the leakage of capital in the province of Ontario is undermining the manufacturing industry somewhere to the tune of $80 billion. That has been established as the capital loss.

I believe in community development, but if we cannot create the capital because we are overextending ourselves with deficits, where is the money coming from to create jobs?

It is one thing for the member to be asked questions about the HST, which is part of the issue in terms of a strategic economic plan, but is the member also giving people the straight answers with respect to if we do not replace that capital the jobs will not be created, and the knowledge economy that we have talked about will not be created? Is the member being honest with respect to answering completely those kinds of questions? I did not get any confidence from him today that he would be totally up front with respect to that kind of reasoning and leadership that this House is required to give, the legacy we are trying to create.

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

Madam Speaker, number one, the NDP always believes that the strength that this Parliament has comes from actually listening to the public, a bizarre concept for Conservatives and Liberals to swallow, I think.

What we have heard from British Columbians overwhelmingly was that they simply do not buy the argument that more handouts to corporate CEOs, more handouts to the energy sector in Houston, and more handouts to the banks in the Bahamas is some intelligent attempt at economic strategy. Taking $500 out of the pockets of an individual, whether a pensioner or a student, or taking $2,000 from a family of four so that they can pay for this incredible largesse to the biggest and most profitable companies in Canada is simply irresponsible.

The public spoke last Monday. Liberals lost their deposit. Conservatives were blown out. They were simply flooded right out of New Westminster--Coquitlam. They can heed that call or they can keep going the way they are going, but if they keep going the way they are going, there will be a lot fewer Conservatives from British Columbia and Ontario, and there will be a lot fewer Liberals from Ontario in this next Parliament.

They better heed what Canadians are telling them.

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

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the member's speech and I know he did talk about the HST issue, where certainly in Ontario and B.C., it has actually now become a vote-determining issue.

It is rather strange that we have a government office that is on the verge of announcing an extension of the home renovation tax credit for next year, which by the way we applaud, but by the time the homeowners are in full swing next summer doing their renovations, they are going to be faced, in B.C. and Ontario, as of July 1, with new taxes on all these home renovation projects, which essentially are going to wipe out any benefits that they would get under the program in the first place.

I would like to ask the member whether he has any comments regarding that potential scenario for next summer?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Elmwood—Transcona asking this question because that is the perversity of what the Conservatives are trying to impose on Ontarians and British Columbians, with the complacence of the Liberal Party.

Essentially, all of these little tax credits that they have been doling out while they shovel money off the back of a truck to the most profitable banks and energy companies in Canada, in the guise of this somehow being some sort of economic strategy, in the end, with the HST, they end up taking more than they have given over the past couple of years.

They give out these little tax credits to ordinary families who are struggling with lower incomes over the last 20 years. Two-thirds of Canadian families are actually earning less now than they were 20 years ago. Their tax load has been doubled. Liberal and Conservative economics is really an oxymoron. Essentially what they have done is produce permanent poverty for the middle class in this country. Instead of addressing those overall economic fundamentals, they impose the HST, so community businesses have less and will have to cut back on their staff and employees. Ordinary Canadian families have less to spend and less to clothe their kids, less to pay for their housing, less to pay for their meals and all of those things. It is absurd.

That is why, in this corner of the House, we are saying to Conservatives that they have received a very deep warning from New Westminster--Coquitlam and they better heed it.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about the HST. The government is trying to make Canadians believe that the final say on the HST belongs to the Premier of Ontario and the Premier of British Columbia.

At this end of the House, we know that that is not true. The NDP knows that is not true. The Bloc knows that is not true and the Conservatives know that is not true. We are not sure what the Liberals believe so we are going to leave them out of that scenario because they are not even sure what they believe themselves.

I would like to ask the hon. member this. How do we make the government understand or make Canadians understand that the final say for the HST in Ontario and British Columbia belongs to the federal government and not the provincial governments?

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Nickel Belt is a terrific member of Parliament who stands up for northern Ontario. We need more of that in the House. We need people to stand up willingly for ordinary Ontarians and ordinary British Columbians.

The public was very clear. What was a competitive seat is no longer. The Conservatives were simply blown out of the water in the lower mainland of B.C. on the HST. The public clearly understands what the member for Nickel Belt is saying.

The question is: Are the Conservatives going to get the message? There are a dozen British Columbia Conservative MPs who will not be in the next House unless they listen very carefully to the verdict and the message that was given last Monday. I hope for their sake they are willing to listen to the public. It is a bit different listening and taking a message from British Columbia to Ottawa rather than what we see from Conservatives who generally bring their message from Ottawa to B.C., and they try to ram it down the throats of British Columbians.

One of their messages was that the HST has nothing to do with them despite the $2 billion in bribe money. They claim they have nothing to do with the HST. People in New Westminster--Coquitlam heard the debate. They heard the comments of the Prime Minister and the finance minister. They saw the budget. They have seen everything the Conservatives have done to force this on British Columbians. British Columbians have said they do not want it. The Conservatives should understand the message. Conservatives have to heed what B.C. has told them.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The chief government whip has asked that the vote be deferred until tomorrow at 3 o'clock.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 16 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 third time and passed.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

It being 3 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-51.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #128

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, government orders will be extended by eight minutes.