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)

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

Bill C-51 deals with the Nova Scotia offshore petroleum resources. It would bring certain payments for Nova Scotia's offshore petroleum resources outside the framework of budget bills. This means that in addition to the one time payment the province receives of $174 million, in future years the payment would be automatically sent to the province rather than needing to be passed annually in a budget bill.

Regardless of the details of this change to revenue sharing, the Conservative government does not have the kind of track record on federal-provincial relations that breeds confidence in its ability to treat provinces fairly.

The Conservative government has demonstrated time and again that its promises to Canadians, whether promises not to raise taxes, promises not to tax income trusts, or promises to protect Canada's fisheries, are meaningless.

No province is more aware of the Prime Minister's willingness to break promises than Newfoundland and Labrador. Time and time again the government says one thing and does another. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians well know this with the promises on the equalization formula and Goose Bay. Promises made, promises broken.

Another challenge is the Canadian fishery. The government never meant a word of its promise to reform NAFO to better protect our fish stocks.

The amendments to the NAFO convention failed to adequately protect fish stocks off the east coast of Canada and would create substantial new problems which could eventually compromise Canadian sovereignty and allow foreign patrol boats to establish and enforce catch and quota regulations within Canada's 200 mile zone.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know too well the divisive politics of the Conservatives as we were hit earlier this year with a broken promise regarding the $1.4 billion that was taken away from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador with changes to the equalization formula.

During the government's first two years in office, the Prime Minister did not once convene a meeting of first ministers, preferring instead to leave provincial and territorial leaders outside of the federal government's plans to lead the federation. When he finally did meet with them, he promised to send them a letter of suggestions on how they could stimulate their economies.

This politics of division and heavy-handed federalism is unfair and has been the hallmark of the Conservative government. Canadians are tired of politics of division and isolation. Canada works best when federal and provincial governments work in partnership, in the best interests of all Canadians. That is how the Liberals have governed in the past, by striking agreements with the provinces and territories on things like the universal child care agreement, creating plans to address health care issues, and the Kelowna accord.

On the home renovation tax credit, the Liberal Party has expressed its full support for this tax credit. This credit is part of the budget plan already implemented by Parliament. The Canada Revenue Agency is already working toward the home renovation tax credit.

It would be far more prudent for the government to have included the home renovation tax credit in previously introduced budget implementation legislation along with the rest of its flagship programs. It is disingenuous for the government to tell Canadians that this tax credit is at risk while at the same time running hundreds of ads promoting the use of the program.

In my view, this is the kind of political trickery that the government plays so often to manipulate voters. That the credit is at risk is simply untrue. The Liberal Party is fully in support of the home renovation tax credit and Canadians will not be fooled by attempts to divide them to think otherwise.

With respect to the CBC, this legislation would adjust the borrowing authority that applies to the CBC substantially, permitting the national broadcaster to borrow up to $220 million in order to cash manage through the coming year as it develops a new strategy. Current legislation restricts the amounts that the CBC can borrow, allowing the broadcaster to access loans only up to $25 million.

It was the current government that only a few months ago refused to step in and meet the broadcaster's request for bridge financing to deal with the shortfall in revenues during an economic downturn.

Not only did the Conservative government refuse to provide the CBC with the bridge financing it required to maintain 2008 staffing and service levels across the country this spring but it went so far as to vote against a motion put forward by the Liberal Party recognizing the indispensable cultural role of the CBC in providing national, regional and local programming in Canada.

This challenge to the CBC came at a time when its success and audience share of the market was growing. Every week almost 80% of English Canada uses the CBC. This success comes despite the fact that the CBC is the worst financed public broadcaster in the industrialized world.

The government long argued that funding the CBC was a waste of taxpayers' dollars and used the pretext of tough economic times to launch an assault on this national institution by withholding the bridge financing the CBC needed to ride out the economic storm without job and programming cuts.

In fact, the government went so far as to withhold approval of the annual top-up funding for the broadcaster forcing the CBC to make dramatic job and programming cuts to meet its government forced budget cuts of $63 million.

Had it acted in the spring and made additional financing available to the CBC, the government could have saved jobs and crucial cultural and regional programming that has now been lost. Instead, the government's inaction has forced the CBC to come up with an alternative plan to weather the economic storm.

As a crown corporation, the CBC cannot access loans from the private sector. Because of this and because of the refusal of the government to provide the network with $125 million in a bridge financing request, the CBC had to look elsewhere to find the financial security and flexibility it needs at this time.

Through the bill, the government is allowing one of our most valued cultural institutions to mortgage future stability by selling off assets, monetizing future lease revenues so that the CBC can access the cash it needs during this economic downturn.

The sale of assets means that the CBC will be forgoing future revenues to deal with the short-term economic pain caused by the government's unwillingness to step in and mitigate the fallout of the economic downturn. There is little doubt that members of the government do not value the CBC.

One final point is with regard to the Canada pension plan. The bill makes an accounting change that will reduce the amount older workers are penalized by choosing to work after the age of 65. These changes will be made on a go forward basis and seniors currently collecting their pensions will see no real change in their benefit amounts as a result of these accounting differences.

While ensuring pension policies are actuarially neutral is a responsible step for any government to take, it would be wise for the government to face up to the fiscal realities our seniors are facing in so many parts of our country and look toward providing meaningful support to seniors.

With one in three Canadians retiring with no retirement income savings beyond the core mandatory government programs of CPP, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, governments need to consider making more than cosmetic and accounting changes to ensure Canadian seniors can access benefits they need as they age.

We can do better. We must do better for Canadian seniors and for all Canadians.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-51 and I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga—Brampton South.

I oppose this bill for one simple reason. Along with my Liberal colleagues, I have lost confidence in the Conservatives' ability to govern this country and guide it through difficult economic times back to a robust, strong economy. Through its budgetary actions over the last year, the Conservative government has failed Canadians by its incompetence and divisive tactics. We can no longer support a government whose failed policies have hurt Canadian families and their interests.

Over the last 10 months, the Liberal Party has tried to make Parliament work and focused on helping Canada through this recession. We tried to work with the government. We insisted on a stimulus package and fought for effective changes to employment insurance that would help Canadian families. However, we have lost confidence and trust in the government.

Let me count the ways. There is a record deficit that was revised from a surplus, from $34 billion to $50 billion to $56 billion in less than a year. The government has failed to plan for the H1N1 flu by delaying the ordering of flu vaccines and sending body bags to communities rather than assistance.

There are 450,000 more unemployed Canadians today than there were a year ago. The Conservatives' fiscal update recently said that another 200,000 plus Canadians will join the ranks of the unemployed in the coming year. The government has done everything to turn the hands of time back on women's equality, especially regarding pay equity.

Harper's broken promises not to raise taxes are an issue. Those are some of the—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for his speech today and his leadership on the finance committee. I appreciate his advice. I am a member of the finance committee and his leadership has made a big difference in that the committee actually works well.

My question is simple. The Liberal Party supported the economic action plan in the spring. Part of that plan is the home renovation credit which is part of what is being implemented in Bill C-51. Is it not hypocritical of the Liberal Party not to be supporting this bill at this time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that while we in the NDP support Bill C-51, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary regarding the CPP amendments.

One of the benefits is a reduced incentive to retire early and an increased incentive to stay in the workforce longer. I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary what the government's models show as to the projected number of people who will be affected by this. In other words, how many people will take a pass on early retirement and elect to stay in the workforce longer, based on the formula it proposed, and what sort of basis did it present for these numbers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess I was expecting comments but I think everybody was pleasantly surprised that my hon. colleague, who shares a seat at the finance committee, has decided to support Bill C-51. I would encourage, under his leadership, all members of the opposition to do as he has suggested because that was another wise decision from that member.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House today in support of the economic recovery act, a key piece of legislation that would enact essential portions of Canada's economic action plan, along with other important initiatives.

The economic recovery act is part of our Conservative government's comprehensive response to the global economic crisis that has impacted nearly every country in the world since it began a little over a year ago, a downturn whose underlying triggers did not originate in Canada and, as such, cannot be solely resolved in Canada.

I underline for the opposition, seemingly determined to finger out government for the economic ills of the global marketplace, that this was and remains a global recession, one largely originating from the United States. This is not a made in Canada recession.

As a BBC report noted:

...the world economy crashed. The [American] sub-prime crisis lit a fuse that went from California or Southern Florida via New York to Iceland, Hungary and Japan.

The virus spread through the intricate arteries of the world's financial bloodstream.

While conceding this has been a global recession, we all recognize its epicentre is and continues to be our neighbour to the south, our largest trading partner, the United States.

Even as the green shoots of recovery begin their slow ascent in that country and around the world, the enormity of the great recession continues to ravage the American economy. Last week we learned that over a quarter million Americans lost their jobs in September. Unemployment is nearing double digits there. These are stunning numbers. They are sad reminders of the nearly 8 million men and women who have seen their jobs vanish since the start of this great American downturn.

As President Barack Obama noted, the U.S. September job report was:

...a "sobering reminder" that "progress comes in fits and starts and that we're going to need to grind out this recovery step by step.

He went on to say that it “will not happen overnight”.

Budget implementation act 2 is an important part of this step for Canadians.

As I alluded to earlier, green shoots are appearing in the American economy. In the Canadian economy and those around the word, recovery is on the horizon.

This global recovery has largely been driven by the injection of fiscal stimulus by governments, stimulus unprecedented for both its sheer magnitude and for its coordinated global scale. However, this is a recovery that remains as fragile, as it is tentative. Governments must stay the course. Their focus must not waver from the economy. As the G7 finance ministers and central bank governors noted in a communiqué following their meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, this weekend:

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 and labor market conditions are not yet improving. We will keep in place our support measures until recovery is assured.

We cannot become complacent and we cannot allow a recovery to be jeopardized with some opportunistic political games here at home, political games like those that the Liberal leader has shamefully engaged in over the past few weeks. Maybe the Liberal leader has not noticed that rising unemployment continues to be a challenge around the world. Maybe he has not noticed that all governments around the world made the decision to run deficits to fight the recession and fight unemployment.

Our Conservative government, too, has made the decision to fight the recession and has done so through Canada's economic action plan. While this meant we made the difficult decision to run a multi-year deficit, it was the right decision, right for our economy and right for Canadians, for Canada's economic action plan is working.

Our economic action plan is helping to create and maintain jobs. It is extending benefits to the unemployed. It is helping those who need retraining and helping those individuals and industries undergoing a transformation, such as the auto and forestry sectors and so many others.

While our plan is achieving results, the job is not done. We need to stay on track. We need to provide the stability needed to secure recovery. Stability is not achieved by throwing Canada back into an unnecessary election but by following through on our plan and keeping our focus on the economy. That is exactly what we are doing with the ambitious economic recovery act.

Through the economic recovery act, we are cutting taxes for individuals and businesses by implementing the temporary home renovation tax credit and the first time homebuyers tax credit. We are fighting protectionism by relaxing tariffs on shipping containers. We are strengthening the Canada pension plan by allowing increased flexibility in how Canadians live, work and retire, as unanimously recommended by federal, provincial and territorial governments last May.

We are promoting global growth and cooperation by giving small and low income countries a bigger voice at the IMF, and strengthening our commitment to debt relief. We are ensuring dependability for public broadcasting by increasing the CBC's borrowing authority.

Additionally, to ensure that Canadian taxpayers can better keep track of the spending of their tax dollars, we are improving government transparency and accountability by requiring all federal departments and crown corporations to prepare and publish quarterly financial reports.

The economic recovery act also concludes the crown share saga for the people of Nova Scotia after decades of neglect from previous Liberal governments. As former Nova Scotia premier, John Buchanan, declared, “What happened then with the federal Liberal government under Jean Chrétien, they just refused to talk about the Crown share. They would not talk about it all”.

In contrast, not only have we talked about the crown share with Nova Scotia, our Conservative government worked in conjunction with the province to resolve the issue.

Despite all this, the Liberal leader and his party vowed, essentially sight unseen, to oppose all these measures and vote against the economic recovery act. Why? To be blunt, to end Canada's economic recovery appears to be secondary to his obsession with forcing an election. The Liberal rallying cry is simply corrosive to Canada, “No matter what this Conservative government proposes, no matter who it benefits, it must be stopped, it must be defeated.”

Canadians deserve better than that. Canadians deserve elected representatives willing to work together during this global recession, willing to do what is best for the Canadian economy not merely for the Liberal Party of Canada.

I would ask the Liberal leader to stop playing games, stop the obsession and scheming to force an unnecessary election. Sadly, I have no confidence he will listen for he has not even listened to his own Liberal caucus on that matter.

Liberals, like the member for York West who, in early September, pleaded with her leader to drop his maddening election obsession, telling the Globe and Mail that this was not the time for an election and that instead Parliament should “try to do the right thing for Canadians overall. We're in a difficult time. We want to focus on employment and getting people back to work and all of that”.

The Liberal leader has ignored the Liberal member for York West and likely a great deal of his own Liberal caucus to continue with a single-minded obsession to force an election at all costs.

As the Liberal leader continues his quest to force an unnecessary election, he continues to attack our Conservative government's economic management and initiatives such as this economic recovery act. He also continues to gleefully denigrate and talk down our Canadian economy.

This is how he slammed Canada's economy in a speech this past September proudly posted on the Liberal website for the online world to see. He smeared Canada and said that Canada had “the worst performing economy in the G7”. He then lectured by saying that “We've got to make Canada a world leader again, and we've got to do it now”.

Not only are comments like those at the height of self-serving political arrogance, but they are factually wrong and do a disservice to the tireless work and sacrifices of the men and women who have made Canada's economy what it is today.

That is something all Canadians should be proud of, and they should be cheered regardless of partisan affiliation.

I am going to take a moment now to speak not to the present but to the future, and to set the historical record straight, to speak to the readers of this edition of Hansard, the Canadian Parliament's most enduring tradition in a time far removed from today, be it 25, 50 or 100 years from now.

Even though we were in the midst of what has been labelled the great recession of this time, this was an especially proud moment to be a Canadian for one reason. Due to the inherent sense of humility in the Canadian character we downplayed that reason. Canada's economy and financial system during this challenging time was among the strongest and the most envied in the world. From Ireland, to France, to the United States, the Canadian model was the model that all others sought to replicate.

However, do not take my words as proof. Listen to what the world was saying about Canada, our country. Listen to how Ireland's largest daily newspaper, The Irish Times, praised our financial regulatory framework:

...Canada has attracted more attention recently as a paradigm for creating and regulating a banking system that has been stable, and even profitable, through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression...Canada's reputation for fiscal conservatism may have been boring during the boom times, but being boring has left the country's banking system in a rare position of strength in the financial world.

Listen to the French finance minister, Christine Lagarde, who after a meeting of the world's top finance ministers remarked:

I think...we can be inspired by...the Canadian situation. There were some people who said, “I want to be Canadian”.

Listen to what the Institute of International Finance and the world association of banks proclaimed about this country:

Canada is in a position today to punch above [its] weight. Why? Because [it has] come through this better than virtually any other financial system in a mature market, so [it] must be doing something right... [Canada] is viewed in many quarters as having incredible financial and of course political leadership, but also is somewhat of an honest broker.

World Bank president Robert Zoellick described our country this way:

Canada's experience offers lessons to others, especially its strong financial and regulatory environment that is helping it manage the shocks of the downturn.

He also went on to declare that by global standards, Canada' position was enviable:

I think a lot of people would like to change places with Canada.

The President of the United States, Barack Obama, said:

...in the midst of this enormous economic crisis, I think Canada has shown itself to be a pretty good manager of the financial system in the economy in ways that we haven't always been here in the United States. And I think that's important for us to take note of.

Or finally, the IMF, as reported in the Globe and Mail forecasted that:

Canada is on track to lead the world's wealthiest countries out of recession next year, a testament to sound economic policy...reinforc[ing that the] Prime Minister...and the Finance minister['s] policies have helped the Canadian economy weather the financial crisis better than most.

To the future I say with pride that this is how our country was viewed at this moment in time. I would also say that our Conservative government was not merely content to rest on its laurels. That is why we brought forward important legislation in the economic recovery act to help lay the ground work for a stronger economy as we fought off this great recession and built a more prosperous Canada for generations to come for all Canadians.

Speaking to the present, I ask for the support of the House, for members to do the right thing in the interests of what is their country. We share in it across the aisle, and Canadians at home trust us to act in their best interests.

Pass this budget implementation act to help keep Canada strong and keep this beautiful country the envy of the world well into the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, among other things, Bill C-51 implements the home renovation tax credit. This measure was inspired by the proposals made in both the Bloc Québécois recovery plans, presented last fall and the previous April. This bill also introduces a first time homebuyers' tax credit. This measure was also inspired by the Bloc's last platform. Bill C-51 will also implement Canada's international commitments to the International Monetary Fund, which were signed in 2008. It will also amend the Canada Pension Plan, from which Quebec is excluded. The amendments are based on an agreement with the provinces involved. Quebec is not involved, but if there is an agreement, we respect that.

Bill C-51 will implement the findings of a joint expert panel including representatives of Nova Scotia, the federal government and others to resolve a dispute. Once again, Quebec is not involved in that litigation, but if there is an agreement, I do not see why we would not support it.

For all of these reasons, and especially for the home renovation tax credit and the first time homebuyers' tax credit, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill.

Coming back to the home renovation tax credit, in April 2008, when the Bloc Québécois was presenting the initial phase of its economic recovery plan, we proposed introducing a home renovation tax credit with a very specific objective: to encourage people to convert their old oil furnaces to more energy efficient models. At that time, we argued that such a measure would help reduce our dependence on oil. This would have the added and equally important effect of rapidly injecting money into the economy.

This measure has been introduced by the Conservatives and we know that their primary focus was not necessarily on reducing greenhouse gases nor on energy efficient retrofits. Nonetheless, we maintain that this would be a way to stimulate the economy and we are in favour of this measure. We proposed it, we had a debate on it and we made our arguments. Today, our proposal is before us. It has been accepted by the government and we are indeed in favour of it; we would be hard pressed not to be. Even though it is not exactly what we had in mind, many people will benefit from the energy efficient retrofits. What is more, in the past few weeks, since the Bloc Québécois announced it was in favour of this measure, people have realized that we were the ones who proposed this measure and we are the ones who got it. Many people are congratulating us for convincing the government to introduce such a measure in its budget.

Even though this is not only or specifically about energy efficient retrofit measures, several areas are eligible for this tax credit, window products in particular. We know that one way to improve energy efficiency is to replace windows, doors and skylights. In a number of different ridings in Quebec, most MPs have heard many people and many window and door companies say that the tax credit associated with this measure has helped stimulate the home renovation sector.

Many people decided to do it because their heating oil costs were so high. As everyone knows, neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have ever been particularly eager to clamp down on the oil companies, so big oil raises the prices whenever it feels like it. If people have a chance to reduce their oil heating costs by replacing their windows and get a tax credit to boot, they will do home renovations. That makes this measure a very attractive one.

We know that it will also reduce household energy consumption, which will directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions make a significant contribution to undesirable climate change.

Buying better-quality windows and doors will make up for some of the negative effects of oil heating. When people use good products in renovations, they can reduce their heating oil consumption by between 7% and 12%. Renovations also minimize drafts, cut down on interior condensation and so on. They also reduce noise transference. We hear so much about air pollution, but there is also noise pollution. People living in urban centres and near highways experience significant stress due to noise and they will also benefit from this measure, which can cut down on noise pollution.

We also know that Quebec is a very large part of Canada and has an abundance of fresh water. When you have an abundance of a given resource, including water in the case of Quebec, you tend to take it for granted. In most homes in Quebec, you just have to open the tap and water flows freely in every room where it is needed, in the laundry room or in the washroom. Water is not free, especially hot water. Improving the insulation in a house with new doors and windows and other renovations can often cut the cost of heating water by 15%. These are significant measures and important to most Quebec households.

This tax credit also makes it possible to renovate the plumbing in a home. Shower heads can be changed to save water. It is a renewable resource but there are limits. We must conserve the hot water used for a normal family's household needs.

We are very supportive of such measures because they contribute globally to energy conservation and the reduction of pollution. It is a very interesting measure that has been put forward.

I would also like to talk about the first time homebuyers' tax credit. In its 2008 election platform, the Bloc Québécois proposed putting in place a homebuyers' program. Many Quebec families find it difficult to buy their first house. It is extremely important for the government to help families, including middle-income families, to purchase their first home. Buying a home is often the most important investment of one's life. Families often need a helping hand at the start.

Because there is a similar measure in this bill, we will support it once again.

We had some mixed feelings, because the Conservatives' measure is much less generous than what we proposed. But it is a step in the right direction, and it shows some understanding of the very solid arguments made by the various Bloc Québécois members. We think this is a step in the right direction, and that the government seems to have understood that it is necessary to support first time homebuyers.

This is a major investment for many families, and buying a home is an important step for many households in Quebec and Canada. They are able to build equity. As I said, this is the primary investment for many families, and it is very often the biggest investment a family will make in their lifetime. It is very necessary and important to support families in this step and to help them benefit from capital gains.

In recent years, the capital appreciation of real estate and the increase in home values has made home ownership appealing. Quebec is a little behind Canada in regards to home ownership and the desire of some families to purchase a home. So this is a very appealing measure for Quebec.

It is often very difficult for these families to build capital. The government is proposing an interest-free loan up to $10,000. This makes it much more appealing for new and young families to purchase a first home.

This, in essence, is why the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-51, and why we will vote in favour of it.

The House resumed from October 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus)

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of changes proposed in Bill C-51 to the Canada pension plan. My understanding is that some of these changes are, for example, to remove the work cessation test in 2012 so that a person may take his or her retirement pension as early as age 60 without the requirement of a work interruption or earnings reduction, and to increase the general drop-out from 15% to 16% in 2012, allowing a maximum of almost 7.5 years of low or zero earnings to be dropped from the contributory period and to 17% in 2014, allowing a maximum of eight years, and so on.

The member referred to a couple of very technical aspects. New Democrats have called for taking a step back and having a much broader look at CPP and OAS. We know that many seniors are living in poverty and simply do not have the kinds of funds that lead to a dignified retirement.

We will be examining this bill in much further detail and making some recommendations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not talking about infrastructure projects. I was talking about the home renovation tax credit, which is what is actually contained in Bill C-51, not infrastructure. What I was talking about in terms of impact on jobs was the harmonized sales tax, which is not in Bill C-51 either. It was in the original budget bill, on page 166.

When we talk about the harmonized sales tax, we are talking about goods and services that are not currently taxed under the provincial tax system, such as vitamins, newspapers and magazines, movie and theatre tickets, haircuts, dry cleaning, adult clothing, funeral costs, food, restaurant meals, housing, bicycles, safety equipment, airplane tickets, and on and on.

When we look at that list, in my community most of the service deliverers are people in small business. Local hairdressers are wondering how they are going to explain the extra 7% to their customers. They expect that their customers will reduce the number of haircuts they get. We often talk about seniors on fixed incomes, single mothers, or fathers who have lost their jobs in forestry.

We are talking about a 7% hit. The government will argue that prices will go down, but we know that in Atlantic Canada it took several years for that to happen. In an economic downturn, why would the government be encouraging the provincial government in British Columbia to add an additional 7% to the cost of many small businesses' goods and services?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak today 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. When we are talking about Bill C-51, I want to talk about a couple of the points that are covered under this particular piece of legislation.

There was a ways and means motion tabled in the House last week and this bill would implement what was in that ways and means motion. It covers things such as the home renovation tax credit, the first-time homebuyers tax credit, the working income tax benefit, and some changes to both loan provisions for the CBC and Canada pension plan. I am going to focus on a couple of items in this piece of legislation, specifically on the CBC, the Canada pension plan changes, and on the home renovation tax credit.

When we come to the CBC, of course we know that New Democrats have been calling for some changes to the loan provisions for the CBC. I want to go back to a question that was raised in the House by the member for Timmins—James Bay. Within the context of his question, 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. These job losses were completely avoidable. All it required was his signature so that they could get a bank loan or bridge financing, and it would not have cost the taxpayer a cent.

What we now see is that the Conservatives have responded by increasing the amount of money that the CBC can borrow in order to bridge that financing that the NDP called for. I know that in many of our communities from coast to coast to coast, the CBC is a vital part of the communication link.

I know on Vancouver Island, we have people who are friends of the CBC and continuously work with their members of Parliament who are sympathetic in terms of ensuring that CBC remains a vital part of our communications network in Canada. We are pleased to see that there is going to be this additional resource available to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

I want to turn now to the proposed changes to the Canada pension plan. Last spring, we saw in the original budget proposal that there were some benefits and some downturns. What we saw as being positive was an improved averaging formula that would boost pensions below the maximum currently payable and that voluntary contributions for post-65 claimants would allow for secure pension enhancement to the age of 70.

However, in that legislation last spring, there were some flaws. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons (CARP), said that those recommendations were still inadequate and that 30% of Canadians were without retirement savings. As well, those proposed changes did not amount to a significant increase in income security for many seniors and did not address the need for old age security and guaranteed income supplement enhancement, which we know is critical.

The other key piece, of course, is the fact that there is no retroactive claim beyond 11 months. We know that many seniors, for whatever reason, do not apply for their benefits in a timely fashion and by the time they do apply, they are only able to go retroactive for 11 months. I know this has been a matter raised by many constituents in my own riding.

The member for Hamilton Mountain had raised in previous sessions that it would be a simple matter for the government to make some changes to the income tax system with the Canada Revenue Agency that would allow for the automatic application at the age of 65, based on income tax records. That would be a simple matter to resolve so that we would not have to rely upon seniors to ferret out information on government websites.

If we were truly concerned about ensuring that seniors got what they were entitled to, it would be a simple amendment to ensure that when seniors are eligible for their Canada pension or old age security, it would be a matter of course when they turn 65.

One constituent in my riding, who has been attempting to find out exactly how much he would be entitled to at the age of retirement so he could do some forward planning, has simply not been able to get accurate and reliable figures from the department. That makes it very difficult for seniors who are on limited incomes to plan financially for their retirement years.

I would urge the government to look for ways to ensure that seniors who anticipate retiring at age 65 get accurate and timely information.

New Democrats proposed a motion in the House of Commons last June to look at some of the difficulties with the current CPP-OAS system. That motion was passed unanimously. The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek put forward a motion, and I will not read the whole motion, but I do want to raise a couple of points because we have not seen any kind of movement.

Although there are some changes in Bill C-51 that would help out some seniors, they simply do not go far enough. The bill would implement the ways and means motion and so we would need a separate piece of legislation, but it is important that we look at that.

The motion put forward by the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek said that we need to expand and increase the CPP, QPP, OAS and GIS to ensure all Canadians can count on a dignified retirement. Item (b) was about establishing a self-financing pension insurance program to ensure the viability of workplace-sponsored plans in tough economic times.

The motion went on to talk about some of the challenges that we have had with the CPP Investment Board and the kind of bonuses that were paid to investment board managers in the very quarter where results were announced about losses in the investment income.

The second piece that I want to touch on is the home renovation tax credit. The home renovation tax credit is such that it would allow people who have significant income to spend up to $10,000 on their homes and receive a tax credit. Although this would certainly benefit some Canadians, a significant number of Canadians would be left out of the picture. The other challenge with the tax credit is the fact that there was no focus for it.

New Democrats have often called for a tax credit or programs for retrofitting houses that would actually have a green energy focus. This home renovation tax credit simply does not have that. Almost anything could be done with this tax credit, including things like paving a driveway.

Many Canadians would welcome having their driveway paved, but we know from some environmental assessments of home building that we need to reduce things like hardscaping because it impacts on storm runoff as it goes into storm drains, and things get into rivers and lakes and streams as a result of that. There was no green kind of focus to the home renovation tax credit.

The David Suzuki Foundation issued a press release that talked about energy efficiency not being just for those who can afford it. Although this information is from 2005 it is still relevant today. I am going to read some of the elements raised in the press release because this is exactly the kind of thing that New Democrats have been talking about for years. The press release stated:

Low-income housing has become synonymous with low-quality housing. Canada's poorest, often the elderly or single parents with young children, are forced to live in homes that lack adequate insulation and have outdated furnaces and inefficient appliances. Not only are these homes less comfortable, they also waste tremendous amounts of energy--which is bad for the environment and our health.

Since more energy is required to operate these homes, more fossil fuels like oil and gas often need to be burned. And that leads to more air pollution and more climate-disrupting gases emitted into the atmosphere—the same gases the Canadian government has promised to reduce under the Kyoto Protocol.

Low-quality housing is essentially a double-whammy. It drives up heating bills for people who can't afford it and leads to more pollution for all of us. With the price of fossil fuels, like oil and gas, so high, many Canadians are even forced to sacrifice necessities to pay their monthly heat and hydro bills.

For many homeowners, living in a drafty house is an expense annoyance that they can fix by adding insulation, blocking air leaks, updating windows or investing in a high-efficiency furnace.

Making low-income homes more energy-efficient would reduce climate-disrupting emissions while improving the living conditions for Canada's poorest citizens. It would also create construction jobs in cities and towns across the country. And the most vulnerable of our citizens would see lower hydro and heating bills and live in more comfortable homes.

That seems to make absolute, practical common sense. What we have here, and this article talked about it, is seniors living in older housing which has not had the retrofit that is necessary to make it more energy efficient. On one hand we are talking about the fact that the Canada pension plan and old age security are not meeting the needs of many seniors who rely on them and on the other hand we have seniors who simply cannot afford to do the kinds of retrofits in their homes to save the money and reduce the impact on the environment.

In that context, it would seem to make good practical sense to develop a retrofit program that would ensure that everybody has access to funds to help with the services, perhaps a tax credit that would ensure those kinds of retrofits take place.

The home renovation tax credit is simply not usable by many of these seniors because first, many of them do not have much taxable income, and second, they simply cannot afford the cost of doing those kinds of retrofits. I would argue that the home renovation tax credit, although it was a good step and will benefit some Canadians and will add some money to the economy because it creates construction jobs, will simply not go far enough.

In the same line of looking at the kinds of programs and services that could be available that not only contribute to creating jobs in communities but also reduce the impact on the environment, the Suzuki Foundation put out a paper called “Cool Solutions to Global Warming”. Although this is outside of retrofits, I want to quote from this document because this House has been concerned with economic stimulus around creating jobs in communities and around ensuring that we are contributing to local economies. In its analysis, the foundation said, “Investments in energy efficiency have been found to produce four times more jobs than equivalent spending in new supplies of conventional energy”.

If we wanted to look at ways of creating jobs in our communities, one of the ways that we could do it is to look at jobs in energy efficiency. The same article does an analysis on a number of different aspects, whether it is vehicles, whether it is alternative or renewable energy sources, but it also talks about residential buildings, and I want to talk about this again in the context of the home renovation tax credit and how this tax credit actually fell short.

This article not only identified some of the problems, but also proposed concrete solutions. Many times in my riding when I have done forums on climate change and the environment, many people have understood the problems. What they want are concrete solutions that they can take away and do something about in their own homes and in their own communities. This article did address some of those solutions.

With regard to taking action, which is specifically to do with residential buildings, there are some frightening numbers. It talks about the fact that in 1995 the energy for space heating, water heating and electrical appliances in Canadian homes created about 80 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. If we do nothing, this will balloon to 107 million tonnes in 2030. That is a significant increase and we know that Canada is falling far short of the commitments made under the Kyoto protocol to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

These solutions, if we had governments that would actually be willing to put concrete measures in place to contribute to Canada's reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, proposed by the Suzuki Foundation would go a long way to contribute to Canada's responsibility.

Some of these things talk about retrofitting existing homes and apartments. They indicate that if we undertook a massive program over the next 30 years to refit 80% of Canada's housing stock, it would provide about a million person-years of skilled employment. This is over a number of years, but we can see the significant impact that would have if we had this kind of massive retrofit program in place. We would create significant amounts of employment in communities from coast to coast to coast.

This program includes upgrading attic and basement insulation to achieve double air tightness, replacing doors with steel polyurethane core doors, replacing windows with triple low-e argon-filled pipes, and replacing furnaces and wood stoves with highly efficient models.

We are talking about the renovation tax credit, but the pamphlet also goes on to talk about new homes and apartments that need to be built to the current R-2000 standards. It states that it is an easily achievable improvement over today's average new home and that new apartments also need to be built to energy efficient standards.

It talks about appliances, such as hot water tanks or conserver tank models and that no oil-fired tanks would exist by 2030. This is the plan. Solar water heaters would replace between 30% and 40% of natural gas requirements and it goes on to talk about the need to replace lighting so that we would be using fluorescent bulbs.

With respect to space heating, improved energy efficiency of housing results in huge reductions in energy requirements, with additional emission reductions from fuel switching and use of solar water heaters.

These are concrete solutions that could have been included in a home tax renovation program where we would actually reward the kind of behaviour that we think is important. We all know that tax policy does shape behaviour, so that kind of tax policy and tax credits for this kind of action, would make a significant contribution to Canada's role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We should not leave out commercial buildings. We could cut existing space heating requirements by 50% through improved energy efficient computerized control systems and increased use of solar energy. We could also use heat recovery ventilators and windows that are highly efficient that are low-e argon filled.

There are a number of initiatives that could have been included to frame that home tax renovation credit. It is very important for Canada to demonstrate some leadership by putting in place programs that would contribute to Canada becoming a leader in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions instead of a sad laggard, as it currently is.

When we are talking about the need to create jobs with respect to the economic stimulus package I need to touch very briefly on the harmonized sales tax, HST. Of course we have heard much fury in the House over the harmonized sales tax. The Conservatives claim that it is a provincial responsibility, yet in the budget document on page 166 the Conservatives have indicated money, and there are many things we could call it, but let us call it an inducement, for the provincial governments to put in place a harmonized sales tax.

In British Columbia the harmonized sales tax will significantly affect consumers and businesses. The Canadian Food and Restaurant Association website indicates that B.C. restaurant owners lost 9.5% of their business when the GST was introduced in 1991. It estimates that British Columbians will pay an additional $694 million on restaurant meals alone if the HST is introduced. That will certainly hurt restaurants.

In each and every one of our communities there are hairdressers, restaurants, home heating fuel deliverers. Those kinds of businesses are often the heart and soul of our communities. The HST will directly impact on their ability to continue to function.

We are talking about an economic stimulus package. We are talking about an economic downturn. We are talking about the need to create jobs and to make sure that communities have continuing viability. Then we have a tax shift. Taxes are being shifted from large profitable corporations onto people who live in our ridings, onto hard-working families. That simply does not make any sense.

If the government truly were interested in job creation, if it were truly interested in economic stimulus, it would not put in place a shift that--

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

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

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, in response to the last point raised by my hon. colleague, we discussed this between us earlier. I indicated to him then that we believed opposition days were the appropriate time to hold such debates. Indeed, today would have been a great opportunity to have the debate about the fisheries industry. I would think that it should have been done today rather than try to bring forward an opposition motion to force an unnecessary election onto Canadians. That is what we have been spending all day debating.

In reply to the fact that if our government does survive this reckless and unnecessary motion that the official opposition has brought forward today and the House were to continue, then obviously today we will continue to debate the opposition motion.

Tomorrow, provided the opposition motion of today is defeated, we will begin debate on Bill C-51, the second budget implementation bill, which has all sorts of great things in it to help Canadians even further.

Following that, we will schedule for debate Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, Bill C-37, the national capital act and Bill C-44, the Canada Post Corporation Act. All these bills are at second reading and have a long way to go.

We will continue with this lineup of economic legislation next week and add to the list any bills that are reported back from committee.

If I could, I would like to end this week's reply to the Thursday question by paying tribute to someone who I considered a very close personal friend.

It was little more than a year ago, July 2008, while in my riding, that I received an email from Rick Wackid explaining he had been diagnosed with ALS. The news hit like a blow below the belt. That a young man, so healthy, so active and so full of life could leave us so quickly serves as a wake-up call to all of us of how fragile our existence can be.

Although Rick Wackid, like Jerry Yanover, was always a very worthy political adversary, he was also a passionate believer in this, our House of democracy. When one party loses someone of his quality and integrity, we are all the poorer for it. He is and will continue to be greatly missed.

On behalf of the Prime Minister and our entire Conservative government, I offer my sincere condolences to Rick's wife Danielle, his daughter Stephanie and all of his friends and family.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)