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.

Food and Drugs Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate both the member who is presenting this legislation and also his speech, which was well-informed and provided good information for Canadians.

The member is right to point out that this provision was included in Bill C-47, omnibus legislation, which is something that the NDP has always opposed, both under the former Harper Conservative government and under the current government. The idea that the government would put, in the budget implementation bill, a whole range of other measures simply does not allow for the legislative scrutiny that is so important. The member is right to point out that Bill C-47 did that. It made those changes, just as Bill C-51, under the former Harper Conservative government, purported to do the same thing.

I thought he was very eloquent about the fact that we need to move forward with this legislation. The NDP will be supporting this legislation at second reading. We want to send this to committee. We want to have the committee do the fulsome work of finally consulting the industry and natural health practitioners, so that we finally get something that has not happened under either Bill C-51 or Bill C-47, which is the scrutiny that is so important.

I consume a lot of natural health products—

Citizenship and Immigration

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we were going to be debating Bill C-59, and I am the only member in this place who has report stage amendments for the bill. Therefore, I would have been the first speaker on that bill.

Despite that, I am still very pleased to have raised the points I did in my speech. The fact is that Bill C-59 is going to be before the House this afternoon. Essentially the Liberals have tried to escape the fact that they supported Stephen Harper's draconian security bill, the former Bill C-51, and, as usual, were trying to have it both ways, having their cake and eating it too, that there were problems with the bill, but they would support it and fix it after an election.

What happened after that? We waited two years after an election campaign. The Liberals promised to fix those egregious measures. They ignored the fact that in the meantime CSIS was still using the powers given to it through Bill C-51. After that, the Liberals tabled the bill in the dying days of the spring sitting, in June 2017, and did not bring it up for debate until the fall. Then when we finally got the debate on it, we had shortened committee hearings, nowhere near enough time to deal with omnibus legislation.

I respect my colleague and I certainly respect the fact that there can be an upheaval to Parliament's schedule. I would like to be making my speech and going back to my office, or doing whatever else, but this is an important issue. I do not want to hear that somehow Bill C-59 is so urgent, because the Liberals have certainly waited a long time to do anything about it.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is indeed an honour to be sitting directly in front of you, instead of beside you, and cheering you on in your balanced decisions, to which we listened many days and many nights at this committee. I enjoyed it all.

Welcome to the new members here.

It is great to be back, and great to be back to speak to what I think is a well overdue option for our pension or income retirement system in Canada.

I should mention that I'm here with some very learned people, some from our Department of Finance—Diane Lafleur, Leah Anderson, Lynn Hemmings, and Yasir Syed—and as well from OSFI, or the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, a couple of experts, Carol Taraschuk and John Grace. John Grace and I and Lynn covered a lot of miles developing this new concept. They have been a tremendous help. Bill C-25, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, is the reason we are here.

Mr. Chair, Canada's retirement system is recognized around the world by such experts as the OECD as a model that succeeds in reducing poverty among Canadian seniors and in providing generous levels of replacement income to retired workers. Simply put, our system is the envy of the world. The introduction of the pooled registered pension plan, or, as it has come to be known, the PRPP, will only build on this well-earned reputation.

The success of this model rests on the strength of the three pillars. The first pillar is made up of the old age security, or OAS, as well as the guaranteed income supplement, often referred to as the GIS. These programs provide a basic minimum income guarantee for seniors and are funded primarily through taxes on working Canadians. Our government has a responsibility to ensure that programs such as these are available for the next generation of Canadians as well. That's why our government will take a prudent, balanced, and responsible approach to making sure that OAS remains sustainable.

The second pillar is the Canada Pension Plan as well as the Quebec Pension Plan. These are mandatory public target benefit pension plans that provide a basic level of income to Canadian workers when they retire. There are currently 16.5 million workers contributing to either CPP or QPP. With these programs paying $44 billion in benefits per year to now more than 6.5 million Canadians, the CPP is the centrepiece of Canada's pension system. I'm proud to say that it is fully funded, it is actuarially sound, and it is sustainable for the long term.

The third pillar is composed of tax-assisted private savings opportunities to help encourage Canadians to accumulate additional savings for retirement. It includes registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans. In total, the cost of tax assistance provided on retirement savings is currently estimated at $25 billion per year.

How do the PRPPs fit into what, as I say, is a good system already?

In 2009 a joint federal-provincial research working group conducted an in-depth examination of retirement income adequacy in Canada. While the working group concluded that Canada's retirement system is performing well, it also found that some modest- and middle-income households may not be saving enough for retirement.

Of particular concern were the following findings. Participation in employer-sponsored registered pension plans was declining. The proportion of working Canadians with such plans has declined from 41% in 1991 to 34% in 2007. Also, Canadians are not taking full advantage of other retirement savings options, such as the RRSP. Currently there is over $600 billion of unused room in RRSPs.

Through you, Mr. Chair, let me reassure the committee that our government recognizes the importance of ensuring that all Canadians have adequate income for their retirement. The report by the working group sent a clear signal that a gap exists on the voluntary side of Canada's retirement system.

With this information in hand, our government took immediate action to fill that gap. Over the past two years, our government's commitment to strengthen Canada's retirement system has taken me to every province and territory and countless communities across this country. In my travels, I've consulted with many Canadians, met with our provincial and territorial counterparts, and held discussions with small and medium-sized business owners as well as self-employed Canadians.

At our federal-provincial-territorial finance ministers meeting in December of 2010, after examining the various proposals that came out of the consultations, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments unanimously decided to pursue the pooled registered pension plan framework. This decision was taken because the PRPP was considered an effective and appropriate way to target those modest- and middle-income individuals who may not be saving enough, and in particular those who currently do not have access to an employer-sponsored registered pension plan.

What then are the PRPPs? They are in fact a large-scale, broad-based pension arrangement. They will be available to employees with or without a participating employer. As well, they will be available to the self-employed. This is particularly important as, incredibly, over 60% of Canadians do not now have access to a workplace pension plan. In short, PRPPs will provide these Canadians with access to a low-cost pension arrangement for the very first time.

By pooling pension savings, PRPPs will offer Canadians greater purchasing power. Basically, Canadians will be able to buy in bulk. This means more money would be left in their pockets for their retirement. The introduction of PRPPs also marks a significant advancement for small and medium-sized businesses. Small and medium-sized businesses have, until now, experienced a significant barrier in being able to offer a pension plan to their employees. Under a PRPP, most of the administrative and legal burdens associated with a pension plan will be borne by a qualified, licensed, third-party administrator.

We all understand that Canadians want their governments to work together to deliver results for them, and the PRPP is a prime example of what we can accomplish for Canadians when we do just that. Bill C-25 represents the federal portion of the PRPP framework and is a major step forward in implementing PRPPs. Once the provinces put in place their PRPP legislation, the legislative and regulatory framework for PRPPs will be operational. This will allow PRPP administrators to develop and offer plans to Canadians and to their employers.

Working together, I am confident we can get this important new retirement savings option up and running for Canadians as soon as possible. Let me quote Dan Kelly, the vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:

This can't come soon enough from our perspective. We think this has great potential.

Before I take questions from committee members, I cannot stress enough how the introduction of the PRPP is just the most recent example of this government's continuing commitment to ensuring that Canadians have a dignified retirement.

I would like to take some time before you today to highlight some of the actions our government has taken to secure retirement income for Canadians. Financial literacy, for example, is an area where we are working to improve retirement income outcomes. Obviously, a strong system depends on the ability of its users to make informed decisions. That is why our government launched the task force on financial literacy to make recommendations on a cohesive, national strategy to improve financial literacy across Canada.

Since 2006, our government has increased the age credit amount by $1,000 in 2006 and then another $1,000 in 2009. We've doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for pension income credit, up to $2,000.

We introduced pension income splitting. We increased the age limit for maturing pensions and RRSPs to 71, up from 69 years of age before.

All told, we have provided about $2.3 billion in annual targeted tax relief to seniors and pensioners.

In addition, Budget 2008 introduced the tax-free savings account, which is particularly beneficial to seniors, as it helps them meet their ongoing savings needs on a tax-efficient basis after they no longer are able to contribute to an RRSP.

Our record also includes important improvements to several specific retirement income supports. In Budget 2008, we increased the amount that can be earned before the GIS is actually reduced. We raised that to $3,500 so that GIS recipients will be able to keep more of their hard-earned money without any reduction in their GIS benefits. Also, Budget 2008 increased flexibility for seniors and older workers with federally regulated pension assets that are held in life income funds.

In May 2009, Bill C-51 reformed aspects of the CPP to increase flexibility and fairness in the plan and allow it to better reflect the way Canadians live, work, and retire.

In Budget 2011, we announced a new GIS top-up benefit for the most vulnerable seniors. Seniors with little or no income will receive an additional annual benefit of up to $600 for seniors and $840 for couples.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan provides an additional $10 million over two years to enhance the New Horizons for Seniors program. This additional funding is enabling more seniors to participate in social events, pursue an active life, and contribute to their community. The program provides funding for projects to expand awareness of elder abuse, promote volunteering and mentoring, as well as encourage social participation of seniors.

Clearly, Mr. Chair, our records show our government is committed to the financial well-being of Canada's seniors, a commitment we've demonstrated since our first budget.

The PRPP is only the latest example of our government's continued commitment to helping Canadians realize their retirement dreams. The introduction of the PRPP not only fills a gap in Canada's retirement system but makes a system that is the envy of the world even stronger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to take questions.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you for the question.

First, with respect to the area of food safety, our government is committed to addressing the concerns identified in the report by Sheila Weatherill in order to minimize risks to food in the future. We are working to implement all the recommendations identified in the report.

Our government is working towards a strong, safe, and effective system through the modernization of food and drugs legislation. Former Bill C-51 was an important step. But given food safety issues such as the listeriosis outbreak, among others, it was imperative that we take a more critical look at the proposal in order to be confident that the legislative modernization this government is proposing is the best for Canadians. We'll continue to work to address that through the Public Health Agency and in partnership with the provinces and the territories.

With respect to drug safety, on various occasions, the committee has discussed a need for change to the Food and Drugs Act and has raised concerns such as the need for better control over clinical trials, including a drug approval process and implementing a life-cycle approach to licensing. These were addressed in former Bill C-51, and the government remains committed to these improvements.

The final point with respect to consumer product safety is that our government is committed to protecting Canadians, particularly our children, from unsafe consumer products. The Speech from the Throne recently reconfirmed the Government of Canada's intention to respect the wishes of Canadians by reintroducing the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act in its original form, which was Bill C-6 at the time. If passed, the proposed act will modernize the government's approach to consumer product safety, with important powers such as the ability to order mandatory product recalls and to quickly remove unsafe products from our store shelves. The existing act has not been updated in over 40 years. The proposal is important in order to ensure that we keep pace with our major trading partners.

In closing, I would like to say this. The legislation is so outdated that Canada depends on another country for information on unsafe products that are sold and used in our population. It's unacceptable that we continue to rely on other jurisdictions in regard to the harm being caused by unsafe products in Canada to Canadian children. I'll use the crib as an example, or the unsafe stroller that amputated the fingers of children, and so on. We are determined to work through the reintroduction of this legislation so that we have legislation that will allow us to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like first of all to thank you all for your contribution to our study.

The evidence we have received to date is very enlightening. It will certainly be useful for the analysis and the findings in our report. You are bound to find it useful as well.

If I may, I will ask all my questions at once. You will want to listen carefully to each question because of the time it takes for translation. I think we will save time that way.

I would like to make two statements, two reminders. The first is of course the undertaking Canada made in 1989 to eliminate poverty by the year 2000. We know the situation today; we have failed. If we acknowledge that there is poverty, we have to admit that there are factors which make poverty worse. Each of you mentioned a number of aggravating factors, such as Employment Insurance regulations that eliminate as many people as possible. One of those factors is the fact that almost 10 years ago, the federal government withdrew from social housing, for example.

I personally am very touched by your evidence, Dr. Prentice. It in fact echoes other evidence about the fate of women and children. I am a firm believer that the solutions lie in better living conditions for women and children. When we improve the conditions in which women live, we improve the conditions in which children live. I think there is a direct link. Not recognizing that amounts to not recognizing the realities of life.

However, many measures work against women. One of the latest measures, for example, is the removal of women's right to go to court seeking pay equity as part of a quest for equity. There are better things in life; that is not an example. As Mr. Cohen said, the same year the undertaking was made, the Unemployment Insurance Act was amended in order to eliminate as many people as possible.

I gave this introduction to impress upon you the fact that our vision also includes a set of factors which create poverty and make poverty worse.

My first question is to you, Dr. Prentice. You say that work, here, is sometimes a factor in poverty. You gave as an example the gap between men and women. In Winnipeg, the gap is $7,000, and in Manitoba as a whole, it is almost $9,000. This shows that in Winnipeg, women perhaps earn a bit more and the gap is wider elsewhere. What do you mean when you say that beyond that gap, work also creates poverty in some cases?

The other question is for you, Mr. Cohen. When you did your analysis of poverty, one of the examples you gave was Bill C-51 concerning the extension of benefit periods. However, your comments were aimed specifically at people whose jobs are precarious. I am sure that — because you are very involved in the issue of unemployment — you are perfectly aware that people with precarious jobs are all excluded from Bill C-51. It's actually after five years, seven years, and so on. You know the conditions. There are no measures, and it is temporary.

I would like hear a bit of what you have to say about that, about employment insurance. What measures would be appropriate for this program to help put an end to poverty?

Ms. Fernandez, I believe it was you who were talking about detailed federal strategy. We have seen that exercise before, and we know the outcome today. On that subject, I am going to put the following question to each of you.

What should be done differently to ensure that we succeed this time? Are we not going to take the same dynamic and end up 10 years, 15 years or 20 years later in the same situation?

Canada Post Corporation Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his animated presentation because it is actually time that we became a little animated about what is happening.

We are even seeing it to some extent in regard to the CBC. The member may recall that there was a provision in the last budget, Bill C-51, whereby the borrowing authority of CBC was being increased and everybody thought that was a good thing. However, it was being increased simply because the government would not provide the resources necessary for CBC to continue to deliver services to Canadians. With that borrowing authority the government is actually cashing in the leasing revenues on buildings that it owns but does not use just to provide the cash flow that it needs. It is done just to survive. I characterize that as one of the next steps in the privatization of the CBC.

With regard to Canada Post and the re-mailer situation, I would like to ask the member if he could inform the House of a bit of the history. I ask because was told by someone, and I just want to just confirm it, how the re-mailer situation arose and what options may be available to address it either by remediation of a mistake that happened before, or by some sort of arrangement made on a one time basis to grandfather current provisions as opposed to trying to unravel what has been done.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I will repeat it. A provision in Bill C-51 seeks to reduce the retirement benefit by 2%, to 9%, for women who want to retire before the age of 65. Right now, the penalty is 0.5%.

[Nathalie Joncas]

I would just like to add one thing about the CPP and the QPP. Two reforms have been announced: one has been announced in relation to the Quebec Pension Plan, and Bill C-51 has already been passed.

If different approaches are taken, the two plans may end up not being quite so similar. Indeed, the differences between CPP and QPP have been fairly insignificant thus far. One of the important points to make is that the CPP is on a more sound financial footing than the QPP, because Quebec's population is aging more quickly than that of the rest of Canada. The effect of an aging population is thus a lot more pronounced in the Quebec Pension Plan than in the Canada Pension Plan. That may require different kinds of changes.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I am not referring to Bill C-51, because you already said that you had not been consulted.

[Danielle Casara, Vice-President, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

First of all, the FTQ would like to thank the Committee for giving it this opportunity to appear today to express our views on women and pension security.

The FTQ is the largest central union body in Quebec, with more than half a million members, one third of whom are women. As a result, the FTQ represents the largest number of unionized women workers in Quebec. It is also the most representative union body, in that our members work across the full spectrum of economic sectors, including for the federal government. Together we have developed expertise in the area of pension plans, both public and private. We have been part of every single one of the struggles that resulted in improvements to pension plans in Quebec.

Over the years, the FTQ has become more and more active in this area, holding meetings with affiliated unions and training sessions, in order to mobilize our members around this important issue. The FTQ is also involved at the political level and regularly makes its views known by presenting briefs at parliamentary committees or lobbying politicians on this issue.

The FTQ is appearing today to reflect our view that public plans must be maintained and enhanced, rather than cut back, given that they are already too modest. The FTQ noted with dismay that Bill C-51 passed with lightning speed. We can only deplore the lack of extensive public consultations on the proposed changes and the insidious manner in which cuts to the Canada Pension Plan, or CPP, were slipped into a budgetary type of bill.

Furthermore, now that Bill C-51 has passed, there is a greater probability that the Quebec government will also start cutting the Quebec Pension Plan, especially in relation to people who retire between the age of 60 and 65. We think it is important to highlight the fact that the financial status of the Quebec plan seems to be even more precarious, as a result of demographics and a less robust labour market than in the rest of Canada, which means that the Quebec government may have to increase contributions in order to ensure its viability.

As stated by the Minister of Finance last May, as part of the triennial review of the plan, the CPP “[...] remains on a sound financial footing”. That is why they “[...] agreed that the contribution rate would remain unchanged at 9.9% of pensionable earnings”.

In light of that, we are extremely concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding the work led by Mr. Jack Mintz, who is to present his report at the next annual meeting of the Finance Ministers in December in Whitehorse. That group has the mandate—and you know this better than we do—to propose a new vision to Finance Ministers of what the Canadian retirement system should look like based on the current reality. We would therefore like to use our remaining time to share our thoughts on what the Canadian retirement system should look like, particularly from the standpoint of women.

In terms of goals, the Canadian retirement income system should ensure that all women have a decent minimum income, that they are able to maintain their standard of living during retirement and that this income will be protected from inflation, particularly considering the fact that, as a result of their family responsibilities, women more often end up leaving the labour market or slowing down. In any case, women already earn less than men do right from the outset.

For the FTQ, the key to proper coverage for women is improvements to public plans, which alone can attain the objectives cited above, especially considering women's high level of dependency on public plans. Indeed, on average, women derive 54.4% of their retirement income from public sources, compared with 38% for their male counterparts. For additional information, you may wish to look at the table appended to our brief.

In a nutshell, women need public plans. The last 40 years have shown the limitations of a system that relies on the voluntary participation of employers in supplemental pension plans, or on the capacity of all taxpayers, whatever their income level, to save enough for their retirement. In actual fact, according to statistics published by the QPP, the coverage rate of supplemental pension plans in Quebec is stagnant at about 40% of all workers. We know that a very small minority of taxpayers—the most wealthy ones—are alone in claiming the lion's share of the RRSP tax deduction.

The most significant reform that could be introduced would involve increasing the CPP/QPP replacement rate, which is currently 25%, ideally to 50%, as proposed by the Canadian Labour Congress. That change would be capitalized and be implemented gradually over a period of 30 to 40 years.

Because the CPP/QPP coverage rate is almost universal, in the short term, this reform would raise the income level of women in retirement. There is no doubt that current provisions related to the care of children under seven and the non-inclusion of the lowest income years for the purposes of calculating the pension—15% which will soon be 17%—should be maintained and should apply to this new component. The FTQ is also in favour of raising the amount of maximum pensionable earnings from 100% to 125%, or even 150% of the average industrial wage, so that an enhanced CPP would cover a larger proportion of the working population.

Incidentally, the positive effect of this approach would be to significantly enhance income security prospects, on retirement, of workers with non-standard jobs, the majority of whom are women, as you know.

For the FTQ, any expansion of CPP/QPP should involve defined benefits, but certainly not defined contributions, and even less so a voluntary contribution plan. We are of the view that only a public defined benefit plan would guarantee women income security over their lifetime, the risks of which would be assumed by successive cohorts of plan contributors.

On that specific issue, the FTQ shares the opinion of Mr. David Denison, President and Chief Executive Officer of the CPP Investment Board, who recognized the major weaknesses of a defined contribution plan, and I quote:Contributors would be individually subject to market risk during their contributory years, and especially to the prospect of not having enough savings to ensure an adequate level of retirement income if they reach retirement age after a period of poor investment returns, such as we have recently experienced;Likewise, contributors would individually bear the risk of outliving their savings; andThe task of explaining investment options and investment performance to millions of individual account holders would be demanding and could still fail to generate suitable investment choices and outcomes.

Having said that, if it was decided to increase the CPP/QPP replacement rate, the FTQ would, in principle, have fewer objections to the idea of introducing a voluntary contribution component to the CPP/QPP, as a means of complementing the 50% replacement rate that would be guaranteed under CPP.

Beyond the benefits for all working women, we expect that the gradual introduction of this measure would mean less pressure on those employers who sponsor supplemental pension plans, as these plans would play a reduced role in terms of future service at least, because of the higher replacement rate under the public plans.

If the FTQ's preferred option were to be selected, we think it would be necessary to enhance benefits under the basic plans during the transition. For example, the Canadian Labour Congress is recommending that the Guaranteed Income Supplement be increased by 15% so that no senior has to live in poverty. Indeed, the FTQ wants to commend the federal government for raising the income exemption from $500 to $3,500 for GIS. However, we believe that exemption should not be limited to employment income, but rather, apply to all income.

We would also like to point out that, for a Quebec woman taxpayer over the age of 65 with an income of between $17,000 and $21,000, a $1,000 withdrawal from her RRSP currently results in a reduction in the GIS amount and increased taxes and contributions of $800, leaving her only $200 net after all is said and done, which is hardly likely to encourage someone to save for retirement.

In conclusion, the FTQ shares your concern with respect to the importance of ensuring that the Canadian retirement system provide income security and respect the dignity of Canadian workers who retire. We would just reiterate our strong preference for extensive public consultations in Canada with respect to potential solutions, and we resolve to make an active and constructive contribution to that consultation process.

Thank you very much for your kind attention.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I appreciate both those comments, and I think they're both very valid. I remember Terry Toller, who did consumer education in grade nine, teaching how to do your income tax returns and skills that we never forget.

I want to get one quick question in. The one thing I am a bit confused over are the changes under Bill C-51. As I understand, they are just actuarial adjustments. So come 50 and your decision to retire at 60, 65, or older, it's not that there are reductions; it's that there are adjustments in terms of the equity since it's paid out over a much longer time. Could someone straighten me out on that?

Thank you.

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

That's very interesting.

Madame Lizée, I have a question for you. You talked about the concern you had about the increased penalty for early retirement, and we see that in Bill C-51. I wondered if you had a concrete proposal, any idea about how we could encourage people to retire later without penalizing those who retire early. Was there something you had in mind in regard to that?

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

It is not much, indeed. Especially since defined benefit schemes, particularly in Canada, have dropped in value quite significantly due to the current economic crisis.

My next question is directed at Ms. Rose-Lizée.

You spoke a lot about Quebec. You referred to the Régie des rentes du Québec, and the CPP, but they are two completely different entities. I always say that things are different in Quebec from the rest of Canada, given that we have child care and pay equity systems in Quebec.

You also referred to Bill C-51 which was introduced by the federal government and which deals with the budget implementation. There were a couple of sentences about the Canada Pension Plan slipped into it. Also, you said you tabled a document for the Quebec National Assembly in which you are calling for certain things, and you did likewise at the federal government level.

Could you elaborate on this?

[Ruth Rose-Lizée]

I've been advising women's groups for 30 years. In the summer, we provided the Minister of Finance with our comments on the proposed amendments to the Canada Pension Plan as set out in Bill C-51. So, in essence, I am also speaking on behalf of the 13 other women's groups in Quebec, including the Fédération des femmes du Québec and several other major groups.

I'd like to address three points. First of all, I'd like to refer to the Canada Pension Plan and to the proposed amendments to it as found in Bill C-51. I'd also like to address the proposed creation of a voluntary account, in the manner which was discussed earlier on by my two colleagues. Then, I would like to refer to specific demands from women's groups to enhance their retirement income. Finally, I would like to conclude with a few remarks on statistics which would allow for gender-based analyses to be carried out.

I have also sent to your analyst, Ms. Julie Cool, a brief we tabled before a parliamentary committee in Quebec, having to do with a change to the QPP. This document contains a great deal of statistics and information on women and pensions in Quebec. However, it has not been translated.

Bill C-51 seeks to cut pension benefits for all individuals retiring before the age of 65 by increasing actuarial adjustments. First of all, we are very worried by the fact that this legislation has received practically no media coverage and that no specific parliamentary committee was struck to address the issue, nor have there been any broad-ranging public discussions on it. We are convinced that it will disproportionately affect women rather than men. In Quebec, we know that women retire earlier than men, often because they stop working to care for a spouse, an older person, someone who is ill, or a parent, or because their spouse is retiring and they decide to retire at the same time despite the fact that, in general, they are younger than their spouses. We therefore see no reason for cutting benefits. We believe that would in fact lead to greater poverty for seniors, especially women.

We are not very enthusiastic about the voluntary contribution measures precisely because they are voluntary. Moreover, we believe that it will become an additional tax advantage for the wealthy who are already saving enough for their retirement whereas middle class individuals who contribute a modest amount to their RRSPs do not do so enough to ensure continuing income upon retirement. They would still not be contributing enough to make a difference.

Rather, we support improving mandatory premium-based public plans like the CPP and the QPP. We believe once this becomes the modus operandi for employers and staff, people will adjust. We would also like to note that our contributions and benefits, here in Canada, are far lower than those of European countries, for instance.

Let's get back specifically to measures to assist women. We have also found that only a public plan can consider the fact that people do contribute to a country's economic growth through unpaid work.

There are already three ways to take this contribution through unpaid work into account within the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. First of all, a woman who is responsible for a child under the age of seven and whose contributions are less than her average contributions over the course of her career can exclude these years from her pension calculations. We believe that this right of exclusion should be converted into an inclusion, in other words that pension credits should be allocated automatically; we would suggest they represent 60% of the maximum insurable earnings, because those who benefit the least from this measure are, for instance, women with several children and who, therefore, tend to re-enter the workforce less, or often work part time. The automatic allocation of credits would meet the needs of these women, based on the number of children they have.

We believe the same should apply to individuals who stop working to care for disabled or ill adults, a task which is often women's work as well, in 75% to 80% of cases.

The second measure regarding women has to do with surviving spouses' pensions. In Quebec, they are more generous than elsewhere in Canada, but on the other hand, the orphan's pension is lower. In our brief, we would suggest decreasing surviving spouse benefits to help fund the measure I will refer to in a moment. In the past, surviving spouses' pensions were designed to consider the fact that when women got married, they would have children. So, the purpose was to consider the fact that women cared for children. But, increasingly, there is no automatic correlation between marriage or cohabiting and having children. So, we prefer measures that directly recognize the work women do with their children.

Finally, the third measure which would put women's pensions on a somewhat even playing field with those of men is the sharing of credits which is governed by family law in the various provinces. We believe that that is a good measure. It ensures fairness within a couple. That said, in Quebec, we have data on the number of cases of sharing and what that means and for whom, yet in the documents I consulted from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada—

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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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, 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, 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.

[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?

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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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, 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-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.

[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, 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.

(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)

[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?

[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.

[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, 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.

[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]

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.

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)

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the brief question from my hon. colleague this week in honour of the tributes that we are about to hear.

Today we began and hopefully will conclude the second reading stage of C-56, the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act. That bill is receiving rave reviews all across the land and it is my hope that it will move very expeditiously through the House.

On Tuesday, we sent another employment insurance act to the Senate, Bill C-50. My understanding is that it has completed third reading over in the other place and we hope that will receive royal assent today.

Following Bill C-56, it is my intention to continue the debate at third reading of C-27, the anti-spam bill, which will be followed by Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, which is at second reading.

Bill C-56 will continue tomorrow if not completed today. Backup bills for Friday are Bill C-51, the Economic Recovery Act, which was reported back from committee this week, followed by any bills not completed from today.

When the House returns from our constituency Remembrance Day week, the schedule of bills will include Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia, and bills not concluded from this week. We will give consideration to any bills reported back from committee or new bills yet to be introduced.

Finance

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation 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.

[Chris Forbes]

Sure. In my opening remarks I went through a few issues. I can go back to them, but I think we've made a number of changes on the first pillar of the retirement income system with respect to increasing the amount of employment income that GIS recipients can earn before their GIS is reduced.

On the second pillar, which is the CPP, I mentioned the triennial review results and a number of changes that have been proposed there, which are before Parliament as part of Bill C-51. Those include the removal of the work cessation test, and increasing the drop-out provisions.

On the third pillar, which would be the tax assistance for retirement savings and other tax measures, in fact we've had increases in the pension income credits. We've had an increase in the age amount. We've introduced pension income splitting. And the age when one has to convert an RRSP into a RRIF has been raised from 69 years to 71 years, and phased retirement as well. And the final one would be the tax-free savings account.

[Chris Forbes]

We just completed our three-year review in May. An announcement was made by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of Finance. Bill C-51 contains the results of that three-year review.

[Jean-Claude Ménard, Chief Actuary, Office of the Chief Actuary, Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada]

Good afternoon Madam Chair, honourable members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address the issues related to women's retirement income security.

The primary role of the OCA is to provide actuarial services to the federal and provincial governments who are Canada Pension Plan stakeholders. While I report to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, I am solely responsible for the content and actuarial opinions reflected in the reports prepared by my office.

The OCA conducts statutory actuarial valuations of the CPP, Old Age Security Program, and pension and benefits plans covering the federal public service, the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, federally-appointed judges and members of Parliament.

Whenever a bill is introduced before Parliament that has a significant impact on the financial status of a public pension plan falling under the statutory responsibilities of the chief actuary, the OCA must submit an actuarial report to the appropriate minister. The most recent report assessing the financial impact of the proposed changes for the Canada Pension Plan included in Bill C-51 was tabled before Parliament on October 19, 2009. This report confirmed that if the current plan is amended, with current economic conditions taken into consideration, a legislated contribution rate of 9.90% for years 2010 and thereafter would be sufficient to financially sustain the plan.

The status of women within the Canadian pension system is not the same today as it was 30 or 40 years ago. Historically, women had more interrupted work history, lower earnings, and as a result lower retirement pensions as compared to men. Presently, the gap in CPP pensions between males and females is narrowing even if it is not expected to disappear completely.

Labour market participation for women has increased over the years. Based on the most recent CPP actuarial report, the overall labour force participation rates in Canada from 1976 to 2006 clearly show a narrowing of the gap between male and female rates. While this gap was 32% in 1976 it has narrowed to 10% in 2006, and is expected to narrow further but at a slower pace. This trend is also well pronounced in the registered pension plans' coverage. The proportion of female RPP members increased from 35%, 20 years ago, to 49% in 2007. In 2007, 2.9 million females participated in the RPP as compared to only 1.7 million in 1987. For all paid workers, the proportion of female RPP members is now higher than for men, a situation that had not been seen before 2005.

The gap in employment earnings between women and men has also narrowed over the last 40 years. The ratio of female-to-male average employment earnings stood at about 48% in 1996 and was 71% in 2006. The 23^rd CPP actuarial report projects that this ratio will further increase to 84% by 2050. As a result of these trends, it could be expected that future generations of female retirees will have access to more adequate retirement income.

I will now continue in English.

The Canada Pension Plan contains several features that are designed to promote higher retirement income security for women. The CPP provides benefits that are largely determined by how much and for how long a contributor contributed to the plan. As such, it is important to ensure that an individual's average career earnings are not affected by a certain number of years of unusually low earnings, which occur in most people's careers.

The dropout provisions of the CPP, in particular the child-rearing dropout and the general low-earnings dropout, allow for the exclusion of years with low earnings and help an individual to qualify for a larger pension. The child-rearing dropout provision was introduced in 1978. It benefits individuals caring for young children, mainly women. The general low-earnings dropout supplements the child-rearing dropout and permits 15% of the years of low earnings to be dropped from the benefit calculation.

Virtually everyone benefits from this dropout provision. I've heard that the impact on women's pensions is higher, due to lower earnings and a more uneven work history.

Finally, another feature of the Canada Pension Plan that mitigates the impact of low earnings is that no contributions are taken from the first $3,500 of employment earnings. This is called the year's basic exemption. The application of this provision provides a better return on contributions for lower-earning individuals. Once again, even if this is a universal provision, women benefit more from it because of their generally lower earnings as compared with men.

The cost of providing retirement income depends largely on life expectancy. Life expectancy is another aspect that differentiates women from men. Women are living longer than men; therefore, they are expected to receive their retirement income for a longer period of time. At the inception of the Canada Pension Plan in 1966, women at age 65 lived for an average of another 17 years. Today they are living for 21 years and are expected to live for 24 years by 2050. Indeed, women live about three years longer than men after they reach retirement.

In conclusion, the combination of old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, and the compulsory contributory pension plans—the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans—has contributed significantly to reducing poverty among seniors over the past three decades. The OECD and the Luxembourg Income Study Research Institute consider Canada to be the country that has the least difficulty ensuring the economic well-being of retirees. To quote the research institute: “The choice of policy is crucial, as shown for instance by the low cost but highly target-effective Canadian efforts in fighting elder poverty.” Canada is in an enviable group of countries that includes, in particular, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, where the incidence rate of low-income seniors is less than 5%.

I hope I have succeeded in providing you with some facts regarding women's retirement income. I wish to thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this committee. We'll be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, colleagues.

We will go now to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-51.

Just for the committee's information, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed until the end, so we will go to clause 2.

I do have a suggestion. I understand there may be some discussion on the CPP. CPP clauses start at clause 25, so I'm going to ask: shall clauses 2 to 24 carry?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank all of the witnesses for joining us today. Your comments will be of great help to us as we continue to study Bill C-51.

Dr. Kenward, Mr. Friend, thank you again for being here. It's the second time I've had occasion to listen to the Canadian Home Builders' Association, and the depth of your analysis is a great deal of help to us.

Thank you very much for coming here, Mr. Grondin. The FADOQ is an important partner, one that is not mentioned often enough on this side of the Ottawa River.

I will begin with you, Mrs. Conradi. The FADOQ and the Fédération des femmes du Québec were invited here at the suggestion of the NDP, following a message that we received recently alerting us to the implicit danger of regulatory action being taken, instead of Parliament openly passing legislation, and of the danger that no analysis would be done or public debate held on this matter.

I want to assure you that the committee has unanimously resolved that once the expert report on pensions has been tabled at next month's joint federal-provincial meeting in Whitehorse, additional hearings will be held. You can rest assured that your urgent message was heard, and that for us, women and the particular impact these measures will have on women will be a priority.

You hinted that you might have other proposals to put on the table, such as ways of extending a person's time in the workforce without that person incurring a penalty. I'd like you to elaborate on these proposals.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

Mr. Friend, could you comment in terms of the measures in Bill C-51 and the impact on the number of Canadians employed in your industry?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rowe, can you give the committee an idea of how the measures in Bill C-51 have had an impact on the number of Canadians employed in your industry? Do you think these measures helped to save or even create jobs?

[John Butler, Senior Vice-President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is John Butler. I'm general counsel with the CPP Investment Board. I'm here with my colleague Ian Dale, who is SVP, head of communications and government relations.

I'm here this morning to discuss the provisions in part 2 of Bill C-51 that will amend our governing statute, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act. We do not intend to, and in fact we are not able to, comment on any other aspects of Bill C-51, as we're not familiar with them.

In order to assist the committee, and in anticipation of your legislative work this afternoon, I thought it would be helpful to provide some context by briefly outlining the background as to why these amendments to our governing statute are being proposed.

The first amendment, clause 44 of Bill C-51, proposes to repeal section 37 of our statute. As you recall, the Income Tax Act formerly contained rules restricting the amount of investments that certain taxpayers can make in foreign property to essentially 30% of the cost of all property held by the taxpayer. If the 30% threshold were exceeded, a monthly penalty tax would be charged.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is not itself taxable under the Income Tax Act. Nonetheless, section 37 was originally included in our statute to require the CPP Investment Board to comply with the foreign property rules in the Income Tax Act. As you all know, the foreign property rules were repealed in their entirety in June 2005. Accordingly, since that time section 37 has been a meaningless provision in our statute.

Bill C-51 proposes to repeal that section. It's a matter of housekeeping, simply to remove a redundant and possibly misleading section. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board endorses this amendment.

The second change to our statute, found in clauses 45 and 46 of Bill C-51, is an amendment to section 53 of our statute. This too is not a substantive change to our legislation, and the CPP Investment Board endorses it as well. Section 53 deals with the manner in which the federal cabinet makes regulations under our governing statute. It provides that regulations made by cabinet have no force or effect until they are approved by the appropriate provincial minister of at least two thirds of the participating provinces—which for this purpose does not include Quebec—having not less than two thirds of the population in those provinces.

The reason for this rule, and another rule I'll refer to briefly at the end of my remarks, is that the CPP, formed in 1966, and the CPP Investment Board, established in 1997, both resulted from cooperation between the federal government and the provinces; therefore, the provinces have an equal voice in any change to both the terms of the CPP and the powers of the CPP Investment Board.

The history of the proposed amendment to section 53 is that in the course of the review of the change made to one of our regulations in 2007, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations noticed that the required provincial approval to the change was obtained before the change was proposed to the federal cabinet, as was the established practice. Legal counsel for the standing joint committee was of the view that this method of enacting regulations did not comply with section 53.

In order to resolve this issue as effectively and efficiently as possible, we agreed with the Department of Finance that section 53 would be amended to expressly allow for prior approval of changes to our regulation by participating provinces, provided that the approved version of the regulations was the same, or substantially the same, as the version ultimately put to cabinet. We also agreed that for the purposes of complete certainty, it would be confirmed that all regulations enacted under our statute to date were in full force and effect. That is therefore the purpose of the amendments to section 53 of our act. As I've already mentioned, the CPP Investment Board fully supports these amendments.

With respect to my final point, while Bill C-51 does not say so expressly, these changes to our statute need to be approved by the provinces by reason of subsection 114(4) of the Canada Pension Plan. That section provides that any changes to the CPP Investment Board Act must be approved by the provincial cabinet of at least two thirds of the provinces—which in this case does include Quebec—having not less than two thirds of the total population.

As mentioned, this approval requirement stems from the fact that the CPP and the CPP Investment Board are the result of a cooperative effort among the provinces and the federal government. As a result, these provisions of Bill C-51 will not come into force, even after they have been approved by Parliament, until the required provincial approvals have been obtained.

As my co-presenter, Ms Conradi, has just pointed out, this same requirement exists in relation to the changes to the Canada Pension Plan included in Bill C-51.

We thank you for the chance to address you today.

[Alexa Conradi, President, Fédération des femmes du Québec]

Thank you very much.

I represent the Fédération des femmes du Quebec, the umbrella organization for 165 women's groups across Quebec, for committees of women from the labour movement and independent women's groups. We are concerned about women's economic independence and I want to thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today on the subject of the Canada Pension Plan.

The economist with whom we usually work is in Quebec City consulting with the government. Therefore, I am here mainly to answer policy questions. As you know, the Quebec Pension Plan is currently being reformed and often, the QPP is harmonized with expected changes to the CPP. So then, our attention is taken up both by the ongoing debate in Quebec and by the debate taking place here in the House of Commons.

In the case of Bill C-51, the proposed changes must be approved by Quebec lawmakers and by two-thirds of the other provinces representing two-thirds of the Canadian population. That means that even if Parliament adopts the proposed pension legislation, additional steps would need to be taken before the bill becomes law.

However, in so far as actuarial adjustments are concerned, we expect that from now on, these issues will be dealt with through regulations, which creates two problem. Firstly, this approach depoliticizes the debate surrounding increases and often more so in the case of planned cuts, or planned increases in the penalties provided for under the scheme. It also means that changes could be made without the approval of the Government of Quebec, that is of the Quebec National Assembly.

The proposed legislation provides for actuarial adjustments. These adjustments will affect people who retire before 65 years of age. This means that maximum benefits which until now totalled $7,634 at age 60, could be reduced to $6,979. This represent a reduction of 9%. Women already receive two thirds of what men receive, because historically they care for persons with diminishing abilities and for children, meaning that they spend less time in the workforce than most men. Women also continue to earn two thirds of what men do in Canada and consequently, they are further impoverished. The measures set out in this bill will impoverish women, who are already among the poorest members of society in Canada.

Not only does this bill make them poorer, it maintains their economic dependence, in particular during economic hard times. Even women who may have had some private savings experienced a drop in their standard of living.

Like my previous colleague, our federation would like to see the whole CPP issue withdrawn from this bill and opened up to a much broader, more substantial public debate than we have seen thus far. I understand that cross-country consultations are being held on the subject, but there has been no public debate and I'm not sure most Canadian women realize that the government is planning to introduce measures that will substantially and adversely affect their standard of living.

In light of demographic changes, the aging population and the fact that we are living longer, we agree with any initiatives aimed at getting people to remain longer in the workforce. However, they should be able to do so without being penalized. If there is time later, we would like to put forward a number of recommendations on this very issue.

Thank you.

[Ken Georgetti, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Chair.

On behalf of the 3.2 million members of our Canadian Labour Congress, we want to thank you for affording us the opportunity to present our views.

The Canadian Labour Congress brings together Canada's national and international unions, along with provincial and territorial federations of labour and 130 district labour councils, which work in virtually all sections of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, in all parts of Canada.

We'd like to comment on the Canada Pension Plan provisions of Bill C-51.

By way of introduction, as members will be aware, we view the CPP as a key platform for the income security of Canadians in retirement. The CPP provides a secure, portable, inflation-indexed, defined pension benefit at a very low administrative cost. The major problem with the CPP as it exists today is that it replaces only 25% of earnings up to the average earnings level, and less for those who earn more than the average.

The CLC has proposed to phase in a doubling of CPP benefits in order to create a much improved public pension system for our children, gradually taking some of the burden off of the troubled systems of private retirement savings and employer-sponsored pension plans.

We believe major improvements to the CPP, among other issues, should be debated and discussed at a national pension forum. This should include employers, unions, pensioner groups, and organizations with a direct stake in pensions, as well as federal and provincial governments, who are jointly responsible for pension policy, including the direction and management of CPP.

We believe there should be much more scope for input to the management of CPP than has been the case to date. After all, employers and workers pay the premiums that fund the plan, and its fundamental objective is retirement security for working people.

While welcoming some of the changes made in this bill, we do have concerns with the increased penalties for early retirement. We think there should be much more consultation before these changes are implemented. Penalties that were proposed before the current economic crisis will have to be rethought, we think, in the new context of high unemployment and what promises to be a very slow economic recovery.

We welcome the fact that a person will be able to take up their retirement pension as early as age 60 without the requirement of a significant work interruption or earnings reduction. This will allow workers to begin to collect their Canada pension without completely withdrawing from the workforce. If they choose to continue to work between age 60 and 65, most likely in a different job or on a part-time basis, they and their employer will be required to contribute to the CPP until age 65, thus raising their pension benefit. The measure will likely encourage some workers to phase in their retirement by combining an early CPP pension with part-time work. But it will also allow low-paid older workers to supplement their earnings with an early CPP pension.

The bill allows for an extra year of low or no earnings to be excluded when calculating Canada pension benefit. This is welcome, but it is not enough, we think, to take into account the fact that the entry into the full-time workforce now typically takes place at a much later age than when CPP began, as participation in post-secondary education, as we've all seen, has soared.

The bill also sets the framework for changing the adjustment factors that apply to early or late take-up of retirement pension starting in 2012 and phased in over five years. The plan is to raise the amount by which the CPP is reduced, if taken before age 65, from 0.5% to 0.6% per month. Eventually, a worker who takes up the CPP at age 60 will lose a maximum of 36% of their benefit. That's compared to 30% today. Those who work past age 65 consequently will receive a higher benefit.

The intent of government, I think, is to encourage older workers, especially baby boomers now nearing retirement age, to stay in the workforce longer. An admirable goal, we think, but we question whether this is still appropriate given these changing economic circumstances.

All governments were recently anticipating significant future skill shortages. While these may still emerge in some occupations, such as the skilled trades and in health care a little, Canada will not now face a general shortage of workers in the near to middle term. Demand from employers in future years is likely to be much lower than what was once thought likely to be.

For example, future demand for skilled trades workers in the manufacturing sector is going to be lower because of plant closures--permanent plant closures, I might add--while many skilled trades workers have recently joined the ranks of the unemployed in startling numbers, if you want to look. The economic crisis will make it much more difficult for younger workers to find jobs because there will be fewer good jobs and also because many baby boomers are going to now retire later than they had planned in order to rebuild their retirement savings. And increasing penalties for early retirement may well raise youth unemployment. In fact if you look at the EI numbers, the largest block of re-entry into the workforce is people 55 years old and older.

In conclusion, we urge the federal and provincial governments to reconsider today imposing additional penalties on early take-up of CPP benefits until circumstances have changed. This issue should be debated at a national pension forum, which I think all of us have called for.

I'd like to just say thank you for listening to our submission, and we wish you good luck in your deliberations.

[Michael Rowe, Vice-President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, Home Depot Canada]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Michael Rowe, and I'm the vice-president and chief financial officer of Home Depot Canada. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to share Home Depot Canada's perspective on the importance of timely passage of Bill C-51.

By way of a brief introduction, Home Depot is the world's largest home improvement retailer. It currently operates more than 2,200 stores, including 179 across Canada. Globally, our company employs more than 300,000 people, including more than 27,000 Canadians.

I am pleased to be here today to voice Home Depot Canada's support for Bill C-51, and in particular for the home renovation tax credit.

Since the Government of Canada announced the tax credit as an economic stimulus measure in the 2009 federal budget, Home Depot Canada can attest that it has been a motivating force for consumers. Whether Canadians are looking to install new windows or doors, renovate their kitchens, or even landscape their family homes, a potential $1,350 in tax savings has given them the incentive to undertake and complete these projects.

We have seen the results of the stimulus in increased demand for products and services and believe that the stimulus did much to temper the impact of a rapidly worsening sales environment across our industry beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008. Home Depot Canada is such a firm believer in the home renovation tax credit as an economic stimulus that we offered our own retail incentive program to align our promotions with the value the credit offered our customers.

In March 2009 Home Depot launched its home renovation tax credit top-up program. Customers, during specific promotional periods, had the opportunity to earn up to $1,000 over and above the federal tax credit in Home Depot gift cards. We also implemented a robust advertising and media campaign, ensuring that consumers knew about both the federal tax credit and our top-up program. Many of our industry counterparts stepped forward with campaigns of their own.

In the first month after the Government of Canada introduced the initiative, our website page dedicated to the HRTC received more than 75,000 page views, well exceeding our expectations. As we launched our top-up program, this number swelled to more than 225,000 in the second month and is now closing in on 600,000 page views. That's significant, and it's telling.

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's top-up program, along with our new lower prices program, helped Canadians take on projects big and small and encouraged them to continue investing in their homes.

To put a finer point on this discussion, many of the products and services we sell in our stores are HRTC-eligible, but some are not. We know that HRTC-eligible products have significantly outsold ineligible products since the introduction of the program. To date, more than 200,000 consumers have taken advantage of our top-up program to varying degrees. And because this program involves the distribution of gift cards, we anticipate that it will continue to bring customers back to our stores and will keep them engaged with the contractor community well into 2010. Already Home Depot has given millions of dollars back to customers in gift cards.

In conclusion, I would like to underscore the importance of the home renovation tax credit to the Canadian home improvement industry, to contractors, and to the many Canadian consumers who, with the help of the federal tax credit, are investing their own dollars to help spur the economy. We have seen the benefit of the tax credit to our business, through consumer tracking, and have seen an increase in consumer spending, particularly this past summer and this fall, as a result of both government and industry advertising campaigns.

On the topic of advertising, we have one minor but important request. The industry would value greater clarity in government marketing collateral related to eligibility requirements before the tax credit end date.

The home renovation tax credit is a key component of Bill C-51, and many contractors and retailers, including Home Depot Canada, have invested considerable resources to promote it. Many Canadians have already made renovations in good faith that Bill C-51 will be passed into law. For this reason, I urge committee members to ensure its timely passage in Parliament.

Thank you.

[Kevin Page]

We'll be happy to provide to the committee a flow chart that starts with the budget, with the provision of authorities, with disbursements, how those disbursements are tracked through the course of the year, how they're reported on in plans and priority documents through the estimates process and the department performance reports, how they're reported on through the public accounts, and the role that is played through these budget implementation reports that we have now. As well, as we look forward, under Bill C-51 there's a new provision now for departments to provide additional quarterly reports, which might be impacted as well as this flow chart.

We would be happy to provide that flow chart for you.

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

Part II of Bill C-51 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. There are a few unanticipated consequences of the former act arising from the previous amendments to the act. Bill C-51 changes those consequences.

What is the impact of implementing what Bill C-51 changes regarding the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for your time this afternoon.

Minister, as you know, this committee has spent the last several weeks travelling across the country consulting with Canadians with respect to their many suggestions and thoughts regarding the government's 2010 budget.

I can tell you that in every city we visited, we heard multiple groups representing labour, business, social service agencies, and arts guilds praise the enhancements of the working income tax benefit included in Budget 2009. I wonder if you could explain for the committee how Bill C-51 expands this important benefit and why it's crucial that this legislation be passed as soon as possible.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Minister Flaherty, for being here today. As a new member of the finance committee I have certainly appreciated participating in the pre-budget consultations, and I've come to appreciate the many hours of work that go into preparing for our budgets.

The issue of pensions and pension security has been gaining increased attention, especially in the past few weeks. I know I've received many calls from constituents in my riding. I do know that our Conservative government has been hard at work on this issue, and indeed was working on it long before it was on the radar screen of many in the opposition.

Bill C-51 and the important reforms to the Canada Pension Plan included in it are one demonstration of that. I'm wondering if you could share some of the feedback you have heard in response to these important reforms and then also speak to how our Conservative government has addressed the larger issues surrounding pensions in Canada.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for joining us here today.

If I can go a little farther even than the governor did this morning, we asked for his input to this committee on what his role was in the last year, his role and Canada's role, if you will, in dealing with this worldwide recession.

I know you've been a very strong advocate of making sure that countries don't ramp up their protectionism. We are a trading nation, there's no doubt about that. We are an exporting nation, and we need to encourage open trade. This portion of Bill C-51 that deals with the reduction of tariffs for temporarily imported shipping containers--could you elaborate on that and perhaps some of the other tariff reduction initiatives that you've taken or that you intend?

[Kevin Page, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My staff and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee today to answer your questions regarding my recent assessment on the government's third quarterly report on budget implementation.

Before we begin with questions, I want to first take the chance to provide some context regarding, one, the purpose of my assessments; two, key considerations regarding the government's most recent report; and three, where we go from here on quarterly reporting to Parliament.

As all of us are aware, the quarterly implementation reports to Parliament were a key condition for legislative approval of budget 2009. At the time, there was an appreciation across many countries, not only Canada, that the unprecedented level of fiscal stimulus warranted greater transparency on the part of governments. Shortly after this, your colleagues in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance asked me to prepare assessments on each quarterly report prepared by the government.

The purpose of my assessments is to highlight areas where parliamentarians may wish to push for greater transparency in the reports—in particular, to highlight information and analysis that could help Parliament provide oversight on the economic stimulus package.

From the beginning I have used three principles to guide my assessments. One, members of the Canadian Parliament should be able to expect a level of reporting comparable to that provided to legislatures in other international jurisdictions. Two, the government's quarterly reports should meet the same quality standards as existing financial reporting to Parliament. Three, the government should only be expected to share data and information that is already collected in the normal course of its businesses.

The last point is particularly important. Whenever we highlight information gaps, it pertains to data already collected and held by the government.

As I mentioned in our first report that was issued in March, the content and quality of reporting to Parliament on public money is a long-standing issue. There have been several reforms and uneven progress over the past decade with respect to the estimates. As such, it is important that we all have realistic expectations regarding what the government could achieve at the outset.

In my first assessment, I highlighted the need for balance in reporting between the level of reporting and the need for expediency. I identified the types of information that are already collected by the government, which could be useful to support Parliament's oversight and answer basic questions like:

– How much money?

– For what?

– How many people will be helped?

– How many projects will be funded?

– How will it be implemented?

– How is success measured?

– What are the key risks?

– How will they be managed?

To help track each of these indicators, my staff prepared a monitoring spreadsheet to capture and organize all information presented in the government's reports. It is currently over 47 pages long.

In my second assessment, after reviewing the substantial additional data presented by the government, I concluded that parliamentarians might benefit from a more strategic approach to reporting. This means: more detail on the larger, higher risk programs; less information regarding smaller, lower risk initiatives; and better organization of the information that is reported.

Drawing on good practices in other countries, my second assessment also included draft templates that could be used to organize the implementation data in a more useful manner. I also attempted to initiate my own analysis of infrastructure stimulus spending using the data collected by the government through its own reporting requirements.

By the third report we expected there would be some clarity in the links among inputs, outputs, and outcomes.

In my most recent assessment, I noted that the government continues to make progress on improving the quality of its quarterly reports to Parliament; however, this progress falls short on what one might reasonably expect. In particular, the government continues to use a one-size-fits-all approach to reporting, which means that smaller measures have a good level of exposure, but parliamentarians could be left wondering about progress on larger items such as infrastructure.

I also suggested that parliamentarians might benefit from improved organization of the government's reports. For instance, the names of some initiatives change from one report to the next. It's a small thing, but it makes it hard to track progress over a nine-month period if the titles of programs are changing.

Finally, I indicated that parliamentarians might wish to ask the government to establish a comprehensive framework to assess the success of budget 2009 in achieving the government's economic objectives of growth and job creation. By drawing on good practice in the United States, I outlined four potential approaches that you might ask the government to use.

As I have highlighted throughout my assessments, the government's quarterly reports represent a unique opportunity to test drive and improve interim reporting to Parliament. While the reports are not perfect, they do represent a substantial improvement on the current financial reporting regime, where the budget is presented early in the year, the estimates are tabled in March, and the public accounts are presented about 18 months later. During the year and a half between the estimates and the public accounts, Parliament has very limited information to assess whether and how well the money they have appropriated has been spent.

Some in this Parliament have argued that this lacuna undermines the key constitutional responsibility of legislators to provide oversight of the executive. In that spirit, the government is to be commended for beginning to provide legislators with relevant financial and operating information that could be used to exercise oversight of public moneys. For the first time, the quarterly budget implementation reports allow members of the House of Commons and Senate to answer basic questions like the following. Has this program been implemented yet? Are there any results to date? Have there been delays in implementation?

With this in mind, I released another note last week that generally supported the government's proposal to implement a legislative quarterly reporting regime for all departments, agencies, and crown corporations. If this, the legislative amendments in Bill C-51, receive royal assent, Parliament will begin to benefit from this type of disclosure that's already provided in many other OECD jurisdictions, Canadian provinces, and U.S. states.

At the same time, I have also highlighted several considerations that parliamentarians may wish to debate as this proposal progresses, including the following. What type of non-financial data should be included in the reports, such as staffing figures and disclosures on high-risk, large information technology projects. How will the reports be linked to the budget and estimates to ensure that Parliament has a cohesive view of federal finances? What options are available to minimize the cost and disruption of the new reporting regime on the financial community and the public service, which is currently juggling several other reform efforts?

Thank you for the opportunity to make an opening statement. I look forward to your questions.

Canada Grain Act

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act.

However, it is a sad day, in fact, a very sad day when the opposition plays games once again with the livelihood of western grain farmers with this motion to hoist this very important bill.

The facts are simple, Canadian farm families deserve to be treated equally across the country, but the current legislation forces western Canadian producers to pay costs that are not imposed in other regions. It sounds kind of like the Wheat Board, which also applies only to western Canadian farmers, but yet the opposition seems so intent on forcing it on western Canadian farmers.

Bill C-13 would contribute to building a lower cost, more effective and innovative grain sector. This legislation is based on the agriculture committee report the opposition parties helped to write.

Conservative MPs on the agriculture committee, including myself, are ready and willing to get down to work, to roll up our sleeves, and work on Bill C-13 at the agriculture committee. It is just too bad the opposition parties are not willing to do that work and treat all regions equally. It is what our farmers would expect.

In committee there will be ample opportunities to work on this bill, but the opposition has decided to collude to hoist this bill which will essentially kill the bill to the detriment of our western grain farmers.

The amendments the government is proposing to the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission are evidence of our commitment to grain producers. Canada's quality assurance system for grain provides a key competitive advantage for our farmers. The amendments we are proposing would build on that competitive advantage.

When our global customers choose Canadian grain for processing, they count on consistent quality and cleanliness with every delivery. This world-class reputation that our Canadian grains enjoy around the globe has been earned. First and foremost it has been earned through the hard work of our farmers, but grain handling companies, research scientists and the Canadian Grain Commission have also played a role in building that golden reputation.

Our edge in the marketplace is all about quality. Much of the responsibility for the quality of Canadian grain resides with the Canadian Grain Commission and the quality assurance system it administers under the Canada Grain Act.

The grain industry is changing, and the legislative tools required to keep the industry competitive need to change along with that. The Canada Grain Act has not changed substantially in almost 40 years, but the marketplace has certainly evolved.

We have a major new customer for grains in the form of the biofuels industry, supported by initiatives put in place by this Conservative government. We have quality management systems to allow parcels of grain with specific qualities wanted by buyers to be kept separate through the handling system. We have niche marketing and processing of grains in Canada, and we now have a broader range, in fact, a much broader range of crops in western Canada.

In the mid-1990s, the reform of the Western Grain Transportation Act triggered a wholesale diversification as some producers opted to switch to other crops, such as oilseeds, pulse crops and horticultural crops. Today, wheat accounts for only one-third of our crop land. In the 1950s, three-quarters of our land was in wheat.

Some of the changes being proposed include: inward inspection and weighing of grains will no longer be mandatory. There is no reason to require something that is not necessary, particularly when the cost comes out of the bottom line of farmers in the grain industry.

Currently, the Grain Commission is required to inspect and weigh each railcar or truck lot of western grain that is received by licensed terminal elevators. The industry has been calling for change in this area for some years now because the mandatory inspections impose costs and they are not essential to ensure grain quality.

Inward inspection and weighing will no longer be mandatory. Instead, shippers of grain will be able to request an inspection at their discretion, letting them choose when they feel the benefit justifies the cost.

Elevators would also be required to allow access to private inspectors when an inspection is requested, and the Canadian Grain Commission would be authorized to provide grade arbitration if the parties to a transaction request it. This means that if there is a dispute about the grade, the Canadian Grain Commission would be available to impartially determine the grade.

Let us be clear. This does not mean grain would go through the system without inspection. Outward inspection would still be required when grain is loaded into vessels for overseas export. Export vessel shipments would continue to require certification by the Canadian Grain Commission based on inspection and weighing by Canadian Grain Commission personnel.

With the bill in place, our customers will be assured that they can continue to have confidence in Canada's grain quality assurance system. The Canadian Grain Commission would continue to regulate the grain handling system for the benefit of our producers. It would continue to license grain handlers and dealers. It would continue to require them to have proper grading and weighing equipment and to properly document purchases, and continue to ensure that producers have access to grade arbitration by the Canadian Grain Commission.

The bill would actually enhance farmer protection by extending Canadian Grain Commission grade and dockage arbitration to farmers delivering to process elevators and grain dealers. Currently, if a producer disagrees with the grade or dockage for a grain delivery at a licensed primary elevator, the producer can ask the Canadian Grain Commission to determine the grade and dockage and make a binding decision. The grain producer is paid according to this decision. The bill before us proposes to extend this service to deliveries to all licensed grain handlers, including process elevators and grain dealers.

Farmers have never had this protection before and with these amendments we have put farmers first, which I would call the opposition parties to do as well. It is simply shameful that the three opposition parties will not consider the interests of farmers first. They have shown time and time again that they just do not care about the concerns, wants or needs of western farmers.

Let me delve into a few other examples. The opposition members had the opportunity to stand up for farmers but, once again, failed to do so. I want to talk about a vote we had just this week on Bill C-51 and an element contained in that bill. It has been a brutal year for producers in parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta particularly. Producers in west central Saskatchewan got off to a very poor start due to a dry fall and very low snow coverage. This was compounded by a cool, dry spring, resulting in low water supplies and poor pasture and hay growth. Things were certainly no better in my part of the world, in central Alberta, where producers faced seeding without any significant rainfall since the summer of 2008.

There is no denying that the risks and unpredictability of farming will always be there. The last thing a producer who is battling drought needs is a bill from the taxman. That is why the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Finance worked together on provisions to allow those producers, forced to sell off their breeding animals due to the drought, to defer the tax on that income for one year. In 2009, we proposed to expand the program to include areas hard hit by excess moisture.

For 2009, the ministers have already announced tax deferrals for producers and some of the municipalities hardest hit by the drought in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and areas where excess moisture is a big problem in Manitoba. This will help producers in these areas replenish breeding stock in the following year. However, yet again, the opposition Liberals voted against the best interests of western Canadian farmers.

Let me talk about one other area where this is the case, and that is the Wheat Board. Again, this only applies to western farmers and yet we have members from other parts of the country who seem to have decided that they know better and they know what is best for western Canadian grain farmers. They think they know better than the farmers what they should do with their products and the choices that they should be able to make for the market, and they want to limit those choices.

Our government wants to see farmers choose how they market their products, whether they choose to use the Wheat Board to market their products or whether they choose to sell those products on their own. That is a fundamental right that everybody in this country should enjoy and yet opposition parties tell us that western farmers just cannot decide for themselves.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-51.

Call in the members.

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.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this very important debate on Bill C-51 today. I say that because this particular bill would put in place many of the measures that have been in the budget but will also return Canada to a shameful history of deficit financing.

It is an important bill and all Canadians should be fully aware of its implications. A shameful history of spending beyond our means will leave our children and our grandchildren still trying to pay down the debt that is being incurred today.

I want to give a bit of history. In 1993 Brian Mulroney's Conservatives had grown Canada's deficit to more than $40 billion, a trend that exploded the national debt to more than $400 billion. In the election of 1993, Conservative fiscal mismanagement was the key issue of that election. Unemployment was very high. Inflation was rampant. Interest rates were out of control. Many of the viewers and certainly the people in York West remember 19% and 20% interest rates. The International Monetary Fund would signal big trouble for Canada.

Canadians were rightly concerned that the careless and free-spending policies of Mr. Mulroney and the Conservatives were putting our social safety nets in jeopardy as well as our entire country. Canadians responded by sending 177 Liberal MPs to Ottawa with a strong mandate to bring spending under control once and for all. After years of empty Conservative promises to get serious about budgetary prudence and restraint, Paul Martin took hold of the finance department and set Canada down a new and brighter path.

By the time the Liberals left office in 2006, we had eliminated the deficit, paid down billions of dollars of debt, reduced taxes by more than $100 billion, reinvested the surplus to bolster social programs and transfer payments, placed the CPP on a secure fiscal footing, and generated and maintained an annual budgetary surplus that the current government always complained was too high. But that was then, and this is now.

Despite inheriting a $13 billion surplus in 2006, in just three very short years the Conservative government has squandered that and returned Canada to deficit once again. Sure enough, Tory times are always troubled times. This is no small accomplishment for the members across the way. In their drive to become the largest spenders, or should I say overspenders as a better description, in our history, they had to first eliminate the massive surplus that they inherited.

I am going to put this in simple terms: a $13 billion surplus the Conservatives inherited just under three years ago, plus the $56 billion we are talking about now which already may be much higher but we are talking $56 billion because that is the amount the finance minister is referring to, makes a total overspending tab of $69 billion, that is $69 billion of Conservative mismanagement. That number must make Mr. Mulroney green with envy. At least the Mulroney government acted like it was trying to bring spending under control, contrary to the current government.

We know what the Conservatives are proposing to do with $69 billion, but I wonder what Canadians would have used $69 billion for. Here are a couple of things that we could have done. We could have more than quadrupled all federal spending on health care and other vital social programs such as our Canada pension plan. We could have given a hefty increase to old age security and helped our seniors. We could have increased the amount of money being spent from all sources on homelessness by more than 700%, or we could have reduced the national infrastructure deficit by more than 55%. Those would have been interesting things to have done with all of that money, but that was not what was done.

Let me put it in terms as clearly as I can for people to understand who are watching. For example, in 1993, 38¢ of every dollar collected by the federal government was needed to pay the annual interest on our federal debt. Thanks to the work of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, that number plunged to just 14¢ by the time we left office.

Today, Conservatives are again increasing our debt by living off our credit cards and having the bill sent to our children and grandchildren. If they continue to overspend at the current rate, never mind the possible increase, just at the current rate today, they will have reversed all of the progress made during the 10 years of national debt repaying before the end of their current mandate. Canadians remember today all the difficulties when they were dealing with the last deficit. That is right, the federal debt is again growing, and at this moment stands at more than $493 billion. The Conservatives are planning for a deficit that is the highest in our history.

Mr. Speaker, you should also know that we divided it up so that we could figure out what your share would be. Your share of that debt, the $493 billion, would be $15,000. That is $15,000 for every man, women and child in the country, regardless of age or income. My husband and I have three married children, and combined they have five children. That makes my family's share of the debt $195,000. That is a lot of money. That $195,000 worth of debt could have nearly paid for a new home in many parts of Canada. Instead, the government is squandering it, hand over fist.

The Conservatives will say that the Liberals supported the budget, and they are right. We voted to allow them the time to get past the current recession. We have held them up for almost four years in order to move the country along. We voted many times we did not want to, but it was important to work on behalf of Canadians. We now realize that will not be possible.

Less than a year ago the Conservatives were pretending they were running a surplus. Then suddenly it was a $34 billion deficit within six months. That so-called temporary deficit became a $50 billion deficit and now they admit to a $56 billion deficit. We will see what it is next week. When will it stop? No one can believe their numbers any more and no one knows how high the balance of Conservative overspending will be. Either they are not being up front with their budgetary facts, or they are not capable of managing our nation's finances. Maybe it is a bit of both, incompetency at both levels. Either way, the current situation is unacceptable, and I will be voting to return control and prudence to our national budgetary process.

As the official opposition, we were prepared to work with the Conservatives, as I indicated earlier, but they have squandered that trust, just like they have squandered billions of hard earned tax dollars, and continue to mislead, twist and turn all of the truth that is necessary when it comes to being a responsible government. I used the word “squandered” intentionally because the Conservatives promised many things like infrastructure and job stimulus, but they have failed to deliver 88% of that money, and the little that has got out there has not got to where unemployment is the highest and the needs are the biggest but to Conservative ridings. Not Bloc, NDP or Liberal ridings, it has to be a Conservative riding first.

The Conservatives promised never to raise taxes. They brag about that all the time, but they have implemented a payroll tax of $13 billion. That is a $13 billion tax on jobs, which will clearly be a job killer, not a job implementer. This measure alone amounts to $632 in annual payroll taxes, an increase on Canadian workers, no matter how much they try to deny it. They will be forcing small businesses, that are already struggling, to pay $884 more for employees per year. And they say they do not raise taxes.

I do not think that is being responsible at all. It seems the government has forgotten the basic rules, and the Prime Minister and the finance minister have failed to be up front and honest with Canadians. They have failed to grasp even the basic fundamentals of recessionary budget management. They have failed to effectively manage a looming unemployment crisis with 459,000 people currently unemployed. The OECD is predicting another 200,000 people who will be unemployed. The Conservatives have failed to keep spending under control.

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak, to get my points on the record, and I welcome any comments. I suspect there will be a few.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

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.

I am going to briefly talk about why the NDP will be supporting the bill and then I will go on to talk about some of the other aspects of government policy.

Our support for the bill in no way implies any sort of endorsement of overall government policy. In particular, we do not endorse the Liberal-Conservative HST on which Conservatives and Liberals have banded together to try to impose on British Colombians and also on people from Ontario.

Let us be very clear from the outset. This is not an endorsement of government policy and I will actually be condemning government economic policy because it certainly has not been in the interests of most Canadians.

I will say that Bill C-51 does a number of things that we do support. First off, one element that we did support in tax policy is the home renovation tax credit, which most Canadians will be surprised to learn the government forgot to put in the original budget bill. Now the government is bringing it forward this fall retroactively.

If the NDP was not supporting the bill to get it through the House, those well-meaning Canadians who were told by the Conservatives last spring that they would have a home renovation tax credit and could renovate their homes would essentially have found that there was no home renovation tax credit in place because the Conservatives, I guess, just forgot to put it in last spring.

It is the same with the first-time home buyers tax credit. It is a tax credit that the government announced and then, I guess, simply forgot to put it forward in the budget bill that was passed last spring.

Those two measures we have supported. It would be retroactive punishment to say that the government simply did not put together the budget bill in the spring the way it should have, so now we are going to penalize the government. The NDP will be supporting the bill to get that through so that Canadians who in good faith invested thinking that the tax credit was coming will not be disadvantaged.

We are also supporting it because of the drought relief for livestock owners, the income deferral. That is a measure we do support.

Finally, there is the long-standing revenue sharing agreement with Nova Scotia, the agreement that was reneged on by the Prime Minister and the government. Obviously, since the election of an NDP government in Nova Scotia, the Conservatives realize they cannot run roughshod over the provincial government any more. Nova Scotia has a very strong premier and a majority NDP government. The Conservatives are finally rectifying their error and we support that. I do not think Nova Scotians are going to forget what the government did to Nova Scotians, but certainly it is important that that revenue sharing agreement be respected.

For those reasons we will be supporting the bill.

However, that does not imply an endorsement of overall Conservative economic policy. It certainly is not an endorsement of what anyone could call an effective Conservative public administration. In fact, I think effective Conservative public administration is an oxymoron. What we have seen from the government over the last few years is quite simply the opposite.

The impact on Canadians of the former Liberal government and the current Conservative government is very clear. Statistics Canada has just released these figures. Since 1989, under the Conservatives, and then the Liberals and then the Conservatives, most Canadian families have actually seen their real income decline. What we have under Conservatives and Liberals is essentially an economic policy that is for the few. They love corporate tax handouts, corporate tax cuts, but most Canadians have been left further and further behind.

As Statistics Canada says so clearly, the wealthiest 20%, the corporate CEOs and the corporate lawyers, now make more than half of all income in this country. Their real income has grown dramatically over the past 20 years. For all the rest, middle class families have seen their market income decline considerably, and the poorest Canadians have seen their total income decline considerably. What we have seen is essentially a shift under Liberals and Conservatives that puts money in a few hands in the hope that somehow the trickle down will magically create conditions for prosperity. That simply has not happened, which is why in this corner of the House the number of New Democrats continues to grow after each election.

More and more Canadians are realizing that these economic policies that are oriented toward corporate CEOs and corporate lawyers are not economic policies that bring prosperity to the community at large.

This brings me to the HST, the Liberal-Conservative harmonized sales tax. The Liberals and Conservatives were working together on the budget bill last spring to inflict on British Columbians and Ontarians the hated, I think it is fair to say, HST.

I am going to restrict my comments to the impact on ordinary British Columbians, because in my province the HST is particularly hated. According to most public domain polls, over 80% of British Columbians say that this is just a dumb idea. It follows along the lines of what Conservatives really believe, the trickle-down theory, shovelling lots of money, tens of billions of dollars, to the corporate sector.

The HST is a tax shift. What the Conservatives wanted to get the B.C. Liberals to do, Liberals and Conservatives working together, is essentially offer up a bribe to cut corporate taxes for the largest companies in British Columbia. They cut their taxes even further. They are now far below what exists in the United States. When we take into consideration the important subsidy to business which is our medicare system put in place by the NDP, as we know, which provides a subsidy of $3,000 per employee, according to most studies by KPMG and PriceWaterhouse, we have a lower corporate income tax than even in the United States that does not have a public health care system.

What we are doing is bringing corporate taxes for the big companies, the big banks, the big energy companies to levels that cannot sustain an effective public administration and the kinds of services that Canadians need.

The HST is another example of that. I will say that what they are trying to do in a diabolical way is have ordinary British Columbians cough up the money for this massive corporate tax cut.

This tax shift means that CEOs of the major companies, the softwood companies for example that are busy buying mills and creating jobs in Washington State and South Carolina, are getting their taxes cut, but the average British Columbian will be paying $500 a year more.

There is a corporate tax rate on the one hand and on the other, increased taxes in a whole range of other areas. If people want to take care of their health, they are going to pay more for vitamins, a 7% tax increase. Far from trying to encourage literacy and information flow, the Conservatives are imposing a 7% tax on newspapers and magazines. For movie and theatre tickets, in their ongoing attack on culture, they are increasing taxes there. Haircuts will cost more. One needs a haircut to go to work.

The Liberal-Conservative HST will have people pay 7% more for clothing, food, and meals in restaurants. I am getting lots of letters from restaurants in my riding saying to top this HST because it is going to hurt their clients. It is going to hurt their communities.

On housing, bicycles, safety equipment, transportation tickets, thanks to the Conservatives, we will be paying 7% more. For health care things like massages, children's diapers, people will have pay more. Parents who buy diapers for their kids will be paying more because of the Conservative HST.

The Liberals and the Conservatives are working together to raise taxes in over 200 different areas. The cost will be $500 more for a single British Columbian, and $2,000 more for a family of four, thanks to the Liberal-Conservative HST. It is absolutely absurd.

This is where we differ from the government. We might support this budget bill because we think it is important to bring in some of those elements, but to say that we support the government agenda in bringing in the HST, well, we very clearly do not.

This corner of the House will be fighting tooth and nail to stop this horrendous HST, this horrendous boondoggle, which essentially makes ordinary British Columbians pay hundreds of dollars a year more so the corporate cat sector can get another corporate tax break. We say no, and we are going to be voting against the HST when it comes to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spent a few terrific days up in Yukon in the first part of September, meeting with the people who run Air North, a fantastic airline.

I want to point out to the member, though, that we are dealing with Bill C-51. I did not hear any comments from him about some of the points of the bill, which include drought relief for livestock owners and a revenue-sharing agreement with Nova Scotia, which includes a $175 million payment. I did not hear him talk about the first-time homebuyers' tax credit. Nor did I hear him talk about the renovation tax credit.

I am sure he was about to get to those subjects when he ran out of time, but he has a few more minutes in which he could perhaps deal with those issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill. It is a bill that is central to the lives of Canadians.

One of the great responsibilities of the government is to deal with the needs of our citizens, with poverty, with access to health care, and with the problems of our citizens who fall through the cracks of life. It must put forward a plan for our nation in a way that ensures that Canada and Canadians are going to be at the forefront of what happens in the world, that we are able to be economically sufficient and sound, and that our social programs are going to be stable.

I would argue that the government has failed on all of these counts. Bill C-51 is an act to implement certain provisions of budget 2009. Here is a little bit of history. Earlier this year, we worked with the government to pass this bill. The bill had many things that we wanted to support, in particular, a stimulus package that we knew our nation needed because of the economic tsunami, which had been going around the world and hit our country.

There were also things in it that we vehemently opposed. The government added things to the budget bill, including a provision to tear up the arbitrated wage agreement that took place between the government and our dockyard workers. In doing this, it violated a sacred trust that it had from these workers, who worked so hard day in and day out to ensure that our men and women in the navy would be able to have the naval ships and equipment that they need to do their jobs effectively and safely.

In a slap to the face of these hard workers on the dockyard, the government arbitrarily tore up this wage agreement. We opposed this. It also put in provisions and changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Neither of these things had anything to do with the economy. However, the government chose to put it in and told us that if we tried to change any part of the bill, we would invoke an election because the government would collapse.

We in the Liberal Party felt that that would be irresponsible. For the sake of our citizens, our economy, and the jobs that we need in our country, we passed this bill with the understanding that the government would work with us to implement its provisions, particularly the stimulus package, in an effective manner.

What has happened is quite the contrary and I am going to get to that. On the management of the larger economy, a year ago the government was maintaining a mythology and frankly not telling the truth to the public. It said that we were not going to have a deficit or be in a recession when everybody knew that that was not the case at all.

Progressing forward to the end of last year, the government again claimed that we would have a balanced budget. In December the government admitted for the first time that it would run a deficit of $20 billion to $30 billion. In January budget 2009 showed a $34 billion deficit. In June it had ballooned to $50 billion. In September the Minister of Finance came out to Victoria, one of the furthest reaches of our country, to announce that the deficit had ballooned to $56 billion and that the government did not have a plan to deal with it.

That was what the Minister of Finance of Canada did when he came to Victoria. That is not leadership because it also means that the government has lost control over the public purse. In doing so, it has failed in one of its primary obligations as a government, which is to be a good steward of public money.

The government cannot tell Canadians that it does not have a plan to pay down the deficit and get the country's finances in order. That is not leadership. Frankly, it is a violation of its duty to the Canadians of today and their children, who will be paying off this growing debt long into the future.

The government must come up with a deficit reduction plan to get the country's finances in order. We have been asking for it and we will work with the government. The mythology exists out there that somehow the Conservatives are good stewards and the Liberals are not. However, history bears out a very different story.

If one looks back to the 1990s, the country was embroiled in massive deficits and a ballooning debt. The country's bond rating was declining and we were going the way of Argentina.

The then Liberal finance minister, Paul Martin, and the then Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien, got together to put forth some tough medicine to pursue a balanced budget, which took place in the later part of the 1990s and then we had surplus budgets after that.

A contingency plan was put in place for rainy days, but the government spent right through that contingency plan when things were good. Why did it do that? Why did the Prime Minister do two things that were reminiscent of another leader, George Bush. President Bush lowered taxes and increased spending. Remarkably, our Prime Minister has done the same thing. When times were good, he lowered taxes and increased spending, wiping out the contingency fund and putting us right to the brink of a deficit budget during the good times. When things turned bad, we were pushed into the massive deficits we have today. That is merely a statement of the facts.

I have to point out the failure of the government to introduce a deficit reduction plan, which is one of the most pressing needs of our country today. There is also an issue of how do we plan the future? How do we ensure that Canada will be economically competitive for the next two decades? This is a challenge and a responsibility, regardless of who happens to be in government. Here are some of the challenges: investments; tax changes; reducing the tax burden on the poor and the middle class; investing in education; investing in infrastructure; investing in reducing trade barriers, particularly the interprovincial trade barriers that are a larger burden than those we have with our major trading partner south of the border; expanding trade opportunities with the BRIC countries, particularly India, and we have a large diaspora here in Canada.

There is no vision whatsoever in this area. Why is that so? Because the government has a small vision. The Prime Minister operates his government with an iron fist over his members of Parliament, his cabinet and the public service. It demoralizes the public service and the control that he has over his MPs means that they are not being allowed to exercise their abilities to the fullest. The people of our country pay the price for this. This is one of the grave problems we have, and that leads to the democratic deficit we have in our country today. The problem is that it chokes off innovation, and without innovation we cannot grow our country and we cannot ensure that our country will be competitive.

Let me put forth some of the challenges that the government is failing to face, and it must: first, the long-term economic plan for our country; second, dealing with the demographic time bomb that will threaten everything from our economy to our social programs; third, child care, a national head start program. Our party put forth a national head start child care program for our country that was supported by all of the provinces. The government burnt that. Fourth, defence, we need a long-term procurement process to deal with rust out; fifth, the environment, we are going to Copenhagen at the end of this year. Is there a plan from the government? No, there is not. We need to have a credible plan from Canada to deal with climate change.

Sixth, what plan does the government have with respect to Canada's role in the world? There is a responsibility to protect in times of crisis, but there is no obligation to act. We have a judicial framework with no enforcement mechanism. Canada led on the responsibility to protect when the Liberals were in power. The government needs to see that Canada has a larger role to play and must stop choking off the funds for our foreign affairs department. Foreign affairs has had the stuffing beaten out of it by the government and frankly does not believe that it has much of a role to play.

Seventh, infrastructure, for heaven's sake, put the infrastructure where it is needed, based on merit. In my province of British Columbia the government has put four times the amount of money for infrastructure in their own ridings versus those which are not government-held ridings. It has also neglected to get the moneys out the door and 50% of the moneys so far have been spent.

The government has a challenge on its hands. We are ready to take over to provide that leadership. The Conservatives should just give up and let us have that chance.

The House resumed from October 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 second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we no longer have confidence in this government.

Nonetheless, the Bloc Québécois is a responsible party and Bill C-51 contains proposals that the Bloc Québécois itself made. I gave the example of the home renovations. It is for that reason that we are supporting Bill C-51.

However, as we have said in the House before, it is clear that the Conservative government has done very little to support our workers during the economic crisis in the past few months.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-51.

This bill implements the home renovation tax credit, a measure inspired by the proposals in the two plans the Bloc Québécois proposed to this House.

Bill C-51 introduces a first time homebuyers' tax credit, a measure inspired by the Bloc Québécois' most recent election platform. That is why we support this bill.

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

Bill C-51 amends the Canada pension plan, from which Quebec is excluded, based on consultations with the provinces involved.

Bill C-51 acts 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, as an NDP member said here in the House.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill. We will not be like the Liberals, who voted for this budget even though they were supposedly against it and who vote against measures they agree with. Logically, we will support our proposals in these budget measures and vote in favour of this bill.

The Bloc Québécois supports the measures in this bill, which is not at all to say that it has confidence in this government. The federal government's overall plan to tackle the recession is not good enough and misses the mark. We have criticized it many times in this House. That is why we opposed the budget that was tabled in the House. However, because the measures in Bill C-51 are acceptable to Quebec, the Bloc Québécois, true to its responsible attitude and its mission to defend Quebeckers' interests, will support this bill. We always work to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

Although the measures in this bill may be a small step forward, the Conservative government still does not have an environmental plan with a 21st century vision, and its record on economic issues is terrible. I would like to focus on this matter for a few minutes.

The Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, deliberately ignore the needs of Quebec and its citizens. These Canadian parties make their decisions in Calgary or Toronto, to protect their interests, even when they conflict with the interests of Quebec.

I am thinking, for example, of struggling economic sectors like the forestry industry and the manufacturing sector, which are not receiving the same handouts that are being given to Ontario's auto industry and western oil companies. Yet the Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec supported the last budget, which went against the needs and interests of Quebeckers.

Regarding the budget presented in this House, I am also thinking of the thousands of workers affected by the recession who will not receive employment insurance and who cannot have greater access to the system, even though they worked for many weeks. Over 50% of people who work do not have access to the employment insurance system.

I am thinking of our seniors, who are still being shortchanged by the federal government and its guaranteed income supplement.

I am thinking of the fight against greenhouse gases, which, in any case, must not harm the big oil companies, even though it prevents Quebec from properly equipping itself to move forward in the economy of the 21st century, the post-petroleum economy. My colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, a passionate environmentalist, often talks about this in his speeches.

There is nothing in this budget to support an economy based on sustainable development, to ensure that all Quebeckers and Canadians, and everyone in the world, have a better and healthier environment.

The government's plan to pay down the federal deficit did not go over well in Quebec. The government needs to find good ways to eliminate the federal deficit, without making the lower and middle classes pay. The federal government is racking up a deficit yet again, and the Conservatives and Liberals are not telling people what they plan on doing to bring back a balanced budget. In fact, just like the Liberals before them, the Conservatives promised not to increase taxes. But, just like the Liberals, they decided to secretly increase employment insurance contributions to make workers pay for the deficit. The Conservative government plans on taking more than $18.9 billion from the EI fund between 2012 and 2015. It is shameful to be stealing that money from the unemployed, from the least fortunate, the most vulnerable people in this country. It is shocking to make these people and middle-class people pay, while banks, big oil companies and the privileged keep getting richer, since they avoid paying taxes by using tax havens. Banks can save more than $2 billion a year by using tax havens. Nothing is being done to stop this.

What can we say about the measures implemented by Ottawa to save the big oil companies $9 billion over the next three years? They are scandalous.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-51. However, I say in all sincerity that our support for this government is tenuous. The Bloc Québécois rejects the Liberal-Conservative approach to deficit reduction that takes aim at the middle class, the disadvantaged and Quebec while protecting the privileged. The Bloc Québécois is proposing a plan to cut the deficit that, in the end, would result in an annual cushion of $16 billion and that would not be achieved at the expense of Quebec's middle class.

First, the Bloc plan proposes to reduce expenditures without eliminating a single program, unlike what the Liberals did in the 1990s. Their cuts to health and education transfers left Quebeckers high and dry. We do not want that to be done in this House again.

The federal government has lost control over its bureaucratic expenditures and so, through attrition, it could reduce the size of its public service. Between 1980 and 1998, the federal government's operating expenses rose by 74%.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois proposes to increase taxes for big oil companies, corporations and banks. Military expenditures should be scaled back slightly and the focus should finally be placed on the people who have lost their jobs and on economic recovery, support for the forestry sector, which is in crisis in Quebec, and support for the manufacturing sector. We have to move towards sustainable development, a greener economy and more investment in this type of economy. As for the infrastructure programs proposed by the Conservatives, that money must go to the ridings. As we know, under the plan recently introduced by the Conservative Party, there is still a lot of money that has to get to our ridings in order to upgrade our infrastructure.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we have to talk about Bill C-51 and also talk about the implications if it is not passed.

This is a minority government. I heard a great man once say that we can “get by with a little help from our friends”. It is important that we work together.

My colleague pointed out that the Liberals are not talking to anyone. We know they are not talking to each other. We saw that with the member for Bourassa in Quebec and the weakness of his leader in refusing to discipline him.

I want to ask my colleague why the Liberals do not listen to Canadians. Canadians clearly do not want an election. They would like the Liberals to support our government and get on with the economy and with fighting this recession. Why are they not listening to Canadians?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually agree with my hon. colleague. The regretful thing is I had only 10 minutes. I thought we would have had at least 20 or more to speak to this legislation.

Bill C-51 and all of the implications of such are comprehensive. They cover almost every segment and aspect of the economy from one end to the other, whether it is in Nova Scotia, of whether it is our agricultural producers. Everybody is going to be impacted by this.

I am actually blown away that the Liberal opposition could suggest that this legislation is not important.

Here is the thing that really confuses me. The Liberal leader suggested that after the election he would pass the bill, yet we are sitting here waiting for an election that the Liberals have on their minds. If the bill is good enough to pass after an election, why is it not good enough to pass before an election? Why delay the income and those dollars going out to all of the people who desperately need them in all the fields, from agriculture to environment, to social needs, to farmers, to small businesses, to the regular mom and pop.

The member's point is well taken. The focus should definitely not be on five, 10 or 20 years ago, but on the impact of Bill C-51 today on every Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a lot of speeches today and I have been looking for some information about Bill C-51.

I have yet to find anybody other than maybe one speaker all day who has talked about drought relief for livestock owners, which is part of Bill C-51.

I have heard maybe only one speaker all day talk about the revenue-sharing agreement with Nova Scotia, which includes a $175 million payment, which is part of Bill C-51.

I have heard only one or two speakers all day talk about the first-time home buyers' tax credit and more so the home renovation tax credit program.

I am just wondering why we cannot confine our questions and speeches to the subject at hand, which is Bill C-51.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to Bill C-51. With regard to the CPP amendments, the bill offers greater flexibility and choice for people approaching retirement years. It would reduce incentives for early retirement and increase incentives to stay longer in the workforce. It would improve the averaging formula and would boost pensions below the maximum. There are also voluntary contributions for post-65 claimants allowed for secure pension enhancement to age 70.

There are some flaws to this. It does not amount to a significant increase in security for seniors. More important, at least 30% of Canadians are still without retirement savings.

I know the government is doing a study into the whole pension issue. Could the member enlighten us as to the future plans for pension improvement?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand here today and speak in support of Bill C-51, the economic recovery act.

Before I start illuminating many of the reasons why this bill deserves the support of all members of this place, «i will first add to the chorus of congratulations we heard many times throughout the day in stating the fact that our finance minister, the member for Whitby--Oshawa, has received a very prestigious award from an organization called Euromoney magazine, an international magazine that has been around for about 27 years. It is a real earmark and spokesmodel for the economic climate worldwide. I want to say that for the first time in 27 years since this award has been handed out, we have a Canadian finance minister who has won the prestigious award of finance minister of the year.

I wanted to point that out because there is a real strong reason for that. It means that the world is watching Canada with great envy as we deal with this global economic crisis that has seized almost every industrialized nation in the world, which is one of the many reasons that our finance minister won this very prestigious award.

Why should our finance minister have won this? There are very good reasons. The economic recovery act speaks to the implementation of many of the temporary stimulus measures that we brought forward to combat this global recession, things such as the homeowner's tax improvement credit and the first-time home buyers' credit. These temporary measures are meant to kickstart our economy and get our economy back on track.

Where other industrialized nations throughout the world are struggling, our economy seems to be showing signs of recovery and that is due in large part to the chief architect, our finance minister.

I also want to say that we could not pass this legislation without the support of other members and other parties in this House. Therefore, I really do want to quite sincerely congratulate, applaud and thank our colleagues in the New Democratic Party for offering their support when this legislation comes before the House for a vote. I must say that it is a bit of a surprise but a very good surprise because on many occasions in the past, at least 79 times, the New Democratic Party has opposed every initiative that we have brought forward.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think you will remember, as I do and members opposite remember, when we brought down our budget in January, the New Democratic Party said that it would oppose the budget without even reading it. Something has changed but I do not know what that is. Perhaps it is because it had an epiphany. Perhaps it has just discovered that our government is handling our economy with great due diligence. I want to thank our colleagues in the New Democratic Party for finally seeing the light in agreeing with us that our approach to managing Canada's economy is the correct approach.

I wish, on the other hand, that many of the members of other political parties in opposition would take the same approach, a considered and studied approach that the NDP has taken, to closely examine what we are attempting to do and in fact take a close look at the accomplishments that we have made over the course of the last several months. If they did, I am sure they would join the chorus of NDP members who have stood in this House, applauded our recovery efforts and said, quite clearly and quite graphically, that they will be supporting this legislation when it comes to a vote.

Once again, on behalf of all of us on the government side of the House, I applaud and congratulate members of the NDP for finally seeing the light when it comes to what is required to stimulate an economy that has been in trouble.

Before my closing remarks, I want to point out a few things that perhaps members of the Liberal opposition should recognize. Canadians at this point in time, in the midst of an economic recession, do not want to see an unwanted and unnecessary election. I beseech the members opposite to pay careful attention to this because if other members of this House, particularly members of the Liberal Party, paid careful attention to some of the information we were gleaning from polling companies, they would find out that Canadians do not want an election. However, members of the Liberal Party, the official opposition, seem bent on forcing this election upon Canadians who desperately want to concentrate on getting our economy back on track.

I can honestly say from our standpoint that we have no intention and no desire to enter into an election at this time.

When we examine the polling numbers of all major polling firms in Canada, the great irony is that it seems that only one party would benefit if an election were held today and that is the Conservative Party, and yet we are the only party that has consistently said that we do not want an election. The reason we do not want an election is that we understand the need to concentrate on economic recovery. That is all we want to do right now. The economy is fragile. Yes, it has shown strong signs of recovery but we are not there yet.

We will still face some heartache and some hardship. Unemployment numbers will continue to be higher than we want. We understand that but we also understand that as a Parliament we need to work together to focus on economic recovery and put in place elements of our economic action plan that will help stimulate the economy.

The stimulus package that we are talking about today is temporary in nature. We are only looking at a two year window but it dovetails nicely with the ongoing efforts that our government has made to keep taxes down, to create a regulatory environment that attracts new business into Canada. I think we have done that.

A good shining example of what we have been doing to attract business to this country is the recent announcement that Tim Hortons, a Canadian institution, an icon, is coming back to Canada to set up its worldwide operations. Why? It is because this government understands the reasons that businesses want to come to Canada, or to any other jurisdiction for that matter, to do business and that is lower taxes and an understanding government that wants to promote economic achievement.

For too many years, in fact for 13 long, dark years, the previous Liberal government did not understand that fundamental truism, and so taxes rose. The Liberals drove companies out of Canada to other jurisdictions worldwide where they could find a better tax regime. Now we are finding that companies want to come back to Canada. They want to open up their shops in Canada and do business in Canada, and that is because of the vision of our Prime Minister and our finance minister.

We may hear opposition members yelp, complain, whine and catcall, but the reality is that Canadians understand that this government is acting in their best interests.

Business leaders, both small and large, understand that our government wants to lead the world in terms of economic recovery. We want to lead the world in terms of giving businesses an opportunity to create employment opportunities for their people.

This, in simplistic terms, is what the economic action plan is all about. It is a plan to attract businesses, to increase jobs, to increase employment and to ensure that Canadians can feel the strong effects of our efforts to improve their lives on a day to day basis.

Let us not forget that in the first four years of our government we have reduced the GST by two full points. We are on the way to reducing business tax to the lowest level of most of the G20 countries. In fact, by 2012 or 2015 at least, we should have a combined personal and corporate income tax of 25%. That would be so much of an attraction to businesses to open up their shops in Canada and also be of benefit to average Canadians who want to take more of their hard-earned wages back home with them, put it in their pockets and spend it so they can put it back into the economy.

However, what we cannot afford at this time is an election. We cannot afford to destroy the good work that this government has done over the past several months to get Canada into a position where we will come out of the recession stronger than we have ever been before. That is because of the vision of our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that in Bill C-51 there is a provision dealing with a first time home buyers' tax credit, which is being introduced on a permanent basis. Yet, we have what is a very popular home renovation tax credit system, which was brought in on a one time basis only.

Seeing as how the government has invested huge amounts of money advertising this program, maybe more than all the taxes that people are going to save in the entire program, I would suggest the government announce an extension of this program so that Canadians can have the benefit of this program on a long-term basis.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

That is right. Canadians' federal tax dollars are hard at work buying them a big fat provincial tax increase. No wonder voter cynicism and apathy is so high. Canadians are rightly asking themselves whether anyone is committed to making Parliament work for them.

I am proud to say that New Democrats are doing just that. We are absolutely committed to making Parliament work for the seniors who built this country and for the hard-working families who need their government's help to survive this devastating recession.

I ran for public office because I wanted to fight for residents of Hamilton Mountain and to stand up for our community. Before I was elected, we had a government MP representing us for 13 years. Yet, the concerns of our riding were rarely articulated and even more seldomly acted upon by the government. While some may believe it is important to elect an MP from the government side, our experience in Hamilton Mountain suggests the opposite. Instead of electing a yes person to the Prime Minister, Hamilton Mountain residents know that it is much more likely that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I take that responsibility seriously and I am proud to stand up for my community. That is why my very first motion in the House was on comprehensive reform on seniors' issues. It dealt with everything from income security to health care to drug costs to safe and affordable housing, and for lifelong opportunities for learning and recreation. I was thrilled when that motion passed in the House. In fact, I am delighted to see that some of the principles embodied in that motion are now reflected in the bill that is before us today.

The amendments to the Canada pension plan in Bill C-51 clearly enhance the income security of seniors, particularly those who want or need to collect their CPP before the age of 65.

Similarly, I had the privilege of tabling a motion on comprehensive EI reform in the spring of this year. That motion too passed in the House. In Ontario, where the recession has hit the manufacturing sector particularly hard, the ripple effect of job losses has impacted workers in the biggest plants and in the smallest of businesses. Those workers are the truly innocent victims of this recession and they deserve the government's help.

Some say that the latest round of EI reforms brought forward by the government was not enough, and that is absolutely right. However, it will help over 180,000 laid off workers and, by extension, their families. How could I not support that?

It reminds me of the story of the man walking along a beach. The sun was shining and it was a beautiful day. Off in the distance he could see a girl going back and forth between the surf's edge and the beach. Back and forth this child went, picking up a starfish and throwing it into the water. As the man approached, he could see that there were thousands of starfish stranded on the sand as a result of the natural action of the tide. The man was struck by the apparent futility of the task. There were far too many starfish. Many of them were sure to perish.

As he approached, the girl continued the task of picking up starfish one by one and throwing them into the surf. As he came up to her he said, “You must be crazy. There are thousands of miles of beach covered with starfish. You can't possibly make a difference”. The girl looked at the man, stooped down, picked up one more starfish and threw it back into the ocean. She turned back to the man and said, “It sure made a difference to that one”.

That is what working in Parliament is like. We do not always win every fight, but we will lose them all if we are not even in them. Often, even the smallest victory makes a profoundly positive difference for thousands of Canadians. That is why, lost in all of the partisanship that drives the media coverage of this place, much of the really productive work on behalf of our constituents goes largely unnoticed.

Many observers were surprised last week that New Democrats would vote in support of a government motion. The inference was that it was unprecedented in the House. Despite the fact that I am as fiercely partisan as any other member in the House, I have actually voted with the Conservatives 37 times on government legislation and I am going to do it again on this bill. The test for me is simply whether the matter before the House is good public policy.

When we had to put an end to the Liberals' election financing run amok, I voted with the government to improve accountability after the sponsorship scandal. When we had the opportunity to deal more effectively with criminals convicted of offences involving firearms, I voted with the government.

When we established the Public Health Agency of Canada, I voted with the government. When we amended the Youth Criminal Justice Act, I voted with the government. When we protected the safety and security of Canadians with respect to human pathogens and toxins, I voted with the government and I did it again when we amended the Employment Insurance Act to increase benefits. To me, that is the essence of good representation.

Yes, it is the role of opposition parties to oppose and expose the weaknesses of government proposals in debate, but we are doing that because we are motivated by wanting to effect change that will improve the lives of our constituents. That is how we make Parliament work. It is by voting in favour of good public policy and against flawed pieces of legislation. Because no bill is ever perfect, sometimes members have to weigh the pros and cons in making their decisions.

The bill before us today is a case in point. I support the first part, as I have outlined. Some of the changes to the CPP are not just welcome but overdue. The extension of the CBC's borrowing limit is something that New Democrats have been advocating for months. The housekeeping amendments on other items in the bill are necessary, albeit not remarkable.

The only clause that gives me pause is the one relating to the Bretton Woods agreement and I want to reserve my right to speak against that at a later time. As always, the devil is in the details and when it comes to amendments proposed by the International Monetary Fund, due diligence demands closer scrutiny.

Again, we cannot pick and choose which parts of this bill we support and which we oppose. Our role in the House is to cast a straight up and down yes or no vote and, taken on the whole, I am proud to support this bill on behalf of my constituents.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-51. I will not surprise anyone in the House by saying that NDP members will be voting in favour of the bill. The entire first part of the bill implements the ways and means motion that we supported in the House just last month.

In particular, I want to highlight the inclusion in the bill of the first time home buyers' tax credit and the home renovation tax credit. Both of these measures have been well received in communities right across the country, and although it may be hard to believe inside the bubble of Ottawa, most Canadians had actually thought that the home renovation tax credit had been enacted long ago. Why else, after all, would the government be spending so many tax dollars promoting this program on television and on those big envelopes it is distributing for saving receipts?

Canadians did what their government asked of them. They stimulated their local economies by investing in home renovations, assured by their government that they would be eligible for a tax credit if they spent the money before February 1 of next year.

Let us not kid ourselves, voting against this tax credit now, after our constituents have spent their money in good faith, would be victimizing them yet again during the worst recession since the Great Depression. My constituents deserve better. All constituents deserve better. When I tell them that I am here to make Parliament work for them, I will walk that talk by voting in favour of this measure. No, it is not good enough to vote against this measure now and say we will implement it later, just look at what is ahead on the horizon.

In the 2009-10 provincial budget, the McGuinty Liberals announced that they would be harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the federal government's goods and services tax, effective July 1, 2010. This is terrible news for Ontarians because many items that we need and use every single day, from gas and electricity to newspapers and the Internet will now be subject to a full 8% tax increase at the point of purchase. It will also be charged on all labour costs incurred during home renovations. If the home renovation tax credit is delayed, any benefit from the program will largely be eaten up by the increased tax burden of the HST.

While I am on the HST, let me add this. This blatant tax grab might never have happened had the federal Conservative government not bribed its provincial Liberal counterparts to introduce it. Apparently Dalton McGuinty was reluctant to introduce such an unfair tax during this recession, so the federal finance minister urged him along by offering the Ontario government an additional $4.3 billion of federal tax money to introduce this new tax increase.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry.

The Leader of the Bloc Québécois is always willing to appear at events and gatherings, where he is received with all the respect Quebeckers owe him as a man of integrity who defends them day after day.

Clearly, it is to the advantage of Quebec, the Bloc Québécois and all Quebeckers to have a leader with a team of members, men and women who come into this House every day not to defend their own interests or the salary they make, but to defend the interests of their constituents.

It is sad that there are Quebeckers in the other three political parties in this House who think only of their own interests, with no thought to the interests of their constituents and their fellow Quebeckers. It is sad, but it is a fact. One day, history will catch up to all the parties, because these successive minority governments will be analyzed. In my opinion, we have not seen the last of minority governments.

Last week, we were looking at the situation in Germany, the most powerful economy in Europe, which once again elected as chancellor a party leader who will have to forge alliances in order to be able to govern. Canada is lagging behind once again because too many members of this House think only of themselves and never spare a thought for their constituents. That is the reality.

Bill C-51 contains two measures that are important to the Bloc Québécois. These measures were among our demands when we presented our recovery plans to the government. Moreover, the Minister of Finance congratulated us and told us that we were the only party in Ottawa that dared to table its plan. He even rose in the House to call on the other parties to follow the Bloc's example. We had called for a renovation tax credit, and our most recent election platform included a tax credit for first-time home buyers. Obviously, we are pleased that these measures are included in Bill C-51.

As the leader of the Bloc Québécois said, we are not foolish, and when we ask for something, we are prepared to support it. When we do not like something, and when Quebeckers do not like something, we will not support it, and we will never hesitate to vote against a budget like the last one, which was not in the interests of Quebeckers, quite simply because it focused on the automotive industry and ignored the forestry industry. It was the same story when the Conservatives introduced the last bill on EI reform, which focused on the automotive industry, and did absolutely nothing to help the forestry sector and part of the Quebec economy.

When the government talks about full-time workers and has the audacity to describe as “long tenured workers” people who have not received more than 35 weeks of employment insurance in the past five years, the government is being very hard on workers in the agriculture, forestry, tourism and fishery industries, who are also long tenured workers and who have given their lives to develop the economy.

The forestry, fishery and agriculture sectors existed long before the oil sector. This is what happens. The Conservative government gives guarantees and assistance to the oil industry. Oil is a non-renewable resource. What will happen when we run out? In Quebec, there will still be forests.

Once again, Quebeckers are happy that members from Quebec in the House of Commons did not all support what the Conservatives proposed, which was to diversify the economy and to get rid of the entire forestry sector, by trying to transfer these workers to other sectors.

The Conservatives even had the gall to propose assistance to have these workers transferred and trained in other regions. I know that the oil sands industry needs workers, but I dream of my constituents not having to work in western Canada. I hope that I will once again be responsible and respectful towards my constituents by demanding that they be able to stay in their regions, where they were born, and that their children and grandchildren have that same opportunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to address Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.

In the few minutes I have to speak, I will try to outline the interests of the various political parties regarding this budget matter, for the benefit of those watching us. The Bloc Québécois, true to its commitment to defend the interests and values of Quebeckers, rises every day in this House in order to do so. I am proud of this, because it allows us to properly assess every bill, motion and budget or budgetary measure brought forward by the government or the opposition parties, in the interest of Quebeckers.

I would like to go over the measures proposed by the Conservative Party in Bill C-51, along with their context. Indeed, since Parliament resumed, all of the decisions made by the political parties of this House, apart from the Bloc Québécois, have been made based on the possibility of an election. Understandably, the members of a party like the Bloc Québécois, who choose to vote every day in the interest of Quebeckers, do not have to worry about saving their seats. We are here to defend the values and interests of Quebeckers. That is what differentiates us from the other parties of this House.

Bill C-51 has been introduced by the Conservatives. Again, as soon as the House resumed in September, the Conservatives had to prove to the rest of Canada, in case there was a federal election, that they do not always introduce unpopular measures. Therefore they decided to introduce Bill C-51. That makes sense when your only objective is to get as many votes as possible, which is what the Conservatives want. In light of an impending election, they decided to introduce a bill to implement what they had already announced in the budget. Analysts were not fooled by this either. Some of these measures did not require a bill in order to be implemented. The government could have handled that itself. This bill is a purely partisan and political tactic.

Bill C-51 proposes the implementation of the renovation tax credit. This is clearly a measure inspired by proposals in both of the Bloc Québécois' stimulus plans. Again, we were the only responsible party that, before each of the government's budgets or budgetary announcements, always submitted proposals, requests and plans to deal with this crisis. The Bloc Québécois has always been responsible and has always worked hard. This week we proposed measures to achieve a balanced budget. Yesterday, our party proposed measures to eliminate the huge deficit the Conservative government is racking up. Other speakers will have a chance to have their say on this in the House.

We proposed these measures during a press conference because we are responsible and because we are probably the most informed party around, and we always represent the interests of Quebeckers. We were the ones who asked for the home renovation tax credit. In the words of the leader of the Bloc Québécois, it would be foolish of us not to vote in favour of the very measures that we proposed.

The second measure is a first time homebuyers' tax credit. In its last platform, the Bloc Québécois proposed a first time homebuyer's tax credit. We did so because Quebec has had programs to support first time homebuyers and they were very popular. They helped Quebec recover from, not this crisis, but the recession in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The Bloc Québécois saw the crisis coming. You will remember that the Leader of the Bloc was the only candidate in the 2008 election campaign to predict a recession and to state that something had to be done immediately.

The first time homebuyers' tax credit was in our election platform. The government decided to implement it. Once again, in the words of the Leader of the Bloc Québécois, it would be foolish to vote against it.

Bill C-51 will also implement Canada's international commitments to the IMF, which were signed in 2008. This agreement has already been signed. It makes sense to ratify it and to have legislation to be able to implement these provisions.

The fourth measure is amending the Canada pension plan. Quebec is excluded as it has its own pension plan. These amendments are based on consultations with the provinces concerned, excluding Quebec. Once again, Quebec continues to be a leader in many, and I would say the majority, of Canada's assistance programs. Quebec is always the leader. We solved the pension problem a long time ago. Once again, we cannot oppose a measure discussed by the other Canadian provinces. For those who accuse us of always opposing what is happening in Canada, we say that if it is a good thing for Canadians, then good for them. We cannot oppose that. Especially since Quebec already has its own plan. No problem there.

The fifth measure will 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. That obviously affects Nova Scotia. Good for them. They seem pleased. The members from Nova Scotia seem pleased with this measure. We cannot oppose this measure.

That is why we will support Bill C-51. However, I will repeat that this bill was introduced by the Conservatives for purely partisan reasons, because there was a serious chance of an election. They wanted to show Canadians that they had proposed interesting measures in their last budget. But this bill only covers some of them. It only implements part of what they proposed in their last budget, which we were completely against.

I am bringing up our position, because I am trying to understand the Liberals' position. The Liberals supported the last budget, and these measures were part of the last budget. They decided that they were against Bill C-51, again, for purely partisan reasons.

The Liberals did not think about the interests of Canadians and even less about the interests of Quebeckers. After their caucus meeting this summer, they decided that they would no longer support the government. No matter what happened, no matter what the government introduced, good or bad, the Liberals decided they would be against it. We see how that turned out for them. They are in the process of self-destructing. That is a very Liberal way of doing things. They had already started to self-destruct with the sponsorship scandal, and nothing has changed. It is going well. In any case, it is fun to watch. But it is not fun for democracy when there are political parties and members in this House that represent their constituents and think only about protecting their seat.

That is what the Conservatives were doing with this measure. The Liberal strategy has been to bring down the government at all costs. They should have thought about this a little more carefully. The political parties each have their own way of doing things, their own pollsters, analysts and focus groups. It is all very complicated now. I have the good fortune of being the Bloc's chief organizer in Quebec, and I must say, engaging in politics has become a real science. In that regard, the leader of the Liberal Party will definitely not pass the test. He may have studied at Harvard, but he did not study politics. That is politics 101. The way things are done on the ground, he definitely has not done that. Nevertheless, the Liberals have decided to vote against Bill C-51.

As I have already said, they voted for the budget and these measures represent the best parts of the budget that was passed. It is impossible to understand the Liberals. They do not understand themselves, and that is a serious problem.

As for the members of the NDP, they opposed the budget. They have now decided to support this measure, probably for the same reasons we did. That is fine for them, except that they changed their minds because they decided to support this government at all costs, since opposing the budget. Once again, it is only to serve their own personal interests, since they realize they probably would not have too many seats left if an election were called. Naturally, they are doing everything they can to save their own skin.

So they decided to support all of the Conservatives' proposed measures. I can understand why they would support this one because it is the best one.

The employment insurance measure, however, is terrible. I was here, waiting patiently. People know that I am often in the House of Commons. The Conservatives were at least honest about the bill to amend employment insurance, whose goal is clearly to help Ontario's auto sector. Of that there can be no doubt. What the people from Ontario said was right. They defended the auto sector.

Let us review the measure in the new employment insurance bill. Long-tenured workers who have not collected more than 35 weeks of employment insurance benefits over the past five years will get 15 to 20 weeks of extra benefits. That is the new measure. The forestry sector will obviously not be covered by this measure, which will only help people in industries that were doing well before the crisis. That does not include the forestry sector, which has been in crisis for five years now. The Conservatives have abandoned forestry workers to their crisis and their misery. They chose to invest their money in the auto sector instead.

The NDP may have decided to forget about Quebec and the Maritimes and concentrate on Ontario by supporting this employment insurance bill. Not only are they supporting it, but worse still, they plan to support all government measures until this bill goes through, which will probably be in the spring. The NDP will most likely try to stretch out the process for this bill until the next budget is introduced.

That is how the other parties play politics, but that is not how the Bloc Québécois does things. We have always been very respectful of the voters. We stay in touch with our constituents every day. We know that if the Conservatives had put as much effort into helping the forestry industry, which has been in crisis for five years, as they have into helping the auto sector, the forestry industry crisis would be a thing of the past and the sector would now be supporting the entire Canadian economy.

The Conservatives probably did not concern themselves with that because the bulk of the industry is in Quebec. It is a political choice.

However, it is hard to watch Conservative members from Quebec day after day staunchly defend the Conservative Party plan. They stand up and defend the plan. The last report tabled by the government shows that $9.6 billion was spent in the automobile sector, while $70 million was promised to the forestry sector, of which $57 million was spent. They are all pleased. They applaud all that like good soldiers. It is easy to see why their numbers will not go up in the next election. They wonder why. They need only to look in the mirror to understand that they are not defending the interests of Quebeckers in the House. They are defending Canadian interests, as they like to say.

Nonetheless, they forget that the forestry industry existed long before the oil industry. They are denying their own origins. It is true: the forestry sector built the Canada of today, starting with Quebec. Those Quebeckers never hesitate to deny their origins. It is quite extraordinary, but there you have it. It was one of our ancestors who opened the door to the English on the Plains of Abraham. That is a daily occurrence these days. It is hard to watch Quebeckers from other political parties put their personal interests above the collective interest.

I think it is quite honourable of the Quebeckers in the Bloc Québécois to never hesitate, day after day, to put their seat on the line. They do not do so for their own interests, but for the interests of Quebeckers. It is so simple and it confounds the political experts: why is the Bloc Québécois so popular in Quebec? Because it is the only party that does not deny its origins. We try, day after day, to defend the interests of Quebeckers. We are transparent. You can read us like a book. Our leader, Gilles Duceppe, is doing an excellent job. He never hesitates to stand before any crowd, anywhere in Quebec, and even in the rest of Canada—

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure once again to rise and speak to Canada's economic recovery legislation.

Members may recall that just before the break I was talking about important provisions to improve the Canada pension plan. As I said earlier, the Liberals have already indicated that they are going to vote against this. If they do not support improvements to the CPP, just going along with their direction in question period, if not, why not? Who could stand against improvements to the CPP? These recommended reforms are incredibly important.

Mr. Finn Poschmann, a significant individual from the C.D. Howe Institute, has given these adjustments high marks. He said:

The proposed adjustments mark an important sea change in government pension policy approach to dealing with population aging and, in particular, making it easier for those people who want to work later in life to do so.

TD Bank's chief economist, Don Drummond, also said that this is a “positive development as it provides further options for Canadians in the tail end of their working careers”.

These are the things people are saying about the reforms to CPP that our government has brought forward. These reforms are in our economic recovery legislation. This is what Bill C-51 is about.

The Liberal Party has indicated that it is not too concerned with economic recovery. The Liberals are not too concerned with supporting Bill C-51 because they are more concerned about forcing an election that nobody wants. That is reprehensible.

I am quite surprised with the number of things the Liberal Party has voted against. The Liberals voted last week against the implementation of the home renovation tax credit. Thousands of Canadians from coast to coast--

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.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

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

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

Maclean's states:

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

I congratulate her very publicly for that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

I am rising today to speak to Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures. I would like to speak to a few of the policies that are covered by this piece of legislation. I am going to focus on a couple of items in this legislation, in particular, payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for offshore petroleum resources, the CBC, the home renovation tax credit, and if there is time, changes to the CPP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member for Burlington, I enjoyed the speech from the member for Mississauga South.

I have noticed that he does not necessarily follow the Liberal line and the Liberal caucus on a number of bills. I know on Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia trade act, he has some independent thought on it as he has on some other bills. I admire him for stepping out of the box a little and not blindly following his caucus. As well, he was the only Liberal member not to say how he would vote on the bill. He spent some time talking about the issue of relevance.

I appreciate the fact that there is some latitude given here, but the members have to deal with Bill C-51 at some point during their speeches. That is what we are dealing with at this point.

I suspect he is like the person looking through the department store window. He really wants to be on this side on this issue, but he has to stand up to his caucus and say so.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all understand that the Liberal leader has lost confidence in the Conservative government, but based on the ramblings of the member's speech, I think the Liberals have lost confidence in the integrity of Canadians, which is very shameful. Indeed I doubt that they ever had confidence in us.

However, the issue now before the House is the current bill, Bill C-51, which addresses the economic recovery for Canada.

The Liberal leader says he would enact these measures but only after an election. The fate of Bill C-51 is not in question. It is going to pass.

Why will the Liberal members not demonstrate their resolve to get Canada moving as quickly as possible by voting for Bill C-51? Why will they not join all members of this House and put Canada first?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

I took the opportunity to attend the briefing session provided by the finance officials. There were a number of people there. I found it very interesting and found myself put at somewhat of a disadvantage. As we walked in the door we were given a copy of the draft bill, which is the bill now before us, to see it for the first time. There were no other briefing notes. There were no other documents that would explain why changes were being made. It was not about the precise words, but it was to indicate to the members the reason why this is being made.

Very often, the Library of Parliament will prepare briefing notes for members so that they can fully participate in debate from knowledge rather than from ignorance. I think it is very important. When we get important bills and initiatives from any government, accountability requires that it must explain or justify its words, actions or decisions in a manner that is true, full and plain.

That accountability has to not only happen after the government has done something but before it has done it and when it anticipates it should be done. People need to be informed about where a government is going and why. They need to be given an opportunity to prepare themselves. Members need to prepare in a reasonable fashion for debate in order to understand the nuances. Legislation is complex. This is basically an omnibus bill because it touches so many different acts.

With regard to this budget implementation act, in addition to the various credits and amendments in terms of the Income Tax Act, we also have changes to the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Canada pension plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, the Customs Tariff, the Financial Administration Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act, and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

If members were expected to somehow comment on this bill, it would be extremely difficult in the little time that is allocated to individual members to make reasonable contributions to the whole act. One will notice that a number of the members take aspects of the act that they are somewhat familiar with and have something specific that they would like to provide input on.

It may be with regard to the home renovation tax credit or the Canada pension plan. I know that hon. members have received a lot of input on that. I think that most people would concede that allowing Canadians the opportunity to invest in their homes is a good thing because it does create jobs. That kind of improvement is a good thing to happen.

However, as I followed the debate, there seemed to be a big question about relevance and whether or not talking about the broader picture was relevant to the debate and in fact in order. I submit that this budget implementation act is pursuant to a budget. The budget is the government's vision, outlook and proposals to address the condition of the country.

We know that we are in a recession. We know that unemployment has risen to record levels. We know that the deficit, being the shortfall of cash inflows versus cash outflows, is growing to the highest level it has ever been in our history. It is around $60 billion and it is expected to go much higher.

When we talk about a budget implementation bill, we are really talking about the budget, which is really talking about the government's plan to address the realities of a country.

It is very relevant for members to say that this bill, which is in part what is included in the budget, is part of something that some members believe is not the right track to deal with the problems facing the nation. It is not the right track with regard to saving current jobs or to promote future jobs in areas where there is the highest probability of creating jobs. It maybe does not hit the mark when it comes to dealing with a plan to get the country out of deficit over the long term.

The previous speaker talked about a prior Liberal government. His description was that it slashed and burned and all other good things. That is good rhetoric, but if the member were accountable to the House, he would have been truthful and plain about the facts. The facts are that in 1993 the then Liberal government inherited a $42 billion deficit and a debt-to-GDP ratio that was terrible compared to what it is today. It meant one's ability to deal with it was terrible.

I can remember asking Paul Martin at the time about our strategy to balance the budget within a reasonable period of time. That first happened in 1997 and for 10 years since then there were balanced budgets, in fact tax cuts and the restoration of other cuts.

The question I asked him was how we explain to Canadians that this is the right approach to deal with the economic reality of the country. He said he had to impose cuts right across the board and the federal government would be the worst hit. The public service really took a big hit, Canadians took a big hit, our health care took a hit, and the provinces took a hit in terms of the transfers for social services and health care costs. He told me that he had to cut 20% to save the 80% left, and once the government could stabilize the situation, just like a doctor dealing with a patient, then it could build back.

There was a lot of pain and nobody is going to doubt that. However, we should understand that the books were balanced and the financial integrity of Canada was restored within three years from a $42 billion deficit inherited from Brian Mulroney. That in fact carried over to the current government, which took over in 2006.

I have forgotten what the deficit was at the time. The election was in January 2006, Parliament did not start until April, the cabinet was not even formed at that time, and I believe the surplus for the year ended March 31, 2006, was some $17 billion. The current government inherited not only balanced books but a surplus, which allowed it latitude and flexibility to be able to continue to offer tax cuts to Canadians and also to restore program funding, where necessary, to meet the urgent needs of Canadians.

I do not apologize for what happened there. When one has a terrible situation, one has to make tough decisions. Paul Martin always said that government is about making tough decisions.

I never judge a government by what it does when times are good; I judge a government by how it responds when things are going bad. That is important for individuals as well. It is really easy to boast when everything is rosy, but what happens when it hits the wall? How do people show composure, professionalism, knowledge and wisdom to address a situation in the most appropriate fashion? Those are the kinds of things we are talking about.

I cannot talk about everything in this bill, but I went to the briefing session. I was sorry we did not get the briefing notes from the officials. They had panels come forward on each and every one of the items that are dealt with in this implementation bill. I wish they had given us their notes. They had notes, because they explained it to us. When I asked if I could have the notes, they said I would have to write my own from whatever they said. That was not very helpful and I did not think it was very accountable, but so be it.

I talked about and asked questions about the home renovation tax credit when it first came out in the budget. I had to read it a couple of times because there was one aspect, and this will show how members of Parliament may have input into important legislation such as this for our country.

I noticed that the home renovation tax credit, as it said in the initial language, was available to the registered homeowner or joint owners of that dwelling. What if we had a situation where there was a couple, the stay-at-home spouse brought the house into the marriage and the other spouse was the working spouse, but when they got married they did not change the registration to both of them? That means that the registered owner has no income and the home renovation tax credit would not be worth anything to them because they have no income taxes payable to which to apply a tax credit.

I immediately sat down with the finance minister and raised it with him. It was kind of interesting. He did not realize it. He said that it was not the intent and there was family law, division of assets and all that other stuff. One of his responses to me, and I do not think he will mind if I share this, was to ask whether I really thought the Canada Revenue Agency would check the registration of households before it gave out the credit. Probably not, but I was kind of hoping that the finance minister would not even make such a flippant remark, because our legislation has to be grounded and rooted in sound decision-making elements and facts.

With regard to the home renovation tax credit, I wanted to inform my constituents, so I did a householder on it, laying out generally how it works. I talked about the dwelling, which could be a house, a cottage or a condominium. Renters would not be able to do anything. It was not clear to me, and I said it would have to be checked out, whether a person operating a business out of a home would qualify or whether there would be a reduction of the credit otherwise available. Then I saw that if two families shared the same dwelling, each would get one credit. These are the kinds of things I was letting them know about. I gave them some examples of eligible expenditures. I wanted to be sure that they knew that furniture and appliances and the purchase of tools, et cetera, would be ineligible expenses and not applicable for the credit.

I also indicated to them that these expenditures had to be made in a period after January 27, 2009, and before February 1, 2010, pursuant to agreements after January 27, 2009.

It is family-based. People should know that. It is important. That means one family gets a chance to do it, and a family includes children who are under age 18 at the end of 2009.

It does raise the question, though, that if a person has a child who is over 18 years of age and living in that dwelling, who has his own room over the garage, whether he can renovate his room and claim his $1,350. He is not under the definition of family, but he certainly is a taxpayer. I am told that children sometimes do come back to the family home. To anybody who is in that situation I would suggest that they might want to consider, if they have a child over 18 years of age who has some designated area of the house that is his or hers, whether maybe he or she could qualify for this credit. It would be an interesting challenge to the Canada Revenue Agency.

I also dealt with the fact that people can do the work themselves or have others do it. This will probably surprise and maybe annoy some people who do not have disposable income to spend on renovations at this time, but the first $1,000 of the eligible expenditures does not qualify for any credit. The first $1,000 is on a person's own ticket. So it is the amount after that. That means that expenditures after that, up to an additional $9,000, qualify for the 15% non-refundable tax credit. The person actually has to spend $10,000, and the last $9,000 is what is eligible for the credit.

Non-refundable means that it will be applied against taxes otherwise payable. If people have no taxes payable, it does not matter how much non-refundable tax credit they have, they do not get any refund.

People should understand that if there is any way to generate income in 2009, knowing that they will have unused credit, that would be a good thing to do. So they may want to crystallize some investments or whatever.

I also gave them some contact information, because I think there will be a few questions and perhaps a few peculiar situations that people were not aware of. I do encourage Canadians, if they do not remember any phone numbers, to just remember 1-800-O-Canada. That is the main number and will get them to whomever they have to speak to in order to get answers to questions.

Also at this briefing session I had a chance to engage the officials with regard to the CBC. When we mention the CBC in this chamber, Canadians get nervous. We know that. The CBC has had a very significant challenge. There are some who do not believe the CBC should be getting any funding from the Government of Canada. They believe it should compete with others on its own merit. I certainly do not hold that view.

We have a national broadcaster that holds this country together. It is probably, other than our health care, the only thing that keeps us all together. Whenever the CBC has gone on strike or had lockouts or that kind of stuff, Canadians en masse have told parliamentarians, “Deal with it; I miss my CBC”.

Well, the CBC is going to be authorized to borrow $220 million, up from $25 million. I asked whether they could give me more details as to why they are doing this and what it relates to. It basically has to do with properties that the CBC owns that it is not using for its own purposes, so it is leasing them out and getting lease revenue.

If people have an annuity, being lease revenue coming in over this period of time, it is worth something and they can present-value it and discount it. They can in fact go to a financial institution and it may buy it from them. It will buy that right to receive those future payments for a lump sum today.

That is exactly what this is about. It is basically monetizing an asset, a stream of income. That means that the CBC is going to have the cash it needs today to address the severe the problems it has and the challenges, because in down times the CBC has trouble raising advertising revenue as well. It also has to make job cuts and has done so.

The concern, though, and I think many Canadians may agree, is that if the CBC is basically selling assets to take care of today's bills, what it is really doing is mortgaging its future.

My immediate reaction was that the fuse has been lit to the future privatization of CBC at fire-sale prices. It concerns me, and we have to watch this.

Finally, I want to talk about what the member for Huron—Bruce was talking about. I think his words were that we want to save jobs, we are saving jobs today, managing the economy for jobs for tomorrow, boosting the recovery and promoting economic stability.

I think those are laudable objectives. However, I can tell members that when we look at the unemployment line hurtling toward 10% and then look at the words the Conservatives said, that they want shovel-ready infrastructure projects to save today's jobs and to provide jobs in those areas that have the highest prospect of growth, “shovel-ready” to everybody in Canada means that as people are losing their jobs or that curve is starting to go up, they need to have those projects going.

What has really happened, and it is a real shame, is that the infrastructure cash, the cheque to the people for these projects, has not happened, has not tracked with the unemployment curve, and therefore, the job need. They have missed the boat.

I think the government has failed miserably on the infrastructure program, and I hope Canadians will understand it appears that it really did not want to inject stimulus at all in the first place.

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

Mr. Speaker, it took the member for Huron—Bruce a while to get to Bill C-51 as well in his speech, but when he did he dealt with some of the statistics that I am looking for on the home renovation tax credit program and the first time homebuyers program.

I would like to ask the member how many first time homebuyers have taken part in the program? I realize that at the end of the day we will not know until the year is up as to whether or not this program has been of benefit. The question is whether or not the program is the motivating factor for first time homebuyers in the first place, or it may be just because house prices have dropped and first time homebuyers are jumping into the market.

On the issue of the home renovation tax credit, my colleague mentioned that 4.6 million Canadians will be taking advantage of it. I wonder if that is a projected figure or whether he knows that to be the case.

I wanted to ask him too whether he would intervene with the parliamentary secretary and the minister to make certain that the government announces an extension of this popular program?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malpeque has never been short for words, as we all know. He does, however, support farmers as I support farmers.

He did come in late and the unfortunate thing is that we are actually debating Bill C-51 today. The support we are providing in Bill C-51, which he voted against, would provide support to farmers in drought and flood regions. In a way he is actually talking out of both sides of his mouth on this issue.

I think the member for Malpeque has an issue with the fact that all members of our government worked with pork producers, listened to pork producers, and delivered results in conjunction with them.

Just Friday, the final announcement came out, and today hog producers across this great country are talking with their banks. They are working on their transitional progress. They are looking at ways to market their products not only in Canada but also around the world. Our pork producers produce some of the greatest pork in the world.

I would encourage all Canadians to support their local producers, to buy Ontario, to buy Canadian, and not listen to the rhetoric from the member for Malpeque.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was great, unfortunately, it was on the wrong bill. I thought he was supposed to be talking about Bill C-51. In that vein, I would like to ask him a question about something that does apply to the bill, which is the home renovation tax credit.

I understand his party supports the home renovation tax credit and has said that if the Liberals become the government, they would certainly honour the program. However, has he not noticed that the Conservatives have only made this a temporary program? The first-time homebuyers' tax credit was brought in as a continuous program, but the renovation tax credit is only a one-year event. In fact, they have spent as much money advertising the program as they are probably going to give out in tax credits.

Does he think the government should make a commitment to extend this program beyond one year?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the frustration and concern. As we all know, the opposition called their bluff and the Conservatives were forced to come up with a real plan to deal with the recession. That plan, which the government promotes as Canada's economic action plan, would never have existed if the Prime Minister had a majority government. It is important that we remember that.

After forcing these major concessions from the Conservatives, the Liberal Party then agreed that we would act in good faith and support the budget only after amending the motion to provide for regular reports to Canadians on the progress of its implementation. We put them on probation because we wanted to give Canadians the accountability that they deserve and to make sure that the government would actually follow through on its commitments.

It is almost Thanksgiving. The construction season has wound down and there are still virtually no infrastructure projects under way. An entire construction season was wasted at a time when we were supposed to be stimulating the economy. It is hard to create jobs and get the economy moving when only 12% of the announced projects were under way before September. In fact, it is not just infrastructure. Spending is not getting out the door at all. The entire so-called action plan is simply a listing of one failure after another.

For example, take the $12 billion secured credit facility that the Prime Minister promised for the auto sector. None of the money has gone out. Out of the $1 billion green infrastructure fund, only $71 million, or less than 1%, has been allocated. Of the $2 billion municipal infrastructure lending program, only $80.6 million, or less than one-half of one per cent, has been allocated. Of the $400 million set aside for housing for low-income seniors, only two projects totalling $5.35 million have been announced. The government's own report states that only $350 million of the $1 billion community adjustment fund has been “committed”. I could go on and on. The list gets greater and greater.

One can see that the Conservatives are unable to get the stimulus money out the door. They are spending tens of millions of dollars running campaign-style ads on taxpayer dimes.

I do not know how they can justify spending $40 million to tell us about an action plan that is not actually working and which they cannot implement. Let me put this in perspective. They only spent $6.5 million to warn Canadians about the very real danger of the H1N1 virus. To add to the confusion, the Prime Minister spent the summer making announcements, but 14 of those 16 announcements were for regular, non-stimulus infrastructure projects that either will not begin for years or had been planned for years before and were long delayed by the Conservative government.

It gets worse. Not getting money out and wasting taxpayer dollars on meaningless advertising is just the beginning. The money that the government has spent is being directed in a very partisan manner. In Ontario, the Conservatives promised 15% more dollars on average to their own ridings. That amounts to $13.1 million from the infrastructure stimulus fund and the recreation facilities fund combined, compared to the $11.1 million average for Liberal-held ridings.

In the stimulus program for rehabilitation of the community recreation centres, 18 out of the top 20 ridings by number of projects granted in Ontario are held by the Conservatives. Of course, the government tries to claim that this is all a coincidence and that things just happened to work out this way. However, it is very difficult to keep a secret of this nature.

I assume the member opposite would love to hear this quotation from the National Post, which summed it up by saying:

--the nominated Conservative candidate in the Ontario riding of Markham-Unionville...said on live television that the reason his riding has not received federal funding for a medical testing centre is that the Member of Parliament is a Liberal.

That is not getting the job done for all Canadians. That is buying votes. Canadians expect their government to make informed and prudent decisions and not turn their trust into a Conservative rewards program. Beware of Conservatives bearing gifts because with one hand they giveth and with the other hand they taketh away.

The same Prime Minister who said that he would never raise taxes is quietly implementing a $13 billion payroll tax that kills jobs and acts as a disincentive to employers. Perhaps I am giving him too much credit by taking him at his word. He is the same Prime Minister who pledged that he would never tax income trusts and then did so anyway, hurting seniors and many others who invested their life savings simply because they believed the Prime Minister when he said, “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept”.

I was elected by the constituents of Mississauga—Brampton South to fight for their interests in Ottawa. What I have seen is systematic deception and incompetence on the part of the government. Too many of my constituents are losing their jobs. Despite being a prosperous part of the greater Toronto area, the unemployment rate in my riding hovers around 11%, compared with a rate of around 6.5% when the Conservatives came into power.

There are 450,000 more unemployed Canadians today than there were a year ago and according to the Conservatives' own report card, another 200,000 Canadians will join them in the coming year.

That is why the Liberals oppose Bill C-51. That is why the Conservatives have lost our confidence. We can do better. Canada can do better. We look forward to ensuring they are held to account.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-51, an act to implement certain provisions of budget 2009. The Liberal Party opposes the bill as a matter of confidence. This is not a decision we have taken lightly, and it has come after making a legitimate and honest effort to work with the Conservatives to do what is in the best interests of Canadians. Yet, time and time again the government has demonstrated that it is not interested in cooperation and it is not interested in compromise.

After the last election, the Prime Minister found that once again Canadians would not trust him with a majority government. He initially accepted their judgment, but after Parliament was recalled and the Speech from the Throne was delivered, he made it clear that he was in no mood for cooperation. The economic update that was delivered surprised everyone by its partisan tone, and it did nothing to help deal with the economic crisis. In fact, what the Globe and Mail wrote on November 28 sums up the Conservatives, in terms of their strategy, during the first economic update:

For an economist, [the Prime Minister] can certainly see a political opportunity faster than an economic mess. In the fiscal update yesterday, the government should have concerned itself with rallying the people - and the Parliament - of Canada behind a vigorous response to the global economic crisis. Instead, the proposals put forward by...the Minister of Finance, amounted to fiscal gerrymandering.

After the election, [the Prime Minister] promised a new co-operative, less partisan approach to governing. He pledged to work with the opposition to deal with the economic crisis.

The most significant item in yesterday's update, however, was a manoeuvre that had nothing to do with the economy, and could needlessly plunge the government into chaos....

By destabilizing their own government, the Conservatives have placed Canada at a competitive disadvantage against other states.

Through gratuitous partisanship, they have turned an economic crisis into a political one.

They should withdraw their cynical attempt to rewrite election rules and concentrate on what matters--

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 implements the first-time home buyers' tax credit, and that is an ongoing government program.

However, the home renovation tax credit, which is much vaunted and touted by the government and much advertised, is only planned to be a one year effort. How many people were projected to take advantage of this program? Why is it not an ongoing program if it is so popular? Given the big advertising budget the government has allocated to this program, I am just wondering whether it will spend more on advertising than on tax credits.

On that basis, I would like to encourage the government to make an announcement very shortly that it will extend this program on an ongoing basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was most important to give the reasons why I was not supporting Bill C-51 which included the fact that I have no faith in the government's ability to move us through these difficult economic times.

Regarding the CBC, it was the government's inaction that forced the CBC to make cuts to its programming and to ask for these changes so that it could borrow money. It is as a result of the government's inaction that has caused the CBC to make these moves. That is the reason why this has been so challenging to the CBC. That is one of the reasons why I will not be supporting Bill C-51.

[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)