Appropriation Act No. 2, 2010-2011

An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2011

This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, which ended in March 2011.


Stockwell Day  Conservative


This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.


All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.


June 17, 2010 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
June 17, 2010 Passed That Bill C-44, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2011, {as amended}, be concurred in at report stage [with a further amendment/with further amendments] .
June 17, 2010 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.

May 15th, 2017 / 3:50 p.m.
See context

Joyce Reynolds Executive Vice-President, Government Affairs, Restaurants Canada

Thank you, Chair Easter, and committee members. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon about part 3 of Bill C-44, on behalf of Canada's $80-billion restaurant industry.

This industry is a vital part of the country's economy. Canadians operate restaurants in every corner of Canada, from large metropolitan centres to remote communities. We are the fourth-largest private sector employer in Canada, with 1.2 million employees who interact with 18 million Canadians daily. A significant number of these jobs are derived from the sale of wine, beer, and beverage alcohol in licensed establishments. We are most proud to be the number-one, first-time creator of jobs in the country. We open the door of opportunity to youth, new Canadians, and those facing barriers to employment. Every dollar spent at a restaurant generates an additional $1.85 in spending in the rest of the economy—well above the average for all industries in Canada.

We indirectly employ more than 250,000 Canadians. More than two-thirds of Canada's restaurants are locally owned and operated by independent entrepreneurs. Our 95,000 restaurants, cafeterias, coffee shops, and bars are gathering spots for people from all walks of life to celebrate, to do business, to spend time with family and friends. Restaurants are also one of the top three reasons for tourists to make Canada their chosen destination.

However, you also need to know that we are an industry with razor-thin profit margins. The average restaurant in Canada takes home a mere 4.3% before taxes. According to Stats Canada, drinking places—that would be the bar and pub sector—have experienced sales declines in six out of the last eight years. Since 2000 the number of drinking places has plummeted by 40%. Beverage alcohol is an important input for restaurants and food service operators, who purchase approximately $3 billion of these products each year, but alcohol prices in Canada have reached the point of diminishing returns with stagnating sales to licensees.

What most Canadians don't know is that licensees often pay more for a case of beer, for a bottle of wine, or a bottle of spirits than consumers purchasing them at their provincial retail store. Once restaurants include the cost of service, glassware, overhead, rent, staffing—and staffing includes training on all service and responsible service of alcoholic beverages—it becomes very expensive for the average Canadian to enjoy a glass of wine, a pint of beer, or a cocktail with their meal.

You can't imagine the surprise of our members when government elected to add more taxes, not less, to alcohol, one of the highest tax commodities in the country, and to increase the tax in perpetuity. We've heard from small-town restaurant and pub operators who are struggling to keep their businesses afloat with rising labour, food, utility, and rent costs. The cumulative effect of the new excise duties will take another big chunk out of their businesses. These are real dollars that cannot be used for hiring staff, investments in innovation and refurbishing their businesses and, in some cases, remaining viable.

Last week we heard from Mr. Coulombe from the Department of Finance during his testimony to this committee. I know that restaurants were disheartened to hear that the department believed that the excise taxes would be so small that it wasn't necessary to analyze the economic impacts. A tax increase from $30 million to almost half a billion dollars in five years is not insignificant, particularly when you consider that the tax will be part of the base price to which all other fees, levies, markups, and provincial and federal taxes will be layered on. The cascading nature of provincial markups and PST, GST, or HST application will mean price increases of up to three times the amount of the federal excise tax for those who purchase alcohol.

This year's federal budget identifies agrifood as a potential growth sector, but a very broad swath of agrifood industries will be hurt by this compounding tax. The hospitality industry, together with the vintners, the brewers, the distillers, the grape and grain growers, and our related supply chain partners, is seeking this committee's support for the repeal of the annual excise duty escalator in Bill C-44 to ensure that all tax increases have oversight by parliamentarians, and that the economic impacts and considerations are factored in.

Thank you.

National Holocaust Monument ActPrivate Members' Business

October 27th, 2010 / 7:10 p.m.
See context


Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, my comments will perhaps be a bit less partisan than the comments of my Liberal colleague. That is his right. I sense a lot of frustration over the fact that this bill could have the same content as some bills previously introduced by Liberal members. That is not what my comments are about.

The bill before us would establish a monument in Ottawa to honour the victims and Canadian survivors of the Holocaust. I repeat, my Liberal colleague had every right to say what he wanted to. He did not use unparliamentary language, but I think that we must remember that we are talking about a monument to illustrate the horrors of the Holocaust, the horrors that Jewish people were subjected to, simply because they were Jewish. There is no room for partisanship here. I hope that this bill will receive the support of all parties.

I am sure my introduction made this clear, but I will state that the Bloc Québécois will be in favour of Bill C-442, which would establish a monument to honour the victims of the Holocaust.

As I said earlier, the Holocaust is one of the most horrific crimes of the 20th century. We have a black mark on our record—a real black eye, in the popular expression—meaning that we are not proud as a society to have known about the horrors of the Holocaust, even though we had nothing to do with their occurrence. While we believe that we must commemorate the victims of the Holocaust, we also believe that we must continue the fight against anti-Semitism and all other forms of hate speech and discrimination.

We in the Bloc Québécois have already taken action. I will probably not have enough time to come back to Bill C-384, which was introduced and studied by the Bloc Québécois, that would have made it a criminal offence to commit an act of mischief that targets certain institutions frequented by a given community. Do not forget that in west Montreal there have already been fires in book stores, libraries and schools frequented by Jewish people. We think it is completely wrong and unacceptable, which is why the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-384. I will talk about this bill again if I have time.

Anti-Semitism and all other forms of hate speech are contrary to the values of Quebec and Canada. The Bloc Québécois has always acted to secure social peace and ensure a public space without hatred, discrimination or violence. That fight is crucial for any society that claims to be democratic.

When we think of the Holocaust, the first images that come to mind are images of horror. Each of us here and each person watching remembers them well, no matter what our age, because we have seen the audiovisual documents that illustrate the horror of the camps. These barbaric acts shocked the entire world. And out of that shock came the vow, “Never again!”

Faced with the political and economic crisis that hit Germany after World War I, the National Socialist Party singled out the Jews and blamed them for all of Germany's troubles. Jews became scapegoats, and the worst lies were fabricated about them.

The first step in the long process toward the Holocaust was the discriminatory legislation that targeted German citizens of the Jewish faith. They were identified as such by law. They were forced to sell their businesses. They were herded into buildings. They were forced to wear a yellow star in order to be easily recognized. The yellow star was a badge of shame. The goal was to chase the Jews out of Germany by any means possible, including by prohibiting Jews from holding more and more jobs.

When Germany annexed other countries, more Jews fell under the Nazi regime. At the height of the Nazi bloodshed, Europe's Jews were sent to concentration camps and then to extermination camps. It is estimated that about three-quarters of Europe's Jews, or approximately 40% of the world's Jewish diaspora, were massacred by the Nazis.

In terms of numbers, as my colleagues know, an estimated 6 million Jews died under the Nazi regime. The Holocaust was the first mass murder characterized by its industrial scale and its bureaucracy. Like a machine, the Nazis sought the systematic elimination of an entire people just because it existed. It was neither a political nor a military threat. The only crime committed by Jews in Nazi Germany was existing.

This mass murder was carried out by Hitler's regime and several Third Reich bureaucrats, as well as by numerous collaborators, including individuals and states. In addition to Jews, the Nazis massacred countless gypsies, homosexuals, people with disabilities and members of Slavic communities, including Poles and Soviets. We have to remember them too.

In the aftermath of the war and in light of the horror of the crimes committed by the German state, governments around the world agreed to add crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity to existing war crimes in international law. As a result, international law included two new concepts arising directly from the barbaric treatment of the Jews: genocide and crimes against humanity.

Bill C-442, which the Bloc Québécois will support, would erect a monument to remind us of that crime. This is a reminder to us all of humanity at its worst, a reminder that we must never allow this to happen again.

Main Estimates, 2010-11Government Orders

June 17th, 2010 / 7:50 p.m.
See context

Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.


Stockwell Day ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board

MAIN ESTIMATES, 2010-11Government Orders

June 17th, 2010 / 7 p.m.
See context


Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in the debate on Bill C-44, which would approve $260 billion of public spending.

The G20 summit has yet to begin and already downtown Torontonians are suffering. People are writing to me about how outraged they are that the government has the gall to waste $1 billion of their hard-earned tax dollars that could have been much better spent. One person wrote, “It makes me feel absolutely nauseous and furious that my tax dollars are being so callously wasted. I am a senior, on a fixed pension, who lives on a budget, and when my bank account is in deficit I would not dream of throwing huge lavish events to impress foreign friends, acquaintances, and their entourages”.

Another person wrote to me about the unfairness of the employment insurance system. I note that employment insurance is in this bill. This person used to work for CTV. After being employed full time for 20 years, he was laid off. Although he diligently paid his employment insurance premiums, his benefits are being cut off because there is a limit on the amount of time that a person can be on EI, regardless of how much the person has paid into the system. He would have been better off stashing his EI premiums under his mattress than counting on the government to be fair. In essence, although he paid into EI for 20 years, he cannot access his own money because the government needs a fake lake, multiple gazebos and toilets.

Then there is the issue of compensation. Thus far the government is refusing outright to reimburse home and business owners for property damage. It is refusing to reimburse them even though in the $260 billion budget we are debating, there is $1 billion for the G8 and G20 summits. They were told that payment would not be provided for losses and damages that are insurable under normal insurance coverage.

The government is so out of touch with the lives of ordinary Canadians. It does not understand that once a claim is submitted, the premiums skyrocket. What the government does not seem to get is that ordinary Canadians are still climbing out of the recession and cannot afford any increase in monthly expenses.

I asked the minister in question period today why the government refused to commit to providing compensation for damages suffered because of the G20. His response was that the government was not “legally bound to pay compensation”.

The government may not be legally bound to pay compensation, but how can it not believe it is morally bound to provide compensation to small business owners and condo owners, whose livelihood and homes are at stake, and for what? For little more than a glorified photo op. There is little action to tackle climate change and little action to make poverty history.

Right at the peak of Toronto's tourist season, the United States has issued a travel alert warning its citizens not to visit Toronto during the G20 summit.

Small businesses in the city depend on tourist dollars every year, but because of the summit, Toronto's major tourist attractions are being shut down. Gone are the 100,000 baseball fans expected to be downtown that weekend to see Doc Halladay's return to Toronto. Gone are the cultural tourists who wanted to visit the Art Gallery of Ontario that weekend. Gone are the visitors who would like to see a musical in Toronto's great entertainment district. Because of the summit, the show will not go on. Mamma Mia!, what is wrong with the government?

While we have been told that loss of business will be covered, people are being asked to fill out a six-page application and to submit it into a black hole. Their application will not be acknowledged for months. Then they will be forced to wait for up to seven years to find out if their application has been approved. Seven long years. Imagine that.

Business owners are also expected to provide three years' proof of revenue. What about new businesses? There are a lot of new businesses in downtown Toronto in the entertainment district.

The government should apologize to working Canadians for running off on a shopping spree with our money. It should apologize to small business owners for sinking $1 million into a fake lake but not committing a penny to compensate for property damages caused by the G20.

More important than an apology, we need a commitment from the government to take a tiny portion of the $260 billion in this bill that is about to be approved to help compensate Torontonians in a fair and timely manner.

The minister also talked about our ranking in the OECD. I want to leave a figure with the House as we adjourn for the summer. We are ranked dead last of all the OECD countries on government investment in children and in building affordable child care. That is a true fact. We are ranked last.

Not only are we ranked last according to the OECD, we are ranked last in the UNICEF report. UNICEF said that we are doing poorly in how we work with our kids, how we invest in our children, and in trying to make poverty history for children. More and more working families are waiting fruitlessly for affordable child care.

I would say to those out of touch members of Parliament who have been heckling me for the last 10 minutes that child care in downtown Toronto that is high quality costs a total of at least $13,000 to $14,000 a year. Is there one single penny in this bill that will actually go to extra dollars for affordable child care? There is none whatsoever. There is no extra money to create what is desperately needed for working families today.

That is why of the OECD countries, we are dead last. Yes, it is easy for male members of Parliament to continue to heckle. They do not understand that 70% of females in this country, working mothers, need affordable child care.