Bill C-9 (Historical)

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures

Part 1 of this enactment implements income tax measures proposed in the March 4, 2010 Budget. In particular, it
(a) introduces amendments to allow a recipient of Universal Child Care Benefit amounts to designate that the amounts be included in the income of the dependant in respect of whom the recipient has claimed an Eligible Dependant Credit, or if the credit is not claimed by the recipient, a child of the recipient who is a qualified dependant under the Universal Child Care Benefit Act;
(b) clarifies rules relating to the Medical Expense Tax Credit to exclude expenses for purely cosmetic procedures;
(c) clarifies rules relating to payments made to a Registered Education Savings Plan or a Registered Disability Savings Plan through a program funded, directly or indirectly, by a province or administered by a province;
(d) implements amendments to the family income thresholds used to determine eligibility for Canada Education Savings Grants, Canada Disability Savings Grants and Canada Disability Savings Bonds;
(e) reinstates the 50% inclusion rate for Canadian residents who have been in receipt of U.S. social security benefits since before January 1, 1996;
(f) extends the mineral exploration tax credit for one year;
(g) reduces the rate of interest payable by the Minister of National Revenue on tax overpayments made by corporations;
(h) modifies the definition “taxable Canadian property” to exclude certain shares and other interests that do not derive their value principally from real or immovable property situated in Canada, Canadian resource property, or timber resource property;
(i) introduces amendments to allow the issuance of a refund of an overpayment of tax under Part I of the Income Tax Act to certain non-residents in circumstances where an assessment of such amounts has been made outside the usual period during which a refund may be made;
(j) repeals the exclusion for indictable tax offences from the proceeds of crime and money laundering regime; and
(k) increases the pension surplus threshold for employer contributions to registered pension plans to 25%.
Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 and the Customs Act to implement an enhanced stamping regime for tobacco products by introducing new controls over the production, distribution and possession of a new excise stamp for tobacco products.
Part 2 also amends the Excise Tax Act and certain related regulations in respect of the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) to:
(a) simplify the operation of the GST/HST for the direct selling industry using a commission-based model;
(b) clarify the application of the GST/HST to purely cosmetic procedures and to devices or other goods used or provided with cosmetic procedures, and to services related to cosmetic procedures;
(c) reaffirm the policy intent and provide certainty respecting the scope of the definition of “financial service” in respect of certain administrative, management and promotional services;
(d) address advantages that currently exist in favour of imported financial services over comparable domestic services;
(e) streamline the application of the input tax credit rules to financial institutions;
(f) provide a new, uniform GST/HST rebate system that will apply fairly and equitably to employer-sponsored pension plans;
(g) introduce a new annual information return for financial institutions to improve GST/HST reporting in the financial services sector; and
(h) extend the due date for filing annual GST/HST returns from three months to six months after year-end for certain financial institutions.
In addition, Part 2 amends regulations made under the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, 2001 to reduce the interest rate payable by the Minister of National Revenue in respect of overpaid taxes and duties by corporations.
Part 3 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act to increase the air travellers security charge that is applicable to air travel that includes a chargeable emplanement on or after April 1, 2010 and for which any payment is made on or after that date. It also reduces the interest payable by the Minister of National Revenue to corporations under that Act.
Part 4 amends the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 to provide for a higher rate of charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products from the regions of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba or Saskatchewan. It also amends that Act to reduce the rate of interest payable by the Minister of National Revenue on tax overpayments made by corporations.
Part 5 amends the Customs Tariff to implement measures announced in the March 4, 2010 Budget to reduce Most-Favoured-Nation rates of duty and, if applicable, rates of duty under other tariff treatments on a number of tariff items relating to manufacturing inputs and machinery and equipment imported on or after March 5, 2010.
Part 6 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to provide additional payments to certain provinces and to correct a cross-reference in that Act.
Part 7 amends the Expenditure Restraint Act to impose a freeze on the allowances and salaries to be paid to members of the Senate and the House of Commons for the 2010–2011, 2011–2012 and 2012–2013 fiscal years.
Part 8 amends a number of Acts to reduce or eliminate Governor in Council appointments, including the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. This Part also amends that Act to establish the Canadian Section of the NAFTA Secretariat within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In addition, this Part repeals The Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees’ Provident Fund Act. Finally, this Part makes consequential and related amendments to other Acts.
Part 9 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985. In particular, the Act is amended to
(a) require an employer to fully fund benefits if the whole of a pension plan is terminated;
(b) authorize an employer to use a letter of credit, if certain conditions are met, to satisfy solvency funding obligations in respect of a pension plan that has not been terminated in whole;
(c) permit a pension plan to provide for variable benefits, similar to those paid out of a Life Income Fund, in respect of a defined contribution provision of the pension plan;
(d) establish a distressed pension plan workout scheme, under which the employer and representatives of members and retirees may negotiate changes to the plan’s funding requirements, subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance;
(e) permit the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to replace an actuary if the Superintendent is of the opinion that it is in the best interests of members or retirees;
(f) provide that only the Superintendent may declare a pension plan to be partially terminated;
(g) provide for the immediate vesting of members’ benefits;
(h) require the administrator to make additional information available to members and retirees following the termination of a pension plan; and
(i) repeal spent provisions.
Part 10 provides for the retroactive coming into force in Canada of the Agreement on Social Security between Canada and the Republic of Poland.
Part 11 amends the Export Development Act to grant Export Development Canada the authority to establish offices outside Canada. It also clarifies that Corporation’s authority with respect to asset management and the forgiveness of certain debts and obligations.
Part 12 enacts the Payment Card Networks Act, the purpose of which is to regulate national payment card networks and the commercial practices of payment card network operators. Among other things, that Act confers a number of regulation-making powers. This Part also makes related amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to expand the mandate of the Agency so that it may supervise payment card network operators to determine whether they are in compliance with the provisions of the Payment Card Networks Act and its regulations and monitor the implementation of voluntary codes of conduct.
Part 13 amends the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to provide the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada with a broader oversight role to allow it to verify compliance with ministerial undertakings and directions. The amendments also increase the Agency’s ability to undertake research, including research on trends and emerging consumer protection issues. Finally, the Part makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 14 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to confer on the Minister of Finance the power to issue directives imposing measures with respect to certain financial transactions. The amendments also confer on the Governor in Council the power to make regulations that limit or prohibit certain financial transactions. This Part also makes a consequential amendment to another Act.
Part 15 amends the Canada Post Corporation Act to modify the exclusive privilege of the Canada Post Corporation so as to permit letter exporters to collect letters in Canada for transmittal and delivery outside Canada.
Part 16 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to allow the Governor in Council to specify when a bridge institution will assume a federal member institution’s deposit liabilities and allow the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to make by-laws with respect to information and capabilities it can require of its member institutions. This Part also amends that Act to establish the rules that apply to the assignment, by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to a bridge institution, of eligible financial contracts to which a federal member institution is a party.
Part 17 amends the Bank Act and other related statutes to provide a framework enabling credit unions to incorporate and continue as banks. The model is based on the framework applicable to other federally regulated financial institutions, adjusted to give effect to cooperative principles and governance.
Part 18 authorizes the taking of a number of measures with respect to the reorganization and divestiture of all or any part of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s business.
Part 19 amends the National Energy Board Act in order to give the National Energy Board the power to create a participant funding program to facilitate the participation of the public in hearings that are held under section 24 of that Act. It also amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to give the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission the power to create a participant funding program to facilitate the participation of the public in proceedings under that Act and the power to prescribe fees for that program.
Part 20 amends the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to streamline certain process requirements for comprehensive studies, to give the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency authority to conduct most comprehensive studies and to give the Minister of the Environment the power to establish the scope of any project in relation to which an environmental assessment is to be conducted. It also amends that Act to provide, in legislation rather than by regulations, that an environmental assessment is not required for certain federally funded infrastructure projects and repeals sunset clauses in the Regulations Amending the Exclusion List Regulations, 2007.
Part 21 amends the Canada Labour Code with respect to the appointment of appeals officers and the appeal hearing procedures.
Part 22 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for various purposes.
Part 23 amends the Telecommunications Act to make a carrier that is not a Canadian-owned and controlled corporation eligible to operate as a telecommunications common carrier if it owns or operates certain transmission facilities.
Part 24 amends the Employment Insurance Act to establish an account in the accounts of Canada to be known as the Employment Insurance Operating Account and to close the Employment Insurance Account and remove it from the accounts of Canada. It also repeals sections 76 and 80 of that Act and makes consequential amendments in relation to the creation of the new Account. This Part also makes technical amendments to clarify provisions of the Budget Implementation Act, 2008 and the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act that deal with the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question to do with the whole environmental aspect of the budget implementation bill. I am from British Columbia. We live in a very sensitive area. We are very concerned about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Conservative government has not ensured that the kinds of regulations to protect our waters from oil and gas drilling and from oil tankers are in place. In fact, the government has said that the 1972 moratorium on tanker traffic and oil and gas drilling has ended.

The budget implementation bill, Bill C-9, is a move toward putting in place the kind of regulations that are far more industry friendly and are far less concerned about the health and well-being of our waters.

Could the member comment on whether he sees any problems with embedding the environmental regulation within a budget implementation bill, instead of stand-alone legislation that would see fulsome debate in the House of Commons? If the legislation passed, it would be referred to a committee where we would have witnesses come forward who could talk about the impact of those environmental regulations. Then it would come back to the House for appropriate reading and debate.

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

Madam Speaker, yes, of course, I believe that. One of the first points in my speech was to say that we objected to putting all these things together in one omnibus bill, just as the current public security minister had objected to a similar thing when he was in opposition. So, I agree that certain items would be better separated out.

And I certainly agree that in the light of the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico, Canada should take much greater care, in terms of the risk of spills off of our shores, whether the east coast or the west coast or the Arctic. Time after time in this House, during question period, we have asked the government that question, about the 1972 moratorium and other aspects of what it is going to do to ensure that the tragedy that happened in the Gulf of Mexico does not happen in Canada.

Sadly, it has only provided evasive answers. So, we do not have a clear picture whatsoever of what the government's policy is going to be with regard to offshore drilling and with regard to the risk of an environmental disaster.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, speaking to this bill at third reading is a problem, because we get the feeling the government is going to roll right over us—you will excuse the expression—unless everyone who is really opposed to this bill is here this evening when you call for the vote, so that we can defeat this awful bill.

I would remind the House that the lockout that occurred just before the budget was brought down was announced by the Prime Minister's director of communications, Mr. Soudas, who today has become invisible, like a ghost, but who was everywhere back then. When this shadowy figure from the Prime Minister's Office locked us out, we used the time to tour Quebec, and I have a clear memory of giving a copy of the Bloc Québécois' budget document, Saisir l'occasion pour le Québec, to the Minister of Finance, his parliamentary secretary and his office.

During our tour, which lasted over a month, we sat down with 317 different organizations and nearly 400 people and we covered nearly 10,000 km all over Quebec, in the middle of winter, to ask people their opinions and find out what they wanted to see in the budget of the Government of Canada, which they support with half their tax dollars.

We suggested a number of possibilities, but we do not see any of them in Bill C-9. It would therefore be worthwhile to remind the government and other hon. members what Quebeckers want from the budget.

We divided our work into several parts. First we wanted to ensure a lasting recovery by spending $10 billion, or $9.8 billion to be more precise. At the time, we knew that Quebec was not recovering at the same pace as everywhere else and that we needed to pay attention to this type of thing. A few months later, we are still not sure that the recovery is secure and that we will not end up back in a recession or with economic woes if the slightest problem crops up.

Of that $9.8 billion, $4.2 billion was for promoting the economic development of Quebec. Indeed, we thought that if national programs could be applied across Canada, and applied specifically to Quebec, it would cost $4.2 billion, not including what we had already proposed and is still on the table, namely, loan guarantees for forestry companies.

When it comes to the budget, comparing what has been granted to one industry to what has been granted or not to another industry shows clearly that Canada is very uneven and very unfair. Almost $10 billion was invested in the automobile industry. That is in the budget documents and no one is against it. The Government of Canada is entitled to pay out that kind of money to help an industry, as former governments of Canada were entitled to create an industrial policy to develop the oil sands and develop the west. But why stop there? Why help out one sector and not another?

No policy on loans or loan guarantees for the forestry industry has materialized. There is nothing. Forestry in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, is being ignored. There is a forestry sector out west also. It is being left to fend for itself, which is unfortunate.

There were also some programs—for example, the AgriFlex program—designed to increase the income farmers should be receiving. Nothing happened. We had also recommended $5.6 billion to help people and foster lasting economic recovery.

It is very important—and a real pleasure—for MPs to return to their ridings, meet their constituents and see what problems their constituents have.

We proposed that part of the $5.6 billion be used for an updated, comprehensive employment insurance program. We recommended, for example, that coverage be increased to 60% and that there be a single, 360-hour eligibility criterion. What is happening at present is not right. Two people working for the same company may be treated differently because they do not live in exactly the same municipality. That does not make sense.

We also asked for the waiting period to be abolished. Why is there still a waiting period? I can understand that, in other times, when information was not necessarily available instantly, they had to wait two weeks to verify that the person was who they claimed to be. Now that all information is available instantly, it no longer takes two weeks or more to verify the information. Why have a waiting period? In general, people apply for employment insurance benefits because they need the money. They need money to pay the rent and buy food. For two weeks, we pretend that the person does not exist. It is still being enforced.

We also made significant proposals with regard to the guaranteed income supplement. We want it to be automatic, retroactive and increased. There is still nothing.

We also proposed a modest $65 million to help the homeless. Unfortunately, anything can happen these days. Accueil Bonneau, a residence and outreach centre in the south end of Montreal, is closed. I was a member of the board of directors for six years, and president for four years, just before I made my first foray into politics in the 1990s. Accueil Bonneau has been helping homeless people for over 100 years, without asking any questions, not even for a name, and without telling the person they will give him or her some food in two weeks, the way the government does with employment insurance. Accueil Bonneau serves 800 meals a day. The centre is closed today, in a symbolic gesture. It is the first time Accueil Bonneau has ever closed. They have been through some real storms. They survived the ice storm and snowstorms. Accueil Bonneau even blew up about 15 years ago. There was an explosion in the basement and yet, the very next day, people were serving meals. But today it is closed. Silent. And for the government across the floor, it is also total silence. Nothing. Zero.

We also asked for funding for caregivers. We also asked for funding for housing. We asked for a total of $5.6 billion to help people, and we obtained nothing.

We also proposed that the Government of Canada stop harassing the Government of Quebec. In March 2010, as part of its budget, the Quebec government included an appendix, appendix E, that tallied up what the Government of Canada owes Quebec on a regular basis. This includes the harmonization of sales taxes between Quebec City and Ottawa, for instance.

The bill before us completes the transactions involving the harmonizations requested by the provinces and compensates those provinces, including Ontario.

The Quebec sales tax has been harmonized since 1992. Six or seven successive finance ministers in Quebec have always asked for $2.2 billion. When Bill C-9 was being reviewed in committee, we asked the officials from the Department of Finance some questions. They replied that those funds had been politically blocked and were not yet available. When parties negotiate, they must be on equal footing. At present, the one with his hand on the purse strings is the Minister of Finance, the former Ontario finance minister who, along with wanting to get his hands on the Autorité des marchés financiers, is also bleeding the Government of Quebec by cutting funding.

I have another example that has to do with Hydro-Québec and Ontario's Hydro One. Are there two other companies in Canada that are more similar than these two, which both produce hydroelectricity, transport the electricity using towers and distribute the electricity using wires? Electricity is distributed from waterfalls to houses, businesses and even here. Both corporations belong to their provincial governments, that is, Ontario and Quebec. However, because of legal intricacies whereby one was divided into two entities and the other into three subsidiaries, this has cost Quebec $250 million a year since 2008.

Government officials are talking. I have a great deal of respect for them, for I have been one myself. People can talk for a long time when their mandate is not to resolve a problem. People sitting around me here today have had long careers in the union movement and know very well that when people are given the mandate to resolve an issue, they solve it. However, when their mandate is to talk, they talk. Government officials do not have the mandate to resolve the issue of the $250 million at this time.

The government put a cap on equalization. During the election campaign in 2008 in Quebec, with a stroke of the federal pen, without any consultation with the provincial governments, the government drew a line that is costing the Government of Quebec $357 million a year. There is no mention of this in the budget speech.

There is protection money, a certain insurance policy invented in 2006. Quebec was the first province to see its revenues drop. The Government of Canada said that Quebec had received too much money in recent years and therefore demanded the $2.38 billion overpayment, in installments of $238 million a year for 10 years.

The following year, other provinces found themselves in the same situation. The Government of Canada decided to include a form of protection in the equalization formula to keep payments from decreasing. Quebec went through that, paved the way for the other provinces and then asked what the Government of Canada would do for it. The government asked for $238 million. It could tell Quebec to stop paying that $238 million per year. However, the Government of Canada subtracts it from the payments it makes each year. So there are no cheques.

Since 1991, there has been a dispute between the governments of Canada and Quebec. They went to an administrative tribunal. They went to the court of appeal. The federal government lost. That represents $137 million since 1991. The Government of Canada did not go to the Supreme Court.

In Quebec, everyone said that they would accept the decisions of the administrative tribunal and the court of appeal. The deadline for going to the Supreme Court has passed and the Government of Canada is not paying. It amounts to $137 million since 1991.

During our tour, we said that the Government of Quebec should be respected. We proposed additional spending of $16.8 billion, but, at the same time, additional revenues of $18.9 billion, meaning an additional $2 billion for the government so as not to increase the deficit.

Where was this money going to come from? We had a very logical principle: ask those who have more to pay more. For example, we proposed that anyone with a taxable income of more than $150,000, which is a lot of money, pay up for a while and contribute as well. But Canada's current Minister of Finance—Ontario's former finance minister, refused and chose to protect those people.

We spoke about tax havens and banks. We know that the minister does not want to go after his banking buddies and the friends of the member for Markham—Unionville on principle. Others have weighed in however. With all due respect to our friend, I looked at what the Royal Bank of Canada had to say. In its annual report, on page 122, it says that international earnings of certain subsidiaries would be taxed only upon their repatriation to Canada. Since there will be no repatriation, there are no taxes. It also mentions that if all foreign subsidiaries’ accumulated unremitted earnings were repatriated, they would be estimated at $821 million in 2009, $920 million in 2008, and $843 million in 2007, just for Royal Bank. I did not look at what the other banks had to say. We are telling the Minister of Finance that we must go after that money—it is written here—but he does not want to.

We did the tour and made some proposals to the government, thinking this could improve things, but the government completely ignored us.

Coming back to the matter at hand, it is one thing for a 17-page budget speech to become a 451-page document, acceptably long, with all the details, the tax measures, annexes, and ways and means motions. That is the right way to do things; it makes sense. But what the government has presented us with is an 872-page bill that has 2,208 clauses, and that talks about privatizing the AECL and Canada Post, among other things. Those kinds of things would usually be found in several bills.

In conclusion, I hope that the opposition members who sit with me on the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for Markham—Unionville, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, and our good friend, who is regularly invited, the member for Willowdale, will be strong enough to urge all of their Liberal colleagues to join us in voting against this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the member talk about the tax havens. It has certainly been a big issue in this country for many years. Interestingly enough, Revenue Canada has an amnesty program so that Canadians can invest in their tax havens in Liechtenstein or wherever. At the end of the day, if Revenue Canada catches on to them, all they have to do is walk down to Revenue Canada's office and declare their ill-gotten gains. The amnesty applies and they are off free.

That is a very bad signal to be delivering to taxpayers. We would be none the wiser about some of this tax haven activity had it not been for a low-level computer employee in a Liechtenstein bank, who a couple of years ago took a disc of names and sold it to the German government so that it could chase all of the people who were hiding money in Liechtenstein.

That is how we got on to this issue. It was through no help from the government or law enforcement in Canada. It was a bank employee in Liechtenstein who set this process in motion. The fact is that the Canadian government allows an amnesty. It allows people, once they get caught, to simply walk in and declare their income and they are let off scot-free. How is that in any way shutting down tax havens?

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the NDP raises an interesting point. One of a collection officer’s hardest jobs is to go and get the taxes, as the finance minister says. The minister sets the fiscal policy and the Canada Revenue Agency has to go and get the money wherever it is.

What was said about Liechtenstein was very interesting. I well remember the previous minister responsible for the Canada Revenue Agency proudly announcing that he was going to nab 160 people thanks to a list that a banker had sold on Google to the German government. It was rather strange.

I would remind the NDP member that Canada's exports of capital go primarily to the United States, followed by Great Britain. The country that ranks third in our capital exports is Barbados. This is not for tourism, which is what the G8 people are supposedly going to be engaged in in Toronto. People do not invest in Barbados for tourism reasons but because it is a tax haven that the Government of Canada is unwilling to blow the whistle on and close down.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Hochelaga what he thinks about the Conservatives’ attitude during questions and comments. They make speeches about Bill C-9 and then they plant questions every day in question period. The government boasts about Canada’s economic situation and compares itself to the Greeks or other governments, as if it were responsible for the relatively calm conditions here.

This is the same government, though, that in the 2008 election denied an economic crisis was imminent. Now we hear Conservatives all over the place saying we managed to survive the economic crisis thanks to all they did.

Can the hon. member tell me what they are talking about? Is it the measures to help tourism in Huntsville and Toronto by building an artificial lake and so forth to attract tourists from who knows where? What measures can the government claim to have taken, other than the $10 billion to help Ontario’s automobile industry, so that Canada would survive the crisis better than most others?

My colleague is an experienced economist. Can he tell me whether this is a result of government action or rather of the global economic situation?

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agreed with my colleague right up to the last sentence, when he described me as an experienced economist. The member for Markham—Unionville, who is also an experienced economist, will know very well that an economist is defined as someone who makes as few mistakes as possible. So I do not like the adjective “experienced”, but I will accept it.

In fact, the government boasts about all the good news and takes credit for it. In the meantime, the Conservatives are trying to break something that works perfectly well. I will take the example of the Autorité des marchés financiers. We have come through the financial crisis in Canada with regional authorities, provincial authorities, that work together on the passport principle. It is working, it has worked. It has functioned well and now they are saying oops, it is not in Toronto, so it must be bad and we are going to take it over.

I would remind the member that some years ago, the people in the government, who were in opposition, were in favour of the bank mergers and acquisitions of Canadian banks by American banks. There must be a God, because it did not happen, but that has nothing to do with the policies of the federal government.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like the member's comments on the possibility of a double-dip recession in the United States. We are aware that $1.3 trillion worth of commercial loans will be coming due in the foreseeable future. There is a freeze on credit for small business in the United States. Manufacturers cannot get lines of credit. In fact, 400 of the largest contractors are now doing work in the public sector where just a couple of years ago 80% of their business was in the private sector. In addition, 2010 will mark the end of the stimulus package and unemployment is going to rise.

Does the member have any thoughts about the possibility of a double-dip recession in the United States, which could have a spillover into Canada?

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, in fact, if the Americans start having problems with their debts, obviously the credit ratings will be changed and capital will be more expensive. If capital is more expensive south of the border, capital will be more expensive north of the border.

That would have been exactly the right time to have a loan guarantee program in place for the forestry industry, if they had done that, for example. It would have been the right time to put a business start-up program in place. That was done in Quebec in the past, in the early 1990s, after a recession, when we said we were going to give entrepreneurs a boost and offer them government guarantees. In a very large majority of cases, everything was fine and they did not need them.

When there is a problem with capital not being available, it is time for the government to consider developing and implementing loan guarantee programs. That, coupled with entrepreneurial know-how, is how the economy will recover.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his excellent speech.

Since the beginning, this government has not stopped talking about how much money it has spent on victims and about its plans to come up with some kind of bill to help victims. I have seen no such thing. I would ask my colleague, who is well-informed in this area, to tell us whether he has seen anything for victims other than the $3 million over two years, if memory serves. Other than that, has the government introduced a bill or come up with any concrete measures to help victims?

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is in front of me, so I will not start over. I will not get angry this time. I will keep the bill, but I want my colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, to know that I have looked at all of it. This has been thoroughly analyzed. There are pages and pages of documents, but there is nothing for victims even though it would make perfect sense to introduce a specific bill for victims. Rather than put everything in an omnibus bill, it would have been a good idea to introduce a bill to protect victims, but that is not what the parliamentary secretary wanted.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the member for Outremont.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Does the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth have the unanimous consent of the House for his proposal?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-9 is not a budget implementation bill that lays its cards on the table. It is far from honest. The House of Commons has approved an 880-page Trojan Horse filled with measures that have nothing to do with the budget. The NDP called on the members to remove the most provocative measures from the bill so that the House could debate them on their merits. I am very disappointed that this House voted yesterday evening to keep the Trojan Horse whole and intact. I am disappointed that the Prime Minister ignored our call to have the courage to be accountable. I am disappointed that the leader of the official opposition did not walk the talk.

I am especially disappointed this morning with the Leader of the Opposition, who is squandering this opportunity to stop this Trojan Horse budget before it hurts Canadians. Together, we have the leverage. With the G8 and G20 leaders coming for the $1 billion extravaganza, there is no way the Prime Minister is going to force an election on top of that.

Canadians are asking the opposition parties to work together and we need to be honouring that call. At the very least, Canadians deserve clarity from their official opposition, not a maze of confusion.

Look at what has happened. In committee, the Liberals voted against the Trojan Horse budget but not in sufficient numbers to ensure it was defeated. At report stage just last night, the Liberals voted for the Trojan Horse by opposing NDP amendments to split off the most egregious elements of it for separate discussions. Then again last night, they switched their vote once more and voted against the Trojan Horse but not in sufficient numbers. The result was that the whole package was approved and stands before us in this debate now on third reading.

This is not some kind of academic exercise. Let us review what is at stake here with this bill.

This bill weakens the Environmental Assessment Act. It gives responsibility for environmental assessments to the National Energy Board, which is in bed with the energy industry and big oil. Even worse, it gives cabinet the power to forgo some assessments, even for major offshore energy projects. Could the timing be worse? The Conservatives want to give oil companies more freedom when the BP oil spill is destroying the Gulf of Mexico and Canadians want measures to prevent a similar catastrophe here.

The bill also authorizes the sale of AECL. Without debate, we are ceding Canada's control over the future of nuclear technology in this country.

At risk are 30,000 highly skilled jobs and our reputation as an innovator, especially in nuclear medicine and research. It is an obnoxious precedent. It gives the cabinet the right to sell the largest crown corporation without public debate or scrutiny and that is simply wrong.

Third, the bill furthers the privatization of Canada Post. It takes profitable overseas mail delivery business, which is essential to Canada Post's success and hands it over to private business. It weakens this vital crown corporation and sets up the slippery slope toward full privatization.

Universal public mail service is a right of citizenship in this country and has been for over a century wherever we live, just like public health care. We cannot count on a weakened privatized Canada Post to provide fair services everywhere, especially in rural areas where service is less profitable but vital to the businesses and the citizens of rural Canada.

The bill also seals the deal on raiding the EI account. The Supreme Court concluded that the government was wrong to steal the money from the EI surplus, put it into the general accounts, and give it away as corporate tax cuts to the banks and oil companies. The Supreme Court said it was wrong and so, buried in the bill is the provision to simply make it a new law that not even the Supreme Court could stop. It is obnoxious timing because we are still emerging from a recession when workers need the help from the EI fund more than ever.

EI was not there to help them when they needed it. People are falling off the EI rolls. The government celebrates but it should not be because many of those people are falling into welfare. That is why EI needs the financial support that the bill would take away. It is time to renew protection for the unemployed, not take it away.

What is going on here? Omnibus bills like this are the wrong way. They are the last refuge of a regime that is trying to hide from Canadians what it is doing and it is playing on the weakness or ambivalence or waffling of the official opposition.

There is an opportunity this afternoon to do the right thing because barring a sudden conversion by the Prime Minister before tonight's vote, something I am not holding my breath in anticipation of, Canadians will wake up tomorrow with a weaker country.

It did not need to be this way. It does not have to be this way. Tonight's vote could change that and Canadians need us to do exactly that.