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

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

moved that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to start the second reading debate on the jobs and economic growth act. This ambitious legislation includes key elements of budget 2010 and year two of Canada's economic action plan. The jobs and economic growth act, a key component of that plan, is a testament to the proactive and aggressive actions that our Conservative government has taken; actions to ensure that not only Canada was protected from the worst of the global economic storm but that we will lead the global economic recovery.

As CIBC economist Warren Lovely recently noted:

Simply put, highly rated Canada offers safe harbour.... Few advanced economies boast stronger real GDP growth prospects--a view endorsed by our own economics department, a broad cross section of private sector banks, the Bank of Canada, the IMF and...the OECD. Meanwhile, Canada's near-term growth in nominal GDP should lead the G7...

Our Conservative government, through today's legislation, is working to address the long-term opportunities and challenges that our country will be confronting in the years ahead.

The jobs and economic growth act would accomplish that objective by bringing forward a range of economic measures to contribute to Canada's advantage now and for the future, for example, by: eliminating tariffs on manufacturing inputs and machinery and equipment; eliminating the need for tax reporting under section 116 of the Income Tax Act for many investments; narrowing the definition of taxable Canadian property; implementing important changes to strengthen federally regulated private pension plans; implementing the one time transfer protection payment to provincial governments announced in December 2009; regulating national payment card networks and their operators, if necessary; enabling credit unions to incorporate federally and operate as banks; making it easier for companies to offer telecommunication services to Canadians; stimulating the mining industry by extending the mineral exploration tax credit; creating greater tax fairness between single and two parent families with respect to claiming universal child care benefit amounts; implementing an enhanced stamping regime for tobacco products to deter contraband. There is much more in this document.

The jobs and economic growth act would also help restrain and focus spending. It proposes to freeze allowances and salaries for parliamentarians and reduce what are known as governor in council federal appointments.

Let us briefly look at a few of the aforementioned highlights of this legislation and hear what Canadians are saying about them.

First, we are proposing to completely eliminate tariffs on manufacturing inputs and machinery and equipment. This bold action will position Canada as the first country in the G7 and G20 to be a tariff-free zone for manufacturing. Manufacturers across this country are applauding that.

Canadian manufacturers will be able to produce their quality goods right here in Canada without job-killing tariffs and without a web of productivity-draining red tape. This will give our manufacturers the competitive advantage they need to succeed in the global marketplace.

This important initiative will lower production costs, increase competitiveness and enhance innovation and productivity. More important, it is estimated that our move to make Canada a tariff-free zone for manufacturing will create 12,000 new, good quality jobs in the years ahead.

This legislation builds on key Canadian economic advantages, such as being home to the soundest financial system in the world, and allows us to boast the lowest tax rate in the G7 for new investment.

The jobs and economic growth act would truly make Canada an even more attractive place for new investment and for the new jobs it would create. This would also further assist in diversifying Canada's trade patterns. It would complement our Conservative government's efforts to grow freer trade with places like the European Union and India and implement recent agreements with Colombia, Panama and Jordan.

Since announcing this bold initiative, we have heard a lot of positive feedback. In earlier speeches on budget 2010, I relayed some of the feedback to the House. Today, I would like to draw the attention of the House to even more applause that has been received since that time.

We have heard from business leaders like Linda Hasenfratz, CEO of Linamar Corporation, who praised the tariff reduction. She said, “Anything that we can do to reduce costs in terms of importing manufacturing equipment is going to be of benefit to us. We do buy a lot of equipment. We tend to spend somewhere between $180 million and $200 million a year on manufacturing equipment, so to improve the cost of that is going to be a benefit to us”.

Dani Reiss, CEO of that popular Arctic Canadian coat manufacturer, Canada Goose, also heralded it as “a great move...tariffs only made it more expensive to be a Canadian manufacturer. I think this move by the government will make made in Canada viable for more apparel companies”.

The Saskatchewan Trade and Export Partnership also calls the tariff-free zone “a big deal”, adding:

Investment in new machinery and the latest technology is one good way to more effectively produce goods and to make them more competitive. Much high-technology equipment must be imported from Europe and Asia, so eliminating tariffs helps make it more affordable for Canadian manufacturers.

Andrew Coyne, the respected public policy commentator and national editor for Macleans magazine cheered it as well. Andrew said that it is “terrific public policy, a shot in the arm for Canada's manufacturers, and a timely example to the rest of the world. It will lower costs, save on paperwork, and improve productivity. It will make Canada the G20's first tariff-free zone, and as such is likely to prove an attractive incentive to locate a plant here”.

I literally could devote my entire speech to passing along the many positive statements we have heard on the tariff-free zone for manufacturing initiatives that is simply a part of budget 2010 and legislated through the jobs and economic growth act. However, I would not have the opportunity to talk about many other great aspects of this bill, so I will move on. Maybe we could talk more about this later during the period for questions and comments.

Let us talk about the major positive pro-growth reform to section 116 of the Income Tax Act. Specifically, the bill helps by eliminating tax reporting for investments such as those by non-resident venture capital funds in a typical Canadian high tech firm. This would enhance the ability of Canadian businesses to attract foreign venture capital, fuelling job creation and economic growth. We have also heard glowing praise for this move from all across Canada.

Dave Bullock, CEO of LiveHive Systems, speaking for the Waterloo region tech cluster that is home to more than 700 technology companies, remarked:

Very simply, amending Section 116 removes one of the biggest barriers to growing successful companies in Canada - access to international investment capital.... This is a change that will give promising Canadian companies the opportunity to get to that next level.

Canada's research-based pharmaceutical companies also cheered the move as “a far-sighted approach...which will have the capacity to boost the flow of venture capital into Canada for biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies”.

Another key element of the jobs and economic growth act is the important changes to strengthen federally regulated private pension plans. I am proud to say I was personally very involved in the development of these changes. By way of background, in early 2009, our Conservative government announced we would review issues related to pensions under federal jurisdiction, regulated by way of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.

This represented the first comprehensive review in nearly three decades. We started that process in January 2009 when we released for public comment a major research paper on legislative and regulatory regimes for federally regulated private pension plans. We followed that up with extensive cross-country and online public consultations open to all Canadians. We asked for input on the legislative and regulatory framework for federally regulated private pension plans.

From March until May 2009, I travelled across Canada from Halifax to Vancouver to Whitehorse and many places in between. What is more, despite the challenging timelines and logistical challenges, we never once left anyone at the microphone who wanted to speak. Every single person who wanted to have his or her voice heard on this very important file was offered that opportunity.

Let me take a brief moment to express my thanks to all those people who took the time to participate in that process, either in person or online. Their involvement was central and absolutely necessary for the entire process to be both meaningful and successful. During that consultation I heard very unique, personal and raw stories. This focused my determination to get it right, to ensure that this landmark study of federally regulated private pensions and whatever reforms followed from it got it right. It was just too important.

We carefully reviewed all the submissions throughout the summer and into the early fall of 2009, when we announced a package of significant reforms to federally regulated pensions that, I humbly suggest, did get it right. There is one change I am particularly pleased with and it is included in the jobs and economic growth act. Namely, it is the requirement for plan sponsors who voluntarily wind up a pension plan to fund 100% of their contractual commitments to those plan members.

Travelling around Canada, time and again I heard troubling stories of various plan sponsors who made a decision to stop offering a defined benefit plan to their employees. On too many occasions, this meant that those retirees did not receive 100% of what they had been promised and deserved. The old framework actually allowed that to occur. We thought that was wrong, and that is why we are changing that in this act.

Other key reforms to federally regulated pensions in the jobs and economic growth act consist of the following: authorizing an employer to use a letter of credit if certain conditions are met, to satisfy solvency funding obligations in respect to a pension plan that has not been terminated in whole; establishing a distressed pension plan workout scheme, under which the employer and representatives of the members and retirees may negotiate changes to the plan's funding requirements, subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance; and permitting 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. Much more was added into that as well.

I am happy to report that the reforms we announced were very well received by public interest groups and many commentators. Let me take a moment to share what I heard with the House. First, the National Association of Federal Retirees was “pleased to hear that the Government of Canada is taking action to strengthen the pension framework and enhance benefit security...”.

Dan Braniff, founder of the Common Front for Retirement Security, in a letter to the Minister of Finance wrote, “On behalf of the Common Front for Retirement Security, I wish to congratulate you.... This is an important milestone for creating greater security for many pensioners and plan members.... We also wish to show our appreciation for the excellent work of [the member for Macleod] who travelled across Canada and obviously listened to the voices of pensioners.... Thank you for taking this very important step for better retirement security at this very critical time”.

Raymond Bertrand, president of Bell Pensioners' Group, in a letter to my office, added, “I am writing to you on behalf of the Bell Pensioners' Group to express our appreciation for the manner in which you have consulted with Canadians, and in particular pensioners, who are most affected by amendments.... You made sure the voice of pensioners was heard in the round table consultation process which you so ably led. You clearly identified that one of your main priorities was to protect the pension promise. On behalf of all our members, please accept our thanks for your willingness to move forward the very difficult policy agenda of pension reform”.

Ian Lee, of Carleton University Sprott School of Business, called the reforms “far-reaching because they do address some of the demands that were being made by pension advocates.... What it's going to do is create a framework that is going to allow for greater scrutiny...[and] change the rules whereby companies can contribute more money...in aggregate I think it's going to ensure that our pensions are on a better footing, a more solid foundation”.

As well, the Canadian Labour Congress admitted:

These changes result from the consultations the government has held over the past year and some of them look good....

One more positive element of the jobs and economic growth act that I would like to take a moment to highlight today is the provisions to enable credit unions to incorporate federally. In this legislation, we are proposing to create a federal legislative framework for credit unions. This is to promote the continued growth and competitiveness of the financial sector. Allowing credit unions to grow and be competitive on a national scale will broaden choices for consumers and attract new members. It will also improve services to existing members across provincial borders.

Again, we have heard a lot of great feedback on this particular provision.

Credit Union Atlantic has hailed this move as “an important step forward for the credit union system...this provides a framework for a more competitive banking system in Canada and will enable further growth of the credit union alternative”.

The Case for Progress Committee, a coalition of several credit unions across this country, called it a “historic milestone”:

This new legislation benefits all Canadians by increasing their choices in selecting a financial institution. It will strengthen the stability and the competitiveness of the entire financial services industry in Canada.

In my short time today, I have only scratched the surface of what is clearly a very ambitious piece of legislation.

The jobs and economic growth act contains much more good news in this legislation that I am sure the opposition will welcome, items like the important financial support for excellent organizations such as the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, Genome Canada, Pathways to Education and the Rick Hansen Foundation.

Canada is certainly showing strong, hopeful signs of economic recovery. I do want to caution the House, though. The signs are still not strong enough to warrant a switch of focus away from the economy.

The economic action plan and its related components, like the jobs and economic growth act, is making an important positive contribution across Canada.

As The Toronto Star recently noted:

The Northern Tiger is back....

Canada's attractive record in job creation, GDP growth and comparative fiscal strength is well known....

You could call it “Canada's moment,” a chapter in history that finds the Canadian economy outperforming expectations while major foreign economies are still in distress.

Let us all work together, across the aisle and party lines, to keep up the momentum.

Let us support this legislation and build Canada's economic advantage today and for tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. Apparently it was supposed to be about the jobs and economic growth act. We heard a lot about pensions, which do not seem to have that much to do with the particular bill in front of the House at this particular time.

I would be interested in the hon. member's comments on the use of the stimulus moneys.

What we know for sure is that we have added about $165 billion to the debt of this country. What we do not know for sure is whether any of that stimulus money actually contributed to the recovery of the economy. In fact there are those who say that not only did it not contribute to the recovery of the economy but it will actually act as a counterweight to future recoveries, because by the time the money gets into the economy, it will be competing with the private sector.

I would be interested in the hon. gentleman's comments with respect to whether he or the Department of Finance, or anyone, has an economic model that shows that the stimulus money actually assisted in the recovery of the economy.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think even that hon. member understands, from his time sitting around the table at the Department of Finance in Canada, that these numbers do not just come out of a hat. I think all hon. members in this House realize that.

We put forward a number, 220,000 jobs, that would grow out of this stimulus money. We are over 160,000 new jobs since July of last year, so we are well on our way.

Budget 2010 is year two of a two-part plan, the economic action plan that put taxpayers' money into projects to stimulate the economy, and from all accounts we are hearing from all corners of this country, it is working. We have new jobs. We are protecting existing jobs. We are also providing employment insurance for those people who lost—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to question my colleague, the hon. member for Macleod, in Alberta, who is taking our questions on the implementation of the budget. However, one aspect has been completely overlooked. He was raising some questions and comments earlier, but I will leave it up to the member for Burlington to ask him some planted questions.

The member for Macleod undoubtedly knows that last Friday the chief justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal completely rejected the federal government's arguments, directly from the bench.

Now, in his home province, the Alberta Court of Appeal is about to give the same ruling, that is, it is about to stop the federal government from cutting jobs in Quebec and Alberta, jobs in the provincial securities commissions, affecting lawyers, notaries and financiers.

Why is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance conspiring with the Minister of Finance to cut jobs in Montreal, in my home province, and in his home province, Alberta?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the exact opposite is true.

The money we are injecting into this entire Canadian economy has probably provided more job growth in the province of Quebec than it has in my province of Alberta. It is a little troubling. We have one of the largest job losses in western Canada because of the oil and gas sector that actually provides heat for the hon. member's home and fuel for the hon. member's car. I am sure he is quite grateful for the fact that we can actually produce that in this country and do not have to import it.

However, considering a Canadian securities regulator, it is voluntary. Everyone in this House knows that, and I would encourage even the Bloc to get on board with supporting that voluntary Canadian securities regulator.

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

Mr. Speaker, Manitoba has very successful credit union movement. We have the Steinbach Credit Union and the Assiniboine Credit Union. The member mentioned that the credit unions were interested in registering federally and, as such, providing an alternative to the national banks.

Who has asked for this legislation? What are his projections as to how many credit unions will take him up on this offer and expand it across the country to compete with the banks?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to be very truthful, I am not sure how many credit unions will take us up on this but there is a number.

This came from our consultations with Canadians. Credit unions came to us and asked to be regulated federally so they could expand their operations to encourage more members.

Credit unions in our country are a great success story. They are membership owned. We have encouraged that. This is an opportunity for them to participate. One of the issues we faced when we were in our cross-country consultations prior to budget 2009 was access to credit. That was one of the most critical issues for individuals and for businesses. The more ways we can provide credit all across the country, the better it is for the employers to create more jobs in the country.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for the fine work he has been doing for the Minister of Finance, not only today but in the committee as well. He is a great leader in committee.

The budget is titled, “Leading the Way on Jobs and Growth”. Would the parliamentary secretary comment on this? This past weekend we heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about increasing corporate taxes. Why is increasing corporate taxes the wrong approach and why is not included in this budget?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I, as well, would like to thank the hon. member for Burlington for his great work on the committee.

The member travelled to more cities in our prebudget tour than I had the opportunity to. He has a great reflection of what is happening across the country. I know he has heard what would happen if the businesses in his riding faced higher taxes.

The Liberals came back from their spenders' conference and said that they would raise taxes if they became government. They are claiming that they are going to stop the fall in taxes. Anyone who has sat in the House knows that this tax cut has already been legislated. If the Liberals got their way, God forbid, look out Canada, higher taxes.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did attend the briefing yesterday.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question. We have virtually an omnibus bill, which has many items that are not in the budget. One of the things we did not see any language on or hear about last night was the new imposition of the 31.5% tax on income trusts.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain to the House and all Canadians what changes have been made to the Income Tax Act to give effect to that tax and when did they happen?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know it has been a busy week, but I believe it was two nights ago when the hon. member joined us. It cannot have been last night. I know we have had such fun at those briefings.

This government has cut over 100 taxes since we took office in 2006. That has been a focus, because we understand that by cutting taxes, it creates a fairer tax regime for all Canadians.

The House resumed from March 31, consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an opportunity today to talk about this inaptly named jobs and economic growth recovery act since it is my view that the government has had virtually nothing to do with this recovery, notwithstanding a great deal of back patting that seems to go on by those on the side opposite.

Members might have noticed a pattern over the years of the Prime Minister not being overly fond of those who contradict him, especially those who used to be his best friends.

The people at the Fraser Institute, which is well described as a right-wing think tank based in Vancouver, used to be among the Prime Minister's best friends, at least they were until recently when they were on the receiving end of the Prime Minister's wrath. Why would the Fraser Institute, which is hardly a bastion of liberal thought, be on the receiving end of the Prime Minister's wrath? Well, it produced an analysis of the recovery which showed that the stimulus moneys that the government put into the economy which ran up the debt had virtually no impact on the recovery of the nation.

I do not know whether I should admit this in public, but I read the Fraser Institute publications and sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I disagree with them. They are generally well written, fairly piffy and generally provocative. It behooves us all to read widely, even those with whom we disagree. The Fraser Institute has even from time to time been so generous as to invite me to speak at one of its functions. . I suppose from time to time it needs a token Liberal at one of these functions, but I appreciate its generosity in inviting me. I do not know whether in fact I will be invited again. I do have the tie to prove that I was at one point an invited speaker. I regularly wear it to any funeral I go to.

What is it that has actually caught the Prime Minister's wrath? I will quote from Niels Veldhuis of the Fraser Institute, the senior economist and one of the study's co-authors. He says:

Although the federal government has repeatedly claimed credit for Canada’s improved economic performance in the second half of 2009, Statistics Canada data show that government spending and investment in infrastructure had a negligible effect on the country’s improved economic growth.

Home reno tax credit's impact 'negligible'.

That is notwithstanding its popularity.

The report's authors say they're not surprised by their findings, noting that infrastructure spending takes time to work its way through the system.

“The fear now is that spending on infrastructure will occur as the economy naturally begins to grow, meaning that government will be competing with the private sector for resources, resulting in increased costs and fewer private-sector projects”, Veldhuis says.

He goes on to question the stimulative value of the renovation tax credit which was, as he says, a “popular measure”, but it had a “negligible impact” on the GDP growth in the second half of 2009.

He goes on to say that “less than a tenth of the $47.2 billion in the stimulus package was earmarked for personal income tax reductions”, which the Fraser Institute argues was a far better method for economic stimulus.

He further states:

What we see now is that the stimulus packages put in place by Canadians governments in 2009 created massive government deficits, resulting in increased in debt while contributing little to the economic turnaround.

That is what made the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance so exercised. This self-described right-wing think tank, formerly the best buddies and soulmates of the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, had the audacity to say that the “emperor had no clothes”. It is not a good idea to criticize the finance minister or the Prime Minister if one expects to retain the best buddy status. The institute said that the impact of the stimulus package was negligible, which really hurts coming from friends.

What we do know is that the Conservative government has run up the debt by $165 billion, $49 billion in this year alone. That is the hard, cold fact directly from its budgetary documents.

What we can say for sure is that $165 billion has been loaded onto future taxpayers instead of any kind of a realistic plan. Instead of actually dealing with the runaway freight train, that is, the expenses of the government, it has postponed decisions and will continue to postpone decisions.

The closest the government gets to a decision is the $17.5 billion so-called savings measures, money that it was going to spend but are now not proposing to spend. The biggest component of the money it was going to spend and is not now going to spend is the money for the world's poor, $4.5 billion. So $4.5 billion of the $17.5 billion, somewhere in the order of 20% to 25% of the entire package, will be loaded on people who do not vote, who cannot vote and who live in other countries. That is kind of an easy decision to make if the government really wants to show it is semi-serious about getting costs under control.

The other biggest hunk is the $6 or $7 billion for the civil servants. These are the ones who were hired to implement the jobs and growth agenda which, arguably, according to the Fraser Institute,has had a negligible impact, and they are being fired or will be fired or anticipate being fired as part of the so-called savings. Therefore, $6 or $7 billion out of the $17.5 billion will be put onto the backs of the civil servants who were actually hired to implement the plan that does not work.

Even one of the Prime Minister's former speech writers, Michael Taube, had some rather uncomfortable things to say to the Prime Minister. He repeats the material from the Fraser Institute, and states

...the 1.1% GDP growth between the second and third quarters of 2009, stimulus spending and government consumption “played a negligible role in the economic turnaround” and only accounted for 0.2%. Meanwhile, the 1% GDP growth between the third and fourth quarters was “solely responsible” due to net exports, and not stimulus spending and government consumption.

The PM also said the Fraser Institute report was “completely wrong,” and “economic theory and history is clear, governments.... So much for [the Prime Minister's]reputation as a free market champion. ... The [the Prime Minister's] I knew supported the economic theory and history models of small government, private enterprise supporters such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Apparently, he’s now switched over to Paul Krugman.

Interestingly, I had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Krugman and ask him whether there was a model to show that if in fact one puts x number of billion dollars into an economy whether it can be identified as actual economic growth out of the economy.

If the government is taking taxpayer money and putting it into the economy of the nation, how does it measure that there is something that comes out the other side, or does it simply just run up a debt and have no product at the end of the day?

Mr. Krugman was not entirely forthcoming as to what that model would look like. I dare say that Mr. Krugman and the Fraser Institute might actually, from both sides of the economic spectrum, be able to argue quite cogently that if one is a Keynesian person, one cannot actually measure the economic product, and from the right-wing side of the equation, whatever measurement is there is negligible and one may well have just wasted all one's money.

Mr. Taube goes on to say:

But to take distinctly un-conservative positions after his stimulus spending’s net benefit was shown to be insignificant by an important Canadian conservative think-tank isn’t a wise strategy.

Kool-aid Conservative supporters might be happy with [the Prime Minister's] mock outrage. But red meat conservatives are tired of these shenanigans.

Mr. Taube is a former speech writer for the Prime Minister.

That is what the Conservatives' friends are saying. What do they get for their analyses? Mr. Taube or the Conservative think-tank get epithets from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. They call it shabby, wrong, contradictory, poorly done, et cetera. What we get are vitriolic attacks, which is what we see in this place, rather than any reasoned debate.

The Prime Minister actually had the courage of his convictions saying that he or the finance minister would table the analysis that shows that the stimulus spending impacted on the economy in a positive way, in which case we could probably put the argument to rest or, better still, let the Parliamentary Budget Officer look at it. Of course, that is not too likely since the Parliamentary Budget Officer is used to being attacked by the finance minister.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer certainly did not get any kudos from the finance minister on March 11 when he said that the plan lacked detailed information and that he disapproved of the overall characterization of the economy and would not characterize the government's methods as a prudent basis for fiscal planning. His most significant point on March 11 was that he lacked the detailed information and data that the government was using to make its projections which found their way into the budget and which subsequently found their way into the legislation that is on the floor of the House.

It is not as if the Parliamentary Budget Officer disagrees with private sector economists. He generally accepts their propositions. What he does not agree with, because he does not get the co-operation from the Minister of Finance, is how the Conservatives got from there to here. What it produces is the stuff that the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Budget Officer agree on and the product that the finance minister produces for his budget. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is rightly asking how they got from here to there and they answer by saying that they cannot tell him. That is pretty useless because if they cannot tell him, how can there be a reasoned debate as to whether the projections are correct?

We have the Fraser Institute arguing on the far right that whatever money has been spent has had a negligible impact, a speech writer saying the same thing, Mr. Krugman saying that there is no real economic model and then we have the Parliamentary Budget Officer being frozen out of the data or the modelling that would take him from the agreed upon point, which is the consensus data put forward by the private sector economists, to the product we see in the budget.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been an irritation to the government and the Minister of Finance for quite a while now. In 2008 and 2009 he consistently and accurately projected shortfalls and/or surpluses earlier than the Minister of Finance. Even when the Prime Minister was predicting a surplus in 2008, which just happened to coincide with the election, by the way, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that there would be a deficit.

What are we supposed to do with this sort of thing? In 2008 the Prime Minister said that there would not be a recession in Canada and that we would be fine so long as we did not do stupid things, such as running a deficit. Then he suggested in October that there were good buying opportunities for Canadians. In November 2008, his failed economic statement promised a surplus for the next five years. Twelve days later he was contradicted by the Bank of Canada and announced that we were in fact in a recession. In December he had run up a deficit of $20 billion to $30 billion.

From September to December, a space of 90 days, we went from a surplus prediction by the Prime Minister/Minister of Finance to a $30 billion deficit. In January it was up to $40 billion, by the summer it was up to $56 billion and I think in this budget it settles itself down to about $54 billion.

The credibility of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance in terms of predicting surpluses and deficits has been shot. They will not share with the Parliamentary Budget Officer the reason for their “optimism”. The Fraser Institute seems to indicate that whatever moneys have been spent are having a negligible impact.

Their own view, their own ideological base, is quite upset with them because they have squandered $165 billion in accumulated deficits. The response on the part of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister is to launch vicious ad hominem attacks, which is of course a pattern we have seen for quite a while.

I want to contrast that with the handling of the monetary policy by Bank of Canada governor Carney. Mr. Carney's handling of the monetary policy during the same period was, in my view, a masterful job. When we are dealing with an economy, we have the monetary on one side and the fiscal on the other side. The fiscal is what the Minister of Finance controls and the monetary is what the governor of the Bank of Canada controls.

He had a judicious eye on the economy and manipulated the interest rate to maximize the benefit to the economy. Keeping an eye on inflation and the interest rate, he intervened in the market from time to time to buy up stranded debt and to improve liquidity. At all times, he did it in a respectful manner. At all times, he came before various parliamentary committees to tell them what he was doing, how he was doing it and the result he expected.

He did not at any time attack those who disagreed with him. There were those who did disagree with him. There were those who thought his analysis of the economy was somewhat rosy at one point. Others thought he was a touch too pessimistic. Others thought it was going to go up, then it was going to go down and then it was going to go up again. I do not know how it all turns out. In all instances, the governor of the Bank of Canada kept his cool and responded respectfully to inquiries. Even when there was disagreement as to whether or not he was being too optimistic, he kept the dialogue thoughtful and respectful.

Contrast that with what we get in this place. It is kind of a scorched earth policy that comes true when we are having dialogue about what is arguably the most significant responsibility of government, which is the management of the economy. What we get here is the first and ultimately most disrespectful thing: the prorogation of Parliament. If I am the Prime Minister and I do not like what Parliament is saying about whatever it is, why not just shut down Parliament? We saw the result of that. I dare say the Prime Minister will be pretty loathe to shut down Parliament again anytime in the near future.

We get the disrespect of shutting down Canada's chief nuclear officer, Linda Keen. We get the disrespect for Peter Tinsley, the military ombudsman who brought unwelcome news about various things. We get Paul Kennedy, who was engaged in a pretty significant study with respect to the RCMP, being fired summarily. We get disrespect for Canada's diplomatic corps and Richard Colvin, who said things that were “off message”. We see the disrespect for KAIROS. These folks were engaged in human rights activities that the government thinks they should not be involved in, so they were fired at midnight after 35 years of hard work.

The list goes on and on. We saw Scott Clark, the former deputy finance minister. We saw Ed Clark, formerly an official in the Department of Finance, who had the temerity to say that we should possibly be having an adult conversation about what revenues the government actually needs to do what it needs to do.

What do they all have in common? They have the courage to say what they think. As a consequence of their courage in saying what they think, there have been malicious, ad hominem attacks.

This is a democracy chill. It is a free speech chill. Frankly, it is no way to run a country.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the ongoing commentary of many people who have commented on the budget, and quite frankly, I found it very negative. I am surprised the hon. member is so negative today, because ordinarily I feel he is a fairly positive contributor to the discussion.

I am sure the hon. member is aware that Statistics Canada announced yesterday that, for the fifth straight month, our GDP in Canada has grown. In fact, in January we experienced the largest increase in our GDP growth since December 2006, and we know that was a really strong growth period.

Also this week, the global accounting firm KPMG ranked Canada as the most competitive industrialized country for job creation.

I have two questions for my colleague. First, could he name one G7 country that has fared better in this global economic recession than Canada?

Second, will he support the measures in the budget, such as ensuring fairness for Canadian taxpayers by closing tax loopholes and freezing parliamentarians' allowances and the salaries for parliamentarians?

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

Madam Speaker, it is as if I just spent the last 20 minutes talking to a wall, because the hon. member has missed the point.

The point is not that Canada is or is not doing well in its GDP. We are doing relatively well relative to the G7. The point is that you had nothing to do with it, and these are your best friends who are saying—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would remind the hon. member to direct his comments to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, the government had nothing to do with the economic recovery. Contrary to the federal government's claim, the analysis shows that government spending and investment in infrastructure simply did not contribute to the improvement in economic growth. That is from their friends, not from our side. That is from their best friends.

What we have at this point for sure is $165 billion in new debt. What we have for sure is that Canadians should not count on their government to bail them out anytime soon, because these guys do not know what they are doing.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member, who spoke so courageously. He emphasized the courage of those who must talk to this government, and that is what he did. I commend his courage and the support he has shown the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is also very courageous.

A great deal could be said about this budget. My colleague from the official opposition will have so much to present that I must ask myself why, when they know they must be an alternative, they vote against the budget when they support it and vote for the budget when they oppose it. I am rather shocked to hear so many good, critical comments so courageously made by our colleagues to the political right.

It is worth noting that the member stood up to vote against the budget. But how can he explain the lack of courage shown by so many members of his caucus?

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say that the Liberal Party, which is the official opposition, will not be creating political instability based upon this budget. As a consequence we will, somewhat reluctantly of course, be required to make sure the government wins its vote. How we do that is a matter of our own discretion.

I want to point out that in our view the incompetence of the government is manifest. The recovery that is taking place and the green shoots that are growing have nothing to do with the management of this economy on the fiscal side. On the monetary side, the governor of the Bank of Canada has been brilliant. He has managed things very well. Unlike my hon. friend, who does not have to worry about things such as Canadian political instability, we do have to take the more responsible course.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, that last comment reminds me of an old CCF description of a Liberal as someone who sits on the fence with both ears on the ground. I think that has been proved true today.

The value of any budget is measured fundamentally by whether it helps people. The people of British Columbia are measuring this budget based on whether or not it creates well-paying jobs for their families, whether it helps them to educate their children and to take care of their parents, whether it makes their pensions more secure and whether it improves the development of Canada's industrial economy.

With respect to the measures I see in the budget, although there are some positive elements in it and I think the government ought to be congratulated for that, there are aspects in the budget that fail to meet the requirements of ordinary Canadians.

I think it is best expressed by the phrase, “We will be out of this recession when Canadians have jobs”.

My question for my hon. friend is this. How does he feel the budget does in relation to helping Canadian families and, specifically, creating jobs, it being called a job budget by the members opposite?

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

Aside from the preamble, Madam Speaker, the question was quite good.

There is an active conversation, particularly on the business pages but throughout the rest of the newspapers, as to a jobless recovery. We are still hovering around 8.5% to 9% in some places, and actually some are more inflated than that because many people have just given up looking for jobs.

While there are economic indicators that look good, while there is recovery in GDP on a quarterly basis and things of that nature, while exports are up, while the dollar is strong and a number of other economic indicators, which are good for our nation, there does seem to be a lag between Bay Street and Main Street.

It is one thing to keep Bay Street happy. It is another thing altogether to make sure Canadians are participating entirely in this economic recovery. I would hope that would follow. I frankly see little or nothing in the budget or the bill before us with respect to that.

I take note of the observation of the Fraser Institute, which says that as the stimulus money now gets into the economy too late, it will actually compete with the private sector and therefore ratchet up the cost of the projects and also create some difficulty.

There are some ironies of not putting in the stimulus in a timely and effective fashion, which is what we argued this time last year.

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

Madam Speaker, I wish I had more time to try to make some common sense out of what the hon. member is suggesting, using one singular quote.

I have stacks and stacks of quotes from all across the country that say that indeed our stimulus spending was effective in creating jobs, was effective in helping the rebound in the economy.

However, because my time is very limited, let me read one from Peter Dungan who is a business economics professor at the Rotman School of Management. He said, “Private investment largely came from housing, which was stimulated by the home renovation tax credit”. I hope the hon. member utilized it, unlike his colleague. “Exports were driven by the automotive sector and without the government bailout that wouldn't have happened”.

To say stimulus spending had no effect is not true. Does the member categorically—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood has 40 seconds to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, I am amused by the hon. member's ability to pat himself on the back and talk at the same time.

If he wants to get into duelling quotes, we will get into duelling quotes, the simple point being that he is representing the Minister of Finance in the House. If he is convinced that the government's activities on the stimulus side actually produced economic activity, which led to GDP growth, which hopefully will lead to jobs, then he should put it on the floor.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Laval on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on the adoption of her motion.

Allow me to begin my speech by focusing on three excerpts from speeches by our learned colleagues who spoke just ahead of me.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance praised previous budget speeches saying that the automotive sector received special treatment and it paid off. According to him, the automotive sector did fairly well.

However, he did not say a word about the forestry industry; not one word. Why is that? Because there was absolutely nothing for the forestry industry. I agree with what he said about the automotive sector, but there was nothing for the forestry sector, which is a key sector in Quebec.

The second excerpt I agree with is from the speech by my hon. Liberal colleague. He said that the government before us is extremely incompetent. The Bloc and I agree with that statement.

The third excerpt is the one where he said he did not want to trigger an election because he did not want to create instability with the election of the Liberal Party. At least, that is what I understood. We agree: the election of the Liberal Party would create instability in Canada.

This budget speech was very disappointing. Let us get back to the budget implementation bill; unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against it. We voted against the budget and will vote against the budget implementation bill quite simply because this budget is all about sparing the rich. It does everything possible to save business from contributing. It does everything possible to avoid fixing the problem of tax havens. It will even allow certain corporations not registered in Canada to avoid paying taxes in Canada on their transactions. The budget also meddled with telecommunications firms, as if it did not matter whether or not Quebec and Canada lose control of their telecommunications companies. The Conservatives do not care. Furthermore, the budget contains a certain number of items, such as the partial privatization of Canada Post, that will come about eventually.

We do not agree with some of the measures that have been proposed and now made official in this budget implementation bill.

We also do not agree because we have consulted Quebeckers. We have suggested that they seize the opportunity. We toured extensively throughout Quebec and met with people who were very pleased to talk to us. Everywhere we went, we received a warm welcome from many people. They agreed that those who have more should be asked to contribute more. It is a simple principle: clearly, those who have more can contribute more.

Thus, we made a number of suggestions. We proposed that Canadian taxpayers who had taxable income last year of more than $150,000—after basic deductions—should pay 2% more. An additional 2% for those earning $150,000 amounts to $3,000. We also suggested that those with taxable income of more than $250,000—one quarter of a million dollars, that is not peanuts—should pay a 3% surtax.

And $7,500 is a lot of money, but not for someone with a taxable income of more than $250,000—a quarter of a million dollars—a year. We asked them to make this wartime effort, if we can call it that. But it was not even mentioned. The government did not implement any of these socially-useful measures.

We also proposed that tax havens be eliminated, particularly those used by the chartered banks. We did the research to back up our proposal. Canadian chartered banks have to publish an annual report each year, and their fiscal year ends on October 31.

We now have all the information. On page 121 of Royal Bank's annual report, page 149 of CIBC's, page 152 of BMO's, page 129 of Toronto-Dominion's, page 133 of Scotia Bank's and page 144 of National Bank's, we see that all of these chartered banks comply with the Minister of Finance's directive and indicate the tax amounts saved by using tax havens. If these amounts had not been placed in tax havens, these institutions would have been paying money into the treasury of Canada.

Any of these amounts can vary from year to year, ranging from $1.6 billion to $2 billion to $2.5 billion. It depends on profits and how they are used. Why does the Minister of Finance not take from the rich what he is asking of the poor?

During the National Bank of Canada's annual meeting yesterday in Montreal, president Louis Vachon said that the financial sector, and the banks in particular, have been very vocal about the need to fix public finances.

He was referring to the Quebec government's finances as much as the Government of Canada's finances.

He added that everyone clearly has to do their part, including the banks. He is not the only one to say that. Jacques Ménard, whom everyone in Montreal, Quebec and Canada knows, is the chairman of BMO Nesbitt Burns and president of the Bank of Montreal or BMO Financial Group in Quebec. He is well respected. He said the banks have a responsibility as economic players and also as citizens.

Jacques Ménard, president of the Bank of Montreal in Quebec, is prepared to pay out of his own pocket. I imagine his taxable income is greater than $250,000. As the head of a bank he is telling the government he is prepared to make an effort.

There is nothing of the kind in the budget implementation bill.

What is more, we have noticed that non-residents are getting a free ride. In a number of cases, they will no longer be charged the withholding tax.

It will be possible for Canadian corporations using tax havens such as Barbados to make transactions through corporations in Canada without having to pay withholding tax. At the end of the day, by using off-book accounts and financial entries, these corporations could go all over the world with one, two or three foreign subsidiaries in tax havens and, presto, they no longer have to pay any tax. This government is making that possible and legal.

We did our tour, after which I submitted a document to the Minister of Finance himself during a meeting that was pleasant, I must say. The parliamentary secretary was there. We discussed the document. They told me they would look at it. They must not have been wearing their glasses because they did not look at it the way they should have.

Since there clearly are problems in the way pension funds are managed, the budget implementation bill will allow overcapitalization to go from 110% to 125%. That is good. We have indicated that we agree with the Department of Finance and the Government of Canada's overture, but why stop at 125%? And why change the five year standard when this again favours businesses? Why only allow the unfunded liabilities to be covered and go up to 100% after being on the brink of underfunded pensions?

If it happened once, it could happen again. We made the following suggestion: instead of just covering the deficit, why not go higher, up to 100%, 105%, 110% or 120% of the capitalization needed to fund the pensions? There is nothing in here about that except the possibility of going from 110% to 125%, which we commend.

Another item raised a number of questions in the House. I will not use the coarse language the hon. member for Outremont used, even though he was right. His question followed those of the leader of the Bloc and my own on the government's treatment of Quebec in all this, not just when it comes to equalization, but transfer payments as well.

This government, with the former Ontario finance minister in charge of public finances, is doing everything in its power to strangle Quebec's finances. That was obvious from the answers to our questions, and it is also obvious in this budget in which there is practically nothing about the transfers we would like to see increased for Quebec. On the contrary, in the fall of 2008, during the Quebec election campaign, this government introduced a drastic change without telling anyone. For the current year, this change will cost the Government of Quebec—this was mentioned in the Quebec finance minister's budget speech two days ago—$350 million, while at the same time providing Ontario with up to $600 million more.

What can we call this pillaging of the EI fund? We have made outstanding proposals. Some of my colleagues from the Bloc have suggested improvements to the employment insurance system. Of course, this comes at a price, but at the same time we suggested ways to fund these improved EI programs.

As we can see in this weighty budget implementation bill, the Minister of Finance, in his wisdom, noted that it was in fact $57,170,356,000 that was plundered under the previous government. They are boasting about how terrible what the Liberal government did was, saying that it should be ashamed to have snatched funds from the EI account.

They are right. From 1996-97 to 2008-09, the Liberal Party literally siphoned off $57 billion, and that time period includes the first few years that the Conservative government was in office. Time and interest aside, if we divide $57 billion by the number of years during which this plundering took place, we get an average amount of $4,764,196,333 per year. That is how much the Liberal Party stole from employers and employees, from the EI fund, when it was in office.

How will the Conservative government manage this program? The Conservatives say that they now have a commission. I understand; all the money comes from employers and workers. The government does not contribute a cent. None of this money comes from taxes.

The government puts the premiums under revenues and the benefits under expenditures. The difference between the two for the next four years is $19.2 billion. In four years, the government will steal $19.2 billion from Canadian employers and workers. If we divide that amount by four, that is $4.8 billion per year. The plundering of $4.8 billion every year by the Conservatives is right up there with the $4.764 billion the Liberals took when they were in power.

This is another example of what we mean when we say two faces, one reality. Successive Canadian governments have literally stolen from employers and workers because not a single cent comes from Canadian taxes. These are contributions to an insurance plan. If this insurance plan were run by a private company and the company were taking money like this, its managers would be in jail. Who is doing this plundering now? I will let my colleagues guess.

This bill has some 800 pages and several parts. It is a huge bill, and that is not uncommon. Anyone who works in finance is used to this kind of beast.

Part 17 on financial cooperatives is worrisome, since cooperatives can or could be regulated by the Bank Act and the federal government. We will examine this issue more closely with the heads of Mouvement Desjardins in Quebec, in order to determine whether the cooperative movement in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, got what it was asking for from the Government of Canada.

If not, the federal government will once again have control over the cooperative financial sector in Quebec, an exceptional sector that is recognized worldwide.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly will not have time to address all of the misinformation that was in the member's speech, but early in his speech, he made a comment that we have helped the auto sector but have neglected the forestry sector.

I want to remind him and all Canadians that our economic action plan was clear in providing a total of $170 million over two years to help in the support of market diversification and innovation initiatives for the forestry sector. There was also $1 billion to help the pulp and paper green transformation program. This is helping the industry to become a leader in the production of renewal energy from biomass and it creates and sustains jobs.

In addition to the economic action plan, budget 2010 builds on those important investments by providing $100 million over the next four years to support clean energy generation in Canada's forestry sector. On top of that, the Business Development Bank of Canada has provided $300 million in loans to Canadian forestry companies since 2008.

I have two questions for the member. Did the member read the budget? If he did, why is he opposed to these measures that will clearly help the forestry sector? In fact, these measures were suggested by his party in the prebudget consultations.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I most certainly have read the budget. In fact, I have read it more than once.

What he said about help for forestry is so true that it should be right there. On page 259, where it says “Supporting Industries and Communities”, that is where it should be.

According to the table on page 259, the auto industry gets $9.718 billion. The number is right there. Under “Forestry marketing and innovation”, it says that the sector got $68 million last year and may receive $108 this year. That is a total of $176 million, while the auto sector gets $9.718 billion. It that is not what it means to compare the numbers, then I am not sure what is. It is right there in his budget.

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

Madam Speaker, clearly, the government is looking for a way to get itself defeated and cause an election. We have an omnibus bill here, an 880-page bill that was dropped on our desks a couple of days ago. There are provisions in this bill that really have nothing to do with the budget.

For example, the government has taken the issue of post office remailers, which was before the House last year under two other bill numbers, and it has put it in this bill. It has also cut the heart out of the federal environmental assessment act, basically an oil company's dream.

Those are the types of measures the government has put into this document. It is trying to hide in this bill measures that it cannot get passed through the House on their own. To me it is nothing more than putting poison pills in this bill so the government can ensure there is an election and the Conservatives can say that they were not the ones who caused it, when in fact, it would be the Conservatives who caused it.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, that does indeed take a lot of nerve.

We read the document—all 800 and some pages of it. I agree with my NDP colleague. Indeed, I am sure that my NDP colleagues also took the time to read the whole thing so that they could discuss it in detail during parliamentary committee meetings. What a great idea to throw a brick like this out there. In light of this morning's tabling of Afghanistan documents, it is clear that the government is trying to hide needles in haystacks.

My NDP colleague knows that he can count on the Bloc members to work hard with the support of the NDP to find all of the needles in the Conservative government's haystack.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the disturbing part, parallel to the budget announced yesterday, was that the home energy retrofit program had abruptly ended.

I will read a very short sentence from the Globe and Mail, which states:

The federal budget released on March 4 promoted the program. “Due to unprecedented demand under the ecoENERGY Retrofit--Homes program, the government is allocating a further $80-million to support additional retrofits by Canadian homeowners...

It sounded nice, yet if people did not get their applications in by yesterday, abruptly, with no notice, no warning, all of a sudden they were out of luck. In theory the program goes for an additional year from now, but in reality it is done.

At a time when most people and most scientists in the world recognize the most important investments we can make are in energy retrofits and energy conservation, the Conservatives, for some bizarre reason, even by their own standards, have suspended this precipitously.

Would the hon. member care to comment on the value of this program and whether this makes any sense?

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government unfortunately does this sort of thing all the time. In 2008, for example, while an election campaign was under way in Quebec, the government changed the equalization rules with no warning. Now, it has put an end to this program; people had to get their applications in by yesterday. It is like the infrastructure program. On November 1, all the municipalities in Quebec were in the midst of an election campaign. This meant that the municipal councils could not meet, yet in order to take advantage of the infrastructure program, they had to fill out reams of paperwork by early January, which was a huge task. In addition, all the infrastructure projects will have to be completed by March 31, less than a year from now, 364 days to be exact. That makes no sense.

This government sends up balloons, but then shoots them down before they can float back to earth.

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

Madam Speaker, I found it very mysterious that the government dropped the home renovation tax credit program, a program that was advertised a lot last year. It said that the program was one of the huge successes of the government. Finally, just after the first year of success, it simply dropped it from the program.

Will we see that program announced in the upcoming election campaign?

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a slightly different opinion than my NDP colleague, who says that this government had a good idea. It was not the Conservatives' idea, but the Bloc's. The Bloc suggested this to the Conservatives last year.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to speak to Bill C-9, which gives effect to the budget announced by the Conservatives. Some of what the bill contains was in the budget and some was in the throne speech. The bill also includes provisions that have been mentioned in various forums in recent months.

Since I have only 20 minutes or so, I will not be able to go over all 800 pages of the bill. I am going to focus on certain items that fuel substantive debates in the House and illustrate members' different views on ideology and governance.

I would like to start by talking about the tax cuts for Canada's most profitable corporations. The Liberal Party and its leader are recent converts to the idea that we need to start handing tax cuts to major corporations more slowly. Last weekend, at a conference in Montreal, the Liberal leader discovered the merits of what the NDP has been talking about for the past three months.

I would like to give a little background to those listening to us, to help them understand the whole picture.

The Liberals were relegated to the opposition benches at the beginning of January 2006, which means we are beginning our fifth year of a minority Conservative government. There was a leadership race within the Liberal Party, and the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville was elected party leader.

In a now infamous speech he gave before the Economic Club of Toronto, the new leader was intent on finding an angle. The Liberals, who consider themselves the “natural governing party” and are used to being in power, were searching for ways to understand what went wrong during the election. They told themselves that perhaps the Conservatives were getting a little too friendly with their usual Bay Street base. So they decided to accuse the Conservatives of not acting quickly enough on tax cuts.

Last weekend, the same Liberal Party wondered why corporate taxes were being cut. The leader at the time—the Liberals have had five leaders in five years—the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, went before the Economic Club of Toronto and slammed the Conservatives for not cutting corporate taxes quickly enough. That was enough for the Conservative finance minister—the same one as today—to rise in this House with a smirk on his face and announce that without this push from the Liberals he would never have had the temerity to move so quickly on corporate tax cuts.

The resulting financial woes will affect Canada's public finances for generations to come. They created $60 billion worth of tax room by refusing to give back what the Liberals pilfered from the employment insurance fund.

The Liberals now admit it and the Conservatives criticize them endlessly. For the last three days in question period, the Minister of Finance pointed at the Liberals, saying that they were the ones who pilfered, who stole, $60 billion from the employment insurance fund. The problem is that Bill C-9 only finishes the job started by the Liberals. The government is going to slam the door shut and finish off the pilfering that it admonishes the Liberals for.

Some may wonder what difference it makes that the $60 billion that the Liberals called a “notional” amount was transferred. It is just obfuscation, as though the $60 billion could be anything else. They said that this notional amount was transferred from the EI fund to the consolidated fund, the government's general revenue fund.

However, there is a fundamental difference between the employment insurance fund and the government's consolidated revenue fund.

In fact, all Canadian companies and their employees have contributed to the employment insurance fund. If a company recorded a loss, it did not matter; it still had to contribute to the employment insurance fund. However, only a company with enough profits to pay tax was required to fork over corporate taxes into the general revenue fund.

In other words, the same companies—primarily the forestry and manufacturing industries, which suffered greatly because of the high dollar—that had not turned a profit and that did not have to pay tax could not benefit from the $60 billion in tax cuts given to the most profitable companies. And yet, each and every one of these companies paid for every single one of their employees, and every employee contributed to the EI fund. It is somewhat like what happens in China where those to be executed are forced to pay for the bullet. The manufacturing and forestry companies that were already suffering believed their contributions would be used for a very specific, precise and dedicated purpose. They were robbed and pillaged by the Liberals, with the benediction of the Conservatives, to provide the tax room to give tax breaks to more profitable companies.

This means that those who paid, who suffered because of the high dollar, supported the rich, particularly those in the oil industry in western Canada. Some companies, like EnCana in Alberta, received hundreds of millions of dollars, like money falling from the sky, in rebates it did not ask for because it was already making huge profits.

This is what happened with the money from the manufacturing companies in Beauce, which have since had to close their doors. The sawmills in the lower North Shore, the companies in northern Ontario and the forestry companies in British Columbia saw their money being used to help the oil industry in the west and the banks, which turned around and used that money to generate their highest profits ever. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the last three months of 2009, Canadian companies saw their profits increase dramatically, except productivity in Canada is still in a major slump.

The first thing that comes to mind when we talk about a slump in productivity is to think we are suggesting that Canadian workers are not working hard enough. No, we are not talking about the individual productivity of Canadian workers, who are among the most productive in the world. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the productivity of the company. What kind of equipment or machinery has it purchased? What has it done to make itself more competitive? Canadian companies held onto the cash they received in the form of tax cuts, because that is what it means to lack vision, to not believe in the government's role in the economy.

Since the second world war, Canada has built a very balanced economy, from coast to coast to coast. We are the only country in the world that borders three oceans. We are making serious mistakes in Canada right now, because the Conservatives, despite their minority status—having just over 30% of the vote—are being kept on life support by the Liberals, who, once again, made a nice speech against the budget today. However, they will hide just enough of their members, their cowards, behind the curtains so that the budget will pass. The same budget that they have not stopped criticizing.

Because the oil sector does not factor in the environmental costs of production, it is bringing an artificially inflated number of U.S. dollars into Canada. This has the pernicious effect of increasing the value of the Canadian dollar, which is now at or very near parity with the U.S. dollar. The high Canadian dollar is once again limiting our manufacturing and forestry companies' export opportunities.

The higher the Canadian dollar, the harder it is for other countries to buy it because it is more expensive.

But the Conservatives will not be swayed. They are completing a series of pipelines to the United States. They plan to ship crude from the oil sands through pipelines called Keystone, Alberta Clipper, Southern Lights and Enbridge.

Here in Quebec, the Trailbreaker project would have—yes, “would have”, because we are now joining together to put a stop to it—reversed the flow of a pipeline linking Montreal to Portland, Maine. There are plans in the works to build a massive pumping station in Dunham, in the Eastern Townships. Because the substance is tarry and sticky, it will not flow unless it is under more pressure, which means that the pressure in this 60-year-old pipeline will have to be increased considerably. The last time they increased the pressure, sections several kilometres long around Sutton burst. Ecosystems in the area are very large.

These pipelines are located near and beneath several watercourses that must be protected. The Conservatives, aided and abetted by the Liberals, made this choice because they are determined to export oil as quickly as possible. Their choice would also have led to the closure of the Shell refinery in Montreal, which would have resulted in the automatic loss of 800 direct jobs and 3,500 indirect jobs, as well as the death of a significant portion of the petrochemical sector in Montreal, leaving thousands of families jobless. Many of them would have been forced to leave the area. That would have been a major blow to Montreal's petrochemical sector. Everyone—except for the Conservatives, of course—is banding together to try to save the Shell refinery in Montreal.

In light of everything the Conservatives have done, it is clear that the government's vision is flawed. It plundered the employment insurance fund and used that money to give the most profitable companies tax breaks. These choices are aggravating a vicious cycle in which the high Canadian dollar is making things harder and harder for our exporters.

But the Conservatives will keep acting that same way, just like when we used to export untreated logs to the United States and it came back to us as furniture manufactured there. In doing that, value was added there, as were jobs. Among the pipelines that I mentioned earlier, Keystone alone represents 18,000 Canadian jobs lost. That is not our statistic, it comes from an independent external study.

But they are determined to start exporting. My colleagues know as well as I do that under the so-called proportionality clause in the North American Free Trade Agreement, once the flow has started, it cannot be stopped, not even a little bit, without the same restriction being enforced on us. We are currently playing with Canada's energy future, but they do not care about that either. Their one and only focus is quick development. That is why they are not acknowledging the costs.

If I took my colleagues to visit a factory where a certain product was made, if I told them it was being made cheaper here and if I convinced them to buy it, saying that it sells well but they noticed that all of the factory waste was dumped in the river behind the factory, they would say that the price of the product was not the true price, that the price did not take into account the fact that waste was being put into the river instead of being disposed of safely, at a cost. Everyone is capable of understanding that environmental costs need to be included in the price of a product. Everyone, that is, except the Conservative Party.

Not only are the Conservatives passing on to future generations a fiscal debt of $50 billion this year—instead of building something that will last and is sustainable, something related to green, renewable energy—but they are also leaving a gross debt. They are building arenas and cutting ribbons; they are putting doorknobs in churches and cutting ribbons; they are rebuilding parks and cutting ribbons. But none of that will last, none of it is long term.

Their priority is clear. The NDP's priority is also clear: have government play a constructive, objective, positive role in corporate governance in order to restore the economic balance that was destroyed by the Conservatives, with the Liberals' complicity.

Environmental assessment is another aspect of Bill C-9 that I want to focus on, in keeping with our concerns about the oil sands.

Eighteen months ago, not long after the fall 2008 election, the Conservatives came out with their infamous draft economic and fiscal update. When they denied women the right to equal pay for work of equal value and gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Liberals supported them.

We voted against both these measures, even though that might have triggered another election. The Liberals kowtowed to the Conservatives as usual and voted with them. About 18 months ago, the Liberals joined with their partners, the Conservatives, to gut the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which had been in place for 100 years so that we could leave something for future generations. They completely scrapped that law.

This year, they are trying to finish what they started by doing away with environmental assessments for most projects that receive federal funding. Several provinces have rather weak legislation and no way to conduct real inspections and assessments. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was the only way some provinces could have an assessment done. Quebec solved this problem with the federal government a long time ago. A federal assessor sits at the table with the BAPE, and this arrangement works very well.

I signed an agreement with David Anderson, who was the last Liberal who cared about the environment. He was succeeded by the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, and the rest is history.

I cannot believe we are seeing the Liberals make the same mistake. I would like to remind the House of a salient fact in the history of the Liberal Party. It is worth noting, since we saw Eddie Goldenberg at the thinkers' conference last weekend in Montreal. Eddie Goldenberg, former chief of staff to Jean Chrétien, said in a speech before the London Chamber of Commerce, in Ontario in the spring of 2007, that the Liberals had signed the Kyoto protocol “to galvanize public opinion”.

He admitted that the Liberal government of the day signed that protocol as a public relations exercise. It persisted and signed. He said the Liberals had no intention of meeting the targets set out in the Kyoto protocol.

Last weekend in Montreal, we saw Eddie Goldenberg pontificating on the Liberal Party's destiny. There is only one thing the Liberals want: to come back to power.

The Liberals in the first and second rows are waking up with a start and asking themselves: am I a minister yet? Then they realize that they are still in opposition and that they have only 75 seats. They go back to sleep, hoping that next time they wake up, their dream will have come true.

There is no renewal, there are no new ideas, no substance, no worthwhile ideas. They are here simply to support the Conservatives, waiting until it is their turn to take over.

We have the Liberal leader saying: “people are looking for an alternative”, having forgotten that he is supposed to be just that. There is only one alternative progressive voice in Canada: the New Democratic Party.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great intent to my hon. colleague who sits on the finance committee with us. He is a good contributor to the debate at that table. However, I remind him that the majority of his speech was totally irrelevant to the debate on Bill C-9. He spent a great deal of his time talking about how much he hated the oil sands and how much he seemed to hate my great province of Alberta for its contribution to this entire economy.

I might remind the hon. member that 23 billion litres of gasoline every year is consumed by Ontario and his province of Quebec. It has to come from somewhere. Is it not better that it comes from a Canadian company that has high environmental standards and, I would argue, the highest environmental standards in the world? I remind him that his own home city of Montreal, as much as he chastised Alberta for its environmental record, dumps raw sewage to the amount of three billion cubic metres every year into the St. Lawrence River. We do not do that in Alberta. We have two of the cleanest cities in Alberta.

We have also noted lately that the largest investment of the Caisse de dépôt, and I am sure the hon. member's former pension is tied up in that, is in the oil sands in Alberta.

The member talked a lot about taxes, but he forgot to mention that we cut 100 different taxes since we came to power. We cut $3 billion off personal income tax. This is not the big bad corporations to which the hon. member keeps referring. This is the personal income taxes of the people who voted for that hon. member.

Could the hon. member comment on the remark by his colleague from Thunder Bay, “There are elements in our party that have not been adequately concerned about the health and growth of businesses?”

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I remind my colleague that all of my remarks were directly related to Bill C-9, which deals with employment insurance. He should know that, but obviously he has not had a chance to read it yet, which is surprising since he is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. This is the subject on which I spent most of my time making my remarks. The bill also deals with the scrapping of environmental assessment in Canada.

He is alone in believing that the tar sands are a good example of environmental management. Whether it is National Geographic, which I do not think is an NDP publication, or whether it is major environmental groups around the world, everyone who has taken a look at the largest and longest sands in the world are holding back the worst pollution ever created on the planet, and nothing is being done to treat it.

Maybe his argument is that the ducks do not really die, that they are decoys just floating upside down in the water, but future generations will pay for that. His children and his grandchildren will pay cash on the barrel to clean up that mess because he does not have the political courage to include in the cost of a barrel of oil from Alberta the cost of cleaning up the environment, and that is cheating. It is cheating the Canadian economy because it pushes the Canadian dollar ever higher.

He is also cheating his own province because people in his province are getting sick. The only answer they have ever had is to prosecute the medical doctor who had the courage to describe and denounce the rare forms of cancer that were starting to appear, especially among the first nations population at Fort Chip. That is one of the most grotesque examples of the distinction that exists between the Conservatives' discourse on future generations and their actual behaviour. They all love to—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday during this debate, I had the opportunity to ask a question of the hon. member for Macleod, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

I asked him what he thought of the bill introduced by his Minister of Finance, Ontario's former finance minister, to abolish corporate law and financial advisor positions, among others, and eliminate any future career prospects for many students in faculties of commerce both in Quebec and Alberta. Obviously, I did not get a response. My colleague for Outremont is more accustomed than I am to asking questions and not getting answers.

With all due respect to our kind colleague from Macleod, I wonder whether I should ask my colleague from Outremont the following question. What is the opinion of the NDP and my colleague from Outremont on this shameful decision by the Conservative federal government to literally shut down securities trading in Quebec and in Alberta, the home province of the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary? I would like the NDP's opinion on this and on the fact that financial markets fall exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Hochelaga raised an issue that shows the hypocrisy of the Conservatives. It would, of course, take much more than 800 pages to back that up.

Let us recall the private jet chartered to travel to a Tim Hortons to preach about government spending. We all remember that. Let us also recall that, when they were Reformers, the Conservatives decided to opt out of a federal pension, but now that they have become Conservatives, they all want in. However, they are doing nothing to help the workers at Nortel or AbitibiBowater, ordinary people, who are losing their pensions.

Securities are another example of the hypocrisy of the Conservatives, who, we will recall, brought to this House the recognition of the Quebec nation, but have been making sure ever since that any real recognition is undermined. The only thing they are doing with respect to the Quebec nation is vote against having bilingual judges at the Supreme Court, which they did just yesterday, vote against the recognition of the Quebec culture by the CRTC, vote against any aspect of the Quebec reality and scrap the securities industry in Quebec. That is disgraceful.

Today, we have another example, with this attempt to reduce Quebec's representation in Parliament without any substantive discussion, without proper analysis and without providing any opportunity to explain what the community of interest concept, as developed by the Supreme Court of Canada, is all about.

It is indeed a long, sad chapter in the history of this Parliament when we look at the incredible and self-righteous hypocrisy of the Conservatives.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I came here after the last election so I am new to the House, and the dysfunctionality around this place still boggles my mind.

The budget is huge. I have read most of the estimates which was quite the task.

I could ask the honourable and eloquent member for Outremont about jobs, infrastructure, the environment, natural resources, energy, women, child care, pensions, seniors, et cetera, but I would like to ask him to help me to understand the big picture.

Maybe I do not understand what is going on, but when I look at the budget, I see over the next several years an increase of $50 billion in revenues coming from the average citizen in Canada and an increase of only $10 billion in projected revenues coming from big corporations. I see 9.4% of revenues coming from personal income taxes and only 1.7% coming from corporate income taxes.

Could the hon. member explain to this newbie if this is ideological stupidity or if it is more nefarious than that?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this budget implementation bill sees the Conservatives, with the culpable complicity of the Liberals, completing the theft of $60 billion from the employment insurance fund. It is that which gave them the fiscal room to provide the $60 billion in corporate tax reductions. It is no coincidence that we also have a $60 billion debt that we are leaving to future generations. That is short-sightedness and incompetence.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was just catching up on my reading of the Speech from the Throne and the budget just to make sure that my comments will be accurate and statistically correct.

The Conservatives call Bill C-9 the jobs and economic growth act. As my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood said earlier, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River and others are what we call the Scarborough team. We have been exchanging our views about what we have been hearing from our constituents and what happened at the forum the other day. At the University of Toronto Scarborough campus we hosted a meeting with respect to Canada at 150 to get input from all Canadians. Not to get off track, but the session I hosted had to do with health care. As I have said in previous presentations, health care seems always to be the number one concern for Canadians, and so it was again.

Getting back to the jobs and economic growth act, the Conservatives could have given the bill a different title. One could ask what jobs and economic growth we are talking about. What in the world is the government referring to? All people have to do is listen to the news and commentaries, read the statistics, see the types of jobs being created, see why we are losing jobs and why we are not being competitive for the jobs of the future and the will understand why I am being a little, one might say, cynical about the bill's title.

There is no real job growth. There is no real economic growth. The government pulled up a statistic. All one has to do is tune in to the news to hear the sentiments of Canadians. They do not see anything. They are not confident for today or for the future. They do not see any positive impact on their lives. I will point out why they feel that way.

Canadians are not optimistic for the future and our overall economy because they have no confidence not just in what is happening but they have no confidence in the Prime Minister and, as a result, no confidence in the government. When people are asked why, they say it is simply because there is no trust. They say that the government says one thing and does the other.

For example, the government talks about investing in the jobs of the future and the green economy. In reality, it has not invested in the jobs of the future. If anything, it has cut back on the jobs of the future.

Researchers have asked over and over again for support. I have data here and I want to be accurate. They have asked for support and unfortunately, the support is not there.

The government talks about creating jobs. The Minister of Finance has said in the past that EI premiums, or EI taxes, as they are often referred to, are increasing and are an impediment to creating jobs. We agree with him wholeheartedly. Employers have told us repeatedly to lower the rates and they will invest in creating jobs, retooling, modernizing, new equipment, et cetera.

Unfortunately, in the budget the government will be increasing EI premiums to the tune of almost $13 billion. That is almost a 35% tax hike. That is going to cost the average individual almost $900. At the same time, it is going to have a negative impact on companies, to the tune of anywhere between $9,000 to $10,000 per employee. That is a lot of money. That is not reducing taxes.

There is a graph in the budget on page 52, above which the government states, “Freeze in EI premium rate leaves money in the hands of employers and employees”. The columns in this graph start at the year 2000 and level off in years 2006 and 2007, which is when the Conservative government took over. During that period employment insurance premiums were being reduced year in and year out. When the Conservative government came into office, it simply did not decrease them, it left them as they were.

All of a sudden, as I pointed out earlier, the Conservatives plan a 35% hike in employment insurance premiums which, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, is going to cost 200,000 jobs. Yes, there were some jobs created and no one is disputing that, even though they were not high quality jobs, but a job is a job. But this tax increase is going to cost jobs because employers are going to hesitate, if anything refrain, from hiring people. That graph points that out exactly.

When the government stands and says that we have not done anything, its own graphs, and the proof is in the pudding as they say, indicate how a Liberal government between 1993 and 2006 was continuously reducing EI premiums. The GST reduction which the Conservatives provided to Canadians, they are now taking back in another manner.

There is another graph on page 86. I am pointing this out to prove to Canadians the discrepancy in the Conservatives' figures. The Conservatives say that Canada invests more directly in public R and D than does any other G7 country. That is a wonderful statement, but this is old data. They say this data is from 2007 which is the latest year for which data are available for the G7 countries. That is data from the Liberal administration. We would like to see the Conservatives' current data, which in essence shows a decline.

The graph clearly shows that up to 2007, and 2006 and 2005 were the latest years where this data was accumulated, Canada was leading countries such as Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and the United States. Thank God that was under a Liberal administration. That is why at that time we were able to not just invest in the new knowledge-based economy, but to retain our best and brightest and to attract others.

At that time I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of industry, Brian Tobin. We were at York University providing funding for research chairs. I remember a young couple. The husband had been offered a job in Germany. His wife was a researcher. She made an about-face. She decided to stay in Canada. When I asked her why she said that Canada was indeed investing properly and it was worth her time to stay. Not only did we retain our best and brightest, but we offered opportunities for the jobs of the future.

I encourage Canadians to pick up the budget book, look at page 86 and they will see exactly what I am talking about.

With respect to the new economy, I am very concerned. There are certain technologies in Canada in which we pride ourselves. The news about AECL in the last couple of days really concerns me. I happened to see an advertisement for the movie on the Avro Arrow technology. It reminded me that it was a Conservative government that sold out that Canadian technology and now another Conservative government is about to sell out a unique industry, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, where we provide the Candu technology which is not only well recognized, but well respected for its security.

The concern is that the government is moving forward through the budget to allow foreign companies to come in, maybe to buy AECL outright, maybe to buy a share. However, the moment that occurs, the government will have no say. It will have no oversight of what happens. What am I driving at?

This is what the Conservatives did with the income trusts situation because everything ties together. At the time, there were rules that Canadian companies could borrow money, like other foreign companies, and invest. There was an interest deductibilty factor built into this equation. By reneging on the promise that they were not going to touch income trusts, it took that equal playing field for all companies and removed the ability for Canadian companies to compete on equal footing, simply because they could no longer use the income deductibility factor when they chose to acquire, purchase or expand. In other words, Canadian companies are at a disadvantage today.

That means, to simplify it for everybody, that company A from country B could come in, borrow money, buy ACL and write off the interest of the moneys it borrowed, but a Canadian company cannot do this. That is a great disadvantage to Canadian companies.

I am bringing it up again only so that the government, if it believes in what it says about making Canadian companies competitive, would change that. I hope it thinks about that very seriously.

We talk about taxes. There are so many hidden taxes, it is unbelievable. Let me talk about the air travel security tax. Nobody talks about it.

The reason I am bringing these up one at a time is because if somebody had the opportunity to read a publication from the Canadian Press today, it says that the government is doing this in a sneaky way, “by sneaking in new rules in budget legislation”. It is the word “sneaking” that this budget is all about, because all of a sudden, as we go to another paragraph or turn another page, we see something in there to our surprise. Of course, we cannot analyze the budget in one day, but every day that goes by, every paragraph that we read, every segment we get into, all of a sudden there is another surprise.

There is going to be an increase of billions of dollars by taxing people who are travelling. Why? Is it for new scanners? I recall years ago, we invested billions of dollars to buy new scanning equipment for our airports. Has something occurred to say that those scanners no longer work? I will let Canadians judge that for themselves. It is the word “sneaking” that is upsetting to me. It clearly points out exactly what is going on here.

My colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood earlier today referred to the Fraser Institute and its comment. I would like to repeat that as well:

The Vancouver-based Fraser Institute concludes that the turnaround in the economy had nothing to do with stimulus.

The Conservatives stand up and use coated words such as “we have allocated”, “we have committed”, “we will assign”, but when we go out there and ask if the money has actually been delivered, the answer is no. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities complained as well, “They promised us”.

It reminds me of the commercial on television with the two young kids, and the gentleman comes in and gives one child a cardboard pony but gives the other one a real pony, because, as he says, “You did not ask”. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is asking. It wants its infrastructure fixed. It is a source of revenue for this country and it deserves its share of the pie.

I have a comment on revenue, if I may, because it is my understanding, and we all know, that the banks are talking about increasing their mortgage rates. I just want to take this opportunity because they are part of this budget as well.

Right now everybody is trying to do whatever they can to get the economy rolling, to get confidence into the nation. I say to the banks, directly, that it is wrong at this time to increase rates, when young men and women are trying to get a roof over their heads, trying to buy their first condominium, or whatever they are trying to invest in. What the banks are saying here is:

The increase does not stem directly from moves by the Bank of Canada, but rather anticipated central bank rate hikes.

I have talked to many of my constituents, and I say, “Shame on the banks” if they decide to increase their rates prematurely and without any justifiable cause.

I want to speak a little bit about health care, if I may, because that is very important. In this budget, once again, there is zero for health care. Taking us back, in the 2004-05 budget there was an committed allocation of $56 billion for health care. That was as a result of the recommendations from the Romanow report. That was a 10-year commitment by the federal government to the provinces.

Now the provinces are saying, because 2014 is the due date, they want to commence a dialogue. They want to get the discussions going, get around a table, and see where we are going post-2014.

The federal government is refusing to sit around the table. When asked what has been done with health, the response is that it will continue the funding. What funding is that? The funding was Liberal funding under the Paul Martin government. That was Liberal funding as a result of the Romanow report. We all know about that report.

I am very concerned. We are now seeing a little bit more about what the health issue in the United States is all about. It has everything to do with insurance and nothing to do with the delivery of health services. Today, we are seeing advertisements on television that say “Purchase health insurance”. I am concerned for the future and where this is taking us.

The Prime Minister is on record, and I have quoted him in the past but to save time I am not going to pull up the quote, stating, with no ambiguity, that he supports private health care. The Minister of Immigration has stated very clearly that he supports private health care.

No wonder my constituent, Mr. Frandsen, who came to my office, said, and I have used this quote in the past, “If [the Prime Minister] can behave and do what he is doing while having a minority government, can you imagine what he will do if he had a majority?”

It is scary. Health care is something that separates us as Canadians from the rest of the world. I think we have a moral and ethical obligation to ensure it is something we maintain. In order to do that, we need to have a country positioned properly with its finances.

In order for us to understand where we are today and where we are going to be tomorrow, I want to take just a few moments to take us all back to 1993 when Canada was an unofficially bankrupt country with high unemployment, high debts and deficits, and we were paying tremendous amounts, billions of dollars, in interest on our debt.

We turned that around with the help and co-operation of Canadians. Then we delivered seven or eight consecutive balanced budgets and surpluses, such as our country had never experienced before. The last surplus we left the government was $13.2 billion.

As a result of the Liberals bringing down the debt continuously, our debt to GDP ratio kept going down. We were saving an average of $3 billion a year, which we were putting back into programs that Canadians asked us to support, whether it was housing, environment, infrastructure, urban transit, health or whatever it was. According to the input we were receiving, we were providing that support.

On one of the government's graphs, it talks about the accumulated federal debt. Yes, it is showing us a graph of the debt to GDP ratio that in 2008-09 had dipped downwards. It did dip downwards, and yet again it is going up. Then we have the debt, and I will admit it was reduced by some $30-some odd billion. The Liberals reduced it by $60-some odd billion. Then all of sudden, by 2014, from $460 billion it is going to $622 billion. That is a $130-some odd billion debt.

Never mind saving the $3 billion we were saving. We are going to be paying much more. We are not getting anywhere. If anything, we are going downhill.

I would be glad to answer any questions. In this short period of time, it is difficult to get into a lot, but in closing one thing I am concerned about is the recreational infrastructure program that has been very kind in supporting various community centres. I support it myself.

I come from the Greek community of Toronto, and it has asked for funding for the first Greek cultural community centre. I believe the government is treating it in a biased and discriminatory way. It has turned its back on the Greek community and I will ensure that my community knows this.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the speech by my hon. colleague from Scarborough Centre was very passionate. I hope he keeps that up when it comes time to vote.

He spoke about the isotopes produced by the CANDU reactor and accused the other government, the government opposite, of wanting to sell its CANDU reactor. He said that everyone agrees CANDU is a respectable and safe reactor.

How can he not know that the CANDU reactor is not safe, and that it leaks plutonium and heavy water? Heavy water was even recently found in the Ottawa River behind Parliament. Heavy water is very harmful to our health, and it could cause cancer if ingested.

Furthermore, my colleague blamed the other government. But this CANDU reactor, which is not safe, was developed when the Liberals were in power.

And my colleague did not mention this, but the Liberals could have developed the MAPLE nuclear reactor project.

Why did they not develop the MAPLE nuclear reactors? I would like to know. I think it is because the top brains, the scientific brains, left the country and headed to Sweden and the United States. That is why we had to drop the MAPLE nuclear reactor project, which only had a cooldown problem.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to voting for the budget, one thing I will guarantee this gentleman and one thing I will guarantee Canadians is that I will not use emotion to vote for this budget, but I will use logic.

I will vote against this budget and my party will vote against it in a responsible way because the last thing our country today needs is to be put into election chaos. The last thing we need to do is blow another $600 million or $700 million, if not $1 billion, for the sake of what?

Canadians today have told us very clearly, without any ambiguity, they do not want an election. So, it is incumbent upon us to be responsible and ensure that we keep the current government to account and we point out its problems, its shortcomings, and try to correct them. We do not want an election for the sake of wanting an election.

With respect to CANDU, I have the greatest of respect. I am glad at least it is in Canadian hands and not in other countries. Are there mistakes? There is no perfection out there. The point is, let us identify those problems and let us move toward correcting them.

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

Mr. Speaker, the one point I will agree with the member on is that we certainly do not need, nor do we want, a majority Conservative government in this country because of what will more than likely happen if one ever comes about.

The corporate tax issue and the Liberals' position on it is certainly one that I am a bit confused about. Canada's corporate taxes were around 40% in the past. They dropped down to 18%. They are going to go down to 15% by 2012. That is about 12% lower than the American corporate taxes. It is totally unnecessary to be that low.

In fact, we are really not sure that it is that effective in producing economic growth. For example, business spending on machinery and equipment has declined as a share of GDP and total business investment spending has declined as a percentage of corporate cash flow. Statistics Canada and Finance Canada say that IT use by Canadian businesses is only half of that of the United States and despite Canadian corporate tax rates that are well below those of the United States, productivity growth is actually worse. There is the proof that these corporate tax reductions are not having the effect that they are supposed to have.

In addition, ordinary Canadians are going to be paying four times more in personal income tax than corporations will pay in corporate tax. I seem to recall maybe 20 years ago that those amounts were roughly equal in this country. So, now, ordinary Canadians will be paying four times more than corporations. Because his leader, this past weekend, seemed to change his position on the whole area of corporate taxes, I want to ask him, where is his leader and his party on this issue today?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think our leader was very clear that we were going to just freeze it. He could not have made it any clearer. I know there is direction from the Conservative government to keep reducing from 18, as he pointed out, down to 15. That is not what our leader said. He said that we will leave it at that level. We will provide the opportunity for economic growth and stimulus.

All Canadians, and I personally, believe that companies must be in a healthy state. They need to generate revenue. That is how they hire people. That is how they reinvest in new equipment, retooling and expansion. They need to generate revenue. If they do not generate revenue, they will simply close their doors and lay people off and people will be unemployed. My parents raised me to go out there and work for a living, not to work for employment insurance.

In order for me and my generation to continue doing that, we need to have healthy corporate status out there. That is my view.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the reply by the hon. member. I am wondering if he is aware of the work by an organization called NESCAUM, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. Based on its empirical studies, it has shown that the one key trigger for investment in clean technology is not lower taxes. It is not voluntary initiatives or market measures. It is regulation.

I would question the member on whether he has actual analysis that lowering corporate taxes actually causes greater investment. In fact, the Economic Council of Canada is telling us that is not the result. I would like to hear his comment on that. Surely if we are going to be giving increasingly lower tax rates to corporations, they should have to give something in return. Why not ante up reducing the greenhouse gases?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question allows me to go back and remind Canadians that there was a formula between 1993 and 2006 that worked for Canadians. There was job growth and economic prosperity. We eliminated the deficits and lowered the debts. We somehow found a balance.

As we were generating those surpluses, we were doing it in a balanced way. The Conservatives are using our words, “balanced way”. We were saying one-third for personal tax reduction, one-third for corporate tax reduction and one-third in the programs that Canadians want us to invest in, such as health care, housing, the environment and our international obligations.

If we use that type of methodology or approach, we really cannot go wrong. That is what I believe and what my party is advocating.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have seen some pretty brash behaviour on the part of the government last year and this year too. It introduced huge omnibus bills, 800-page bills, including things that really have nothing to do with the budget.

We have the issue of the post office remailers that was introduced last year under Bill C-44 and Bill C-14. When it could not get these bills through the House over two or three successive years, it simply repackaged it and stuck it in this particular bill, Bill C-9.

What is going through the government's mind? What is its motivation to put in objectionable bills that it could not get through any other way, sticking them into the budget implementation process and giving us no choice but to vote for them or have an election?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks earlier, it is sneaking in new rules in the budget legislation. Those are not my words. Those are words printed by the pundits and the media. In essence, this is a tactic or strategy of the government. It is always sneaking things in.

That is why two out of three Canadians in two elections did not vote for those people. First, they are scared. Second, they do not trust them. That is why they are not giving them a mandate. It has turned out once again, by some of the tactics that the hon. gentleman referred to, that they are sneaking things in like the airport tax, for example, just out of the blue.

Simply put, Canadians do not trust the Prime Minister or the government. That is why the Conservatives cannot get a mandate.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Members know that the Bloc Québécois has already voted against the Conservative government's budget because, once again, it does not meet the economic, social, environmental and financial needs of Quebec.

No matter the sector—forestry, aerospace, the environment or culture—Quebeckers' priorities have been completely ignored in this budget.

By presenting an empty budget that is so unfair to Quebec, the Conservative government is proving once again that federalism is of no benefit to Quebec.

The Conservatives have shown once more that, as far as Canada is concerned, it is as though Quebec does not exist.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government's constant refusal to meet Quebec's needs has consequences.

In the Quebec government's budget presented on Tuesday, $4.3 billion must be raised from taxpayers—$3.5 billion from individuals—through different taxes. There will be a 2% increase in the sales tax.

This budget has already given rise to an avalanche of criticism by civil society groups who fear the impoverishment of low- and middle-income households. In the next four years, Quebeckers will have to face increases in Quebec sales tax, fuel taxes and electricity rates, in addition to paying a new annual premium to fund the health system.

In its budget suggestions of February 24, the Bloc Québécois clearly identified the financial needs of Quebec, which Ottawa must address fairly. The Bloc identified $7 billion in needs: changes to be made to the equalization formula, increased funding for education and social programs, as well as compensation for harmonizing the sales tax. In my mind, the harmonization of the sales tax is the most pathetic issue. On March 31, 2009, exactly one year ago, Quebec's National Assembly adopted a unanimous motion asking the federal government to treat Quebec justly and equitably, by granting compensation comparable to that offered to Ontario for the harmonization of its sales tax with the GST.

In the days that followed the adoption of this motion, and in response to questions posed in the House by the Bloc Québécois, the government stated that it did not wish to conduct negotiations in the public arena.

Despite repeated requests by the Government of Quebec and numerous attempts by the Bloc Québécois to correct this injustice, the Conservative government has again responded negatively to Quebec's requests at such a crucial time in the preparation of its budget.

To make sure that the Conservative government is well aware of the situation, I will read an excerpt from the speech made by the Quebec minister last Tuesday:

Furthermore, we are determined to recover the $2.2 billion we have been claiming from the federal government for harmonizing the QST with the GST. We are entitled to expect fair treatment from the federal government, which recently granted compensation to Ontario and British Columbia following harmonization of their sales taxes with the GST.

I will remind members that the Government of Quebec cannot be accused of being sovereignist and that it has always had the support of the opposition in requesting compensation for harmonizing its sales tax with the GST.

In fact, a new motion was passed unanimously by all members of the Quebec National Assembly last Tuesday. I will read it so it is properly recorded in the Debates of the House of Commons in both official languages, as it should:

THAT the National Assembly denounces the refusal by the federal Government to offer Québec compensation comparable to that received by British Columbia and Ontario in 2009 for the harmonization of their sales tax with the Goods and Services Tax;

THAT it recalls that Québec was the first province to harmonize its tax with the federal Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the beginning of the 1990s and has still received no compensation in this area, even though five provinces have been compensated for their harmonization after that of Québec;

THAT the Assembly also denounces the fact that for one year, notwithstanding a similar official request, the federal Government has continued to refuse to treat Quebeckers with justice and equity.

The federal government has already signed an agreement worth $6.86 billion with five other provinces to harmonize their sales tax. Quebec, which was the first province to harmonize its tax in 1992, has not yet received the $2.2 billion compensation that it has been demanding for a year.

In his budget on Tuesday, Quebec's finance minister also pointed out that the federal government administers the harmonized sales tax without any cost to the affected provinces, whereas Quebec pays its share of the GST and QST administration costs, under an agreement signed in the early 1990s, almost 20 years ago.

The Conservative government amended its original requirements in 2009 in order to provide Ontario and British Columbia with compensation. Why can it not come to an understanding with Quebec when it was able to do so with five other provinces on the same issue?

How is it possible that, after a year of intense negotiations, the Conservative government still does not understand the importance of providing compensation to Quebec for harmonizing its tax in anticipation of its budget?

The Government of Quebec stated that it needed that compensation to reduce the tax burden on the people. Society's poorest and the middle class will not forget this injustice perpetrated against Quebec.

In addition to not responding to Quebeckers' needs and desires, the government is once again expressing its intention to encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction over securities despite another unanimous vote in Quebec's National Assembly calling on the federal government to back away from plans to implement a Canada-wide securities commission.

I want to remind the government that securities regulation is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and that the current passport system does a very good job of making a coordinated law enforcement approach possible.

I also want to remind the government that Quebec's Autorité des marchés financiers is the last bastion protecting exchange activities in Montreal.

For all of these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will have to oppose Bill C-9.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to question the member. I listened to his speech with great interest.

One of the enactments in this 800-page bill is to enact a new payment card network, to regulate national payment card networks and give broader oversight powers to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. The increasing oversight is certainly welcome, but in the whole area of the credit card business, the government is simply trying to rely on the free market.

The Conservatives say they will adopt a voluntary code of rules that credit card companies will use to be fair to the public, but we know that credit card companies are not fair to the public. We get constant complaints about how credit card companies abuse the consumers of this country.

The question is how we can trust a government that is fundamentally not on the side of consumers in this country. Could the hon. member name me one consumer issue where the government has ever been on the side of the consumers? I think we can conclude that it is pro big business and against consumers. I ask the member if he would like to elaborate further on that point.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

The Standing Committee on Finance has already looked at the problem of credit card companies. Over the coming weeks and months, the committee is expecting to make a recommendation based on its study.

In Quebec, however, the consumer protection agency provides significant protection when it comes to credit card issuing and related fees.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Alfred-Pellan on his excellent speech.

He touched on the most important points in the budget, including the issue of low-income households, which is of particular interest to me.

The government is concentrating more and more wealth in the hands of a few. The number of low-income families is constantly increasing. I have a question for my colleague.

Does the budget contain any measure to support social housing for low-income people? Those who have to pay more than 30% of their income for housing are in dire straits. Is the government doing anything for them?

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question regarding the federal government's commitment to social housing.

It is precisely one of the shortcomings I mentioned in my speech on the budget. The Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation has a surplus of about $8 billion. However, there is no commitment on the part of the government to build new social housing units after reaching agreements with the various provinces. In Quebec, the Société d'habitation du Québec could certainly build more social housing units with money transferred from the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation.

Too many poor families do not have access to housing with multiple bedrooms; housing units are too small. Having a government policy on social housing would help meet those needs.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to participate in this debate on Bill C-9 to implement the budget tabled in the House a few weeks ago.

First, I will address the title of the bill. I have been in this House for 13 years, and this kind of bill is usually called a budget implementation bill. All of a sudden, the government decided to call it something else, the jobs and economic growth bill.

That is somewhat odd and ironic. It is as if the federal government was running an advertising and promotional campaign about the budget. The fact is that this is a bill to implement a budget, and not one to create jobs and promote economic growth. This growth will be done on the backs of the less privileged and at the detriment of the environment. It will also be done at the expense of the safety net that needs to be put in place.

The bill before us today is somewhat odd in that this is not a jobs and economic growth bill, but a budget implementation bill. I wanted to make that clear from the outset.

We are especially disappointed with this budget as far as the initiatives or measures it contains to protect the environment, natural resources as well as ecosystems and biodiversity are concerned. This is one of the least substantial budgets I have had the opportunity to read and analyze in recent years in terms of the environment.

There is nothing in there to improve environmental protection and nothing for Quebec. Yet, the budget provides $16 million over two years for the Great Lakes action plan.

Yesterday, the government announced the signing of an agreement with Ontario to extend the Great Lakes action plan. Yet, at the same time, on March 31, the St. Lawrence plan, designed to develop a vision and an integrated management system for one of the largest waterways in America, expired without any announcement by the government regarding its extension.

For the government, the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes system is limited to the Great Lakes. We do not think there is a direct relationship, in terms of economic activity, with the protection of ecosystems in the Great Lakes, but the St. Lawrence requires integrated protection and management. We are a little disappointed.

The budget provides $16 million over two years for the Great Lakes action plan, but nothing for the St. Lawrence, nothing in terms of strategy, nothing in terms of vision beyond 2010.

The budget is also lacking an initiative to promote renewable energies. However, in the 2009 budget, the government announced $350 million for the nuclear industry. There is considerable funding for this industry again this year, but not enough funding for developing renewable energies.

This shows that the government has not made the green shift. It has not made the commitment to “decarbonize“ its economy. Therefore, there is no money for energy efficiency. As a matter of fact, we just learned this morning that the ecoENERGY program has been cancelled. The budget does nothing to promote energy efficiency and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the source, but it gives a lot of money to one particular economic sector, namely, oil companies.

The Conservatives continue giving tax breaks to an industry that produces and extracts oil from the tar sands with impunity and pollutes our environment, without paying for the pollution it is causing. For those who believe that a price should be put on carbon and that there should be costs associated with polluting, this is disappointing.

Ultimately, when the government announces regulations to fight climate change, who will pay? Businesses that have already made the effort will have to compensate financially for the efforts not being made by the oil industry in western Canada.

One might have hoped this budget would include some sort of recognition program, whether it is called a credit for early action or compensation program. Yet there is nothing to compensate Quebec's economic activity sectors, particularly the manufacturing industry in Quebec, which has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 24%.

There is nothing. Yet the Bloc Québécois had made some proposals. What did we propose? We proposed $500 million a year for five years as incentives for converting oil heating systems. We proposed $500 million a year for five years for a green energy fund. We also called for a plan to promote electric cars to help us move towards using more electricity in our transportation, not only in public transit, but also in individual transportation, and to put money into research. That is how Quebec will be able to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions: by targeting this sector of activity in Quebec, that is, the transportation sector. The budget contains nothing for electric cars. The government ignored the recommendation and the plan we proposed.

There is nothing for shoreline erosion. As I was just saying, there is nothing for the St. Lawrence and nothing to help those living along the river, who are the first victims of climate change. Higher temperatures and extreme weather events will affect the St. Lawrence shoreline more than any other place. People living along the St. Lawrence are losing waterfront land and thus are losing an important asset. There is no help for them, even though my Bloc Québécois colleague from Matane had proposed a bill to establish a compensation fund to offset the costs of adapting to climate change. There is absolutely nothing.

They are not proposing tax credits for companies that promote the use of bicycles as an alternate form of transportation. We proposed $20 million. There is no incentive for citizens to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, such as hybrid vehicles. A few years ago, we had the ecoAuto program. Why not reintroduce this program, which would provide tax credits for the purchase of electric or hybrid vehicles? For example, Montreal taxi drivers could benefit. But, no.

This is a budget without a vision, a budget that has failed to make the green shift required for us to move to a carbon-free economy.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is well known for his expertise on the environment and I would like him to comment on the following.

If I understand it correctly, Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada will be cut by over $150 million over three years. The Conservatives have decided not to fund the $80 million for the eco-energy retrofit homes. They apparently never intended to renew the renewable power or renewable heat programs for eco-energy. They are moving the environmental assessments for energy projects away from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and gutting environmental action projects in general with virtually no action for climate change.

Would the knowledgeable member, who is professor-like in his knowledge, give the Conservatives a grade of A, B, C, D or F on their environmental action in this budget?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is essentially asking me to write a report card for the government. He already knows what grade I would give if I were the professor: “F” for total Failure.

This government does not understand that in order to respect our international commitments, we have to focus on two things: reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the source and promoting energy efficiency. My colleague is right. After coming to power, the government reviewed the programs.

What have been the consequences? When a Conservative government announces program reviews, it is announcing cuts. That is the reality. The government cut funding to the ecoEnergy program, among others. That is not good for the environment nor for our economy.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie on his excellent speech. And I quite like the name of his riding.

He raised a very key point: electric and hybrid cars. An announcement was made today that we will reach an agreement with the U.S. on the number of litres per 100 km that cars can consume a few years from now.

Are we not taking a very big step backward that we will not be able to recover from? We are not investing in what we should be investing in, in other words, research and development of hybrid or electric cars or super performance cars like the ones in Europe. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. If we want an industry to be competitive, we have to promote innovation, research and development. This is true in all areas of business activity, and even more so in the automotive industry.

The future no longer belongs to big muscle cars. Unless Canada moves toward more energy and fuel efficient cars, it will inevitably be overtaken and passed by Asian countries.

Nowadays, big cars are no longer an ideal purchase; small ones are. Quebec has understood that. It is in Quebec that the cars with the lowest fuel consumption are bought. That is what will enable the automotive industry to be competitive.

That is why standards have to be stricter, perhaps even as strict as in California. Stricter vehicle manufacturing standards would allow our automotive industry to compete with the other manufacturers in the industry, especially the Asian ones.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here to debate Bill C-9, what we would normally call the budget implementation act. In this particular case, however, we are looking at the jobs and economic growth act.

For the next 20 minutes, I will analyze some of the material in the budget that is deficient and some that may be construed as being positive. Dare I go that far, sitting in the opposition? I will just to be fair-minded. I also want to touch on some of the major issues that have come up in the last little while in my riding and in my province in some of the more traditional industries that are facing a crisis, to say the least.

Particularly today, there is a crisis in the fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador for those who depend on the crab fishery, with the season opening and very few boats out on the water able to make a living. I will get to that a little later.

I would like to talk about the genesis of the economic action plan as described in the budget, titled “Leading the Way on Jobs and Growth”. I would not say that the economic action plan is leading the way. I do believe the sheer gist of our talented workforce, the education levels, our ability to innovate and the capacity by which we can get to the level to survive all economic crises certainly is leading the way but it is incumbent upon the individual to lead the way out of this.

However, there are areas in which there are weaknesses in our society and socio-economic factors that are at play, areas that the government needs to take action on. We need to play a role in the lives of people who have fallen through the cracks, people who are most vulnerable in situations, whether they live in Ontario, Nunavut or Newfoundland and Labrador. Many of them are going through a similar crisis when it comes to education, rates of literacy and certainly when it comes to matching the skills with a particular place or industry they want to be in.

I would like to suggest something for the House to consider and it is something I have talked about quite a bit over the past little while. We are seeing something taking place in the workforce. I will use my riding as strong example because of the talent and skills that people have developed over the past little while. A lot of work is transient in nature. Let us take the example of a particular individual with a skills set in the oil and gas industry. If people are thinking about Newfoundland and Labrador, they must be thinking that they work offshore. That is not the case. In my particular neck of the woods, a lot of people are transients from Newfoundland and Labrador who go to the oil fields of Alberta.

They work in some of the major plants, upgraders I think the term is, that go from one form of petroleum to the final product that is ready for market with regard to natural gas and oil but also for major infrastructure projects happening in Alberta because of the proliferation of the industry. I say that because even though oil prices dipped dramatically over last year, the infrastructure is in place, the people who work the industry are also in place and many of them travel back and forth. They spend perhaps three or four weeks in Alberta at the work site and travel thousands of kilometres to return home for two or three weeks. That is becoming the nature of many of the workers and jobs available at this point.

There was a dip in the demand for work simply because of the low price of oil. I say the low price of oil meaning relative to what it was two years ago when it was in some cases above $150 a barrel. Now it is at $83 a barrel and, therefore, workers have kind of slipped into a comfortable place when it comes to achieving work for those who are skilled in that industry.

How does that change the dynamic? It does in many ways. People are now taking advantage of skills training, whether it is federal or provincial, and that is a good thing. What is lacking is the ability of small, medium and large enterprises to match the work that is available. What I would implore the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to consider is a national program similar to what we would call a skills inventory database.

Let us assume for a moment that I possess a skill in pipefitting and I live in Newfoundland and Labrador. Where can I go to achieve work that allows me to stay at home but yet travel to find work elsewhere?

People need to put their skill sets into a national database, to go beyond their own backyards, in order to allow other companies to see that they exist. I know that sounds like a strange concept but work is now becoming so quick to attain. Industries are now transitioning from the old traditional style. Even the traditional industries of oil and gas and forestry are now transitioning. The forestry industry is going from not just pulp and paper or newsprint. It is transforming into furniture making, pellets for heating energy, whether it is at the home or at the business.

In the fishing industry, many of the smaller boats are now becoming larger vessels and they are fishing in areas further off shore.

Therefore, because these companies, whether they be small or big, are transitioning to a new type of work and a new type of business model, which means new types of revenue streams, it becomes problematic to find the workers who have the particular skills. The companies end up spending a lot of money, resources and time just to find those people.

However, we, as a government, can make that transition easier by providing that particular database of information so that it puts the worker, as well as the employer, into that same sphere and allows people to communicate.

There is another side of doing that which would be beneficial, and I humbly put this forward to the House as a token of debate. I will give members a good example. In Port Union in my riding, over 1,000 people used to work at the local shrimp plant, which at the time was owned by Fishery Products International, now owned by OCI. The plant went from a workforce of over 1,000 people down to about 100 or 200 people on a good day. It was highly seasonal work with somewhere between 15 to 20 weeks of work for the average employee.

Now, across the harbour there is an old plant that existed many years ago, the early part of the last century, and then was shut down. It was the focal point of a fishing industry when there were a lot more people involved in the fishery. It was owned by William Coaker, incidentally. The government is now investing into giving the place a facelift, let us say, making it more user friendly, not just for tourists but also for business. A company such as Iceberg is now going to produce bottled water. Bottled water from icebergs. My goodness. I remember a gentleman telling me one time that in his day, icebergs were the biggest nuisance around. Now icebergs have become a lifeline for bottled water and other products.

How do we go from transitioning from what was all fishery to now partially fishery and partially iceberg harvesting? We do that in the way that we spoke about, by trying to find the talented individuals who are able to work. The skill set needs to be there in order for them to set up. If a database exists, a company that wants to set up an operation, such as Iceberg or a water bottling plant, it can get a good idea about who in that community is available to work. Whether they have moved away recently or not, they can still be involved in that database by simply indicating where they come from. That would make it much easier for a company to find the workers it needs.

Mining is another example. A huge mine opened up outside of a town called Millertown and it is owned by Teck. It mines mostly for copper, nickel and zinc, but it is now mining for gold. By doing that the company needs the particular individuals talented enough to work in those mines. That is where the government could play a role.

I would like the government to consider this in its next budget or even as a policy over the summer or in the fall. If we to get serious about having a talented workforce, promoting it and ensuring it is able to mesh with anybody that wants to hire them, whether it be small, medium or large business, we need to have the playing field by which they can come together.

Let me return to the budget implementation bill and what was written in the book provided to us when the budget was released. The economic action plan promised a great deal of money for infrastructure and it promised a great deal on the back end for tertiary activity.

Intentions are paved with gold, if I may use the vernacular. The problem with that is the function of it has diminished in the past little while. Here are some of the problems we need to consider when this type of crisis happens again.

With respect to unspent monies, let me give the House a list of what was unspent in this situation. In the supplementary estimates (C), which were brought to the House, $1.4 billion worth of infrastructure funding were not spent in 2009-10. There were $870 million unspent out of the $2 billion for the infrastructure stimulus fund. There were $186 million unspent out of $200 million for the green infrastructure fund. There were $240 million unspent out of $495 million for the provincial-territorial base funding. Finally, for the building Canada communities federal component, there were $135 million unspent out of $250 million.

Let me illustrate to the House a point that I saw in particular where this money gets unspent. Cost-sharing is a large element of it. The government spends money to increase the infrastructure and improve the infrastructure for a particular community. I will use the town of New West Valley as an example. It wants to take advantage of a particular stimulus fund to upgrade its park for reasons of tourism and for its residents who take advantage of it for fitness, health and the like.

The problem with it is this. In a small town the municipal tax base is not as large as a medium or larger community. The business tax is not where it used to be. That puts it in a vulnerable position where it has to come up with its one-third share, which it cannot do.

The federal government needs to consider putting in flexibilities so smaller communities can avail the funding. Right now provinces do their part by allowing up to 90% available so the communities can up with 10%, and kudos to them for doing so.

I understand the rules and regulations of Treasury Board and all things financial, the regulations and accounting principles. However, the compassion has been taken out of this when the government insists on doing things such as major announcements, handing out cheques and the like. This is kind of a misnomer because cheques are not really handed out any more. Maybe they are, but I cannot get that straight.

Nonetheless, let me just go back to the situation we have on infrastructure. One of the other elements about this funding when it comes recreation. One-third of the spending is hard enough to come up with, but we have a program called RInC, which is recreational infrastructure.

In 1967 there was a rash of spending regarding stadiums, gymnasiums, swimming pools and municipal council buildings. Many smaller communities took advantage of the Centennial fund to build their town halls or stadiums and so on and so forth. A lot of remains. I will not say intact, because that goes too far. However, it is still there and through a patchwork of funding, not a lot from the federal government, it remains, barely in some cases.

What we proposed, and I say we meaning the colour red of Liberal, in the last election was that we have an incentive to put money back into these communities in the infrastructure we invested in 1967. I do not know if anyone has noticed a calendar, but 1967 certainly was not yesterday. We got the idea about these crumbling buildings and we were able to do that.

The Conservatives decided this, and maybe this was a good idea, but the problem was they instituted a program that was not just one-third, it was fifty-fifty. If people are to spend $200,000 to fix a stadium, and that is a meagre sum for a stadium that seats over 1,000 in a town of only 3,000 or 4,000 people, they have to come up with $100,000.

There are stipulations where they can go to the province, but that puts it on the hook too. The government said it would not clawback funds, but in a way that is a clawback. It says it believes in a stadium and gives the town the money. For example, Bishop's Falls will be, after the weekend, Hockeyville, Canada. I am somewhat biased. It will get $100,000 for winning Hockeyville. Only one stadium on the whole country, whether it is the other towns or Bishop's Falls, gets that money. It is pretty bad that for that one stadium, the major contributor to its infrastructure, on a federal level, is the Kraft corporation.

We should think about that one for a moment. Maybe we should look at this in the sense of giving these communities a fair shot at the funding they so need. They are told that they are getting $100,000 for their stadiums, then they pause and the cameras click and they get on the six o'clock news. Then when all that settles down, the lights dim and the news is over, those towns realize they have come up with $100,000 too. It is unfortunate the cameras are not around then.

I bring that up as an illustration only because I honestly think this is fixable. I would compel the government to consider these options as we go forward, whether it is a renewed program as such. It talks about program renewals. If the program where I could fix my home and get a tax credit for it were so good, so powerful and so wonderful, where is it now? Perhaps someone can find it because I know where it is.

If an evaluation is to take place and if we have to consider all the programs, let us start from scratch. Let us go right to the core of the issue here. Let us go to the spending needed for programs that are needed. What ends up happening is when program evaluators review a program review, they only look at the numbers. The faces, the stories and the communities get lost in the mix. The government program evaluators become simply black and white numbers, and all of us have to stop doing that.

I will give an example. It seems like the only time we listen to people and their stories of how good these programs are is when the programs are in trouble. Why should a program have to fight for its life when it is so good and so, in the end, salvageable? Let me give the best example I can, being a rural member of Parliament, and that is the community access program, the CAP.

I am not sure if the government wanted to cut it or not. Quite frankly, I do not think it is sure either. Let us go beyond that argument of who said what, where, when and why and what news release was correct and what bureaucrat got it wrong, whether minister or bureaucrat. Let is set that aside for one moment.

The Conservatives said that they would continue the funding for this program for another year. However, what they are doing is putting money into the other pile of money, which is all about infrastructure spending. They make it sound like it is the bottom line of just the digital world, when in fact it is a social program. It allows people with lower incomes to be on the Internet, to be engaged in the world that they endorsed.

Finally, I will talk about the fisheries very quickly. We have a situation—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The member will not have time to get to the fisheries as his time has expired. Perhaps if someone asks him a question or comment, he will have the chance.

We will have 10 minutes worth of questions and comments now.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's presentation on this big omnibus bill, Bill C-9, was very down-to-earth.

He talks about the difficulties that small communities have to raise matching federal funds for buildings and infrastructure. That is certainly an issue not only in Newfoundland, but right across the country.

He also talked about the home renovation program, which was very popular. The Conservatives advertised it extensively. They touted it a success of their government and then they cancelled it. If the member wonders why that was done and why it has not been introduced again, he simply has to stay tuned. When the next election occurs, it will be one of the election promises of the government.

I want to ask the member a question about another aspect of this bill. In the area of environmental assessment, there are some changes that would allow the Minister of the Environment to dictate the scope of environmental assessments. It also weakens the public participation and enables the removal of assessments of energy projects from the Environmental Assessment Agency, the National Energy Board and the Nuclear Safety Commission.

This is an oil company's dream. This is all part of the overall plan of the Conservative government to deregulate the economy and industries and give corporations what they want.

Would the member like to comment on that? Certainly he could get back to the missed part of his speech on the fisheries.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the compliment on me being down-to-earth. I suppose when one is 5 foot 4, one does not have much of a choice. I appreciate the compliment nonetheless.

When it comes to the environmental assessments, some of it is buried in red tape, especially when it comes to things like small craft harbours and the like, so I get the gist of the complaints initially. However, we saw this in places such as the new Fisheries Act, which I think preceded his existence here in the House. A good point was brought up by his party and mine about how this would make it much easier for mining companies and others to destroy habitat. He has a valid point. We need to look at this with a fine tooth comb, because it is a little overreaching.

As I said, I understand the principle that the government was looking to cut the red tape, but it is overreaching in several aspects.

I mentioned the small craft harbours so I will mention the fisheries. The fisheries open on April 1. Knowing very few boats are fishing, it will be a devastating situation for those who work in the plants. I think we are being held hostage by larger processors that want to become that much larger. I would implore the government to look at this immediately and get involved. This will be a grave situation that it will have to handle, come the fall of the year and throughout the summer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member wants to talk about fisheries, and we are on opposite ends of the country. The east coast has slightly different issues than the west coast around fisheries, but we have a common interest in preserving our fisheries.

The member will be well aware of the fact that on the west coast the Fraser River Sockeye run this year was absolutely decimated. The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has consistently called for investments in conservation, in enforcements and in habitat restoration.

Could the member talk a bit about what he sees as being aspects of protecting our fisheries, both on the east and west, that were absent from the budget implementation act?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing up the issue.

One of the elements that was being used, I think successfully in some cases as long as there was buy-in, was the marine protected areas. In B.C. there are a couple of good models. PNCIMA I think is the northwest area for ocean management that does a really good job with that.

I came here in 2004, and I think it was 2004-05 when we did the study on the sockeye salmon around the Fraser. What a devastating situation. We have fluctuations in stocks on the east coast, in crab, lobster and shrimp. The declines in the stock for British Colombia is absolutely stunning when we look at the numbers. Where do they go? Where do they come from?

Some of the models that I think work out well are the international models between the United States and Canada, where they are looking at doing this.

I would love to have more time on this question, but the final point is that there has to be a conversation between the bureaucrats of DFO and the local fishers of British Colombia and also the native groups as well. That is a big problem out there. I think there is a lack of discussion and an incredible lack of understanding. Granted I am from the east coast. It is an observation of mine. It might be naive, but I would implore all members of Parliament from British Columbia, despite their colour of party, to get involved in facilitating a discussion among those levels, the government, the native groups and the local fishers and their groups, whether it is recreational or commercial. It is a conversation that has to be fulsome and has to take a great deal of time.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague's opinion and get his comments on the lack of vision, the shortsightedness, within the budgetary document and in recent announcements that cutbacks have been made to ACAP, the Atlantic coastal action program. ACAP is a not-for-profit agency that funds and operates a number of different environmental projects throughout Atlantic Canada. I know the member's home province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a similar agency.

In my community, ACAP has provided an opportunity for homeowners to have an eco-energy audit done on their homes and thus be able to apply for an energy retrofit, and there was funding assistance for the energy retrofit program. That program is one that has ceased. It will not be funded going forward. It is one that has brought a great deal of benefit to our community, to about 3,500 homes within our area alone. It has had a tremendously positive impact on the environment and provided cost savings for those who need cost savings, when we look at the high energy costs in our province.

I would like to ask my colleague, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, what type of impact he is hearing from the people back home on these cutbacks and how this is going to impact on the operation of the ACAP facility in Newfoundland.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, over the past two years I think this ACAP situation has been ongoing, whether it was below the radar or not. To say I am not shocked by this goes to the heart of the matter. It has been talked about for the past couple of years, but yet the justification has been very limited.

What ACAP does is that it provides us with the information in an era where there is a lack of science, not just for the fishery but also for the oil and gas industry. There is an organization in Newfoundland called One Ocean that does fantastic work.

However a lot of the groundwork by these organizations is done by government-funded organizations like ACAP. What we have to look at certainly on this side of the House is support for this organization that provides the information that enables other groups, whether it be private or public or government-owned, to do their jobs.

The member did bring up at the beginning a lack of vision. When it comes to our regional economic development agency, I speak of ACOA. We always call it ACOA but for the benefit of the House it is Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, similarly based on other economic development boards across the country, organizations such as those in the west and in Quebec and FedNor in northern Ontario.

What used to take place were five-year plans regarding economic development and stimulus for the smallest communities. So communities would get funding for a five-year period and once that lapsed they would get funding for another five-year period.

What we are seeing right now is a year-over-year funding renewal that really does not give these organizations a place to seriously invest in long-term achievements, and that becomes a problem.

Therefore I thank the hon. member from Cape Breton for his question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-9, the jobs and economic growth act. As the member for Outremont, our finance critic, has indicated, the New Democrats will be voting against this particular piece of legislation.

When pieces of legislation come before the House, we have responsibilities as members of Parliament to give them full consideration. Although we do support pieces of this legislation, there are other pieces of it that we are fundamentally opposed to. The Conservative government has decided to jam into this piece of legislation things that should properly be considered by other parliamentary standing committees and should have stand-alone legislation.

We have items around Canada Post and the environment that should be stand-alone pieces of legislation. The appropriate committees could deal with those in depth, call the appropriate witnesses and give them the kind of study and due diligence that we have a responsibility to do as members of Parliament. Based on that fact alone, because there are aspects around the environment that we simply could not support, New Democrats are in a position where we have to say no to this piece of legislation.

There are particular aspects of Bill C-9 that are very troubling for my constituents of Nanaimo—Cowichan. I want to touch on a couple of them. One is that there are more changes around softwood lumber. We know that the softwood lumber agreement has had a devastating impact on different parts of the country. Certainly in British Columbia, our forestry sector has undergone a number of changes over the past several years.

The softwood lumber agreement, as it was agreed to by the Conservatives, has eroded the resource industry and forestry industry in Nanaimo—Cowichan and other parts of British Columbia. I would strongly urge members of the House to very carefully review that part of the budget implementation act to see what kinds of effects it would have on their communities.

I know other members have talked about the employment insurance aspect of this piece of legislation, but this is going to take the roughly $57 billion of surplus and wind up that employment insurance account. We know that, in many parts of this country including Nanaimo—Cowichan, there are many workers who have exhausted their employment insurance.

I talked a little bit earlier about forestry workers. We know that forestry workers in my riding, throughout British Columbia and in other parts of Canada have been hit hard. Some of them have either exhausted their employment insurance or were not eligible for some of those provisions that were supposed to protect workers.

If we were going to try to jam employment insurance into this budget implementation act, we would have liked to have seen some of the initiatives that other members, such as the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the member for Hamilton Mountain and the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, have called for. We would like to see an elimination of the two-week waiting period. We want to see a reduction in the number of weeks that are required to qualify. We want to see an adequate length of time that actually allows people that safety net that many of them have paid into their whole lives. We want to see an increase in the benefit rate.

Studies by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Canadian Labour Congress have indicated that if we want to talk about economic stimulus, we should provide that social safety net so people have money to spend in their own communities, so they can support their local restaurants and stores. If we ensured people had that safety net through employment insurance, we would make sure our economy stayed more stable.

Another aspect of it is that, as people exhaust their employment insurance benefits, they end up becoming the responsibility of the province. Once the workers have exhausted their employment insurance and then depleted their savings, they then end up going on income assistance. It seems to me that this is another example of the federal government shoving its responsibilities onto the provincial governments, particularly in light of the fact that there was a $57 billion surplus in the EI account, paid for by workers and their employers.

It is very difficult to support a budget that says the government will take the money that workers paid for and make sure it stays in the consolidated revenue fund, with no access to it by workers or their employers.

There are many, many parts of the bill that are simply anathema to New Democrats, but I want to talk very briefly about the environmental assessment part of this legislation. It exempts through legislation rather than regulations certain federally funded infrastructure projects from environmental assessment. This goes well beyond the efforts by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to streamline the environmental assessment process, which was to be the object of a review in 2010. At the outset of my speech, I referenced the fact that parts of this Bill C-9 legislation are taking the responsibility away from standing committees where it appropriately belongs.

Our environment critic, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, is here intently listening and I know she has raised the issues around the fact that there was a process that was going to be under way and this legislation attempts to usurp the authority of the environment committee to do its work. It allows the Minister of the Environment to dictate the scope of the environmental assessment of any project to be reviewed and it allows for, rather than requires, the National Energy Board and the Nuclear Safety Commission to pay for public participations and reviews that they choose to undertake. That is in line with the budget speech, which outlined the plan to remove assessment of energy projects from the Environmental Assessment Agency and give it to the NEB and the NSC.

In British Columbia, we recently had a Supreme Court of Canada ruling where MiningWatch Canada raised an issue. The Supreme Court said that the federal regulators erred when they failed to subject the Red Chris project to a full review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act following its review and approval by the B.C. government. The question this raises is that there are dozens of projects under federal review including mines, highways and pipelines. The court said the so-called responsible authorities including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada must undertake comprehensive reviews of all projects that qualify for CEAA scrutiny.

So the question then becomes, with what is in Bill C-9, what happens to that court ruling. What happens to that responsibility under CEAA to put that kind of assessment review process in place? It is very worrying that the federal government seems to be distancing itself from its responsibility as a federal regulator to oversee these kinds of processes.

In my riding we have a very difficult situation with the Chemainus River and the Halalt First Nation. The Halalt is asking for a judicial review of a water project undertaken by the District of North Cowichan. There had previously been some action by the community because they were so frustrated by their inability to have the District of North Cowichan, the provincial or the federal governments pay attention to their very legitimate concerns.

As Chief James Thomas has said a number of times, their attempt to raise the issue around the Chemainus River aquifer was not just about Halalt First Nation. It was about protecting that aquifer for all of the residents of Chemainus. They had been passionately pleading with all levels of government to come to the table with them as full partners at the table to make sure the aquifer would be protected not only for this generation but for future generations. So they have been forced into the courts. They have a petition asking the courts to order a judicial review of the $3.6 million water project, which has been approved under both the federal and provincial environmental review processes.

Grand Chief Phillip has also commented on this and he has said:

As Indigenous Peoples, we are increasingly alarmed when third party interests are granted access to the resources of our territories, especially fresh water, government and the courts protect those corporate interests at the expense of our Aboriginal Title and Rights and of the environmental values that many British Columbians hold dear.

When we speak about the environmental values, many of us in the House keep in mind that we are not just talking about today. First nations will talk about seven generations into the future and that is what we need to be talking about when we are looking at protecting those valuable environmental assets.

I want to touch on a couple of other items.

I want to speak very briefly about Canada Post. Bill C-9 removes Canada Post's legal monopoly on outgoing international letters. The bill includes some provisions from previous bills, Bill C-14 and Bill C-44. I want to acknowledge the work done by the member for Hamilton Centre in raising concerns around this issue.

I live in a rural community. It is essential that we protect the ability of Canada Post to deliver cost-effective services to all residents in Canada. One way is to continue Canada Post's exclusive privilege to collect, transmit and deliver letters, including international letters, which is what is referenced in this piece of legislation. This would allow Canada Post to maintain its universal obligation. In many communities Canada Post is the lifeline. It is the mechanism by which people receive and send their correspondence at an affordable rate.

The member for Hamilton Mountain identified that where deregulation of that kind has happened in other countries, the costs have gone up and many postal workers have lost their jobs. Surely a piece of legislation called the jobs and economic growth act should look at protecting jobs, and not include measures that would do away with jobs.

Other New Democrats have mentioned that we will not be out of the recession until we have full job recovery. Many communities do not have full job recovery. The kinds of initiatives the government has proposed with respect to Canada Post will see job loss, not job recovery.

I want to touch on a couple of things that are particular to first nations, Métis and Inuit. This week the House had an emergency debate on the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Bill C-9 does not provide any continuation of the funding for it. On Tuesday night, over the several hours we debated this matter, there were passionate pleas for an extension of this funding.

I remind the House once again that the evaluation done on behalf of Indian and Northern Affairs talked about the program's effectiveness. It said that there was almost unanimous agreement among those canvassed that the AHF has been very successful at achieving its objectives in governance and fiscal management. Just to be clear, not only did it achieve its objectives but it has been fiscally responsible.

Every member who spoke on Tuesday night talked about the effectiveness of the AHF. Members mentioned that it is a grassroots community-driven organization and that it is culturally appropriate. Conservative members, without exception, talked about its effectiveness. A member asked me why the Conservative government would cancel a program that it agrees is effective. There simply is no answer to that.

It is very disappointing that the budget does not acknowledge the good work the Aboriginal Healing Foundation has done. The funding should be reinstated so the program can continue until residential school survivors have received the healing they need to become healthy, active, participating members of their communities, socially, culturally and economically. It is an outrage that it was not included in the budget.

With regard to violence against aboriginal women, we know that $10 million was earmarked in the throne speech, but we would like to see a commitment to continue the funding for the Native Women's Association of Canada. The Native Women's Association of Canada has done a Sisters in Spirit follow-up report, which laid out a number of factors that should be included.

At this juncture, we have no confidence that the Native Women's Association of Canada will continue to be funded, included in the action plan and the implementation of it. It needs to be at the table as a full partner in developing the action plan and implementing it.

The association has made a number of recommendations. In my short 20 minutes I will not have time to go through all of them, but I want to touch on a couple.

One is with respect to the reduction of violence against aboriginal women and girls, which results in their disappearance and death.

The association is recommending that the association and all levels of government work collaboratively to review and consolidate existing recommendations from all of the commissions and inquiries that have occurred.

The Native Women's Association needs to participate as a full member in developing a work plan to identify outstanding recommendations and priorities for action. The Native Women's Association, governments and police need to collaborate to develop policies and procedures that address the issues of prostitution, trafficking and sexual exploitation of children by focusing on the perpetrators, preventing the abuse and ensuring that the victims are not penalized, criminalized or had their personal autonomy restricted.

There needs to be a reduction of poverty experienced by aboriginal women and girls that will increase their safety and security, and a reduction in homelessness and an increased ability of aboriginal women to access safe, secure and affordable housing which meets minimum standards of cleanliness and repair. Finally, there needs to be improved access to justice for aboriginal women and girls and their families. There is a whole list of recommendations that fall under that subject.

I want to specifically address the Canada Council on Learning and First Nations University. A letter from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to the Prime Minister indicated:

The research, analysis and reporting capacity of an organisation such as CCL represents an important asset in a knowledge-driven economy. At the OECD, we have watched CCL's rapid evolution with interest. I have been impressed with the above-mentioned Composite Learning Index, which integrates robust measures across varied dimensions of learning and enables individuals and communities to assess the impact of learning on social and economic outcomes.

As we know, investing in a knowledge economy not only supports economic resilience and fuels economic growth, but also improves health levels, strengthens community, and heightens employment prospects.

In light of that letter from the OECD, one would think that the Canada Council on Learning's funding had been extended. Sadly, its funding has been cut. An organization that has raised issues, has monitored, has reported and has evaluated is losing its funding.

Its recent report, “Taking Stock: Lifelong Learning in Canada 2005–2010”, is a very good overview. It indicates that our country has a fundamental data gap in post-secondary education. It states:

Canada has the greatest deficiencies in acquisition and use of data on learning after high school of any OECD country. This renders the country capable of: matching labour market demand to supply; providing adequate information on which students can base study and career decisions; establishing accountability for resources expended and determining how much and what progress is being made.

Another report indicates that the discrepancy in post-secondary education attainment for first nations can be attributed to the university level. Only 8% of aboriginal people age 25 to 64 had completed a university degree compared to 23% of non-aboriginal Canadians.

The CCL has excellent information. One would probably suspect that because the CCL has raised some very troubling issues its funding was cut. Because it has raised some issues around aboriginal people, I want to touch on the report, “Walk In Our Moccasins, A Comprehensive Study of Aboriginal Education Counsellors in Ontario”.

The CCL outlines a number of factors that are essential for aboriginal learners to complete post-secondary and K-12 learning. It talks about a culturally enhanced and supported curriculum taught by caring educators, teaching strategies and assessments that are culturally reinforcing and diverse, and adequate economic well-being.

That leads me to First Nations University of Canada. We know that the provincial and federal governments cut its funding. The provincial government has reinstated it, but the federal government has only reinstated a portion of the funding. The former grand chief of Prince Albert Grand Council, Gary Merasty, wrote a very good op-ed saying that FNUC has turned the corner. He pointed out that in Saskatchewan 50% of the population will be first nations by 2045, and that First Nations University is an essential factor in terms of the economic health and well-being of that province.

Any economy that is going to thrive and grow needs an educated and trained workforce. First Nations University has a vital role to play in that.

For all of the reasons I have outlined, New Democrats will be opposing this budget implementation bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. I would say that I am disappointed but not surprised that the NDP will be voting against jobs and economic growth for Canadians.

However, I will give the NDP some credit. It has become a liberal think-tank, after all. Principles that are put forward by the NDP within a few short months become Liberal policy. I point to the NDP's platform on EI. Philosophically I did not agree with it, but the Liberal Party saw fit to adapt it this weekend.

After the thinkers' conference, the leader of the Liberal Party came back and endorsed the NDP's corporate tax plan, which would cost Canada jobs and economic growth. In fact, if we consider the KPMG report that was issued this week on competitiveness and we see that Canada has now climbed to second overall in competitiveness, it demonstrates the success of advantage Canada as a plan for Canada to continue down this path of being a jobs and economic growth leader.

We know that Canada is leading all of its trading partners in economic growth and job creation, and obviously the prospects of the Canadian economy are much better than the prospects of our trading partners. If being in first place is not good enough to support the government's economic agenda, in which place would the member like to see us?

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

Mr. Speaker, we can refer to any different set of numbers to argue our position on any kind of matter. I would say that there are many parts where we are falling dismally behind.

With respect to first nations, Métis and Inuit, we have some of the highest rates of tuberculosis in the western world, in Nunavut it is 185 times the average rate. When we look at the wellness indexes and we take into consideration housing, water and education, first nations are something like 67th or 87th when looking at the composite numbers.

Some parts of our country may be doing very well, but there are many places in Canada where the unemployment rates are still unacceptably high. We will not have a full recovery until we have that job recovery. Many of us want to see that kind of job recovery before we are willing to jump on that number one bandwagon.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her interventions, particularly on First Nations University.

The budget does not really address jobs, veterans, families, climate change, culture, clean energy and first nations to name a few. The list goes on and on.

The member will also know that the government had promised to create 190,000 new jobs, but now it is some 135,000. At the bottom of the recession, we are looking at over 300,000 people having lost their jobs since October 2008.

I would ask the member whether or not she believes that the government in fact put us into a recession even before the global economic recession, and put itself in a position where it cannot address the priorities of this nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly this country has not had a full job recovery. What those job numbers actually cloak is the fact that often those jobs are seasonal, part-time, contract work. They are not the kinds of full-time, full-year jobs that people in this country need in order for families to have that kind of economic security. Until we have that kind of job recovery, we do not have a recovery.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have six minutes to conclude the questions and comments period after oral questions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-9. I will begin by saying that we will be voting against this bill.

I have been a member in this House for over four years. Twice now the people of Ahuntsic have given me the privilege of defending their interests and Quebec's interests with my Bloc Québécois colleagues.

My duties here have allowed me to witness first-hand the Conservative government's failure to act, and above all, its political grandstanding. In fact, even the name of the bill, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, rather than the budget implementation bill, is itself an example of this smoke and mirrors act, as they try to convince the country that they are taking care of people.

In my speech on the budget implementation act, I will demonstrate that the government is trying to impose its right wing ideology to the detriment of women, children and even the victims it claims so loudly to defend.

First of all, consider the firearms registry. The underlying message of this budget is that the government wants to save all the pennies it can, putting the lives of our citizens in danger, particularly the lives of women and children, and even police officers. To save less than $3 million—the undisputed number from the RCMP—the government is supporting a bill that will exempt long guns from the current firearms registry, and 90% of all guns are long guns. And they are the weapons that kill the most women and children.

Before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on March 18, 2010, the Senior Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP, Bill Sweeney, expressed his support for maintaining the full gun registry and pointed out that there is ample evidence proving that the registry contributes to the safety of police officers and the public. He said:

I believe that there is compelling evidence that the registry promotes officer and public safety...I believe that there will be an opportunity for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to present to a cabinet committee that evidence.

It is clear that the gun registry not only allows for better coordination of law enforcement interventions, but also for the prevention of domestic tragedies by facilitating the seizure of weapons. It also makes it more difficult to steal firearms and easier to conduct and conclude police investigations, and that allows police to arrest criminals more quickly. The registry is consulted more than 12,000 times a day by more than 80% of police officers across Canada.

On the issue of the gun registry, the government has achieved an exceptional level of absurdity. For $3 million in so-called savings, the government, which has more than $242.2 million in expenditures in this budget, wants to compromise the safety of the public and law enforcement officers.

For the government, public safety is just another prop in their show. All the government ever does is put on shows and make the same old announcements. I have some examples. By the way, the shows are not very good.

The Minister of Public Safety made a major announcement on the sex offender registry by saying that the government will tighten its grip on pedophiles. We were told that $14 million was being allocated over two years for DNA analysis. It was a big show.

In fact, we were addressing this issue before the government prorogued the House and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had produced a report on the sex offender registry. Furthermore, in April 2009 our committee met with the directors of two major labs, one in Quebec and the other in Ontario. There are three major laboratories in Canada: those two and the third one, run by the RCMP, which does analyses.

We received Mr. Prime from the Centre of Forensic Sciences, and Mr. Dufour from the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale. These two labs do roughly 70% of all the tests. What did these directors say in April 2009? That not only was there no agreement with the federal government, but they also had to do a tremendous amount of tests—nearly 70% of the tests—with very little money.

This means that it can take up to a year to get the results of these tests.

On March 18, at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I questioned the minister about the funding for these laboratories. I was told that there still was no agreement in place and that Quebec still had not signed the agreement for the current year. So there is no agreement.

I asked how the $7 million a year would be split among these laboratories, and I got no answer. They do not know how they are going to divide up the money. Currently, each lab gets just over $2 million, so they will likely get exactly the same amount, with no increase. Once again, the government is making a great show of things, but in reality there is nothing new. Even worse, nothing is being done.

I want to tell my colleagues about something that is completely absurd. They say they want to crack down on pedophiles. No problem. Yet for the past three years—during which time there have been three public safety ministers—I have been warning the government and calling on the Conservatives to stop transferring pedophiles to Correctional Services halfway houses, also known as community correctional centres, near schools and daycare centres.

The Montreal school board has also been calling for this. It passed a resolution to that effect, but nothing was done. This does not require any investment of money—it does not cost a cent—and it does not even require that a law be passed. All it requires is a simple directive at Correctional Services. Did they agree? No. Three years later, they still have not done anything. What are they waiting for? I do not know. I hope with all my heart that they will not wait for a tragedy to occur before they do something, which is what usually happens.

I will give another example. For four years, this government has been saying that it is very concerned about victims of crime. So it makes a big deal about a paltry $6.6 million over two years to improve the federal victims strategy by making it easier for relatives of crime victims, specifically murder victims, to receive EI sickness benefits.

There is even a spokesperson who spouts all manner of falsehoods. I say “falsehoods” because I do not want to use unparliamentary language. I would use another word if I were not here in the House, but that is another story.

Why did they take four years to come up with a paltry $6.6 million? After putting on a show for four years, claiming to be there for the victims and feeling sorry for them, they did something, providing $6.6 million over two years. Why? On closer scrutiny, what do we find?

We know that the member for Compton—Stanstead introduced—more than once—Bill C-343 respecting the families of victims of crime. This bill would provide assistance in the form of employment insurance benefits not only to the families of murder victims, but also the families faced with the death of their minor child or the suicide of a spouse, common-law partner or child, and to parents whose minor child suffered a serious physical injury during the commission of a criminal offence. It would mean that any member of these families affected by tragedy could receive up to 52 weeks of benefits and maintain their employment relationship for up to two years.

What is the government proposing? It is proposing $3.3 million per year only for the families of murder victims, which boils down to approximately 15 weeks of benefits. We are asking for 52 weeks for a larger number of individuals. That is what I call really helping the victims of crime.

They are so frantic that, on March 19, Senator Boisvenu, their spokesperson, was still telling and writing falsehoods, not to use unparliamentary language, about Bill C-343. He attempted to defend the indefensible. We will see how absurd that was. He said that budget 2010 included an additional commitment of $52 million to help victims of crime and $6.6 million to support the parents of a murdered child through the EI program.

That is not true. There is no $52 million in the budget for the victims of crime. The Conservatives just love putting on smoke and mirrors shows. They are world champions at it. Unfortunately, these are not very good shows. I would not recommend them, because the shows are more pitiful than anything else.

I would like to speak about an issue that is important to me—crime prevention. We will see that they have a rather poor record. Crime prevention is not in their vocabulary. For the Conservatives, crime prevention is an obscure concept, one that they do not even understand. If they did, they would have thrown money at it since coming to power. I would say that previous governments did not do much more. However, the Conservatives claim that they are concerned about crime. Crime prevention is fundamental if we do not want people to become criminals. If we want to save our youth, we have to have prevention.

What if we are wrong? Well, I will prove that we are not wrong. We are not the only ones saying it.

There is nothing in the budget for prevention, there is nothing for the national crime prevention strategy. However, the National Crime Prevention Centre web site talks about providing communities tools, knowledge and support to undertake crime prevention initiatives in communities large and small across Canada. It is great to read that. It is encouraging.

This year, no new money has been allocated. Consequently, for over a year—and this may continue next year—the National Crime Prevention Centre, Quebec section, has been telling agencies in my riding, and they have told me as well, to not submit applications for new projects until further notice because it does not have any money and allocated amounts have already been disbursed.

I asked the minister about it when he came before the committee. It seems that no one could provide an answer. We will receive one in writing at some point, at least we hope so. I have dealt with a fair number of departments. It is fairly difficult to obtain information and a response from the department responsible for the NCPC. I will not go into that.

What are the Conservatives doing? They are doing the easiest thing, what they are paid to do and what they were sent here to do: they are making laws. Making laws is the easiest thing to do, unbelievably easy. However, making intelligent laws is not as easy, I can assure you. And when the time comes to put money into implementing those laws, it is a different story. Furthermore, there is always that narrow vision that would have us believe that putting more people in jail is in some way fighting crime. Let us just put people in jail and throw away the key and everything will be just fine. I am sorry, but no matter how many and how long the jail terms are, those individuals will be freed one day and once back on the streets they will be even more prone to crime and more dangerous.

Last Tuesday—as life and destiny sometimes take us to some cities at the right time—I was in Winnipeg where I replaced my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin at the justice and human rights committee, which was studying organized crime and street gangs. I must say that I was moved and touched by what I saw in Winnipeg, particularly by the condition of aboriginal children. All the witnesses we heard told us that more money was needed for prevention.

I met outstanding aboriginal women who work tirelessly for organizations in terrible neighbourhoods to save aboriginal children, to get them off the streets and to prevent them from being recruited by street gangs or organized crime groups.

I want to take this opportunity to talk about Mr. Wiebe, a man who stood out to me, although all of the testimonies were touching. Mr. Wiebe's 20-year-old son was murdered on January 5, 2003. It was a very violent murder planned out by young men aged 17 to 20.

This man was suffering a lot. Despite the fact that he and his wife were still suffering, he said that he had read that the Canadian government wanted to increase the budget for prisons by 27%, by $3.1 billion. He encouraged the committee to press the government to take 100% of this increase and re-allocate every cent into human rights and prevention. He said that we needed to save these kids before they became criminals. He said that his son would perhaps still be alive if his murderers had gotten some help.

What I saw and heard in Winnipeg regarding the situation with aboriginal children made it clear why these young people join street gangs.

Why, between 2005 and 2007, did Winnipeg police report more than 8,000 car thefts per year committed by members of street gangs, by 11- or 12-year old kids? These kids are living with poverty, unsanitary housing—I saw it myself—violence, drug use, high drop-out rates, parental abandonment, sexual violence, despair and lack of love. And nothing in this budget will meet these desperate needs.

What aboriginal children need is good food, decent housing, the opportunity to go to school, homes free from violence and drugs, and parents who are proud of their culture and their history. They do not need prison.

Aboriginals are already over-represented in federal penitentiaries in the prairie provinces as well as in juvenile facilities in the region. Like all children in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Saskatoon, these children need greater solidarity. They need help to keep them from being recruited, used or killed by criminal gangs.

In my riding, in Quebec and in Winnipeg, I have seen compassionate, loving people who scrounge pennies every day to help children escape misery and to prevent them from being recruited by street gangs. They know that is the way to fight crime.

I get emotional about this because I care so deeply. This is part of my mission as a politician and as a human being.

I hope that the government will listen to Mr. Wiebe. I hope that it will quit showboating and realize that we cannot play games with people's lives. I also hope it will understand that the key to winning the fight against crime is making major investments in preventive measures targeting distressed children and youth everywhere in Quebec and Canada.

The most important thing is figuring out not how to put people in jail, but how to save our children. That should be our first concern. They are the ones who will eventually be looking after us. We must remember one thing. One day, our children will be looking after us. If we do not look after them, if we leave them to rot in jail, they will not do us any favours when it is their turn to look after us.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the member opposite said and I was very disappointed in her speech.

First, I heard a lot of criticism of the crime bills that have gone through Parliament. The Bloc has voted against virtually every crime bill, yet she talks about trying to make Canada safe.

On top of that, she talks about my city of Winnipeg. I know all those people and they told me, after she came back from the justice committee, that she spent 90% of her time on her BlackBerry, not listening. I know what goes on in Winnipeg and I know the many different programs that are there for these children. I also know we have the largest number of women who have disappeared or who are abused.

The people wonder why she did not support the human trafficking bill, which they supported and told her that at committee. After this so-called emotional speech in Parliament, how does she square that with what the public has told me in Winnipeg?

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I must say that I am a little taken aback by what she said about my BlackBerry, but, in politics, one has to expect low blows. I have become immune to all this nonsense.

What she said about the bills is completely untrue. I supported at second reading the bill she put forward because I figured it could be referred to committee where it could be improved. Unfortunately, at third reading, I could not support it simply because it was bad, it was not a good bill.

I am very disappointed in the member. We have sat on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women together, and she never asked her government to stop issuing visas to exotic dancers. What is she waiting for to do so?

I travelled to Winnipeg. This is not a personal attack. I happened to go there, and I was very disappointed with what I saw. How come young 11 and 12-year old girls continue being assaulted almost on a daily basis by men in luxury cars near the railroad in the North End, in her riding? And she wants to fight human trafficking! She should start by looking after what is going on in her own riding.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her passion. I know that she is very concerned about what is happening on the crime issue. I disagree with the member who asked the question.

I have an article from December 2008, which shows very clearly that crime rates are inextricably linked to economic performance. It means that if we look at the unemployment rate and track it, violent crime goes up almost as much, but property crime is even more of an increase than the increase in unemployment.

What it says to me is that when people get desperate, when EI benefits run out, when they do not know how to pay the next bill, sometimes they make mistakes.

Much of the legislation that the Conservative government has brought forward shows the Conservatives want to punish everybody, throw them all in jail and throw away the key. In fact, we should be managing the economy better, then there will be less crime. That is a perfect crime prevention example.

I want to thank the member for raising it. I will give her an opportunity to comment.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. He summarized the situation beautifully. Unfortunately, crime does not just spring up out of nowhere. Criminals are not born, they are made.

I am still talking about Winnipeg, but it could be anywhere. At the Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre, I met youth who were barely 16. Their experiences included the death of a parent, poverty, dropping out of school, sexual assault, drugs, violence. How can we judge children in this type of situation and not think that they will be recruited into street gangs? These youth are looking for love and a family, and street gangs say that they are their family, that they will feed them and give them power, that they will protect them and make them stronger than everyone else, that they will be their family. That is what street gangs give them.

We should not put these children in jail. They are victims. We should give them the chance to work, to go to school, to be loved and to live. That is how we will fight crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know you want me to ask a question about Bill C-9, the 880-page omnibus bill that the government has introduced in the House today.

I know the member is certainly interested in the softwood lumber issue. This particular bill raises the export tariff on softwood lumber products from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan by 10%.

It is basically designed to bring Canada into compliance with the decision of the London Court of International Arbitration tribunal regarding the evaluation of export volumes from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The tribunal ruled that Canada must apply compensatory export charges of $68.26 million in accordance with the softwood lumber accord.

We know the forestry industry is already in trouble with widespread unemployment. My colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, has talked at length in this House about the softwood lumber sellout perpetrated by various parties in this House. Would the member comment on this provision of Bill C-9, which will basically further hurt the forestry industry in this country?

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

In all honesty, I have to say that I am not a softwood lumber expert. I am more of an expert on public safety. All that I can tell my colleague is that Quebec has not received its fair share. Clearly we will continue to stand up for the forestry industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must congratulate my colleague from Ahuntsic for her excellent work. During the week that she was in Winnipeg, she helped police in their seizure of a record 15,000 marijuana plants in Montreal. She works very hard on the ground. And she was in all the media this weekend.

I would like to ask her how she manages to do so much at once.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I am an organized woman and I have my colleagues' help in getting things done. And I would like to thank them for that.

It was quite something to be able to help in the arrest of 13 individuals linked to Asian organized crime. I told police about 15,500 plants on the third floor of my constituency office building. I think they chose the wrong place to grow marijuana.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is from Montreal and our ridings are close to one another. I would like to know why she is not supporting the budget even though it is good for Montreal.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

We cannot support a budget that has only one, two or three useful measures while the rest is no good. We support a budget in its entirety.

I could ask him the same question: if they agree with the budget, why are they not voting in favour of it? And if they do not agree with the budget, why are they not voting against it? He and his party are in no position to be lecturing me.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-9, which is the budget implementation bill. I believe it was tabled last Monday and I had the opportunity to go to the briefing session by departmental officials.

Members will know that this act covers a broad range of changes in the laws of Canada, most of which are related to this year's budget, but a number of items were not matters of budget. In fact, it is fair to say that, to the extent that there are things that were not in the budget, this represents an omnibus bill.

At last count, there were over 30 different acts of Parliament that were impacted by this. It is very difficult to give a coherent speech about Bill C-9, so I thought I would try to concentrate on a couple things that are important to point out to hon. members.

I had taken copious notes. Interestingly enough, a copy of the bill was not available for the briefing and members were at a disadvantage in not being able to ask questions. I noted a matter that has been mentioned a couple of times here dealing with amendments to the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, which would provide for a higher rate of charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products from the regions of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

This goes back to 2006. It is a tribunal decision and seeks to recover $68.26 million from those provinces. Once the moneys are recovered, then the additional tax will cease.

I saw an inequity there. In the case of Manitoba, the volume of business it did and the proportion of its contribution to the over-collection of the $68.26 million was very small. This is going to be applied to the first dollar and every dollar of softwood exports as we move forward.

The amount of $68 million-plus is going to be collected by whoever is selling when. If Manitoba actually sells nothing until the $68 million is collected, it will not pay any of the 10%, but that is not the way the real world works. The fact of the matter is that these provinces are in the softwood lumber business and they are selling as much as they can of their quality products for export purposes.

The inequity is that a province like Manitoba is being disproportionately penalized by being thrown into this. The tribunal made a mistake and it is not an appealable decision. This is unfortunate. The Government of Canada, in terms of making its representations to the tribunal, let these provinces down. It let them down. It knew the decision was not appealable. It must have known that this was not going to be equitable to, for instance, Manitoba, which in fact was responsible for a very small proportion of the $68 million.

I thought that was certainly worth noting. The government did not get the job done. That is what happened. It did not get the job done. It should have been more vigilant on that particular issue.

The next issue many of my constituents have talked about is the whole scenario of problems and complaints about debit and credit cards. In part 12 of Bill C-9, there are enactments on the payment card networks act, the purpose of which is to regulate national payment card networks and commercial practices for payment card network operators and, among other things, and this deals with debit cards as well as credit cards, it will deal with such things as disclosure, fees charged to obtain a card, for instance, merchant contracts, the cancellation of cards, any new fees, and a couple of other minor things.

One thing it does not include is anything that comes anywhere close to touching interest rates charged on these instruments, credit cards and debit cards. Canadians were asking for that.

The government has made all of these changes, but what it has not done is try to find out how some of these usuarist rates can be dealt with. Far too many people get caught in a credit crunch. Unfortunately they rely on credit cards for basic necessities. When people are on EI benefits and the money does not come in and they cannot pay the credit cards, all of a sudden they pay usuarist rates, which could go as low as 18% but as high as 29%.

This was a significant item. When we enter a recession, when we know we will be in a downturn for at least five years, and some say even eight years, this is the time to deal with it. If the security or the credit worthiness of people is not there, the banks have to take responsibility of identifying that rather than soaking people year after year and then having absolutely no relief whatsoever from their government when people are drawn in by companies. I thought that was very concerning.

I note also, and I think people will see this to be a positive, that part 17 would amend the Bank Act and other related statutes to provide a framework for enabling credit unions to incorporate and continue as banks. This is a good thing. When I was on the finance committee and we dealt with bank mergers and the like, the big point was we needed more competition in the banking sector. Credit unions were offered this opportunity to step up, and it has finally happened. Credit unions will actually start to have a national presence in our country, and that is a positive.

There is another matter that caught to my attention. Part 20 amends the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. There are certain process requirements, comprehensive studies and the like. What I have found is it amends the act to provide in the legislation rather than by regulations that an environmental assessment is not required for certain federally-funded infrastructure projects. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is not applicable.

Since when did protection of the environment of Canada become an option? We have a federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to protect our environment. Federal infrastructure projects have no special status. There can be problems. I am sorry if some projects cannot have an environmental assessment and still get done within a government's time frame.

When we started this program, this whole thing about getting infrastructure projects, the government always talked about shovel ready. To most people that would mean these are projects that are well advanced and ready to go and that could retain existing jobs and create new jobs. What we do not need is “Let's see if we can hunt around for a contractor. Let's see if we can do this thing. Let's get the things approved through our city councils”. That is not shovel ready.

The government has seriously misled Canadians by suggesting that somehow the infrastructure program would be the solution because it would have shovel ready. The only thing that was shovel ready was the words coming out of Conservatives mouths. That was the problem.

It is awful when we consider that the last fiscal year and this fiscal year about $3.5 billion of infrastructure approved funding lapsed. It did not get out. I know why? The government had already made the decisions that put us on a track heading into a recession. In fact, Canada was in a recession even before the global economic troubles occurred. That is why money lapsed, so the deficit the government would show would be lower than it otherwise would be. It is window dressing.

Mark my words, we are going to have the same thing again. This money may have been put on the table for stimulus, but I would be prepared to say right now that a lot of that money will in fact lapse because there are some technical problems.

I have seen so many projects and municipalities come forward and say that they could not do them. I hope the government understands that if these projects have all this work and if they do not go forward, because of some timing or whatever, we have lost the opportunity to have jobs. About a half million Canadians will lose their employment insurance benefits before we know it. This is a recipe for very significant problems for Canada.

It is worth noting the Brian Mulroney governments, which ended in 1993. In the last Mulroney government, the employment insurance fund was operating at a deficit. More claims were made against employment insurance than premiums being collected, to the tune of about $12 billion. The auditor general said that the government had a separate bank account, just like the government wants to set up now in this new EI corporation. All the premiums went in and the benefits came out. It said that over time it would balance it.

Look at our history. Sometimes EI funds do not balance themselves. The government is the only one that will be able to fund it. Therefore, having a separate bank account simply does not cut it, but it serves a purpose. The purpose is that in Bill C-9, the government would eliminate the record keeping on $57 billion of surplus that was collected from employers and employees over time.

I know why it is there. It is there because Canada did not enter a recession in the early 2000s like the United States. We had 10 years. Once the budget was balanced after the Mulroney government passed down a $42 billion deficit, it took until 1997 to balance the books and then we had 10 good years of surplus. We were able to reinvest in our health care system, in our public service, which serves Canadians so well, in the social network and the transfers to the provinces for all the needs of Canadians, especially for those who are unable to help themselves. That is why it is there.

However, in Bill C-9, under part 24, would amend the Employment Insurance Act to establish, in the accounts of Canada, an account known as the employment insurance operating account. The government will close the employment insurance account. It is hard to follow that, but this account, which is a notional account, will be gone. The responsibilities attached to that account will also be wiped out.

Therefore, during the Mulroney years, when the auditor general found out that the government was operating a deficit year after year, the auditor general said that it was a government program and that the operation of a government program must be included in the determination of the surplus or deficit of a government in each of its fiscal years, which it was not. If it was a balance, it would have no impact. If it was operating at a deficit, the government accounts would be misleading Canadians to the tune of $12 billion.

The auditor general ordered the Government of Canada, under Brian Mulroney, to discontinue the use of that account and that the moneys would be accounted for as part of the consolidated revenue fund, in other words, as part of the determination of the government's annual surplus or deficit.

Even though the physical dollars were not in a separate bank account, the government kept track of money in and money out. When we had a situation where we had 10 years of not going into recession, in each of those years there was a reduction in the employment insurance premiums. The rules associated with the employment insurance account were that if there was a surplus, the government had to keep two years on hand, which was about $24 billion on hand to take care of a recession. That was the reserve. However, anything over that the government had two choices. One was to reduce premiums until it got back down to the $24 billion reserve level or introduce new programs so the cost of providing benefits would go up and that would also help the notional surplus to go down.

I raise this because this makes sense to me. The government has now set up an account, where it has put $2 billion into a management group. Starting from January 1, 2009, I believe, all premium dollars are to be dedicated to this new account, all benefits coming out of it. While we are in a recession, there are more payouts than there are premiums coming in. It is operating at a deficit now.

However, the Auditor General told me, when I asked her directly, notwithstanding the government is attempting, again, to hide the true impacts of this recession on Canada and Canadians, that the deficit included in this new employment insurance account would be included in the determination of a surplus or a deficit for the Government of Canada, on an annual basis. Therefore, it will not able to hide it.

However, what the government cannot say, and even the finance minister said it today, is that it was somehow the Liberals because they built up this surplus. The accumulation of a surplus meant that we could not reduce the premiums or introduce new employment insurance benefits fast enough because we had the highest employment rates in 30 years, or the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years, however one wants to look at it. When we have that, we cannot adjust that quickly. Therefore, it did go up $57 billion of additional funds more than was necessary to fund that program if it were on a stand-alone basis operated by some third party. That is the fact. However, with Bill C-9, the government has said that it will not be responsible for the $57 billion. It is just going to keep it.

The government says that the Liberals stole it. If the Auditor General says we have to include it in our consolidated revenue fund, it is pretty straightforward that we will not take the surplus and leave it sit in some bank account. We will pay down debt and reduce the debt charges.

However, the EI account was also, in addition to keeping the premiums surplus there, crediting interest on an annual basis. Much of that $57 billion is interest earned on the $57 billion.

The government cannot say that anybody else is responsible for taking away from employees and employers the accumulated equity they had in the EI plan. Bill C-9 would take away that responsibility. It would take away the responsibility to give back that money by reduced premiums or improved EI benefits. The government has misled Canadians on that basis.

I want to talk about the idea of crime about which the previous speaker spoke.

I feel so strongly that Canadians should be taken care of. I once heard a line something to the effect that the measure of success of a country is not so much an economic measure as it is a measure of the health and well-being of its people.

We are in a period now where many Canadians are in jeopardy. They are going to make mistakes. As I said in a earlier question, our experience in Canada is that when the unemployment rate goes up, the crime rate goes up. Violent crime tracks it almost identically. Property crime goes even beyond that.

Therefore, it is easy to make the argument that if we do not take care of the economy with jobs and innovation and take care of the people's needs, if we say, “Let's balance the books first and then we'll take care of the problems later,” we are saying it is okay that crime goes up. Yet the government says, no, we have to be tough on crime.

If the government wants to be tough on crime, it had better be effective on the economy and jobs and innovation. Those are the kinds of things we have to do. Everything in our economy and in our social circumstance in Canada is inextricably linked. We just cannot do one thing at the expense of another. We have to address the full needs of Canadians at all times. Accordingly the government has not done the job.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, it has been very entertaining to listen to my friend. His speech could have been better started with, “Once, long ago and far away”, and he could have started his fairytale that way. His explanation of how the Liberals handled employment insurance is absurd. The fact is that the Liberals constantly ran a surplus so that the employment insurance fund became a form of employment tax.

I can recall sitting on his side of the House when the finance minister, Paul Martin, stood in this place and admitted that he had taken the unemployment insurance surplus, had put it into general revenue and spent it. The money is gone. It was spent by the previous government. Let us be clear that the money no longer exists because it went out through the Liberal government. It is gone.

I do not understand how the member can possibly stand there and tell us this fairytale.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's comments show that he is not prepared to be accountable to Canadians about the facts.

We still have a national debt. When there is a $57 billion surplus in the EI fund, it is not spent on cabinet ministers' limousines. It offsets debt that is required to finance the nation. We have a national debt. It is not spent, gone and lost, otherwise the interest rates on the national debt would go up simply because it was not paid down.

There are many other priorities that have not been taken care of. I would say to the member that an aging society is one of the biggest challenges we have and I encourage him to take an interest in Canadians in need who are in the twilight of their lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, my comments have more to do with his leader's apparent flip-flop on corporate taxes. He may or may not agree with what his leader did, but certainly in the year 2000 the then finance minister, Paul Martin, cut corporate taxes by a considerable amount. The cuts have been continued under the present government, to the point where we will be 12 points lower than the Americans, at around 15% by 2012.

All this money needs to be made up somewhere and, of course, it is being made up by personal income tax, which has doubled over the last number of years. As a matter of fact, the business community does not back up the government's argument that corporate taxes are a good thing for the economy. For example, Statistics Canada says that business spending on machinery and equipment has actually declined as a share of GDP.

Given that the member's leader at last week's think-tank indicated that he was now against corporate taxes, I would ask him to clarify as to where the leader actually sits on corporate tax reductions at this time.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody is against corporate taxes. I think the member is talking about whether they are increased or decreased.

In the 16 years I have been here, finance minister Paul Martin, and even the current member who was a finance minister as well. always talked about taxes in the context of whether tax cuts were affordable. That is the key. All tax cuts are good in terms of corporations if they create jobs and improve the competitive environment. However, right now our rates are competitive and we need fiscal wiggle room to deal with the needs of the people. That is why the leader of the official opposition has said that the corporate tax cuts are not affordable to Canadians when we consider the consequences to the people in the trenches who do not have jobs, who do not have EI benefits any more and whose pensions are at risk.

We have serious issues to address and now is not the time to give corporate tax cuts and wish and hope that somehow we will get money back. The economic lags are such that it would be mismatched anyway, which means it makes no sense.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take the member back to his earlier comments in regards to the Canadian environmental assessment initiative that is part of this bill. He expressed some concerns. This is more of a comment than anything.

As I look at the section in this bill that refers to expediting some of these important projects and things like Canada's strategic infrastructure fund, recreational infrastructure Canada, projects under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and projects under the Building Canada fund, these are all projects that all members will know are time sensitive.

The assurances for those are given in terms of the minister's ability. Where there are projects that are sensitive from an environmental point of view, assessments can still be undertaken and the regulators are still in place that will have an ability to do that. I wonder if the member has perhaps failed to recognize that in the bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. As a matter of fact it is the one that I concentrated on the most and asked the most questions on at the briefing. Yes, an environmental assessment can go forward at any time but this gives the authority to the federal government to exempt a project from an environmental assessment. In my view, fiscal expediency does not trump prudence in terms of protecting our environment.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. To my community and communities in the Northwest Territories, this is an issue that has stood out in this budget as being one that—

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I question whether the member is really asking a question or making a comment pertaining to this bill. There is an issue of relevance as it relates to the topic here today.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am going to allow the member for Western Arctic to continue. This is a large bill with a lot in it. I hope and expect that before he gets to the question, the hon. member will make it relevant to Bill C-9.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, this particular subject, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, is one where we are seeing the start of many cuts that will be made by the government. This year's budget is one that does not really have a future to it. It is a budget that is holding the status quo on a number of areas.

With the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, the government chose to cut the budget knowing that, for any further work in this field, the existing program may carry forward for a year or so. This truly represents the start of many cuts that will take place to our social envelope. This budget bill represents a holding pattern that will change very dramatically over the next year or so.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this place had an emergency debate that went until midnight the other night on the very subject. It really goes to the point that I made earlier about the success of a country. It is really not an economic measure. It is a measure of the health and well-being of its people and its first nations people in particular.

We have very serious problems. I am concerned that the government thinks it will somehow balance the books over five, six or eight years but it is not thinking about the consequences of its actions. Whether it has to do with crime, aboriginal health issues, children, age or pensions, it has not even thought about it. All it wants to do is talk about its economic action plan. It spent $5 million during the Olympics to tell people that it was called the “Economic Action Plan”. That is what I call irresponsible government.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to the budget bill today.

When we talk about the budget, we have to talk numbers. Here are some numbers and some facts.

In September 2008, the Minister of Finance said that the country had not dipped into a deficit and that we were still running a surplus and would run one that year. The minister stuck to his guns and projected an $800 million surplus for 2008-09.

By the time he delivered his fiscal update two months later on November 27, 2008, the country already had a deficit of over $6 billion, even though he projected a $100 million surplus for 2009-10.

The same finance minister told Reuters that there would be a surplus in 2009-10:

It's a question of making sure that we maintain a surplus. I'm comfortable with a relatively modest surplus…I think we can maintain that. We're disciplined enough to do that and that's how we plan.

Yet one week earlier, on November 20, 2008, the Parliamentary Budget Officer painted a bleaker picture. He said:

Looking forward, assuming status quo fiscal policy, the downgraded economic outlook translates into a deterioration in the budgetary balance, putting the Government’s stated fiscal targets and objectives at risk. In the PBO survey average scenario, modest deficits are projected in the near term.

The actual results bear the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s forecast out.

On January 21, 2009, before budget 2009 was introduced, the Parliamentary Budget Officer revised the government's 2009-10 forecast to project a $13 billion deficit, four months after the finance minister projected a $100 million surplus. Thirteen billion dollars and $100 million are not the same. Millions and billions are not the same thing. The actual deficit before the economic action plan was $15.6 billion, well within the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s ball park.

Hon. members will recall this.

The Minister of Finance told the Edmonton Journal on October 9, 2008, that we would not run up a deficit. However, in his 2009 budget two months later, he projected a deficit of $33.7 billion for 2009-10. The deficit for 2009, after the economic action plan, climbed to $54 billion. That is $20 billion over the estimate. It is $20 billion more than forecast.

The finance minister is on record saying that for the year 2009-10, Canada's budget would be as follows, and it all depends on what time of year it is: October 2009, $6 billion surplus; November, not even a month later in the economic update, $100 million surplus; two months later, January in budget 2009, $33.7 billion deficit; and after stimulus spending, a $54 billion deficit.

Everyone knows that a country depends on the vitality of its economy. That is why the Liberal Party of Canada has always focused on creating a dynamic Canadian economy.

In 1993, when the Liberal Party came to power, it realized that the Conservatives, under Brian Mulroney, had spent the cupboard bare. It took years of sound economic management and difficult decisions on the part of the Liberal government to get the Canadian economy back on track and finally balance the budget.

In fact, the Liberal Party did such a good job with the economy that it started to accumulate surpluses, and it used those surpluses to lower taxes and fund social programs, such as health care, education, research and innovation, as well as to pay down the national debt.

That was important, because it provided the Liberal government with the resources it needed to do good things for Canadians. For instance, just before Paul Martin's government was defeated, the Liberal Party had reached an agreement with the provinces to give them child care services similar to the Quebec system.

The Liberals also negotiated the Kelowna accord with the first nations of Canada. This accord would have resolved a number of disputes.

We were also instrumental in reaching an international agreement at the climate change conference to extend the implementation of the Kyoto protocol beyond 2012 and we convinced the UN to adopt the Canadian concept of “responsibility to protect” during international crises.

As a result of the Conservatives' petty political vision, Canadians can no longer dream about a better country that offers equality and justice for all.

Immediately after the 2006 election, the first thing the Conservatives did was to throw out the Kelowna accord and the agreement on a national day care system and to ignore our international commitment on the environment.

The Conservatives are trying to tell us that because of the recession, we cannot afford to be leaders in the emerging fields of green technologies, we cannot invest in our labour force, we cannot invest in our companies, we cannot be world leaders in peace initiatives and we cannot expect to ever afford things such as pharmacare or daycare.

That is the difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservatives: we, the Liberals, strongly believe that the government can be a positive force that helps Canadians and makes Canada stronger. The Conservatives think that the government is not in the business of helping Canadians thrive.

It is not surprising that over time, with a Conservative government in power, we have watched surpluses melt like snow in the sun and Canada become saddled with a huge deficit once again.

The Conservatives like to claim they are financially responsible and that they are determined to balance the budget, but I have a hard time buying that, since it took them only one year to spend the largest surplus ever accumulated in the history of Canada.

In fact, since 2006, the Conservative government has the dubious distinction of the being the biggest spending government in the history of Canada year after year.

If they spent all that money, then the question is: what did they spend it on?

There is no national day care system. There is no agreement with the first nations. There is less money for research. There is less money for innovation. There is less money for the environment. There is less money for education.

Hospital wait times have never been so long. Pensions have not increased. Universities have received nothing.

Given the Conservatives' track record that I have just outlined, a track record of waste and incompetence, it comes as no surprise to me that this budget fails even in the most basic of tests. This is partly because the minister's numbers just cannot be trusted.

The Conservative government does not get it. Once again it has released projections that contradict the projections of the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer who works with a small staff. The minister uses calculations that envision an unrealistic best case scenario while the Parliamentary Budget Officer uses more realistic calculations. The minister claims the budget deficit will fall to $1.8 billion by 2014-15, while the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects a $12.3 billion deficit in 2014-15.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has proven that he is far more accurate than the finance minister at predicting Canada's financial future over the past several years, and as I said, with the limited resources that he has at his disposal. When I heard that the finance minister released projections that were far out of line with those of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, I thought it was groundhog day. How many times will the Conservatives make the same mistake and how long before they learn from it?

Another reason the budget fails is that the Conservatives do not invest. The Conservatives spend. To get out of a deficit and a recession, governments must invest wisely. There are serious problems facing Canadians as a result of the government's lack of vision. The government has spent more money than any other government in Canadian history. The government has turned record surpluses into record deficits. In spite of spending money at record levels, the government has not delivered sustainable results for Canadians.

Can Canadians say that they are better off today than they were four years ago? Conservative inaction today will cost us even more in the future when the problem becomes less manageable. For example, we cannot send military personnel to a field of combat or on a peacekeeping mission and not take care of the soldiers once they get back. There is nothing in the budget for veterans. Veterans are not being helped with post-traumatic stress disorder. Immigrants are not being helped in order to succeed in their new lives. In a riding such as mine where there is a large number of immigrants, people are knocking on the door asking for help. The majority of them are immigrants and there is just no help for them. There is no help for them to integrate.

There is no plan in the budget to deal with the strains on our health care system. Forget about reading the newspaper, people only need to look at the paper to see pictures of people waiting for an OR. There is no plan to deal with the challenges of an aging population. Pensions are not being protected. Imagine, the hottest topic in Canada right now is pensions and what is in the budget? Nothing.

With regard to pensions, since December 2009 our party has proposed three reforms that the Prime Minister should consider immediately. These reforms include recommendations that could be implemented immediately to address the important issue of pensions.

Here are the three recommendations or proposals. First, establish a supplementary Canada pension plan to help Canadians save more. Second, give employees with stranded pensions following corporate bankruptcies the option of growing their pensions through the assets of the Canada pension plan. Third, protect vulnerable Canadians on long-term disability by giving them status as preferred creditors in cases of bankruptcy.

Too few Canadians save for their retirement and for that reason we need a less complicated savings system that is secure and reliable and will encourage savings.

For various reasons, Canadians do not save enough for their retirement. The government must do more to encourage Canadians to save more. This budget does not do that.

One third of Canadians do not have retirement savings other than what is offered through the Canada or Quebec pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Another third do not have sufficient retirement savings to maintain their current standard of living.

Mr. Speaker, more than half of Canadian families do not have an employer sponsored pension plan. The Canada and Quebec pension plans cover 93% of workers. However, by themselves they are insufficient.

According to Statistics Canada, the $32.4 billion paid into RRSPs in 2006 represents just 7% of the maximum eligible contribution. Almost $500 billion in RRSP contribution room remained unused. The government must take immediate action.

To grow and prosper, the government must take advantage of opportunities to become leaders in emerging industries. This budget fails because while the Obama administration and even the Chinese government are investing heavily to make their countries more competitive, the Conservatives are slashing investments that could make Canada a leaner and greener competitor on the world stage. The eco-energy program for renewable power production was cancelled. The budgets of Canada's research councils were slashed by $148 million last year and only $32 million was reinvested this year, and they are supposed to say thank you.

Even where money is made available for green projects, the Conservatives do not know how to spend it. For example, 93% of the green infrastructure fund was not spent last year because the government does not believe in investing, and $160 million of approved funding for the Canadian Space Agency has not been invested over the past two years.

At a time when Canadians need good jobs in order to put food on the table and fight this recession, the Conservative government is picking the pockets of small business owners who are our key to job creation. The government has spent Canadians' money irresponsibly and run up massive debts. It is now trying to make small businesses pay for its mistakes. This budget introduces $13 billion in payroll taxes. This outrageous tax hike will probably kill about 220,000 small business jobs. Small business owners cannot afford a tax hike and Canadians cannot afford the Conservative government.

The underlying reason this budget is so bad is that the Conservatives lack vision. This has been the case ever since their first budget. This is not a novelty. The Conservatives do not have a plan for Canada going forward. They do not propose any long-term solutions, only campaign-friendly treats in this budget.

This budget fails to address several key areas, such as early childhood education. There is no commitment to early childhood education for families. Parents need affordable daycare spaces for their kids while they are at work. Instead of creating daycare spaces, the Conservatives cut cheques to Canadian parents that barely begin to cover the cost of daycare and then they have to pay tax on that little cheque that they receive. It is not a solution. It is a wasteful bribe that is designed to get votes, not results. No new child care spaces have been created under the Conservative government.

Higher education is another area of concern. Canada is suffering from a productivity gap compared to the U.S. and other countries. In a changing world where what one knows is going to be the difference between success and failure, the government is doing nothing to ensure that young Canadians get the help they need to pursue a higher education.

The only way for our economy to prosper enough to eliminate the Conservative deficit that we are in for is for Canada to have a dynamic workforce that outproduces our competitors. They have to be educated, efficient and engaged citizens who will make our country more prosperous.

The jobs we need are not low-skill part-time jobs that can be outsourced. We need to attract high-skill jobs that pay well. The only way to do that is not with another tax cut for the Prime Minister's corporate masters. It is by making sure that businesses around the world know that if they need a job done well, the Canadian worker is the one who is going to get it done better, faster and cheaper than anyone else.

We need innovators, artists, executives and craftspeople who have the tools to outcompete the rest of the world, but this can only be accomplished if we invest in our population. A country of minimum wage earners without job security will not be able to pay for increased pensions and medicare costs that we know are coming, but countries that can equip their young people now with the tools to succeed in the future will have a huge competitive advantage.

The environment has been ignored once again by the Conservatives in this budget. Copenhagen was an embarrassment, so there is nothing in the budget for it. Throughout the world, countries and companies with foresight are rushing to develop new technologies, new strategies and new incentives to turn their economies into lean, green money-making machines, but the government refuses to get in on the ground floor of an economic centre that is about to boom.

Not only is the Prime Minister not leading the green revolution, he is actively obstructing it. Canadian delegations used to walk into international conferences and command the attention of the room because everyone admired what Canada stood for and how we carried ourselves. The Prime Minister's shameful handling of the environment has all but eroded the esteem that the international community once had for Canada.

The budget bill is inherently flawed because the bill is massive in all the wrong ways. The price tag is massive, the waste is massive and the scope is massive. The government has included several items that have no business being in a budget bill. We do not understand why it decided to include so many unusual items in the bill. It does not want to have an honest debate on these separate issues on their own merits, so I feel the government is probably trying to hide something.

The bill is overpriced, overstuffed and overbudgeted, but still manages to be inflexible and ineffective, much like the government that tabled it.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech.

I think he forgets the circumstances in which we found ourselves in 2008 and the meltdown. The result of that was that the organizations of states got together, recognizing the drastic condition we were in, to implement some measures. One of those was to delegate some of our GDP, our money from the governments, each government would delegate some of their GDP to shore up their economies, and we made that commitment as well.

I am very thankful that we spent that money on infrastructure. I am sure the member knows that Statistics Canada announced just yesterday that, for the fifth straight month, GDP grew in Canada. In fact January's increase was the biggest monthly increase since December 2006.

We also read in the paper that KPMG ranked Canada the most competitive industrialized country for job creations.

There was an article by Patricia Croft of RBC who said that Canada really has come out of this a winner in many regards and thinks we can stand head and shoulders above in many instances.

Therefore my question for the member is this. What other industrialized country would he suggest has weathered this global recession better than Canada has?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for asking me the question, but I cannot believe that this question is actually being asked.

It is fine that it has been asked during question period. The example of using any other country in the G7, no matter what other country has also fallen in recession, is the same example as a house on a street that has been totally renovated, with fire proofing, hurricane proofing and so on, and all of a sudden all the houses on the street are burnt down including the one that has been fire proofed and hurricane proofed because the person who did the job or the person who was living in the house forgot to close the door or forgot to do something like closing the shutters.

The Liberal Party prepared this country to be a leader of the G7. This country went in as a leader before the recession started. It came out as a leader, not because of what the Conservatives did but because of what the previous Liberal Party did while it was in government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for a very good speech on Bill C-9.

I want to ask the member about the type of thinking that the government must be engaging in that causes a government in a minority situation to introduce an 800-page bill.

I have been in this business for 24 years and I do not think I have ever seen a bill of this size introduced. On top of that, the government has put in measures that have absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about here.

For example, the bill deals with postal remailing, which was variously presented in Parliament under bills C-14 and C-44 and probably one or two others in past years.

My question for the member is this. Why would a government that seems to be intent on not causing an election be putting in items like this that are only designed to cause people to want to vote against it? What would be the reasoning behind that?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question. I will try to be a member of the government and respond by saying perhaps the reason that it put all these items in there is so we can have a fulsome debate, have all the finance members debate. I am on the finance committee and, seeing how we have a superior intellect, we are able to handle all these subjects all at once and perhaps we can modify, amend and spend the rest of our lives on this 800-page bill and make it better. But I do not think that is the reason.

I am not sure why the government would put in something as, I do not want to use the word “idiotic”, non-relevant as remailing of Canada Post. I have no idea.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get the member's comments on some of the larger economic issues in front of us.

The Conservatives are claiming that this country is doing well with its banks. The record through the 1990s shows that the NDP stood up vociferously against deregulation of the banks. Heroes like John Rodriguez and Lorne Nystrom were people who stood up in this House over and over again and worked to block those types of moves, which would have left our banks in similar situations to those in the rest of the world. Clearly the NDP does well for banks; Canada does well for banks in 2010.

Now I see that the Liberal Party wants to follow us on another policy, which is to stop the erosion of the corporate tax base in this country. Provinces have spiralled down the corporate taxes and now we see the federal government doing the same. It has changed its mind on this. It is very rapid change—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the first part of the hon. member's question regarding the banks, he has got to look at it the other way. There was only one person who decided to maintain regulation in the banking sector, making sure there would not be any mergers and making sure Canada's financial system would be strong, and that person's name is Paul Martin, and the prime minister at the time was Jean Chrétien. I want to thank the NDP for supporting those initiatives, but let us face it, it is a Liberal initiative.

[An hon. member]

Thirteen strong years.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thirteen strong years. Mr. Speaker, because of the interruption, I forget what the second part of this question was, so I would like to defer that to a later date.

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

Mr. Speaker, I basically want to follow up on the question of the member for Western Arctic about the Liberal Party and the Liberal leader's new-found embracement of keeping corporate taxes where they are and not lowering them any further, when in fact it was his party under the previous Liberal government that started the slide in corporate tax rates and corporate tax revenue.

Twenty years ago or so, I believe, the amount of revenue the government was getting from individual taxpayers was about equal to the amount it was getting from corporations. Now after all this time, it has got to the point where the working people in this country are contributing four times the taxation revenue to the government that corporations are contributing in their taxes.

I applaud the Liberals for getting on side, albeit belatedly, but at least they are beginning to recognize that this is the proper position to take, given that we need revenue for social programs and health care in this country.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to thank the NDP for supporting our previous tax policy and continuing to do so. It just means that the NDP wants to see us in power that much faster, if they agree with our tax policies. We are not sure when we will take over, so if that were to happen in the immediate future, our leader has already stated his position when it comes to corporate taxes.

Whether the mix is correct, between 40% for corporate taxes and 20% or 30% of the revenue coming in from personal taxes, is a debate we have to have in this country. We probably should look at tax reform, but I can say, with the way technology works, money has never moved faster. Money is being collected from different sources, different places. Once we take over we will look at the books, because if hon. members noted in most of my speech, I am not even sure what the deficit will be as of yesterday, because that was March 31, the fiscal year end, and the deficit numbers keep multiplying. Who knows what will happen in 2010?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Beaches—East York, Child care.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to Bill C-9, which is 880 pages long and a very good paperweight, I might add.

First I want to make some comments on what the member for Western Arctic said. The member for Western Arctic spoke briefly about the Canadian banking system, why it is as strong as it is and the fact that it has nothing to do with the actions of the government. The fact of the matter is that the banking system is as strong as it is because opposition parties like the NDP were here 10 years ago fighting in the House to stop the Liberals, at the time, from allowing the banks to merge.

Members will recall that 10 years ago the government of the day or at least the banks were very interested in following the policies of deregulation, financial institutions and the financial system going on in the United States. They were chafing at the bit. The five existing banks in this country wanted to amalgamate among themselves to become even more powerful institutions. They felt they had to do that to compete with the huge American banks. In other words, they wanted to be too big to fail.

It was the NDP at the time that chased and fought the Liberals on this issue and helped prevent the banks from merging.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

On what issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to dispute this, but all she has to do is read Hansard.

I have given the Liberals credit before by saying that, when they were in government, they turned down the big five banks' attempt to merge, I believe on more than one occasion. However, while all this was happening, where were the Conservatives? In those days, they were the Reform Party and they would have been pushing the Liberal government of the day to move forward, to deregulate even faster and allow the banks to merge.

The point is that it is really the Liberal government of the day that held firm and stopped this deregulation from happening, which is to the benefit of the Conservative government today. Internationally the Prime Minister walks around and says Canada is in great shape because we do not have the banking institution structures that they have in the United States, but he does not say that if he had had his way, Canada would have had the same type of banking institutions that exist in the States and would have been in a mess as big as or bigger than the one the Americans are in right now.

The reason the banking institutions are in the shape they are in right now has nothing to do with the Conservative government and everything to do with the government and opposition that were here before, which worked to make sure the regulations stayed where they were. It is proper for the government to recognize that it is in a very successful position not because of something it did but because of what it inherited. That is what the member for Western Arctic was talking about in his question.

In dealing with Bill C-9today, I want to talk about the issue of corporate tax cuts. Conservative governments literally around the world since Ronald Reagan's days, the 1980s, have been promoting tax cuts as a way to attract companies to their jurisdictions, to have these companies expand and create jobs. Essentially, what we have seen over the years has been a race to the bottom in corporation taxes, especially when some Nordic countries tax even today at rates of 50%.

When no less a person than George Bush, who became president of the United States, was running against Ronald Reagan in 1980 for the Republican nomination, he used the phrase “voodoo economics”. Everybody here has certainly heard the term voodoo economics used before. It was George H.W. Bush who called Ronald Reagan's program voodoo economics and said it would not work.

Then, when he lost the Republican nomination and Ronald Reagan became the successful nominee, Ronald Reagan chose him as his vice-president. So, George H.W. Bush, for eight years as the vice-president of the United States, had to live down his very insightful comments about his boss's economic policy. But yet he continued to follow that policy of Reagan and of Margaret Thatcher in England, to basically embark upon a whole system of deregulation.

Certainly, the financial deregulations that came about throughout that period have resulted in the past recession in the United States, and maybe even the one before, a recession so serious that it is not going to be resolved any time soon.

So, let us look at the whole issue of corporate taxes and what is the proper rate of corporate tax. I think all of us here could agree that we would not want our corporate taxes to be higher by much more than what the neighbouring jurisdictions would be.

I sat in a provincial legislature for 23 years and we were the government for significant parts of that time. I have to tell members opposite, and they know this, that the Government of Manitoba in the last 10 years did reduce corporate taxes. We did that, but we did that knowing that we had to do it because of our competitors.

Who are our competitors? They were the Government of Saskatchewan, the Government of Ontario. And of course, Saskatchewan had the deal with the province of Alberta. So when a competitor, the province of Alberta, reduces its corporate tax, then the Government of Saskatchewan is under pressure to follow suit. And being next to Saskatchewan, we were under pressure too.

We recognize that on a provincial basis our corporate taxes have to be competitive, at least with our neighbours, maybe not with maritime provinces that are half a continent away, but certainly with our neighbouring provinces in the west.

Having said that, the Canadian government is in a different league. Its competitor is the United States. So, when we are looking at corporate taxes of, say, 40% back a dozen or so years ago and the Americans were in the same range, maybe a little bit less, it made sense to lower our corporate tax rates.

But where we are going with this is that we are going to find that after the next reductions, which will be taking us down to 15% in 2012, we are going to bring it down roughly 12% lower than the corporate tax rate in the United States. That does not make sense to me.

If somebody can show me some study that says we have to be 12 points lower, then I might believe it. But that is certainly not the indication that I get. I would think that we would want to track the Americans. If the Americans decide they want to reduce their corporate income tax and they move down a couple of points, then it perhaps makes some sense for us to do the same. However, when we do that, we have to determine what sort of value we are getting out of that corporate tax reduction.

Let us look at what some people have said about corporate tax reductions. Statistics Canada and Finance Canada have said:

Despite a 36% drop in corporate taxes, both provincial and federal, in the last decade and record profits for much of this time, business spending on machinery and equipment has declined as a share of the GDP--

Well, that should not happen when one lowers these tax rates.

--and total business investment spending has declined as a percentage of corporate cashflow.

So, there we have evidence that this reduction is not producing the type of activity that we want to have.

The intensity of IT use by Canadian businesses is only half of that of the United States. In 2007 Canadian business spending on R and D was about 1% of the GDP and ranked 14th in the OECD, well below the average of 1.6% and only one-third that of Sweden, Finland and Korea. Despite Canadian corporate tax rates well below those of the United States, business sector productivity growth was actually worse in the last decade.

One would expect that, if the government goes to the effort to reduce corporate income taxes, we would be able to get positive responses and positive activity. We would be able to say that we have reduced corporate income taxes, that we have gained so many more companies and jobs and that, while we reduced the rate of taxation, we actually gained more absolute taxes at the end of the day.

What has happened over the last 20 years? I seem to recall a number of years ago that the taxation that was paid, collected by ordinary Canadians, was roughly equal to the amount of taxes collected by the corporate sector in this country. I am guessing that was 20 years ago. I think Canadians were reasonably happy with that.

Over the years, because of this race to the bottom in the corporate taxation field by the Liberals initially and now the Conservatives, we are finding that ordinary Canadians are paying four times the amount in personal income tax than that collected from corporations. How could it possibly be fair to the working people of this country to see their contribution to this country's taxation regime at a level of four times the amount of the corporate sector?

Let us look at some of those corporations. The biggest, best and most obvious sector I would prefer to take a quick look at would be those big banks that wanted to become too big to fail. They wanted to amalgamate in the last 10 years and compete with those American banks.

In the last year Canada's big five banks had profits of $15.9 billion. That does not sound like a sector that needs further corporate tax reductions.

I can see the argument being made that a certain group or sector of the economy would come forward and say that it is dying and suffering and that it needs corporate taxes reduced because it is marginally profitable at the moment. However, Canada's big five banks have a profit of $15.9 billion and we are telling them that they have done a nice job. We are giving them an even bigger benefit by reducing the corporate tax rate another three points to 15% by 2012.

Let us look at the salaries and benefits of the CEOs of these corporations and big banks. While 800,000 Canadians are drawing unemployment insurance, that unemployment insurance is certainly going to be running out. It has already in some cases, but 800,000 workers are on EI and their benefits are running out. There are no jobs for the people to go to. The government says that the economy is growing by 2.6%, yet the unemployment rate has increased from 8.2% to 8.5%.

There is a glimmer of hope. The minister talks about seeing some good results in the last two or three months and I applaud the government for that. We certainly want to be positive about improving results in the country, especially if the number of jobs increased, but we have a very high unemployment rate and we have a long way to go to get out of that.

While all of this is happening in the country, when it is going through a recession, we have the CIBC president earning $6.2 million. Now who in this country needs $6.2 million a year to pay their bills and live? The Toronto Dominion Bank's CEO was granted about $10.4 million. This is not the United States; this is Canada. We are in Canada and we are paying CEOs $10.4 million.

The Royal Bank of Canada president makes around $10.4 million as well. The Bank of Nova Scotia CEO was awarded the biggest increase of 29%, followed by the Bank of Montreal president at 25%. The first president was $9.7 million in 2009 and the second president was--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Simcoe North is rising on a point of order.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, back to the issue of relevance, I appreciate that the member opposite is giving us quite a rhetorical history lesson, but it is important to stay on the orders of the day and near as I can tell this is on a completely different path. I wonder if he could get back to the orders of the day.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I take the intervention from the member in good faith regarding the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. This is a large bill and I was about to say that significant latitude has been given. Does the member want to return to his speech or deal with the point of order?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, Speakers in legislatures across the country for many years have given latitude on bills. I have been around long enough to know what is relevant to the bill and what is not. I have sat here listening to every single speaker over the last couple of days and listened to speeches that definitely had nothing to do with the bill, where in fact, I have been the speaker who has actually waved this 800-page book around and asked, what does that have to do with Bill C-9? My speech is relevant to Bill C-9 and I will certainly indulge the member and deal with my remaining comments specifically on issues dealing with this particular bill.

But certainly, Speakers have always given latitude. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, indicated just a half an hour ago to another speaker that a lot of latitude has been given.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a quick comment on the same point of order. When we come to this Chamber, there is a specific issue. In the 17 years that I have been so blessed and fortunate to be here, we have shown that flexibility. I would hope that all of us, myself included, would show that respect to everyone when we stand up and speak. Sometimes we tend to go off to make a point. I would ask that we not interrupt each other. That is basically all I am asking for.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In response to the three points of order raised by the hon. members, just a general comment that the Chair does tend to grant leeway to members when they are speaking in the House, in particular when we are dealing with something as large as the bill before us now.

Members may recall earlier this week when we were dealing with two separate pieces of legislation, one specifically dealing with one trade agreement and the other with another, and when that line was crossed I think it was appropriate to bring members back to the subject at hand.

However, I am comfortable that in this case the member is speaking to something that is related to the bill. There is a lot in there and I would give the floor back to the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. He has one minute remaining in his time.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the ruling.

I think I was just hitting a very sensitive topic for the members opposite, because no sensible person in this country can be happy with the five banks earning $15 billion and having their presidents paid $6.2 million when other jurisdictions, like the European Union, have restrictions on what corporate executives earn. I believe it has been a long-time tradition in Japan that corporate executives have had limitations on what they can earn.

Just recently one of the banks did indicate at its shareholders' meeting that it is now taking input from the shareholders as to what executives are being paid. They are saying that they will not let them vet what they give to the executives but at least they will listen to the shareholders.

It is about time the government starting taking some action here and putting in some guidelines and some restrictions on runaway corporate benefits and corporate salaries, especially when it is giving them extra incentives by reducing their taxes.

As I have indicated, this is an omnibus bill. The government is introducing all sorts of extra measures in here that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. One of the bills was the post office remailers, which has been brought in under various bills over the last three or four years, and as early as last year.

Since the government cannot get that bill through the House, it sticks it in Bill C-9 and basically defies the opposition to vote against it and cause an election. Maybe that is what the government really wants, an election.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly had a very interesting speech from the hon. member across the way. He loves to talk about taxes. I have to say that our Conservative government has the record to prove that it does reduce taxes. Since coming to office in 2006, we have cut over 100 taxes. We have removed over one million low income Canadians completely off the tax rolls. We have reduced our tax burden to the lowest level in nearly 50 years.

The NDP members love to talk about cutting taxes but every time the government introduces tax cuts they vote against it. However, at least one member admits that his party should not be embarking down that path. This is what the NDP member for Thunder Bay—Superior North had to say, “There are elements in our party that have not been adequately concerned about the health and growth of businesses”.

I am wondering if the hon. member would care to comment on what his colleague from Thunder Bay—Superior North had to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is pretending that somehow it is a big tax cutter. It is a big tax cutter for corporations but it has increased taxes. A 50% security fee will be paid for air flights. This will make airline passengers even happier with the government when they start paying their 50% security fee.

We have the whole issue with the debit card industry where the government has basically sat on its hands. It says that it will regulate the debit card industry but it is all on the basis of guidelines. I do not know too many of my constituents who are happy with the way they are treated by the credit card companies. They are looking to the government to do something about it but the government sits on its hands and does nothing.

The government is not consumer friendly at all. I would like somebody in this House to tell me one consumer issue where the government has sided with the consumers and not the industry. On the air passenger bill of rights, the government sides with the industry. The rest of us in opposition voted for the consumer. In the area of credit cards, the government sides with the companies and actually against small business because it is allowing these companies to increase the fees that the companies charge to small business in this country.

This is all being done under a Conservative government. The member does not need to talk to me about reducing taxes. The government is actually increasing taxes.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the bank executives earning money, we should leave that up to the shareholders.

Does the member agree, given that this bill we are debating today is a jobs and economic growth bill, that the banks, even though there has been no move from the central bank, have the right to start jacking up interest rates? Does the member think it is right that with this bill the Conservative government is bringing in an EI employer-employee tax of over $13 billion? Will that help stimulate job growth and the economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, while the government talks a great line about reducing taxes, the reality is that it is increasing taxes in ways that the hon. member has indicated. It is raising the security fees. There is more than one way to raise taxes. A lot of governments say that they are reducing taxes but meanwhile user fees are going up throughout the whole system of the government.

We say that the financial services industry needs more regulation, not less, and that guidelines should be put in place for bank profits and the salaries of the bank executives.

Why can other jurisdictions in the world operate with reasonable CEO benefits and salaries, where in North America it is the law of the jungle? We have CEOs earning $10 million a year. How is that fair to working people in this country?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a really excellent presentation today. I am really enjoying hearing his point of view on this, but I want to go back to the corporate tax cuts.

In looking at this issue, I looked at many of the countries that have higher corporate tax rates and some of the rationale behind it. One of them is that setting a corporate tax rate much lower than the high personal income tax rate will encourage a slippage among the high personal income earners to corporate positions. That is one reason that economists in other countries are saying that there is a danger in making too large a separation between the large personal income tax rate and the corporate tax rate.

How does that fit with these $10 million salaries for the CEOs of these large banks?

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

Mr. Speaker, the members of the government do not like hearing about it and obviously the Liberal members are very nervous about it too. The Liberals had their big expensive think-tank last week in Montreal and ended up coming up with an NDP position, basically that corporate taxes should not be lowered in a race to the bottom, that there is a role for reasonable corporate taxation.

The Liberal Party now realizes that, and I am happy to welcome them on-board in accepting that just lowering corporate income tax will not solve the problems of this country. It just takes revenue away from health care and other social programs which we all agree need to be improved. However, we will not be able to improve on them if we keep lowering the taxation rate for corporations. Someone needs to pay the taxes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the member using the bank salaries and then criticizing the shareholders for having a say. They are the owners. By the way, the rules on the bank system in this country need to be widely held, including the member's CPP account, which has a tremendous amount of bank stock.

Could the member answer the question as to whether the CAW president has the UAW rank and file members decide on what his or her salary will be in a year?

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

Mr. Speaker, I said that it was a good sign that one of the big major banks in the last month had its annual shareholders' meeting and it invited the shareholders. That is a good sign to at least take a look at, not necessarily vet and approve, the salary of the chief executive officer, but at least they presented the information to the shareholders.

However, that should be regulated. Guidelines should be put in place. We should not just leave it up to the banks to do it whenever they feel like inviting the shareholders. That is not the way it should be. The shareholders own the shares to the company and they should have a right to find out what the CEOs' corporate benefits plans are all about and how much the CEOs are making.

That was the first bank to do that but I was told that the other banks will be following suit. However, that has nothing to do with the government. The government's laissez-faire, hands-off approach to the economy is essentially the attitude that the banks are private and they should deal with their own issues. I am saying no. In this one case, the bank did invite the shareholders in to take a look at their salaries, but they did not offer the shareholders the right to make any changes to them or reject them in any way, shape or form.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-9 on the implementation of the 2010 budget. I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke.

In the 2010 budget, the demands of our constituents have been completely ignored or perhaps deliberately undervalued. That is completely unacceptable. For several years, we have been doing our job and have told the government that it needed to help Quebeckers. It needed to come up with a plan to help workers in the hardest hit sectors in Quebec.

We presented measures in good faith to help businesses make it through the economic crisis and to help people. The Bloc Québécois told the federal government that it could take this opportunity to settle a number of compensation claims with Quebec.

We proposed ways to combat the sophisticated schemes that enable the extremely wealthy to avoid paying taxes on their income. We proposed a 1% tax on individuals with a yearly income of over $150,000.

What is even more appalling is that the government ignored our proposal to eliminate the tax breaks given to the oil industry. We asked the government to treat Quebec's forestry and manufacturing industries fairly and equitably, by giving the Quebec industries the same breaks it gave to Ontario.

What does the government propose? It is maintaining the increases in military spending and completely ignoring the reality facing our forestry industry, investing very little in Quebec. It is completely ignoring sectors that have been suffering harshly for far too long.

In Bill C-290, the Bloc Québécois proposed a measure to help thousands of retirees who have been cheated. Over 20,000 workers and retirees will see their pension plans cut by about 30% following an Ontario Superior Court decision to reject an agreement between Nortel and its pensioners. The Conservative government is doing nothing to help them, and yet there are solutions.

The question asked by my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles is clear. Will the government support the Bloc Québécois' bill to help the Nortel, Atlas and Jeffrey mine workers whose pension plans have been cut off?

The Prime Minister wants to review Canada's retirement income system. If the past is any indication and we remember what the government did to the employment insurance system, we have every reason to fear the worst: we will find ourselves with a program that does not meet the needs of retirees.

The Bloc Québécois is pleased to see that the federal government recognizes that we must make major changes to better protect salaries and pensions. However, these measures do not allay the Bloc Québécois' concerns about declining securities values that, in times of economic crisis, lower the value of pension funds.

If a company goes bankrupt, its pension fund will be unable to fulfill its obligation to beneficiaries, but not because the company fails to make its regular contributions to the pension fund.

The Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to put pension plans set up by companies under federal jurisdiction in trust. That is what Quebec does to prevent companies from liquidating pension funds when the securities market is at a low point. The Bloc Québécois also wants disabled workers insured through self-insurance plans to have preferred creditor status.

The proposal in the budget is not good enough. It does not meet people's needs.

Let us turn now to seniors, who have been largely forgotten in the federal budget. How can the government claim to defend people's interests? For over nine years now, we have been calling for improvements to the guaranteed income supplement. In December 2001, we learned that over 270,000 Canadian seniors, including over 68,000 in Quebec, who were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement were not receiving it. They were entitled to that money. Our poorest seniors are suffering as a result. They are the ones bearing the burden of this government's spending.

Last week, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé rose in the House to criticize the rising rate of poverty among seniors. He cited a Conference Board of Canada study showing that between 1995 and 2005, the poverty rate among seniors doubled.

In an effort to promote equality and social justice, the Bloc Québécois has proposed simple, realistic measures to solve this problem and fight poverty among society's poorest.

Nowhere does Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, propose ways to decrease the poverty rate among seniors. The bill says nothing about this, and that is unacceptable. Improving benefits and paying seniors money that is owing them would prevent an increase in poverty.

The government should start by increasing by $100 a month the guaranteed income supplement that people currently receive. It should also consider the poverty in which many seniors live. Given the cost of urban housing—we can all do this exercise in our own ridings—and the fact that this cost and many utility charges are rising, the amount seniors currently receive is not enough. It should be increased, but neither budget 2010 nor the minister's Bill C-9 provides for an increase.

The program should also include individuals aged 65 and over who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. The government says that it cannot locate these people. It needs to make an effort to find them, even if it tries just once.

One reason why people do not receive the guaranteed income supplement is that they are not aware of the program. Administrative delays are also to blame. The result is that people do not get everything they are entitled to.

The Conservative government should introduce a measure to pay the guaranteed income supplement retroactively. People have been hurt. The solution is simple: make retroactive payments. But Bill C-9 contains no such measure.

The measures in Bill C-9 are not enough and do not meet people's needs.

We also proposed that the government keep paying old age security and the guaranteed income supplement for at least six months after the recipient's death, to help his or her survivor through that difficult time. Again, there is nothing in the bill to meet these expressed needs, such as an amendment to the Income Tax Act or changes to other programs.

Bill C-9, however, contains measures that were not in the budget, for instance, amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and the creation of an employment insurance operating account. There is no mention of a need for reform.

Among the measures not included in the budget which are included in Bill C-9, there is the liberalization of one of Canada Post's business lines. In the last session and previous ones, the government tried to pass Bill C-44 without much success in the House. With this bill now, it is trying to put something in place that the members of this House did not agree with.

To sum up the first part of my speech, I would say that the government did not listen to the various associations that support what I just said, associations like the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens, also known as FADOQ. The government is also ignoring the motion passed unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly calling on the federal government to compensate those seniors who have been shortchanged. It was asking that seniors be refunded. Despite all this support, the federal government simply failed to act.

Allow me to pass on what the seniors with whom I met in February told me. They are asking that the public sign their petition. They are currently campaigning to raise public awareness of what is not in the budget.

I think that the government's message is pretty simple, and the campaign slogan pretty clear. I am mentioning it here because these people need the government to hear their slogan at least one. Their slogan is: “The alarm is sounding. React!” That is what seniors want the government to do.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from April 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois opposes Bill C-9, which would implement the Conservative government's budget, because we do not believe that it has identified the true values and needs of Quebeckers and Canadians. And the government's ineptness is equalled only by the ineffective measures it has employed to respond to these needs that it cannot identify.

Weak governments usually feed off those who are even weaker. We know that the Liberal Party will help Bill C-9 pass, but we will continue to oppose it.

This bill demonstrates the Conservative government's will to spare wealthy taxpayers at the expense of the general public, no matter what the cost. It is paying off the deficit thanks to the middle class and workers. Banks and big business are among those wealthy taxpayers.

The measures in this bill are proof of that will. Businesses are not paying their fair share to increase government revenues, except perhaps in that the interest rate paid by the Minister of National Revenue on tax overpayments by businesses will be reduced. If too much tax has been paid, it is most likely because these large companies are making their profits at the expense of small businesses that do not get the help they need and are not profitable.

There is doublespeak when it comes to tax loopholes. On one hand, the government says that it will address this issue. On the other hand, we have Bill C-9, which creates holes in the Income Tax Act allowing businesses not registered in Canada to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

As well, the bill would amend the Telecommunications Act and allow foreign companies who own or operate certain transmission facilities to act as though they were Canadian telecommunications companies.

I will come back in a moment to this point, one that concerns me directly since I am a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. In committee, we are currently examining the case of Globalive, among others. As we can see from the bill, the next step will be satellites and after that, all telecommunications.

We oppose the bill because, once again, the government seems to have no compunction about pillaging the employment insurance fund. The employment insurance account will be replaced by the employment insurance operating account, which will start back at zero. We cannot forget that the Liberals managed to wipe out the deficit and pay down the debt by using the EI premiums paid by both workers and employers.

We also know very well that with this budget, over the next five years, the Conservative government plans to use $19.2 billion for other purposes.

We also oppose this bill because it sets in motion a process to privatize Canada Post Corporation. It also gives the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada powers to protect consumers, which creates a serious risk that Ottawa will infringe on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Given its desire to transform credit unions—including the Fédération des caisses populaires Desjardins—into federal entities, once again the federal government is showing that it simply want to centralize powers and decisions to the detriment of Quebec's interests.

We are against this bill because it includes various measures that are clearly a federal government intrusion into Quebec's jurisdictions. Take for example the money allocated to the Rick Hansen Foundation, which falls under the area of health, and to the pathways to education program, which applies to secondary education. We are also against the bill because the Conservatives are denying the existence of more than half the population and the challenges they face. Women are absent from this budget implementation bill. We are also against the bill because it sanctions the Conservative government's inaction when it comes to the environment and tackling greenhouse gases.

I said I would come back to the Telecommunications Act. In the Speech from the Throne, the government said it was going to open the door to foreign investment in the satellite, television and telecommunications industries. We see that in the budget it is opening the door to foreign ownership of satellites. However, let us not forget the matter of Globalive, which according to the CRTC was, in practice, a telecommunications company controlled and owned by foreign interests.

The CRTC ruling was overruled and an order in council issued to ensure that Globalive could take ownership of a foreign company. We know full well that this is just the beginning for foreign telecommunication companies because after the satellites and after Globalive will come telephony, broadcasting and cable. In fact, all telecommunications sectors could potentially belong to foreign companies.

The Speech from the Throne talked about satellites. I have talked to people who use satellites. They are scared stiff about the fact that satellites could belong to foreign companies. They are wondering what would happen if foreign companies got their hands on Telesat. The legislation clearly states that Telesat must remain Canadian owned. If foreign companies could get their hands on it, then major international players could also get Canadian satellites. We know full well that Canadian satellites currently have military applications and functions as well. The Conservative government truly seems to want to defend sovereignty on many levels, but it is prepared to throw open the door to foreign ownership of satellites, telecommunications and therefore all aspects of broadcasting as well.

If I remember correctly, in 1984 a Conservative government came to power, but with one major difference: it was a Progressive Conservative government. That was our first introduction to restrictions on foreign ownership. In 1987 and then in 1991 came the Teleglobe Act and the Telesat Canada Act, which imposed ownership restrictions on the two telecommunication companies named in the titles of these acts. In 1987, the communications minister at that time presented a policy document titled “A Policy Framework for Telecommunications in Canada” in which the government noted that domestic ownership of Canada’s telecommunications infrastructure was essential to national sovereignty and security.

In 1987, we had a Progressive Conservative government. That is not at all the case today. This government calls itself Conservative but it is Reform-Alliance. It wants to use this bill to open the door to foreign ownership by amending the Telecommunications Act.

I would have liked to have had more time to show that the Liberals have a responsibility to vote against this bill. More importantly, they should all attend the vote. If not, it shows that they approve of this bill, with the result that Canada and Quebec will automatically lose a large part of their telecommunications sovereignty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by and interested in the member's comments regarding satellite telecommunications. which is a serious issue for us to be looking at.

The government's approach to the economy and its whole direction is to reduce the barriers and allow for more foreign ownership of the whole economy, let alone the satellite area.

Would the member expand on this whole area and on how serious an economic effect this could have on the Canadian economy?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this could have a significant or even catastrophic economic effect. We know very well the kind of impact this could have on telecommunications.

In the beginning, the legislation favoured competition within the Canadian and Quebec system, that is, between Canadian-owned companies, excluding foreign ones. If ownership was transferred from one company to another, it still all stayed in the country: competition and innovation took place here, and we saw great innovation within the telecommunications sector.

Now, the Conservative government claims that there will be more competition, and that the public will benefit from lower prices and more innovation. But that is completely untrue, and a foreign company may get its hands on Bell or Rogers and then on all the content. The content could drastically decrease under pressure from these foreign companies, whose sole interest is in generating profits. These profits can often be found in other countries. So we could lose jobs and even see less competition. The same goes for pretty much all the other areas.

In telecommunications, the Canadian identity and the Quebec identity are particularly important, but they could end up paying the price and could dwindle away. Furthermore, when foreign companies take over the satellites, will there be any room left for Canadian content?

For example, if the United States were to purchase one, it might promote only American products. Canadian and Quebec content would end up paying the price.

The Canadian identity, the Quebec identity, and culture and sovereignty especially, would inevitably shrink. This is also true for telecommunications and security, since we are talking about satellites. Sometimes, in more remote countries, when people with evil intentions want to take power, they first take control of telecommunications.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify something. Perhaps I heard wrong, and I will double-check Hansard afterwards. I heard the member say that our government was using the EI fund for things other than what it was set up for. I might be mistaken because I have not looked at the blues but I want to clarify whether that is what was said in this House. In actual fact, the EI fund is used for what it is supposed to be used for, which is helping people who need it.

In 2011, the CEIFB, which is an independent, arm's length commission, will be dealing solely with this fund.

Did I hear that the EI fund was being misused by our government? If that is what I heard, it is totally untrue. Perhaps the member was referring to what happened under the previous government.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the only consistency I see is in how the previous Liberal government and the current Conservative government used the employment insurance fund. Nothing has changed. On the contrary, huge cuts were made to the employment insurance fund, particularly with regard to eligibility and benefits.

Naturally, they will say that we voted against some of their bills that would supposedly have improved the employment insurance system. We are very aware of the needs of people who lose their jobs; they have to be able to adapt to new jobs. We are familiar also with the needs of older workers who are not able to bridge the gap to their retirement.

With regard to the use of the employment insurance fund, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are cut from the same cloth. $54 billion went missing before and we know that $19.2 billion will be used for other things besides helping the unemployed—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget today. As a former parliamentary secretary to two ministers of finance, I know that the most daunting task of any government is balancing its books.

In 1993, when we came to power, we inherited a $42.5 billion deficit, of which 33¢ of every dollar spent was borrowed money. We had to make some tough decisions. We had Canadians supporting us in terms of dealing with the deficit to the point where we got out of deficit and started putting money down on the debt. We started ensuring we would deal with a massive debt, which at that time was over $600 billion.

Government is about priorities. When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, they inherited a $12.5 billion surplus. They quickly eliminated that through the gimmick of reducing the GST by one point which cost about $5 billion to $6 billion. It was not surprising that they got themselves into a financial hole very quickly. The government, not being very good with mathematics, did not even realize that a recession was coming and preempted an election in order forestall the inevitable. A recession came and hundreds of thousands of Canadians were thrown out of work.

We see the consequences of that situation. We know that its figures are not very good. Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, has clearly indicated that the government is out by about $10 billion. According to the government, we now have a $56 billion deficit, but it is probably closer to $66 billion or $70 billion.

What kind of exit strategy does the government have? It does not have much of an exit strategy. It claims that it does not really need to cut anything or make any really tough decisions because the economy will bounce back and, through growth, it will be able to fill its coffers and everything will be fine. I do not think there are too many economists around who share that view, particularly in its second and third year, where we see this massive jump of about $26 billion that will suddenly come into the coffers of the government.

The reality is that Canadians are facing some stark decisions at the present time. Hundreds of thousands of people have been thrown out of work in the manufacturing sector, the forestry sector, the mining sector, et cetera across the country.

At the end of October, in my own riding of Richmond Hill, I held a pre-budget forum where we discussed some of the real issues facing people in the riding of Richmond Hill. What the government produced in its budget does not reflect those priorities very much, if at all. The one key area deals with job creation, particularly for small business. Nine out of 10 small businesses in this country create employment. They are the engine of the Canadian economy. The government again failed to address this issue in terms of job creation and jobs for the future. It is not just the stand-pat jobs of today. How do we ensure we are part of that green economy for tomorrow? How do we ensure we are on the innovation agenda, something that was the hallmark of the previous Liberal administration?

Unfortunately, we do not hear the word innovation over there. We do not hear about the jobs for tomorrow that will be for Canadians coming out of universities and colleges, the jobs that will have value, not only for themselves but for Canadians as a whole and for the community at large around the world.

The problem is that there is an imbalance at the moment between people who are looking for jobs and the jobs that are out there. I heard that loud and clear from businesses in my own community. The concern out there is that the government is not providing the kind of regulatory, economic or other tools to stimulate job creation, particularly for small businesses. As we have seen unemployment rise in this country, we have seen people who have become very concerned that there is no hope.

There may be some growth in part-time jobs, but for people who really need a job, retraining is important. Someone between 40 or 45 years of age may have had a job for 20 or 25 years and suddenly he or she is now out of work. The talents and tools people were trained on 20 or 25 years ago are not necessarily germane for today's job market, which is causing them great angst.

We need to see strategic investments particularly in new sectors like green technology. Green technology is obviously something, whether it is wind energy or solar power, where Canada can be a leader. Up to one million jobs could be created in this sector, but again, we need to have the kind of economic tools available, particularly a tax structure and particularly in terms of regulatory mechanisms. For example, when dealing with windmills, rather than import them from Germany, the Netherlands or Denmark, we should build them here. Obviously, that would be of importance.

The federal government's job creation programs in terms of investing in new technologies was something that I heard loud and clear. We need to do that if we really want to be on the cutting edge for the future. The government needs to invest capital into research and development. Again, research and development is absolutely important for those engineers in this country, as an example. We want them to be here, our designers et cetera so that they can stay in Canada and not have to go to the United States or elsewhere. That is important in terms of being able to compete at home on the global market. But again, the budget is very quiet in this area and is something that we need to be addressing for our new graduates.

The federal government should also have provided reforms in terms of policies and educating skilled immigrants. In many sectors, whether it is nursing or medicine in terms of provincial bodies, the fact is that we again need the leadership of the federal government working with the provinces and territories to encourage and to faster integrate new immigrants in Canada. What is the point of bringing new immigrants to Canada if they cannot get a decent job? We often hear about fields such as doctors who cannot practise medicine. The underskilled is a problem and yet those who are skilled are not being utilized. The underutilization of talent in this country is a major problem.

There is no question that with over 300,000 jobs already lost in this country that there is some despair out there. In terms of the budget, we should have addressed how to ensure that we giving a helping hand to people, how do we ensure that we are trying to invest in the right areas. But again, not only the Conference Board of Canada but some conservative institutes out there indicated clearly that the government was simply throwing good money against bad, that it was not doing the kind of investments that need to be done. The C.D. Howe Institute, the Fraser Institute, not exactly good friends on our side, took a very strong stand in terms of looking at where this money was going and obviously were disappointed.

There is the issue of infrastructure funding for not for profit organizations. We have 160,000 charities across Canada that employ over two million people. The government made a big fanfare about trying to invest in these charitable organizations, that it would announce that people in a short period of time, and it was a year ago in August, I think, had 10 days to fill in a form. Now 10 days for non-profits is a major task to begin with. But the government only earmarked about $4 million and had over 1,000 applicants-plus across the country.

Therefore, people applied and they assumed, because of the big fanfare that the government announced, that after applying they would receive assistance. Certainly, in my riding, although we did get money after repeated writing and phoning to the minister's office on things like roads, parks, development, et cetera, in the non-profit area it was a disaster. Of the six that applied, not one received any money. They received a curt email saying “too bad, so sad, 1,000 applied and we only had $4 million, you're out of luck”. That is not really very appropriate, particularly when we are talking about a sector where there are two million-plus jobs out there. Again, those are the most vulnerable organizations. When they needed assistance from the government, they clearly did not get it.

The Fraser Institute's recent analysis of Statistic Canada shows that the stimulus package was neither timely nor effective. Again, when talking about infrastructure money, the only people who really made money were those who put up all those signs across the country because obviously those who really needed it, the money was not in hand. The government is great at announcing things, that it is going to be rolled out, but it is not there, the money is not in hand.

If I had the time, I would speak about all of the defence procurements, which the government announced but is not delivering on.

Let me go back, particularly to the issue of small and medium sized businesses, which have been hit hard. Those in Richmond Hill and the southern York region have been hit hard in particular. There is a crisis there. We need to have a responsible government that is absolutely prepared to listen. One of the ways the government could help this situation would be to work much more collaboratively with both provincial and municipal authorities.

Many businesses in my community have asked for certain tax breaks. They have asked for tax breaks in order to help first, in terms of some capital writeoffs for machinery; and second, because they simply are so over-burdened at the present time with the drop in the economy. Times are much more difficult in terms of people spending money that these businesses need. They need to have this kind of assistance.

I would point out that we submitted a detailed report to the Minister of Finance indicating these areas which I am outlining to the House today.

Canada must be competitive, and the only way it can be competitive is in the areas of innovation and good tax policy, in making sure that retraining is available for older workers who need it, and by providing opportunities to our young people. Again, the government seems to have failed in all of these areas.

What did the government do for workers? It brought in a $13 billion payroll tax hike which will affect over 220,000 small businesses in Canada.

When I hear about EI from members on the other side, I would point out to them that it was the Auditor General who said we could no longer have a stand-alone EI account. I sometimes hear members on the other side refer to an EI fund that was rolled in by the previous Liberal government. In fact, it was the Auditor General who said we could not do that.

A tax increase of $13 billion is to me a tax. I do not know what else we could call it. The government does not like to refer to it as a tax but the businesses in my community see it as a tax. They see this as a regressive tax which hurts businesses. If a business has 9, 10 or 12 employees and decides to add an employee, or even maintain those that it has, then this tax obviously is not very helpful in terms of any kind of expansion.

There are over one million small businesses in Canada and 98% of these are looking for support. They are not looking for a handout necessarily but a hand up in terms of government policy. Yet, the government is applauding itself and saying we will get through all of this, that we should just grin and bear it. It says it is spending all of this money.

I will be interested to see the Auditor General's report in the fall. We will be able to really start looking at those infrastructure projects that were announced and see just where that money actually wound up. I have no doubt that it is going to be quite a report and quite interesting for Canadians.

This party is concerned about small business. Back in February we held a forum on Parliament Hill dealing with small business. We heard from small business owners who clearly indicated that the government had not been listening. That was obviously reaffirmed with the budget on March 4.

It is important for the manufacturing sector. We are seeing great attrition in this sector and this is of major concern. Capital cost allowance is sorely needed to help our manufacturers, particularly in dealing with new equipment. This needs to be properly addressed.

Canada has the worst youth unemployment record in a generation. Those of us who were here a couple of years ago may remember the debacle of the summer job creation program. Nobody knew who was going to get summer employment. It was so bad the government had the minister of veterans affairs announce more money. I do not know what that minister has to do with youth unemployment. The government finally changed it, and hopefully this year, at least for summer students, we will see some improvement.

I deal a lot with young people as I am sure many members do. Graduates who have come out of university are now going back for a master's program or a Ph.D. Why? They realize they cannot get a job, so they will stay in school because there are no opportunities out there for them. Again, no direction has come from the government in terms of dealing with the chronic youth unemployment situation, which, as I said, is the worst in a generation.

We also need to encourage start-up companies by introducing initial tax measures for Canadians, particularly for young entrepreneurs. The genius of Canadians, of course, is that we are a very inventive nation and we have been able to create, when in fact there is an opportunity, when the conditions are there. Again, the government seems to have ignored that.

One area which I cannot understand is that when the government has a success, it actually shoots itself in the foot, and that of course was on the ecoEnergy program. I am sure there are constituents of many members here, certainly my constituents, who since 2007 were applying and were certainly taking advantage of that program. The abrupt cancellation of this program, almost in the middle of the night, was because it was too popular.

What could be more important than dealing with energy efficiency, particularly in this day and age? It was cancelled and I understand that of the $745 million for the program, only $91 million has ever been actually directed toward customers as rebates.

What is interesting here is that people actually said, “I want to make my home more energy efficient and I am going take advantage of this program”. People lined up to be part of this, but again we do not know where the other $654 million is. It is not accounted for. Hopefully, we will see it when the Auditor General takes a look, but again it is a question of cancelling a successful program.

Many members on this side know that energy efficiency and climate change are not things that are very popular on the other side, but it is important that those kinds of programs address the needs of Canadians. Obviously, it helps in terms of reducing their expenditures, particularly for heating. Many small businesses that were involved in this kind of retrofitting program found it a great boon. I have companies in my riding that took advantage of it, saying, “We have all these customers now. This has been a great program”. Of course, once it was cancelled the phones lit up with people asking why the government did this, why it was cancelling the program. Again, there is no rhyme or reason, but it was cancelled.

Going back to one of the most important issues, when we have the kind of deficit that we have in this country, we cannot expect that governments are going to be able to spend their way out, but we would expect to have an exit strategy that very clearly lays out how it is going to tackle getting out of the economic mess that we are in. Unfortunately, nobody believes the projections it has and because nobody believes the government, there is a great sense that in fact it is going to get worse and worse. Kevin Page was very clear that the government was out by at least $10 billion. Who knows how much more?

The difficulty is that we have to be able to explain to Canadians what the nature of the problem is and how we are going to deal with it, as we did when we were in government. We did many things as a government to deal with an economic crisis in deficit. We made sure that we did not merge the banks. I remember my colleagues on the other side saying, “We have to be like Citibank”. Who is now taking the credit today for what Paul Martin did, in assuring that we did not have bank mergers? It is those guys on the other side, and I have to say that that is a bit hypocritical, given the fact that when I was parliamentary secretary, I had more Conservatives come over and say, “We are not going to be competitive globally unless we are like Citibank”.

It is good that we did not listen to the economic gurus on the other side. They like to say that they are the economic gurus. The economic gurus have a $56 billion deficit. The economic gurus say, “Let us have bank mergers”. The economic gurus say, “Just let the market run its course”.

Sometimes government can play a very positive role in society. In this case, we did play that positive role and because of that, we came out of a very difficult situation. Unfortunately, it did not take the Conservatives very long to get back into one. With a $42.5 billion deficit for 23 years, which they now think they are going to get out of in five, and good luck to them, there is not an economist worth his or her salt who believes that that is credible. Certainly, we on this side do not see that happening in the foreseeable future.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on his speech, but I find something rather incredulous in all of this. I, too, represent a York region riding just to the north of Richmond Hill. I have seen considerable business activity going on in the riding of Richmond Hill, with the number of investments that our government has made through the economic action plan.

We put in place the home renovation tax credit in the 2009 budget, which made opportunities for many local contractors to sign contracts with people who wanted to do work in their homes. We will have the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7 by 2012. We put in place assistance for our manufacturers through their capital cost input reduction.

Why will the member not support our budget?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

First, Mr. Speaker, I point out for the hon. member that the corporate tax was dropped under the Liberals, from 26% down to 18%. In fact, the Liberals actually reduced the corporate tax. Under the hon. member's government, it has maybe dropped 1% or 2%. The reality is we were the ones who made it economically competitive at a time when the Conservatives were saying something else.

The home tax renovation was very good public policy, but, unfortunately, it was cancelled.

In my riding of Richmond Hill, I am interested in not only ensuring that I am going to more openings than closings, but also that we are attracting the kind of leading edge technology businesses that are going to employ people in the long term. We are not seeing that at the present time. Therefore, we have to look at a budget. When we look at a budget, we want to look at the totality of that budget.

We keep seeing a lot of gimmicks and a lot of flashy programs today that are then eliminated. I do not like deficits. Nobody likes deficits. However, I would like to see a strategy that shows us how to get out of it. I want to see an innovation agenda showing that we are worried about the young people today and those older workers who need to be retrained. We want to work collaboratively with the provinces and municipalities because we are in a global situation. We are not only competing with Vancouver or Quebec City, we are competing with New Delhi, Tokyo and everywhere around the world. To do that, we have to ensure we are there.

What I am seeing in my York region is a little different from what my friend to the north is seeing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always get great enjoyment listening to the Liberals speak. I have never found a group that is meaner or tougher when it comes to shadow boxing in their bedrooms. However, when it comes time to getting into the ring with that ideological crew, they always take a dive.

I was particularly amused by the hon. member's comments about the bank deregulation. If he looks at the Hansard records, he will remember that the Liberal government attacked the NDP for being concerned little old nannies when we kept saying that we had to stop bank deregulation. We pushed that again and again and the Liberals ridiculed us. Now, suddenly, when they do not have to stand up and do anything on it, they are trying to take credit.

I would like to ask the member about another key area to be deregulated in Bill C-9, which would take away the post office privilege. We would deregulate the post offices. All across rural Canada, people are looking at what is going to happen with the post offices, but I am hearing nothing from the Liberal Party. Will the Liberals cave on this, undermine Canada Post and all our rural post offices? Will they go along with it or will they stand up to the government, which is breaking apart, point after point in industry after industry, Canada's advantage?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like hearing from members who have never been in government and probably will not be in government and therefore can pontificate on absolutely everything under the sun.

If my friend over there ever got the levers of power, the $66 billion deficit would look like a blip compared to what those guys would do.

Seriously, on the question of rural post offices, I believe it should be a right of Canadians to get their mail. I do not agree with the elimination of post offices in rural Canada, so my friend should be happy with that.

I would also point out for my friend that when it comes to the serious issues of the day, when the NDP had an opportunity to support social housing, national transportation, et cetera, it pulled the plug on the Martin government in 2005, and look what we got.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I always stand in great amusement over the NDP and its little tirade about shadow boxing. I think that is what my friend used.

Back in September, there was a motion in the House to express non-confidence and by the time the vote was over, there had to have been an entire team of paleontologists outside this chamber. The reason why they were there was that the NDP members lost their backbone so quickly they had created a whole new class of invertebrate. The paleontologists waited for them to come outside because they abstained on the vote. Therefore, I always find it incredibly rich when I hear them talk about shadow boxing.

However, I want to return to the topic at hand. My colleague was a former president of municipalities of our country. One of the issues I find with great difficulty is the cost sharing element of the budget and the infrastructure spending when it comes to the economic action plan. Some of the communities are just not able to avail themselves of some of those finances, in one case the recreation program requiring 50% of the funds.

Could the member comment on how quickly the money must be spent and just how damaging it could be for some of these smaller communities?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that when the original national infrastructure program came into place in 1994, it was one-third, one-third and one-third and there was not one municipality in Canada that could not bring that money forth.

We are looking at projects, usually in a five year or ten year capital forecast, that are elevated. When we are talking about 50%, particularly for some small communities, and I know in the member's riding in wonderful places like Gander, it is very difficult.

Recreation is a really important component, whether it is dealing with recreational centres or tourism. That 50% was very harsh for many of those smaller municipalities. In addition, the time frame was very short. They have to ante up the dollars. Many municipalities right now are going through a very difficult period because of job losses, et cetera. They do not have the same tax base. Although they would like to take the opportunity, they cannot take advantage of it.

Therefore, the one-third, one-third, one-third was very transparent. Also the Liberal government sent the gas tax directly to municipalities. If that had been done by the Conservative government, we would have seen much more effective infrastructure development because the money would have been there.

Talk about shadow boxing, those guys must have taken their instructions from the NDP. When it comes to shadow boxing, I cannot tell the House of very many mayors who really have seen the dollars. What they have seen is promises and promises, but they have not seen the money.

Municipal governments will not go forward and start to give out contracts if the money is not in the bank. It is just not doable.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to remind the hon. member that these high deficits and debts actually started with the former prime minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The current leader of that party says that he is cut from the same cloth. He is a tax and spend Liberal. In fact, the Liberal Party dumped $25 billion in costs on the provinces to reduce the deficit.

Will the hon. member support our 2010 budget in which we will not dump these costs on the provinces and municipalities?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we need an anthropologist to come look at where the backbone is over there.

He mentioned Pierre Trudeau. Why do we not go back to Sir John A. when we had the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway? The reality is the fastest time for deficit was during the Mulroney time, although those fellows were not very close to Brian Mulroney.

However, I would point out that it was the deficit in 1993, and I will do this slowly, when 33¢ of every $1 spent was borrowed money, so it was not real money. I do not know how they run their households, but in mine if I spent 33¢ that was not really mine, I would be in a lot of trouble.

We had to deal with that and, yes, we made some tough choices. However, I would also point out that the provinces have the same expenditure power as the federal government, if not more. I was in municipal government. People like to say, “Let somebody else spend the money, give me the money”. It does not work that way.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the Conservative government's budget when it was first tabled in the House. Unfortunately, I will not have the opportunity today to go into detail again about what a profoundly negative impact it will have on seniors and hard-working Canadians. Let me just reiterate some of the key points, though, that I raised last month.

Budgets are always about choices. The Conservative government chose to help its wealthy friends. It chose to continue its multi-billion dollar corporate tax giveaway to big banks and profitable corporations. In doing so, it also chose to abandon hard-working Canadians and seniors.

There is no doubt that the innocent victims of the global recession of 2008-09 were seniors and the middle class. A cyclone ripped through Canada's job market, leaving over 1.5 million officially unemployed. Of those, 810,000 of those are poised to run out of employment insurance benefits in the coming months and thousands already have. Without jobs to greet them, the majority will wind up on welfare rolls, or worse.

What should Canadians have been able to expect from their government? A plan to get Canada working again. Clearly, the status quo is not good enough. Full-time job growth has been sluggish, at best. Canada's unemployed are competing in an ever smaller job market. Over the past year, Canada added only 55,000 new part-time jobs and 119,000 new temporary jobs. Without a good job, well-paying, with benefits and reliable hours, life becomes harder to plan, mortgages harder to pay, loans harder to diminish and savings harder to tuck away.

In short, Canada's job crisis represents a new threat to the sustainability of Canada's middle class. It is the government's job to get serious about job protection and job creation. However, instead, the budget freezes public sector operations, creating new job losses in the federal public sector and thereby compromising the food we eat, the health of our environment, transportation safety and the public services on which Canadians rely.

In one fell swoop, the Conservatives have managed to weaken the economy and hurt Canadians. That is why nothing is more egregious in this budget bill than the government's policy of continuing tax cuts to the big banks and profitable corporations. Canada's corporate tax rates are already well below those of our main competitor, namely, the United States, yet the government will continue to enrich its corporate friends.

The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates a $19 billion structural deficit in three years, $15 billion of that deficit will be the cost of corporate tax cuts. All of that, without a shred of evidence that those tax cuts have led to private sector investments in job creation.

To add insult to injury, since Liberal and Conservative governments started cutting corporate taxes 10 years ago, individuals are carrying 61% of the cost of government programs, while corporations now pay only 15%. It is clearly time to recalibrate.

Instead of spending $6 billion on further corporate tax cuts, the government should have sustained its stimulus spending to create jobs. Both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have warned governments that withdrawing their stimulus packages too quickly could trigger another global recessionary dip. By cutting the stimulus package off too soon, the Conservatives are letting the jobless fend for themselves and letting the economy simply drift toward recovery. That is not nearly good enough.

On the contrary, the $6 billion that are currently targeted to further corporate tax cuts should have been invested in improving Canada's crumbling physical infrastructure and enhancing its social infrastructure. This could be a win-win. Investments in cities, health care, child care and affordable housing would create jobs and leave our communities more functional and vibrant as a result. Imagine what a boon to the steel and construction industries a serious investment on infrastructure could be. As we replace obsolete infrastructure, we can transform Canada's economic base to a more energy efficient platform because we would not have to choose between what is good for the economy and what is good for the environment.

To a city like my home town of Hamilton, that is absolutely crucial. The recession has hit through our community with the force of a cyclone, leaving a devastating trail of joblessness in its wake. Just in the last two months, Siemens and Lakeport announced their plans to move their operations out of Hamilton, taking hundreds more family-sustaining jobs with them. In a city that was once known as “Steeltown”, only two of the city's ten largest employers are now private sector companies. The impact of those job losses is being felt at every level of our community.

First, is the high rate of unemployment, with workers increasingly running out of EI. This places an additional burden on the city's welfare rolls and the city is already cash-strapped.

The companies that are closing their doors are now no longer paying property taxes to municipalities, a loss that cannot be compensated for by the public sector because employers such as hospitals and post-secondary schools are exempt from paying property taxes to municipalities. This puts the burden for the cost of municipal services squarely on the shoulders of residential property taxpayers, the very people who are losing their jobs. It is a downward spiral with no end in sight.

The only way to reverse the trend is through a positive intervention by senior levels of government. Regrettably, to date, instead of assisting through stimulus spending, they have shown a propensity to download costs instead. This budget bill could have redressed that balance, but shamefully, the Conservatives have failed to do so in any meaningful way.

Job creation is not the only area in which the government has failed to show leadership when it comes to transitioning from one of the worst recessions on record into a more sustainable economy that benefits all Canadians. Just ask the over 1.5 million Canadians who have lost their jobs. The Conservatives' first order of business should have been to stave off the crisis awaiting the 810,000 EI recipients who are poised to run out of benefits in the coming months.

I was proud to table a comprehensive motion on EI reform in the House over a year ago. That motion was passed by a majority vote of MPs and yet benefits still have not been extended or expanded in a comprehensive way to help those Canadians who are struggling in this very tough job market. It is absolutely imperative that we act to protect the jobless. There is no time to waste. The future of entire families literally hangs in the balance.

The future of seniors, the very Canadians who built our country, similarly hangs in the balance. I wish I had time today to speak at length about the government's inaction on lifting seniors out of poverty, improving the CPP and securing workplace pensions. Thankfully, I have had many other opportunities to raise those issues in this House.

Today I have only 10 minutes left to speak, so I am going to address two very specific issues that I have not been able to raise before. It is tough to narrow it down to just two. The budget implementation bill covers everything from a new airline tax to debit and credit cards, to softwood lumber products, to eliminating purely cosmetic procedures from the medical expense tax credit. They all deserve detailed attention, but it is simply impossible to do justice to the entire bill that is before us today.

It is a massive piece of legislation that, under normal circumstances, would have been presented as a number of smaller bills. However, the government knows it would never be able to pass its agenda if it were introduced piecemeal. Since the Liberals have said that they would allow the budget to pass no matter what was in it, the Conservatives have seized the opportunity and left us with a Trojan Horse.

As I said earlier, I will focus on two specific areas that are buried deep within the verbiage of the budget implementation bill that absolutely must be exposed.

The first deals with Canada Post. In essence, this part of the budget implementation bill would remove Canada Post's legal monopoly on outgoing international letters. This was first proposed by the Liberal member for Eglinton—Lawrence when the Liberals were in government. Since then, the Conservative government has twice tried to get these same provisions through the House of Commons, once as Bill C-14 in the second session of the last Parliament, and most recently as Bill C-44 in the last session of this Parliament. On both occasions the entrenched opposition by New Democrats forced the government to back down.

Recognizing that the bill would not get quick passage by Parliament, the government has now snuck it into the budget implementation bill. Surely, it does not belong there.

Right now Canada Post has the “exclusive privilege” to collect, transmit and deliver letters, including international letters, in order to finance the post office's universal service obligation. It is this privilege which guarantees the source of revenue that Canada Post requires to ensure the universality of services that it is mandated to provide.

In granting Canada Post an exclusive privilege, Parliament understood that market forces alone could not guarantee a reasonable level of service at affordable prices to all Canadians, particularly to those living in remote and rural parts of the country. Canada Post needs revenues from commercial bulk mail in order to subsidize other operations, such as rural mail delivery, and to keep postal rates low.

At the moment, Canada has one of the lowest standard letter rates in the industrialized world. Our postal services are universal and affordable, which is no small feat in the second largest country in the world. It will become increasingly difficult, however, for our public postal office to provide affordable service to everyone no matter where one lives if the government erodes the very mechanism that funds universal postal service, the exclusive privilege to deliver letters.

And yes, that issue matters, not just for the benefit of uniform affordable postal rates, but for a broad range of other benefits as well. In fact, rather than reiterate all of them here, I would commend to all members of the House the submission by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to the Canada Post Corporation strategic review. It does a superb job of detailing why exclusive privilege is crucial to ensuring uniform rates across the country, why postage rates for both the public and small businesses will increase as a result of deregulation, why deregulation inevitably leads to service cutbacks, why exclusive privilege promotes efficiency and lower costs, why it promotes security of mail, and why deregulation is not a requirement for success.

With the limited time available to members to participate in today's debate, it is impossible for me to speak to each of these in detail, but there are a couple of concerns that I do want to highlight.

First, as climate change continues to be a key priority for Canadians, even if it is not for the government, it is imperative that we evaluate every decision we make as legislators by analyzing the environmental harm or benefit that will flow from our actions.

Let us look at the deregulation of Canada Post from that perspective for a moment. Greater competition in letter delivery would create more environmental problems, period. There is a direct and inverse relationship between increased delivery density and use of fossil fuels, pollution and traffic congestion. It only makes sense. In a deregulated market, the same number of letters would be delivered to the same points of call but by more vehicles.

Is that really a direction we could support at a time when more and more Canadians believe that climate change is the single most important issue facing our planet? I know that we in the NDP would certainly say that we cannot. We cannot and will not support an initiative that would further erode our international reputation on the environment. We cannot and will not sell out our children's future.

The same is true for the other impact of deregulation that I want to highlight next, which is the impact on decent family-sustaining jobs. In Canada, urban postal workers earn slightly more than the average industrial wage which in turn is more than twice the rate of the minimum wage. The vast majority of hours are worked by regular staff which has benefit costs of approximately 40% of wages.

There is every reason to believe that both the quantity and quality of jobs, as well as the wages and benefits of postal workers would decline should the exclusive privilege be eliminated and low-wage competition introduced.

First, the financial crisis resulting from reduced volumes and revenues would leave fewer funds available for wages and benefits. Second, the workforce of the competitors would receive much less pay and benefits, and would be required to work with inferior conditions. Third, service reductions would reduce career opportunities for employees. Fourth, increased competition coupled with reduced volumes and financial losses would create insecurity and greater resistance to negotiated provisions, such as pensions and retiree benefits that require long-term stability in the sector. Fifth, the experiences of other countries, such as Sweden, New Zealand, the U.K. and Germany, show that deregulation is primarily about putting pressure on the wages, benefits and protections of the postal workers.

As I look across the way in this House I can tell that some members are actually looking forward to and indeed celebrating that decline in wages and benefits. I am really surprised, although I guess I should not be. It is, after all, deeply rooted in their ideological belief that living wages are just another encumbrance on what should be the unfettered ability of businesses to make unlimited profits, and yet that value system lacks all credibility.

Even the Conservatives' own approach to fighting the current economic downturn underscores the shortcomings of their ideology. One of the key elements to surviving this recession is to shore up consumer confidence so that Canadians will once again spend their money and stimulate our economy. That can only happen if workers have sufficient incomes to purchase cars, appliances, and a host of other manufactured goods. It is the production of those goods that protects jobs in the auto sector, the parts industry, the manufacturing sector and in small businesses across our country.

We need decent paying jobs to support Canadian families and to support Canadian jobs. There is absolutely no way that a pay cut for unionized workers would make minimum wage workers better off. It would simply make all of us worse off. In a country that has high unemployment, unacceptable levels of child poverty and a growing number of seniors who can no longer make ends meet, we must do everything we can to turn our economy around. Sustaining decent jobs for decent wages must be valued as a critical part of that solution.

That issue of sustainability leads me to the second hidden assault within the budget implementation bill's Trojan Horse, and that is the impact on environmental assessments. When thinking of tar sands, mining and upgrading pipelines, refineries, copper mines and gold mines, most Canadians would agree that projects of that scale pose potentially significant impacts on the environment. Yet, if the sweeping changes buried in the budget implementation bill that is before us today are passed, these and thousands of other projects could escape meaningful federal environmental assessments. The result would turn a blind eye to federal responsibilities to address transboundary air pollution and to protect transboundary waters, fisheries and aboriginal peoples and their lands.

Buried deep within the budget implementation bill are provisions that grant the federal environment minister unprecedented powers to narrow the scope of any environmental assessment. The majority of projects receiving federal stimulus spending would also be exempted from federal review regardless of their potential impacts on communities, waterways, wildlife or ecosystems, and the public's right to participate effectively in project reviews would be dramatically curtailed.

Worse, these drastic changes to federal assessment law are being made under cover of the budget mere months before a mandatory parliamentary review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is to begin. This removes any opportunity for public engagement. It is the second time the Conservative government has resorted to a backdoor manoeuvre to undermine environmental laws. In the 2009 budget, the Conservatives significantly reduced federal duties to assess project impacts by eviscerating the Navigable Waters Protection Act. That action drew outrage from Canadians right across the country.

The government defends these drastic cuts to federal environmental oversight by arguing that the provinces have demanded them. Yet, claims of duplication and overlap fly in the face of measures taken over three decades by both orders of government to eliminate duplication or delays through administrative agreements and coordinated reviews.

Federal assessments have long been limited to federal areas of responsibility, such as impacts on fisheries, national parks, aboriginal lands or waterways, areas in which only the federal government has the power to regulate. The decision to remove federal assessments defies successive decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, upholding federal jurisdiction and responsibilities for the environment.

The effect of these legislative reforms is to diminish federal powers without need of constitutional reform, a move some provinces have sought for decades. It serves a dangerously shortsighted agenda, pitting the interests of major industrial projects against the environment and interests of future generations. New Democrats believe that Canada is at a crossroads. We can choose the Conservatives' regressive agenda or we can ensure that environmental and social impacts are addressed in all economic development.

Canadians in communities across the country are choosing a cleaner energy path. Workers are upgrading their training, hoping to pursue emerging job opportunities in the environmental field. Researchers are exploring innovative responses to address pollution and climate change. Entrepreneurs have launched energy retrofit and renewable energy generation enterprises that could make Canada competitive in the new green economy. As the Conference Board of Canada detailed in its March report, the global market for technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions is exploding, but Canada has failed to capitalize on opportunities.

What is missing is the federal government's resolve to provide the necessary regulatory triggers and fiscal incentives. Instead of seizing the moment, the budget implementation bill is replete with missed opportunities: missed opportunities on job protection and creation, missed opportunities on the environment, and missed opportunities to create a sustainable future for our children. If politics were baseball, three strikes would mean the government is out. Where is an umpire when we need one?

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in their typical underhanded way through chicanery and trickery, the Conservatives have included a provision in the budget implementation bill that would erode the exclusive privilege of Canada Post, an exclusive privilege that was upheld through the upper courts, and would allow international remailers into the business.

Does the member for Hamilton Mountain believe that this action would lead incrementally toward the further deregulation and privatization of other crown corporations? This action is starting with Canada Post. Could she elaborate on this slippery slope the government is on and whether this would leave behind $80 million of business on the table?

What is the government's true agenda? Does the member think this slippery slope the government is on would lead to further deregulation and privatization of other crown corporations?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Yes, this is the slippery slope not just to further deregulation but, I would suggest, to the ultimate privatization of Canada Post. I am a bit surprised, though, that the member would ask that question because it was her colleague, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, who started us down that slippery slope when he was a cabinet minister in the past Liberal government. This bill is one that the Liberals had to first propose. Now it has been picked up by the Conservative government. In fact the agenda of both parties when it comes to Canada Post is very much the same.

I find it a bit surprising that the member is standing today sounding almost sympathetic to trying to put an end to this, yet it is her party that is not putting up members in enough numbers to actually stop the budget from passing. She and her party have it within their power to stop this slippery slide from happening, and yet they are sending enough people out of the House to ensure that the Conservative agenda, including the Canada Post piece, passes unamended.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked to hear the NDP say that they are opposing remailing in this country. In fact remailers have been doing business in this country for some 20 years and the only reason it became an issue was because of a conflict in wording in the Canada Post Act. I do not know if the member knows that. There is a difference between the French and English wording in the act. It went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that court determined that the French version would prevail, which seemed to indicate that Canada Post did have an exclusive privilege even on international mail.

We stepped in right away to address that anomaly, because if the NDP has its way, thousands of Canadians will lose their jobs in the remailing industry. This has nothing to do with a slippery slope. This has nothing to do with trying to defend Canada Post's exclusive privilege. This is a business that even Canada Post accepted as legitimate for 20 years. Even its president said so. I have a document in writing from her stating that.

I would ask the NDP member why it is that she wants to put thousands of Canadians out of work with her ill-founded suggestion.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I am absolutely delighted that, when we have an 880-page budget implementation act before us here today, we have finally been able to draw attention to the fact that the start of the privatization and deregulation process of Canada Post has actually been snuck into the budget bill. After making my speech, the first two questions have both been on Canada Post, and I want to thank both members for making sure the issues pertaining to Canada Post finally get a bit of a hearing.

First of all, I do not agree at all with the member opposite's assumptions in terms of the genesis of the bill, nor in terms of its impact, because for me the bottom line is decent-paying, family-sustaining jobs, not just any old jobs at barely minimum wage. I want to make sure, frankly, that those jobs stay in this country as well, but if the member is so certain that his case can reasonably be made, why would Conservatives sneak this part of the bill into the budget bill? Why not have open public hearings so that we can have workers from CUPW and interested stakeholders like small business all participate and make their views heard?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for her speech today, and certainly the reaction she is getting indicates she is making a very controversial point and winning the argument hands down.

As the member said, the bill is 880 pages long. We are talking about an omnibus bill. We are talking about a sneaky government, sneaking in things that it does not make sense to put into a budget bill. We are talking about the post office remailers that were brought in twice already by the Conservatives. They cannot get the bill through the House, so they have snuck it through under a budget bill and declared it a confidence vote.

I know the member has been involved for years supporting seniors and looking at seniors' issues and she is very interested in the whole issue with seniors and the CPP and issues related to the improvement of workplace pensions in this country and a better life for seniors in their retirement. What does the budget do for seniors?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very tempting just to answer with two words and say, “Absolutely nothing”, but that would not be doing a service to the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who I know shares my concern and indeed the concern of every member of the NDP caucus about the short shrift seniors got in this 880-page budget implementation document.

It was a real opportunity, through the entire budget process, to do right by seniors. As I said earlier, this budget made choices. The government chose to spend $6 billion additional dollars on corporate tax cuts to banks and profitable corporations. It would have only taken $700 million to lift every single Canadian senior out of poverty. Do we find those improvements to the GIS anywhere in the budget or the budget implementation bill? Absolutely not. Why not? It is because the government made the wrong choice.

We had a motion before this House that dealt with comprehensive reforms to pension plans. It was not adopted. The finance minister says he still has to go out and listen. Why does he not listen to the 308 representatives of Canadian seniors in this House and act on pension reform today?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring up an issue the member talked about briefly regarding pensions.

I am not talking about the public pensions available through OAS, GIS or even the Canada pension plan at this point. I would like her to comment on the security of those who are involved in the supplementary industry, to supplement their pension plans through donation, through RRSPs, or through their own company pension plans, because now we have a question of security. The value of these pensions pooled together has now decreased substantially over the past two years. I speak of Nortel and AbitibiBowater as two fine examples.

Could she comment on what was sorely lacking in this budget regarding those who took advantage of and are part of the supplementary pension system, by allowing them to contribute and to achieve that security they need after 65 years of age?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Only a third of Canadians right now have workplace pensions, and many of those workplace pension plans are underfunded and in jeopardy. We saw it most recently, as the member rightly points out, with AbitibiBowater and with Nortel.

That is one of the reasons why the very first bill I had the privilege of introducing in this House, when I first got elected in 2006, was a bill to protect workers' pensions and put them at the head of the line in cases of commercial bankruptcy. Two of my colleagues, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek as well as one of our Thunder Bay members, introduced similar legislation that also focused on pension protection for workers who are impacted by commercial bankruptcies. These bills are absolutely critical.

There is a third piece though. There are public pensions and workplace pensions, and there is a third piece of the Canada pension system that we also need to focus on. The member referenced it in his question, the RRSP component. I wonder how many members in this House realize that one of the things in this budget implementation bill that is before the House today would actually retroactively charge the GST to commissions that are paid on holdings in an RRSP account. It is absolutely insane.

This budget literally takes leaps backwards instead of tiny steps forward in terms of helping those people who built our country to live their retirements with dignity and respect.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and she is right on several counts, particularly concerning the fact that this budget does not fulfill the goals of Quebeckers and Canadians.

This is confirmed by the fact that, in all 880 pages of the budget implementation bill, there is absolutely nothing for women. I have to wonder what this government has against women. Why does it refuse to recognize 52% of the population, and always prepare budgets, and budget implementation bills that completely ignore this segment of the population?

Worse still, we submitted some very sensible, very pertinent proposals to the government concerning certain issues. None of our proposals appears in the 2010-11 budget implementation bill. Freezing the salaries of MPs and senators does not matter all that much. However, refusing to improve access to employment insurance for our workers is indeed a serious matter. It is appalling.

I did not see a single measure in this budget that would allow me to believe that the government has learned anything over the past two years, that it learned anything from the presentations and demands—made before various committees—to restore certain programs and measures that were cut over the past four years. Women are the big losers in budget 2010-11.

If this budget had included a section telling us that the court challenges program was being restored, that would have made it much more interesting. If it had included measures to bring back the 16 Status of Women offices, we could have found something positive in this budget; but it does not contain any of that.

The budget included money for first nations women, specifically, for the Sisters in Spirit initiative. However, we do not know where that money will go. We do not know if the Sisters in Spirit program will benefit from it, or if the Department of Justice or Department of Public Safety will develop projects or programs using that money as they see fit. It would have been interesting to get more details.

We also saw that instead of making it easier for people to access employment insurance benefits, the government is going to take the money from the EI fund, just as it did in 1995, a total of $57 billion as of March 30. Once again, the government is going to rob those who work five, six or seven days a week to make a living. Once again, the government is taking the money they invested in the EI fund to protect themselves against layoffs and hard times. They will not have access to that money.

It is hard to believe that the government has people's best interests at heart when it says it is going to allow Canada Post to privatize some of its services. I have a hard time believing that this is a good thing.

I have a hard time believing that the caisses populaires Desjardins—of which I have been a member for many years and where I do my banking—want to have to have a federal charter to keep doing business. We are told that this would be done on a voluntary basis. But we know that when the government says something is being done on a voluntary basis in the financial markets, the word “voluntary” does not have the same meaning.

It is possible to be caught in a vise and forced to meet certain criteria. The caisses populaires Desjardins might have to comply with these new rules. Certainly, the banks would not agree to let the caisses populaires Desjardins keep on selling insurance and to allow Quebec to keep the system it has.

The budget does nothing to fulfill Quebeckers' goals, let alone those of Canadians. We heard this repeatedly at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. People came to testify about the Canada and Quebec pension plans. They told us time and time again that the plans were not designed to meet women's needs. And the budget does nothing to fix that.

The only women who have access to a valid pension plan are the ones who work in the public sector. Women who work in other sectors, including the private sector, do not have access to a pension plan that allows them to retire at 65. They will not have the money they need to live comfortably in retirement.

Clearly, we cannot ensure that everyone enjoys a comfortable retirement, but we can at least ensure that they have access to some retirement income.

The budget implementation bill does not have a lot to offer to Quebec's forestry and manufacturing industries or to our farmers and our children. However, it does encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction over health by investing in the Rick Hansen Foundation and over education by investing in the pathways to education program.

Rather than continue to encroach on those areas of jurisdiction, the government should ensure that provincial transfers are carried out properly, which is not the case right now. Quebec is short $663 million because the government did not transfer enough funds for the province to meet its needs.

It is true that Quebec has superior social programs. We pay taxes so that we can benefit from these superior social programs, and we are very proud of them. Quebeckers have access to preventive withdrawal and parental leave. Last year alone, 86,000 children were born in Quebec. It has been a long time since there have been so many births in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I know that you are a big proponent of families. You have several children of your own.

All of that is because of the social programs we set up. We make different social choices.

The federal government should not punish us for making those social choices. It should not restrict transfers to Quebec. We are entitled to that money. Like everyone else in Canada, we help create wealth. We pay all of our taxes, and the government should give the provinces, including Quebec, their due, which it is not doing now.

The Bloc Québécois will not hesitate to vote against the budget implementation bill, as it always does.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, would my hon. colleague expand upon the situation within the forestry sector? The Quebec government did something unprecedented across the country when it provided loan guarantees for AbitibiBowater. I think the dollar amount was around $100 million. This created a situation where it was directly involved in helping to save jobs.

A lot of people would complain that the federal government in this particular situation did not take similar measures to get directly involved in jobs in the forestry sector across the entire country. I would like my colleague to illustrate that. Also, exactly what policy measures in forestry was she disappointed in not seeing in this implementation act?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. In fact, this time the federal government has not met the expectations of the Quebec forestry industry.

We know very well that the government is now attempting to recover some money. The London and American tribunals ruled that Canada had to pay additional charges on surplus softwood lumber shipments. But rather than making certain laws and taking certain action, we must be assured that the forestry industry has the money required to grow, and to change its way of doing things and upgrade its equipment.

All the measures currently in place have not made it possible for the industry to recover, to continue to grow and to provide jobs for Quebeckers working in this industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her presentation today on this 880 page Bill C-9 and for her terrific speech this morning on private member's Bill C-471.

She also made a presentation to the House on June 11, 2009, in which she talked about equal pay for women. She pointed out that women reach retirement age without being able to benefit fully from the income they ought to have had. She stated that at the present time women are paid 70% to 80% of what men are paid, so all of their working lives they are carrying with them a 20% to 30% shortfall. Therefore, when they get to retirement, they receive approximately 42% of what they earned when they were working and are missing a huge amount.

In other words, it is not just an issue of earning less money throughout their working lives. It shows up again in the pensions they receive in their 20 or 30 years of retirement. The government has not taken initiatives or any measures in this 880 page bill to deal with the pension issues of retired Canadians.

Would the member like to expand on that area?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and remind him that the Quebec pension plan allows women who choose to stay home to raise their children to exclude seven years from their pension calculation. However, the federal government does not—but should—recognize the work women do to ensure that their spouse or another family member in failing health can remain at home.

We know that most women my age, 60, will have to stop working and end their career to take care of a parent or a child who is sick if they do not want their relative to be placed in the hospital system or a CHSLD.

It is very important that these people be credited with a period of time in order that they may benefit from a fair pension.

My colleague is also correct when he says that women still earn only 70% or 72% of what men earn. This has repercussions not only in terms of hours worked, but also in terms of the weeks and months worked. At the end of the year, a women has worked less than a man. That is true because although family responsibilities are shared a bit better than they were 50 years ago, most family responsibilities still fall to women.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak to the budget today.

Two years ago, the finance minister asked MPs to come forward with prebudget submissions based on inputs from their constituents. In the spirit of co-operation, and given the economic crisis, I submitted to the minister an extensive list of projects. I am pleased to say that the government did help with a couple of the projects, the Northside Civic Centre and the Marine Atlantic.

However, for the most part, the government ignored the requests of community leaders in my area. In my submission I challenged the government as follows:

This is a challenge to the federal government not for frivolous spending or make work projects; but rather it’s a chance to live up to its duty as a national government by providing all regions and individuals with an opportunity to compete and succeed.

Basically what we asked for was not a handout but rather an investment in our strengths.

As a farmer and a chair of our rural caucus, I saw very quickly and clearly what was missing in this budget: the lost opportunities, especially for rural Canada. When we view the estimates over the last couple of weeks, we see that the agriculture budget has not increased. We see the problems with the hog farmers and the beef farmers who are in desperate shape but there was no increase in the budget and the funding for a lot of the programs was cut, which was very troubling for the agricultural industry.

Then we have the forestry industry. We see no measurable assistance for all those industries in all those towns right across the country that rely on the forestry industry.

Closer to my region is the fishing industry and, in particular, the lobster fishing industry. The amount of assistance it has been receiving is a joke. I have an article from last week's Cape Breton Post assessing this programs as it has been winding down. This program to help lobster fishers sounded so great at the front end but many of them had their income cut in half last year. The article reads:

...impossible eligibility rules prevented thousands of lobster fishermen from accessing up to $5,000 each under a $15-million federal program.

The short-term transitional measures program was announced last year to help low-income lobster licence holders hit hard by the global economic downturn between 2007 and 2009. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans said Thursday that 1,705 applications....

Now 1,700 applications sound like a lot but there are 10,000 fishers out there with 10,000 lobster licences. Now if we take the 10,000, it means that 25,000 families rely on the lobster fishery in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. Therefore, only 1,700 could really get any money from it and were approved for the program. That was until the end of March.

This is a $1 billion industry. I am just guessing that roughly $300 million were lost in the industry and only $8.5 million was paid out. Only 57% of the total available funding, not even the full funding allocation, was sent out. The remaining $6.5 million will go back to general revenues. It is disgraceful.

I have a quote in the article from Josephine Kennedy, a representative for multi-species licence holders in northeast Cape Breton, who said, “Everybody along this shore were down between $20,000 and $25,000 less income (from lobster) in 2009 from 2008”.

$20,000 to $25,000 is a lot of money lost. She went on to say, “...the way they put the rules out there for it, they made it virtually impossible”.

For fishers on the rural side and for Atlantic Canada and Quebec it was a total disgrace. For the rural community, the government could have sent something.

Two weeks ago we had a representative from the firefighters here. In rural Canada, volunteer fire departments are crucial for all these small towns. For years the government has been asked for a bit of a tax credit for these men and women who volunteer their time to keep rural communities safe and the communities together. That tax credit for volunteer firefighters could have been a win-win for the current government but, no, it is just another lost opportunity.

As many members in this chamber know, in 1949 Newfoundland became part of the Dominion of Canada, the Confederation. It joined with this country. So we had a country that extended from the east coast to the west coast. When the declaration documents were signed in 1949, it was declared very specifically that vital links between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland had to be maintained with ferry services for goods and passengers.

Over the last year, the service has not been great. We saw delays in passenger service. That happens sometimes because it is a hard crossing, but it has been more than we have ever seen before. Truckers delivering perishable products, such as fresh meat and produce, from North Sydney to Newfoundland, were stuck in lineups that were kilometres long and, more important, fresh fish coming back from Newfoundland was waiting on the other wide. There were many delays in the service. The ferry service needs a major infusion of money over the new few years. Even the Auditor General has stated this.

Yes, there is some money there, $175 million, but it is going to need almost $1 billion over 10 years. The Shipbuilding Association states that a ship can be built here in Canada, that we might have to get some parts from Finland or Korea but, at the end of the day, most of the ferries can be built here. But, no, instead of building a ship here in Canada, what are we going to do? We are going to lease ships from Europe. If we lease these ships, then we have a problem because we have to upgrade the docks. I know it is good that there is money for Marine Atlantic, but we need a ship that is built in Canada.

As many members in this chamber know, Cape Breton took a hard hit in 2000 when we lost the coal and steel industries. However, the Liberals, under Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, put a lot of money into that area to help boost the economy. We had the growth fund for cleaning up the tar ponds. However, when the Conservatives got in, we saw the money dwindling. They had such great opportunities there. We just lost our auto industry over the last year. We had expected to get some money in Cape Breton. Money came to central Canada for its auto industry but, no, there was another lost opportunity there with no investment.

One of the biggest priorities now in Sydney, Cape Breton, is to dredge the harbour. The harbour has been a vital link from Canada to Europe for many years, especially in the world wars. So, one of the priorities for Cape Breton is to dredge its harbour. The harbour authority came out with a firm that is going to do it this summer. It has the money. It has the quote. But what we need is for the current government to step up to the plate and invest in it to dredge that harbour. It has the gateway money there. It is holding on to it. It should step up to the plate and tell the people in Sydney and the port authority to come forward and get some money to get that harbour dredged.

It is bad enough that the money is not being invested many times, but what is really discouraging is what has been happening over the last few weeks concerning citizenship and immigration jobs. We have over 150 employees who work in Sydney who process citizenship and immigration forms, and they do a tremendous job. There are almost 250,000 immigrants who come to this country each year. The immigrants are going to keep coming to this country. Sydney did a great job of processing their applications. But what did the Conservatives do? They laid off 150 people in that riding. It is just disgraceful. We are going to see another backlog of citizenship and immigration applications. They are coming to town tomorrow to appear before the committee to state their case and state the impacts it will have on the rest of the country.

That kind of sums up this fancy book the Conservatives came out with, “Leading the Way on Jobs and Growth”. There is some stuff in here but, overall, it has not been good for Cape Breton. This budget is a lot of talk, but there is not much walk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

During her speech, the member for Laval said that the budget that is about to be implemented completely ignored half of the population, since it does not do anything for women.

Not only does it have nothing for women, but the budget also ensures that women will no longer be able to achieve pay equity through the courts. My colleague's party is once again prepared to vote against implementing the budget, but not to actually defeat it. The Liberals will abstain from voting, as they did for the budget itself.

How does my colleague explain such deceitful behaviour to his constituents? How does he explain that today, his leader introduced Bill C-471, which aims to provide pay equity for women, but will then see to it that this equity is not enforced?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have a history. We have worked together on many issues in the House, particularly on inequalities. I put forward a bill on helping people to get through illnesses by giving them EI.

The gist of my comments today were about what is happening in Atlantic Canada and what is happening in Cape Breton, but there is no doubt about it. We do not need preaching by any party on how we believe in the charter of rights and the rights of every individual. We stand up again and again for them, and I will continue to do that.

The member knows that I will continue to work with him to push forward against any inequalities in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. He is a Liberal, but I cannot be too mean to him because he is from Cape Breton Island. My family had to leave Cape Breton to work in the gold mines in Timmins. Those immigrants built an amazing resource that has succeeded all across northern Canada. It was built by hard-working people. We have built industries that are the envy of the world.

Then the Conservative government came along. The last time it did anything with industry was the Avro Arrow. It saw these great mines like Falconbridge and Inco and said, “Let's sell them out to some corporate raiders and let's not get any kind of commitments”, because it believes blindly in the power of capital.

We have seen a devastation in our regions because of the lack of understanding on the government's part that there is a difference between foreign investment and foreign takeover.

We have always supported foreign investment because it has built industry, but what we are seeing under the Conservative government, which is in Bill C-9, is a change in the rules on oversight with foreign takeovers. We are leaving industries like our northern mining industries, the oil sector and telecommunications open to foreign takeovers that are undermining our ability as Canadians and as regions to maintain good, strong jobs in this country.

I would like to ask the hon. member from Cape Breton, would he not work with us to stop this turnover and deregulation move by the government against our regional industries?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that my colleague's family left Cape Breton and went from the coal mines to the gold mines but they are welcome back any time. Our Liberal caucus will be in Cape Breton and he is welcome to come this summer to join us and have a few brews.

More seriously, the mining industry is very important to Canada. We went through a major transition in Cape Breton where we had a government-owned mine and it did not go so well. However, now it is coming back again. We have Xstrata investing in Cape Breton. Xstrata is one of the top mining companies in the world.

Sometimes there is a balance. The government cannot be too in control of mining. It has to be the watchful eye in investment and environmental rules, but there has to be that in between where we allow investment from other countries and multi-corporations to come in. We would have no coal industry in Cape Breton if Xstrata had not stepped up to the plate and invested millions of dollars into our region.

Therefore, there is a balance and I think the Liberal balance is the right balance. There is too much free enterprise in the Conservative Party and the NDP does not have enough, so we are right down the middle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill because it widens the gap between the rich and the middle class and the poor. This bill does not meet the Bloc Québécois' expectations or those of the people.

The Bloc Québécois is the only party that really did its homework. We consulted people in all regions of Quebec. My colleague from Hochelaga made it his mission to travel to every single region to meet representatives, opinion leaders and organizations.

The Minister of Finance ignored the economic statement we presented even though it laid out options for additional resources for the government without compromising the social safety net. In our statement, we suggested that the wealthy should contribute more via a 2% tax increase for those earning $150,000 or more per year and a 3% tax increase for those earning $250,000 or more. Higher taxes on high-income earners would bring in $4.8 billion in additional revenue for the government.

The same applies to tax havens. There are still too many companies, organizations and individuals who use tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. That is additional money the government could have collected.

Instead, the government chose to adopt measures that affect the middle class and low-income earners and to chip away at the social safety net and existing social measures, including a very precious means of communication, Canada's postal system. The subject barely came up here today, but the government began the process to privatize the Canada Post Corporation. That is unacceptable because the Canadian postal system plays an important role in society in general.

In this budget, the government is also seeking to subject credit unions like the Desjardins Group to federal authority. Initially, that would be voluntary. The government always introduces voluntary measures to soften up those concerned about the status of these institutions, but it wants to gradually bring such institutions under a Canadian entity exclusively. That is totally unacceptable.

Another serious issue is that the government wants to make plundering the employment insurance fund official. This diversion of funds over the past 14 years, first by the Liberal Party and then by the Conservative Party, represents more than $57 billion.

When the Supreme Court ruled on how the employment insurance fund is used, it recognized the fact that this money belongs to the contributors. The government can use it for other purposes, but it still has to understand that the money belongs to the contributors.

They are preparing to make this theft official by changing how the fund is administered, and the Liberals will be their accomplices. The Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board will become the employment insurance operating account, and the fund will start all over again at zero. It is as though this diversion of funds never happened. Doing this would allow the current government to make use of the employment insurance fund surplus from 2012 to 2015, to the tune of $19 billion. The $57 billion will be erased with a single vote in the House and the Liberals will be the accomplices. I hope that my Liberal colleagues realize that they will also be accomplices in the future diversion of $19 billion.

Those who support the unemployed—the major unions, unemployment organizations and, of course, the unemployed themselves—have always been unanimous. They all agree that the system no longer corresponds to their reality. It is no longer helpful or inclusive, it is exclusive. More than 54% of the people unemployed today cannot receive benefits.

Yet these people contributed to an employment insurance fund, which is basically insurance should they have the misfortune of losing their jobs. They put money into this fund specifically to be able to receive benefits to continue supporting their families and meeting their obligations if they lose their jobs.

People need to know that voting for Bill C-9 constitutes, in my mind, a serious economic crime against people who have lost their jobs. Not only would this deprive workers of an income, but it would also mean depriving their families. This also puts an economic burden on a certain region, or even on the provinces. Quebec will be left to take care of these people through a last resort measure: social assistance. There is something wrong with this picture.

In closing, women are those most affected: over 67% of women are excluded. This morning in the House, the Liberal Party leader introduced a bill on pay equity, which we will support, because we simply cannot oppose such a measure. However, it is a hypocritical bill, because they will say here today that they oppose Bill C-9, but they will not show up to vote against it. Yet that bill will make it impossible for women to ask the courts to recognize their right to pay equity.

That is why we will vote against the bill. We invite all our colleagues to do the same.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation act.

This is not a bill that meets the needs of the residents of Mississauga—Brampton South. The people of my constituency of Mississauga—Brampton South need real and timely investments in infrastructure, not a drop in the bucket as the mayor of Mississauga indicated last week when the Prime Minister came to my constituency to make an announcement on infrastructure. According to the mayor, it was “not even a drop in the bucket” of the amount of investment that is needed in infrastructure.

The residents need support for small businesses that encourages job creation rather than slapping them with a $13 billion payroll tax. They need real options for child care, not just a few dollars or a $100 cheque that leaves them on their own to fend for themselves. They need affordable housing, not waiting lists that continue to grow. I will indicate how long the waiting list has grown in my constituency. They need an immigration policy that works, rather than preventing skilled immigrants from contributing to our economy. As many have indicated, and there have been numerous studies done on this, immigration is the key to our economic turnaround.

Simply put, the residents of Mississauga—Brampton South want and deserve a government that works for them.

On infrastructure, the government has repeatedly delayed giving our cities what they need. When it does give money, it is often either insufficient or so tied up with rules or red tape that it fails to meet its own goals.

For example, back in March 2007, the Prime Minister announced that his government would pay the federal share of five transit projects in the greater Toronto area, including Mississauga's rapid transit system. Of course the money never flowed and the city kept on waiting and waiting for the Prime Minister to keep his word.

In September 2007, I, along with my Liberal colleagues from Mississauga, demanded that the government release the money but still nothing happened. Finally, in February 2008, almost a year after the Prime Minister made his promise, the finance minister staged another flashy photo-op promising the money was on its way.

Announcing and re-announcing money may be good for getting the minister's picture in the paper but it does nothing to assist the needs and the requirements of the city of Mississauga, real legitimate transit needs. I believe it is still waiting for that money.

Then we have the stimulus money indicated in this budget that is currently winding down. Of course we know that the government never had any intention of offering any stimulus until they were backed into a corner by the opposition. There was no real plan put forward by the government.

The government realized, when it felt the pressure from the opposition parties, that it must do something. When it finally did agree, it ensured that the money went overwhelmingly to Conservative ridings. It spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on partisan advertising. The Conservatives forced the city of Mississauga to spend $90,000 putting up economic action plan signs and a further $5,000 on signs for the RInC program.

With all that money spent on promotion, one would expect that the government would be able to get the actual program money into the economy on time, but sadly that has not been the case. Take, for example, the RInC program. The allocation for Mississauga is approximately $6 million to help upgrade city pools. After a year, only $664,000 has been spent, resulting in eight jobs being created. By the finance minister's own admission, stimulus funds had to begin within 120 days in order to really be effective. According to the finance minister's own assessment, the RInC program in Mississauga has been a failure in terms of stimulating the economy when it was most needed. If the money is not spent by the deadline allocated by the government, the cities are left with the tab.

In summary, when it comes to infrastructure in this budget and the government's program, it has created a partisan system based on signs, exposure and promotion. It has designed the system to fail with all the red tape and it has created no real jobs.

With respect to small businesses, as indicated earlier on in my remarks, one of the worst things this budget does is raise taxes on small businesses. This is yet another broken promise from a government that promised not to raise taxes. We all remember the government's infamous move when it taxed income trusts, which hurt the investments and retirement savings of many Canadians. The government broke its promise there as well.

In fact, this is no modest increase when it comes to payroll taxes. The budget increase amounts to $13 billion, an amount estimated to kill over 200,000 jobs. I will put that to the House on a per person level. For two people, that equates to roughly $1,264. For a company that employs about 10 people, that is an additional cost of $8,884. By imposing this tax, the government is creating substantial increases to the operating costs of a business.

At a recent small business summit that I held in my constituency of Mississauga--Brampton South with the leader of the official opposition, we heard from over 250 businesses. Time and time again they reiterated their opposition to this payroll tax. They said that it was counter-productive, that it hurt their business prospects and that it killed jobs.

The Liberal Party has a different approach. We want to create jobs and support small businesses. We put together three concrete proposals to do that. We would like to support our manufacturing sector, which is an essential part of the economic turnaround specifically in Ontario but also within the greater Toronto area and in the riding of Mississauga--Brampton South.

First, we have put forward a proposal to increase the capital cost allowance to help manufacturers purchase new equipment, support the tax system so they would have the incentive to buy new equipment to help their productivity and to ensure they are more competitive.

Second, we want to tackle the worst youth employment in a generation by introducing a financial incentive to hire young Canadians.

Third, we want to encourage investment in start-up companies by introducing additional tax measures for Canadians who invest in entrepreneurs and start-up companies in sectors such as clean energy and life sciences. These are key and important sectors in my constituency that are growing and creating jobs. This would provide additional support for them to continue on that path.

One of the reasons why I do not support this budget is that it does nothing to create more early learning day care spaces, which are in desperate need in my constituency. The previous Liberal government signed agreements with all of the provinces and territories to create a national child care and early learning program. The Conservatives threw these agreements in the garbage and replaced them with a modest cheque program. Again, people have to fend for themselves and good luck.

I want to put in perspective what this means to my constituency.

As I indicated before, the government created no new child care spaces. What does that mean for the residents of Mississauga--Brampton South? For every 1,000 kids there are approximately 10.5 spaces. The probability of parents being able to send their kids to an early learning and day care facility is about 1 in 100, or a 1% opportunity, because that is the limited space that exists in the region of Peel and in my riding.

The Liberal Party has committed to learning and innovation through a pan-Canadian learning approach spanning early childhood development, aboriginal education, workforce literacy, language training for new Canadians and access to higher education and training. Those are the types of investments we were looking for in the budget but, unfortunately, we did not see them.

The next point I want to raise with respect to the budget is affordable housing.

Despite being a prosperous community, or perhaps because of it, Peel region has an enormous demand for affordable housing, another area that this budget does not address. In fact, according to the region's own numbers, applicants face waiting lists of many years. It started with 8 years and during the tenure of the Conservative government it has gone up to 12 years, which is simply too long to go without affordable accommodation.

How do we deal with this crisis? Why has the government not put forward a proposal? According to this bill, the government has no example of what it wants to do. So we put forward a national housing strategy, a real issue for middle-class Canadians.

With respect to immigration, we want to ensure we have a system that provides additional resources for application processing, more support for immigrant settlement and an increase in the number of permanent residents Canada accepts.

Last week, the member for Mississauga—Erindale blamed the mayor for the city's problems with infrastructure saying that, “She has been the mayor for 31 years. If there is an infrastructure deficit, shouldn't she bear some personal responsibility for that”? This was compounded by a comment made by the Minister of Finance when he called the mayor “grumpy” and told her “You know, you've got to control your expenses”. Any time people raise legitimate concerns about infrastructure, especially our mayor, she is attacked.

The government, through the budget bill, has imposed a $13 billion tax on small businesses. It has not created any new child care spaces and there are still wait lists for affordable housing. These are just some examples of why I do not support this bill.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the housing strategy among many other things. On the housing strategy, the Liberals were in power for over 13 years and they still did not address it even though they kept saying that they would. So, it is a little late on that one. They also talked about pay equity earlier today, which touches on the budget again. They supported the budget that took pay equity away. He talked a lot about small businesses and I really appreciate his comments on taxes, especially the EI taxes and how that will impact the EI premiums. The Conservatives keep saying that it is not a tax but it is and we need to know what impact that will have on small businesses.

The budget actually still deals with the HST. Maybe he could remind us how he voted on the question of the HST. Small businesses certainly do not support the HST because of the impact it will have on their business. More so, first nations communities in my area certainly do not support it because it impacts gravely on them. Could the member talk to us about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question on a range of issues that she brought forward with respect to the comments I made on Bill C-9.

On the first point about housing, I would remind her in our budgets from when I was elected in 2004-05, we invested millions of dollars in housing and this was after we put our fiscal house in order. However, more important, with respect to the infrastructure, under Mr. Martin we came up with a gas tax transfer, a new deal for municipalities that really provided cities with sustainable funding.

With respect to EI, the member raises a good point because this is a payroll tax. There have been numerous independent studies. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated that this would cause a loss of 200,000 jobs, which is why it is termed as a job-killing payroll tax. The amount is $13 billion. As indicated in my remarks, for a family of two that amounts to an additional cost of $1,264 on an annualized basis, and for a company that employs about 10 people, that amounts to approximately $8,884 on an annualized basis. That is a substantial amount of money in terms of a tax burden on small businesses and on middle-class families. Again, it does not help our productivity or competitiveness and, more important, it does not help us create jobs.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, near the end of his speech the member lauded Hazel McCallion, the mayor of his municipality. The government has shown such disrespect for municipal politicians. The member for Nepean—Carleton slammed them on an open line radio show. Generally the comments he ascribed to Conservative MPs dancing around Hazel McCallion as she gives her own press conference.

The government must be aware that this is the first level of democracy, the grassroots. The people first elected are the municipal people. They balance their budgets by law. They speak what the people want. They take calls all the time on a local level and they must be respected.

FCM has been covered into accepting whatever crumbs fall from the government table and it is not speaking its true mind. In this place, the member can speak for his community and tell us how in this era of lack of respect for municipal leaders, how municipalities are coping in this dark age.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for the work he has done at the municipal level. I know he has represented his constituency at all levels, but in particular at a municipal level he has done a fantastic job.

The point he raises is very important and it is the fact that the infrastructure program was designed to fail. The money has not come out in sufficient time to create the jobs. It was done in a partisan manner and, more important, any criticism as pointed out by any municipal leader, specifically in Mississauga, the following is said. I want to put this on record because it is very important.

In 2007, the mayor of Mississauga called the federal government to invest in infrastructure and the response from the Minister of Finance was to call her “grumpy” and tell her that she needs to control her expenses.

Last week, the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Erindale hovered around the mayor during a press conference and was being rude and obnoxious. He finally interrupted and went on the record saying, ”she has been the mayor for 31 years and if there is an infrastructure deficit she should bear some personal responsibility for that”, again making personal--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-9, the budget implementation act or, as the Conservatives prefer to call it, the jobs and economic growth act, which unfortunately I do not believe it is.

We know this is a significant piece of legislation. It is 800 pages long and there is lots of stuff in it, but I think the fundamental piece of the Conservatives' economic program is maintained by this legislation, their commitment to the huge corporate tax cuts they have been pursuing and continue to pursue. We know there is another $6 billion in corporate tax cuts happening again this year, which seems a little crazy given the fact that we are now in a deficit position and that we are going ahead with those kinds of corporate tax cuts even though it means essentially borrowing the money to give the big banks and the big oil companies, to give profitable corporations those tax cuts.

We know we are already completely competitive. We are well below the American corporate tax rate, even though we pay significantly more in public services here in Canada. And we depend more on public services, because we believe that Canadians working together can provide important services to each other, like our health care system, something the Americans are struggling to cotton on to, as time proceeds. Unfortunately, the legislation before us does not change that commitment and does not allow for the investment of that $6 billion in services and other programs that will actually benefit Canadians.

Last week we had a week away from the House of Commons and were back in our constituencies. Working in my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas, I met with many constituents, in my office and at events in the community. Folks had a lot to say about the current economic situation and the situation in which they find themselves. I have to say that people are quite worried and some are very, very angry. I met with one gentleman who is very concerned about his ability to retire. He is coming up to retirement in a couple of years and does not feel he will be able to do that because of the current economic situation. He feels he has no economic security. He does not trust the pension system that is in place and feels he will have to keep working, when he has worked hard all his life. He will not be able to enjoy that time he had anticipated.

I understand that many people are concerned about the pension system in Canada. We know that many seniors who rely on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement still live in poverty. Yet government will go ahead with the tax cuts to the largest corporations when, if it put only $700 million of that $6 billion in tax cuts that are happening this year toward old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, we could make sure no senior in Canada lives in poverty.

I think it is a goal that we could all get behind, that all of our communities would be behind. We also know that, in terms of economic stimulus, every dollar we put into that program is spent in our communities. That is direct economic stimulus in our communities. Nobody saves that money. All of that money is spent on goods and services in our communities, which will help all of our communities. Why we are not going down that road, I certainly do not know, and the gentleman I was speaking to in Burnaby last week did not get it either.

Another very disturbing thing we learned over the weekend was that even some of our veterans are forced to go to food banks, in Calgary of all places. The Calgary poppy fund operates a veterans' food bank. That is a veterans' food bank. People who have honourably served Canada are forced to go to a food bank sponsored by the poppy fund for food, furniture, medical care, rent and all kinds of basic necessities. This is unbelievable. There are apparently 60 clients on the list each month for this veterans' food bank in Calgary. A number of Conservative cabinet ministers, I think even the Prime Minister, have helped out with this food bank. I think it is outrageous that veterans, of all people, who have given their service to this country, are forced to go to a food bank. If that does not show that there is a problem with our economy and our attitude toward seniors and people who have served their country, I do not know what does. It is absolutely outrageous and appalling.

In British Columbia, one cannot have a conversation with a person on the street or a constituent without hearing about the HST. That campaign in British Columbia has moved into the legislature, where the NDP opposition is taking on the government on this new tax . It will see a 7% increase in taxes on many commodities, goods and services in British Columbia.

When we were debating that here in the House, the Conservatives loved to say it was British Columbia that wanted it and we were just making it possible for British Columbia to implement this new tax.

Now in British Columbia we hear the minister of finance saying we have to do this because Ottawa did it. We have to do it because Ottawa is doing it.

We knew they were setting that up, to blame each other for this new tax.

It is going to affect so many things. We have estimated that an average family will pay $790 more, but we know it is going to affect things like housing costs. Recently the Rental Owners and Managers Association of British Columbia indicated that things like maintenance and management contracts, condo fees and those kinds of things are going to face an increase, which will require that rents go up as landlords try to recover some of the money they are going to have to pay out in new fees when the HST comes into effect in British Columbia on July 1.

We also know that the HST initiative campaign is under way now in British Columbia. I am sure all of us who are from that province will be hearing more, as folks activate that campaign.

It is not popular. Small business people in my riding have let me know in large numbers their problems with the HST, their fears that this is going to affect their businesses at this crucial time of economic difficulty in British Columbia. That continues. There is nothing that would change the approach to the HST in this legislation.

Recently I attended a meeting of the Burnaby Inter-Agency Council where it heard a presentation about the living wage campaign. One of the things that was pointed out was that in Burnaby the two most significant costs a family of four faces are, first, housing and, second, child care.

The bill and the government's approach to the economy does nothing in either of those areas. It likes to say that it is spending more money on housing than any government in recent history, but that is only because it is living off the avails of the money the NDP fought for from the last Liberal budget. The Conservatives have gone on and on about that for years, but they have taken no new significant initiatives of their own.

In terms of child care, that is the second highest outlay for a family of four in Burnaby. Yet there is nothing in the budget that will help those families.

The universal child care benefit that the Conservatives introduced, that $100 a month, was really of very little help to families, and now they are going to supplement it by $3.25 a week to the lowest income families. It is not very much. It is not a significant contribution toward helping families in my riding. Given the significant costs, it really is a gesture that has almost no meaning whatsoever.

We know there is nothing particular in the budget, other than the final nail in the coffin of the grab of the EI fund that will help people who are on employment insurance at this time. We know that 500,000 Canadians' employment insurance benefits are going to expire very shortly. That will be a serious problem for many communities and for all of those individuals and families.

We have been pressing for an extension of benefits. We won some extension in a larger contribution toward EI, from our work in this corner of the House, but it does not go far enough. We said that at the time, that it was important but it does not go far enough, and now we are going to face that crunch.

Again, the Conservatives are proposing to set up a similar scenario where individuals and businesses are going to have to pay into the EI fund so that it can be built up, and down the road it will be snatched back not to provide for better EI programs or training programs but to pay down the deficit.

We have seen that this is a jobless recovery and there is nothing in the budget bill that will help that jobless recovery. The employment numbers last Friday were not very encouraging, with an 8.2% unemployment rate and 1.51 million Canadians still out of work. The vast majority of jobs that were created were part-time jobs, which offer no decent benefits. The wages are low and they offer no economic security to families. This is not a budget that British Columbians are pleased about.

The government has also buried changes to Canada Post, which will affect the viability of Canada Post and push down wages ultimately if this goes through, which is a completely unacceptable way of dealing with this proposal. It has been around for a long time, to expedite the privatization of Canada Post, and anything that diminishes Canada Post's universal mandate to deliver international mail is a very serious problem, so—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am often amazed, although I do not really know why I am amazed anymore, when I listen to a member from the NDP talking about corporate tax cuts as if we are giving money to corporations, as my friend said, that we have to borrow money to give corporate tax cuts, when in fact all we are really doing is not taking the money that belongs to people in the first place. Of course, by allowing corporations to prosper, we are giving jobs to Canadians. It reminds me of a wise saying that a government big enough to give people everything they want is a government big enough to take everything they have.

My question for the hon. member across the way is this. Our economic action plan gave five extra weeks of benefits across the board, extra benefits for long-tenured workers, more money for training, easier access for work sharing, extra money for young people, pathways to education, extra money for aboriginal education, doing it all without downloading costs on the provinces and the municipalities. Why did my friend across the way not vote for the economic action plan?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is because it did not go far enough. Those measures around EI are not going to be significant as these 500,000 people face the end of their benefit periods. Why would we be giving a break to large profitable corporations, particularly banks and oil companies?

It must cause some people some concern on the opposition benches to hear about these massive profits announced recently by the banks, at a time when Canadians need assistance and need to see jobs being created. These corporate tax cuts do not do anything to create jobs or support programs, and that is definitely money that could be used to support the needs of Canadians in very many ways.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to change the channel and talk about cultural crown corporations, and I will use the acronyms because the member knows what NFB stands for, though I am not sure about others in the House. On page 305 of the multicoloured book, it says that the Canadian Council for the Arts, CBC, NFB, Telefilm undertook strategic reviews. There are four lines in the budget about cultural institutions. Frankly, it shows how insignificant culture is to the people on the other side.

There are question marks that arise, and I would like the hon. member to comment on them because I know he has an interest in the arts and our national cultural institutions. It states:

However, reallocations were not necessary as programs delivered by these organizations are aligned with the priorities of Canadians.

In a lot of tiny communities across Canada, institutions like the CBC have made service cuts. There are parts of the Arctic and northern Canada that are not being served by any cultural institutions. What can he say about the dearth of action in the action plan on culture in this document?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Conservatives have undervalued cultural industries in Canada since they came to power. They have not appreciated them. We certainly saw that in the election campaign where the contribution of the arts and artists to the Canadian economy was incredibly undervalued, devalued and misunderstood by the government. There is no doubt that is the case.

In my riding, which is a centre of the film and TV production industry in Canada, we are very concerned about the future of that industry. In Burnaby, we have one of the most talented and creative workforces in the arts sector, in film and video. I think 60% of the Lower Mainland's film and TV production happens now in the city of Burnaby. It is a very important industry in our community.

We are very concerned, for instance, about the rise in the Canadian dollar. We know that has a direct impact, particularly on the number of American productions that are done in our city. We are very interested to see what the government will propose to ensure the viability of that industry. We have to remain competitive, and a higher dollar is one of those places where there is a very significant impact on our local film and TV industry.

It would be very nice if the government would pay close attention to the cultural industries in Canada.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain why as the member of Parliament for Yukon and critic for the Arctic I cannot support this budget.

During prorogation there were 32 expert panels held and one was on the Arctic. People came up with a number of themes as to things they were looking for to help improve their lives, such as land claim implementation, reducing the excessive poverty in the north, residential facilities for substance abuse, education, housing, and climate change adaptation. There are programs that are expiring and are not being replaced. In this budget, the throne speech and even the Prime Minister's trips to the north, these major issues have not been dealt with. The problems have not been solved. That alone is reason enough not to support the budget implementation bill, but there is more.

Scientists across the country were astounded when the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Services was closed by the government. Some have compared it and the selling off of AECL to the Conservatives' fiasco with the Avro Arrow. All sorts of world-renowned expert scientists may have to go to the United States or other places. It will also result in the closing of the PEARL Eureka site, which is one of our northernmost sites in helping northern sovereignty.

Northerners also point out that there is no assistance to repair the crumbling infrastructure, the roads, ports, et cetera. My riding is one of only 13 jurisdictions in Canada where tourism is the biggest employer as far as numbers of employees go. Therefore, the neglect of tourism hurts my riding more than anywhere else. When the Conservative government first came in, it cut the Canadian Tourism Commission which markets Canada. There are states in Australia and the United States that spend more on marketing than the entire Government of Canada spends on marketing. The government took back some funds it had available.

When Canadians from all over the country fly to Alaska, or go there on a cruise, if they rent a car and drive it to the Canadian border, the border officials will not let them cross the border with a rental car. The government has not solved that problem. All sorts of B.C. and Yukon businesses are losing tourism business. In the 2010 budget the government has again made cuts to the Canadian Tourism Commission, something like $5 million off marketing Canada in Japan, as if it is not important to continue a full-scale effort to get Japanese tourists to Canada.

A number of members have mentioned the pension crisis in Canada. Hundreds of thousands of people need more pension protection. There was another big press conference this morning and yet the government keeps announcing meetings and says that it is going to do more consultation. The Liberals put out three concrete proposals in December. Certainly, more needs to be done.

The co-operative movement in Canada is very successful. It has asked for a development fund and there was nothing in the budget for that.

One way to make people feel threatened is to go to the heart of the most basic commodity, which is food. The government said it was going to change the food mail program, but it will not tell people how. There were some recommendations in a report which were very worrying. If we told Canadian that we were not sure how they would access their food, they would be very worried. The government said it was going to have a new program of $45 million, bringing the total up to $60 million this coming year. It spent $66 million last year, so how is that an increase?

The volunteer firefighters association in my riding made a very poignant submission as to why an income tax break would be good for volunteer firefighters. Rural communities across Canada are having a difficult time with recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters and yet there was nothing about this in the budget.

A northern health transfer agreement was asked for by the northern governments. I am sure that when the Minister of Health was a minister in the north, she wanted the reinstitution of this $150 million program. It was only extended for two years for $60 million instead of for five years.

There was nothing significant for climate change and renewable energies. My constituents and other northern constituents are constantly asking for this. In fact, some of the programs have now been cut back.

Another huge fiasco was the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. There has been a great outcry across the country in the last few weeks that the government cut 133 institutions or programs across the country, right after the residential schools apology. There is a big hue and cry that those are not going to be continued by the government and this debate is still going on.

When it comes to search and rescue, it is embarrassing because the government goes to international meetings and says it will help, or that there should be international help in search and rescue in the Arctic, and we cannot even take care of our own. There is not a single one of our fixed wing planes or search and rescue helicopters north of 60.

Even Conservatives are aghast at the budget. This is the biggest-spending government in history. Even before the recession, we had a $54 billion deficit with, in the time I am speaking, $35,000 in interest. They expected a government that would not be levying all these taxes.

There is a huge increase in EI taxes of $13 billion, which will mean over $900 per family of two. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that will cost 200,000 jobs in Canada. There is the income trusts situation and huge taxes on seniors. There are the extra taxes that we are paying today on airplane flights, none expected by Conservatives.

I asked some of my constituents what they felt. I am not going to have time to get through all of the comments, but some of their ideas are related to the budget.

Ian Robertson wrote that the Prime Minister said that the north is a priority and made various announcements to that effect, but that actions speak louder than words. Increased sovereignty patrols and summer military exercise each year for a photo op just do not cut it. The Arctic icebreaker renewal project seems to have disappeared and we still have not made a decision on search and rescue aircraft. Land claim implementation, a big issue, is not addressed.

Paul Flaherty is frustrated about the ability to not do taxes online, that people could buy some programs and there may be some free, but they are not sure how good they are. He asks why the government, if it wants Canadians to be part of the technological world, does not give out free software so people can do their taxes online. I have heard that complaint from other Canadians as well. He said that we could also do a visionary project to extend the Internet line from Haines Junction, Yukon into Tok, Alaska, have Canadians get all that business from Alaska and get the redundancy that both Alaska and northern Canada are looking for.

Joy Carp, a businesswoman in Whitehorse, suggested incentives for businesses to grow. There are incentives for new businesses but she wants incentives for existing businesses so that after being successful for a number of years, they could expand.

James Holt from Watson Lake says that in the past, there were very big infrastructure projects, such as the Dempster Highway and the Whitehorse Dam. He would like a continuing vision for the future when it comes to roads, port facilities, hydro and even rail.

We could look at joining the Alaska Railroad, one of the most successful railways in North America, to the railway in B.C. That would be a visionary project.

I will not even paraphrase what Dave Robertson from Fireweed RV Services wrote. I will read exactly what he wrote because it is very good:

There was nothing in the budget to support seasonal workers - or those businesses that need to lay off trained workers in the off season. It costs money to train someone and then have to lay them off each year. What we need is a system that will help employers keep workers on reduced hours with the EI system topping up salaries. This would allow a worker to remain classified as 'employed' when it comes to loan applications etc - keeps trained workers on hand and in place for the next season and provides some stability for both the employee and the employer.

The government said it was going to cut back CAP sites. KwaMolas Atje wrote:

You want better educated Canadians yet...you cut back the very backbone of education by cutting back on funding free Internet in the communities.

Most of us cannot afford Internet. That must make you feel so good to act like such a bully to regular Canadians whilst the business community gets everything handed to them on a silver platter nay a gold one. You are clearing your bills on the backs of the poor.

A Canadian Tire owner asks why we would have reduced the GST when we have this huge deficit, paying almost a quarter of a million dollars a day.

Efforts by the banks and credit card companies to increase rates during the recession have not been dealt with.

I have a whole list of other things that are both positive and missing in the budget, but I see my time is finished.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting very patiently all day for members from the government to actually speak to this bill. I do not know what is holding them back. There are 880 pages for them to draw some inspiration from.

In the 1880s Prime Minister John A. Macdonald had a vision for this country. He wanted to build a railway to unite the country from sea to sea. Today the current government does not have a lot of vision. The only member over there who shows any kind of vision is the minister for democratic reform, a fellow member from Winnipeg, and others who have had a dream to build an east-west power grid for a number of years now.

There are nine Conservative MPs in Manitoba, including the member for Brandon—Souris, and fourteen Conservative MPs in Saskatchewan all missing in action on this file over the last few years.

I want to know, when is the government going to commit to an east-west power grid so that electricity from Manitoba can flow both east and west rather than just flowing north and south?

Would the member like to comment on why the government members are hiding and why they are not speaking on their own 880-page budget implementation bill?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to know why those members are hiding on the Aboriginal Healing Foundation that is affecting their constituents so dramatically.

One of my constituents asked that I talk about vision, so I will answer the member's question regarding vision.

The member mentioned the vision of the railway uniting Canada from sea to sea. To continue that vision, I talked about a railway that could go north to Alaska to join the successful Alaska Railway with the railway in B.C. Also, the backbone of a modern society is a high-speed broadband Internet across the country. That could be the vision of tomorrow. That was certainly not covered significantly. In fact cuts were suggested in that area. As the member said, the vision of connecting hydro and renewable energies is sorely lacking. These are visionary aspects of a modern society that could give Canadians back their leadership in this world. Finally, the dramatic cut in scientists certainly shows no vision at all in today's world.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the question asked by the member from the NDP. I would like to know from the member for Yukon why they do not support the ecotrust moneys that were put aside in the budget for something like the east-west power grid that the member was speaking of.

I also wonder if the member for Yukon supported the decision made by the member for Toronto Centre when he was the premier of Ontario to cancel the Conawapa power deal that would have linked Manitoba to Ontario via a transmission line. Does he support his colleague's decision made in 1990?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the member is talking about from 1990, as I was not here and it was not affecting the Yukon.

However, with respect to environmental programs, the members opposite have been asked a lot of questions by our environment critics. I see a former environment minister from B.C. When the government is asked all sorts of questions on the environment, it throws out a couple of crumbs, things it may have initiated, but they pale in comparison to all the programs the Conservatives have cut, such as the renewable energy programs, the regulatory suggestions, the other things that were moving forward that would have cut greenhouse gases, that would have improved the environment, that would have made cleaner air. The things that were cut are monumental compared with what has been actually added by the government.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is very much opposed to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, for a number of reasons, which my colleagues have been outlining for several days.

To briefly summarize the Bloc's complaints, this is a big C Conservative budget. It does not reflect the progressive values of the Quebec nation whatsoever. The budget is all about sparing the rich, including the banks and big business, and making the middle class and workers pay.

The Bloc cannot support a budget like that. Every time someone on the other side of the House stands up and says that the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget, we will remember that it was a big C Conservative budget, against the middle class, against workers.

Here are some examples: the government is reducing the interest rate on corporate tax overpayments; it is creating a tax loophole for companies not registered in Canada; and it is pillaging the employment insurance fund. Pillaging is serious. It means that everyone who contributes to the fund is not paying insurance premiums, but a tax because they are working. That changes the whole meaning of the EI fund.

Here are some more examples: the government is going ahead with the privatization of Canada Post, which is questionable, to say the least; it is interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions and it is doing nothing to protect the environment and fight greenhouse gases.

As the Bloc Québécois heritage critic, one measure in the budget that concerns me in particular is the amendment of the Telecommunications Act, which is designed to enable foreign carriers that own or operate certain transmission facilities, such as satellites, to operate as telecommunications common carriers in Canada.

Members may say that cultural activities have nothing to do with satellites. But that is not true, and I will prove it.

Telecommunications and broadcasting are becoming more and more intertwined; they are almost the same thing. The fact that telecommunications and broadcasting are more and more intertwined is a threat to the cultural industry here and to all cultural activities. Let me explain.

The time when we could easily distinguish between telecommunications and broadcasting is over. Before, telecommunications referred to wireless devices and cellular phones, and broadcasting referred to radio, television, video and audiovisual. But that is no longer the case. Those were the good old days, when we dialed a number on the telephone and someone answered at the other end.

We now talk about smartphones. You can do all kinds of things, referred to as applications. You can easily find an advertisement for a telephone company in any newspaper. Bell, for example, offers 16 applications for free with the purchase of a wireless device. These applications clearly involve activities related to broadcasting. For example, you can listen to CBC Radio. I have an advertisement here in which Bell is introducing its 3G smartphone. It talks about CBC Radio, Air Canada, Facebook, CBC hockey, Maclean's magazine and Scotiabank. I found this advertisement in an English-language newspaper. It is targeted to Canadians.

If that same announcement were made in Quebec, it would obviously talk about Radio-Canada instead of CBC Radio. It would likely give applications for La Soirée du hockey, and would talk about caisses populaires Desjardins instead of Scotiabank, where we could get information.

This shows the difference in culture and shows that communications companies control access to content. The CRTC cannot say anything, because these are not broadcasting companies; they are telecommunications companies. And that is what needs to be fixed.

The worst thing the government could do would be to open telecommunications companies to foreign ownership. That would mean giving foreign owners control over our culture. Everyone knows that our culture is fragile in many ways and that we must protect it. In fact, Canada was the first country in the world to sign a treaty on cultural diversity specifically to protect culture. In other industries, there is a tendency to sign free trade agreements. This is an excellent example that shows that telecommunications and broadcasting are the same.

Let us now turn to satellites. Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, mentions only satellites and is not clear on the subject of telecommunications companies even though the throne speech announced plans to open up all telecommunications companies to foreign ownership. Bill C-9 basically talks about satellites. Do satellites have a place in the cultural sector?

I have two examples, two quotations. Alain Pineau, the National Director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, is concerned about the repercussions on the country's cultural sovereignty of opening satellites to foreign ownership. He said:

—opening up foreign ownership and control of our telecommunications can only lead to tremendous pressures to enable a similar model in cable and broadcasting.

To illustrate, he talked about film, which is not protected. Most distributors do not distinguish the distribution rights for the Canadian market from North American rights. As a consequence, American films occupy over 98% of screen time in English Canada.

Things are not quite as bad in Quebec. Our nation's culture is strong and vibrant, and Quebeckers tend to prefer Quebec films. All the same, we are forced to fight a constant and difficult battle against American movies on Quebec screens. That is what happens when there is no regulation.

Solange Drouin, director of the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo (ADISQ), offered another example of the repercussions of foreign satellite ownership. She appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on April 1, where she said:

In 2005, XM Radio and Sirius Radio applied to the CRTC for a pay audio programming undertaking licence. Those two companies proposed to use a foreign satellite to broadcast their products in Canada. As that was not permitted, the CRTC had to assess the possibility of using a foreign satellite to provide a programming service. The government deviated from its principle regarding the use of Canadian satellites for the purpose of that service. What happened? XM Radio and Sirius Radio unfortunately convinced the CRTC that, in view of the lack of capacity of the foreign satellite broadcasting their products in the United States, the CRTC could not set requirements on the French-language and Canadian content levels it would have wished to have. Consequently, in its decision, it granted ridiculous French-language content percentages.

A little later she says:

The ownership principle, which was frequently criticized in that decision and for which we were not heard, tells us that you really have to control the entire chain of distribution channels in order to really achieve our ends—

I quickly want to talk about the Bloc Québécois' prebudget consultations and our many expectations of this budget. None of our expectations were met. First, we asked that the $26 million cut from artists in August 2008 be given back to them. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages told me here in the House that he had given that money to the Olympic torch relay. Now that the relay is over, let him give that $26 million to the artists.

We also asked for $300 million this year: an additional $150 million to the Canada Council for the Arts for a total of $310 million; $60 million for the Canada Feature Film Fund, including $10 million for the documentary feature film fund; $50 million for income averaging over five years for artists; $40 million for the creation of a fund for the transition to digital; $240 million so that Radio-Canada/CBC can go from $32 to $40 a person.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I truly appreciate my colleague's comments.

She spoke about employment insurance and the money taken from the employment insurance fund. We cannot blame only the Conservatives. We really must blame the Liberals; we cannot forget that they were the ones who diverted this money from the employment insurance fund.

I would like to ask the member a question about the budget implementation bill, which is almost 800 pages long. Once again we see that the government has tried to include all kinds of small things, thinking that people would not notice them.

I would like to talk a little bit about environmental assessments and the fact that the government seems to want to exclude certain infrastructure projects, financed by the federal government, from environmental assessments. This goes far beyond efforts by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to simplify the environmental assessment process.

We saw this issue of environmental assessments in the last budget and it is receiving even more attention in this one.

Does the member have any comments on this subject?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate all of my NDP colleague's questions regarding employment insurance.

She is quite right. This did not begin with the Conservative Party. I think the Liberal Party is the one that paved the way when it was in power.

Over $50 billion has now been diverted from the employment insurance fund, by both the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Conservatives have just dealt another major blow to employment insurance by helping themselves to the $50 billion surplus and by making it legal to steal from the EI fund.

It is also true, as the member said, that there are all kinds of pesky little things—I cannot think of a better expression—throughout this implementation bill, like last year. As members will recall, they gave extraordinary powers to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism in last year's budget implementation bill. This seems to be part of the culture of the Conservative government, the same government that boasts about passing Bill C-2 on accountability. We have never seen a less transparent government—they are so much worse than the Liberals—as suggested by one of my colleagues, and a Liberal at that.

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

Madam Speaker, we have the current situation of the changing nature of work, with 1.5 million people unemployed. Many people have been re-employed in part-time jobs and therefore have lost their benefits.

Does my colleague think the government should work with the provinces to ensure that the changing nature of work is dealt with so people who now working in part-time jobs or who are self-employed will be able to access pension and other benefits they will need for their future?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, clearly, this government cannot be trusted to take care of workers on its own. What they are doing with the EI fund is truly appalling.

It is also true that employment is a provincial jurisdiction and the Government of Quebec takes its responsibilities in that regard very seriously.

It is also true that the Bloc Québécois wants the Government of Quebec to be given increased powers in all areas of activity, beginning with culture. This is what Quebeckers want. The Government of Quebec is asking Ottawa to transfer all powers and responsibilities regarding culture and communications, with the corresponding budgets, of course.

For the Bloc Québécois, this is merely a temporary position, since our ultimate goal is Quebec sovereignty.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are few bills that are more important to Canadians than the budget bill. The government has the responsibility to put forth a budget bill that meets the needs of our country for today and the future.

Unfortunately, the budget bill the government put forward was one that simply ebbs and flows with the political change of tides that takes place in our country. Rather than trying to think of the needs of our citizens and the future of our country, the government has merely put forth a bill that shoots very low in an effort to try to curry 42% of the voters it needs to secure a majority. This, in my view, is a highly irresponsible act on the part of the government and violates one of its most fundamental duties to our nation.

Throughout history, we have seen that in good times the government actually spent right down to the cusp of what the budget allowed. In fact, it burned through the cushion that was put forth by former Prime Minister Paul Martin and in doing so, put our country on the cusp of a deficit situation. We all knew we were going into hard economic times and we warned the Prime Minister not to do this, but, of course, he demonstrated once again his tin ear and did not listen.

As a result of the situation, today we have a $56 billion deficit. It is true this is not all on the shoulders of the government, but certainly that deficit would be much less if the government had acted responsibly in good times. In fact, it did not and in this we all lose.

Compounding the situation with the recession was the fact that we have lost over 500,000 full-time jobs. Today there are 1.5 million Canadians unemployed. As I said earlier, the nature of work has changed so that many people are being re-employed into the workforce but in part-time jobs or as self-employed workers, which means they have lost much of the security they had before and, indeed, many of the benefits. In fact, over 1.5 million more Canadians do not share the benefits that other Canadians have now or had in the past.

On top of this, there are a couple of factors. One is that we have a strong dollar, which is a good thing for those who shop in the United States but in other ways it is going to hurt exports.

The other thing is that we have an aging population. An aging population and the increasing costs of our medical system is the gorilla at the dinner table. We simply will not be able to prepare for our future in an adequate way, to have the economy we need or have the social programs we desire unless we get our health care costs under control, costs that will be incurred as our population ages.

Today there are four workers for every retiree. In a short 15 years that is going to change and there will be 2.5 workers for every retired person. That is a staggering change that our country has never seen before and will not see again. The fact that the government is not debating or discussing this in any sensible fashion means that it is going to cause incredible pain and hardship.

There is an increased demand for moneys to pay for social programs. That gap will simply widen and widen so that those who are least privileged in our society are the ones who will be hurt the most. This will be a direct failure on the part of the government because it knows full well that this is on the horizon. It is entirely on its shoulders to act in a leadership role, to work with the rest of us and the provinces to ensure this is dealt with. It is those who are least privileged and most vulnerable who are going to be hurt in our society. Ignoring this is absolutely criminal. Health care costs, as I said before, are extraordinary.

What did the government do in the budget? It touted its deficit reduction platform. What was that? In effect, it was $17 billion in cuts over five years, along with a fantasy growth rate of about 6%. The government says we are going to grow out of this. The fact of the matter is that we are not.

Once again, the government is actually blowing smoke in the eyes of the Canadian public, giving them a line that is simply not credible at all.

The other thing it did was make cuts. What kind of cuts? It eliminated 245 positions. What it is not telling the Canadian public is that most of those positions have not been filled, were not filled, and are not going to be filled. Again, these are mystery cuts that are taking place.

The government, in other words, does not have a credible plan to get the books balanced once again. It should take a leaf out of what happened in the mid-90s, when then-Prime Minister Chrétien and his finance minister, Paul Martin, did get our country's books back in order. I think the Prime Minister and his finance minister should take a leaf out of that book and get our financial house back in order.

I could point to a couple of things that we absolutely must do. The government must work on health care. It must bring costs under control. In order to do that, it should take a leaf out of what is being done in the province of Quebec and indeed will be done in Ontario, and probably in British Columbia, our province. The government must allow the provinces to modernize.

Seventeen of the top 20 health care systems in the world are in Europe. They pay less and get better health outcomes. We should be asking why that is so. We should be adopting those best practices here in Canada. The feds control the overarching guidelines in terms of allowing or disallowing the provinces to modernize. The federal government must sit down with the ministers. It must use its convening power to sit down with the provincial ministers of health and say, “Look, this is our problem, this is a problem of our nation. We simply cannot allow our health care system, the difference between the demand for our health care and the supply of resources to continue to widen”.

It is already widening and it continues to worsen every single year. The government must sit down with the provincial health ministers to allow the provinces to modernize and to implement solutions, including IT solutions that are necessary to streamline our system.

The other thing that we need to do is on the productivity side. Although constitutionally education falls into the realm of the provinces, there is nothing that prevents the government from convening the provincial ministers of education to work on national standards, national outcomes, so that students, regardless of where they are, will be able to receive the quality education that they deserve.

This is crucially important because other countries are doing this as well, even ones with a similar political structure, like Australia. Without our students being trained in the economic needs of the future, we will have people without jobs and jobs without people. That is what is going to happen. The only way to fix that is if the feds work with the provinces to meet the needs of our economy with the training capabilities of our provinces.

Also, it is crucially important that we are able to project in the future to know what those niches are that we can capitalize on. One we could do is shipbuilding because there is a very interesting opportunity in our province of British Columbia to develop an integrated shipbuilding strategy that would enable us to capitalize on high-paying, high-tech jobs in the future.

The feds also need to work with the coalition of the willing in terms of the provinces. Just because one or a couple of provinces may not be willing to choose to work together, it does not mean that the feds cannot work with those who are willing to actually sit down at a table and implement the solutions we need, including the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers and the labour mobility issues, which restrict our economy. Without this, we will simply be falling further and further behind with respect to other economies.

One of the banks, and I think it was the TD Bank, did a very interesting study. It looked at 20 years from now and where would Canada's economy be in the world. Right now we have the ninth largest economy. Twenty years from now we will be back around 26th in the world. We do not need to accept that. We do not need to have that. That is not, by any stretch, a fait accompli.

In closing there are a couple of other things. On the pension issue, we will have fewer and fewer people who will be working, as I said, compared to the retired folk. We can be intelligent about incentivizing people to continue to work after the age of 65, perhaps by giving them a percentage of their CPP tax free. It is important that people who choose to work can work, and we should not put barriers in their way.

There are many things we could talk about here. There are many opportunities the government can actually embrace for our economy, social programs, and for the future of our nation. We want to work with the government. We compel the government and we plead with it to take this very seriously, and not to come up with budgetary measures such as this which do not serve the public well at all.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member will not be supporting the budget implementation bill, although the Liberal Party conveniently leaves enough of its members away to ensure that it actually passes in the House. The member referred to the issue of health care and made the statement that we need to get health care costs under control. He alleged that our government was doing nothing along those lines. I would suggest to him that it does not matter what our government does on health care, the Liberals are only intent on politicizing the issue and playing partisan politics with it.

The member is a fairly knowledgeable individual who has raised the issue and suggested that health care costs must be brought under control. Specifically, how does he propose to do that? He has referred to models overseas that might apply. Many of those models may be out of sync with our Canada Health Act. How does he plan to get those costs under control and what kinds of models does he see fitting into our Canadian system?

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

Madam Speaker, we are asking the government, but if members would like to trade places with us we would be more than happy to take their place any day and do a better job.

On the health care side there are a couple of easy things the government could do. First, set up a centre for best practices. Second, where are those models? Let us look at Germany, France, Sweden or Norway. All four of those, and there are 17 in total, have better outcomes at a lower price. All of them have mixed systems. All of them use IT tools in a way that we do not even imagine here.

Rather than the federal government sticking its head in the sand and hiding behind the fact that constitutionally the management of health care falls under the realm of the provinces, why do the Conservatives not act like leaders, convene the provincial health ministers, work as partners, and come up with a working group on health care with senior ADMs and deputy ministers to actually roll up their sleeves and meet on an ongoing basis to implement the solutions that the provinces need?

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

Madam Speaker, earlier one of the Bloc members referred to the issue of tax havens. I know the member has travelled far and wide around the world and has opinions about a wide range of subjects. The fact of the matter is, whether the Liberals are in power or the Conservatives are in power, the governments have really been unable to do much in the way of fighting the issue of tax havens. The member probably knows that some of the best progress that has been made in recent years was the case of an employee from one of the Swiss banks who took back-up computer tapes and tax records, and sold them to the German government which then chased down the people who were hiding their money and not paying taxes.

Canada's answer has been simply to allow an amnesty, so people who think they might be caught can now just volunteer and pay their taxes. It is basically a risk-free situation. If people invest in tax havens and do not get caught, it is okay. If they do get caught, all they have to do--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I will have to interrupt the hon. member to give the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca the opportunity to respond. He has one minute to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not an expert on tax havens. I would personally advocate for the government to simplify our tax system. We desperately need that.

Briefly, on the environmental side, the public ought to know that in the budget the federal government has given powers to the environment minister to basically circumvent the type of environmental assessments that we need on large energy projects. Environmental assessments that were needed before do not have to happen and the assessments of these energy projects have been taken away from the environmental assessment board. It is absolutely extraordinary that this has happened. It has led to a lot of uncertainty and concern that projects do not have to go through the proper environmental assessments, and that change was made directly by the government in the budget.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the budget implementation bill this year and to talk about a number of issues within it that I think are of some interest to all parliamentarians.

Our party is not supporting the bill. We have come to the conclusion that the Conservative agenda, as outlined, is not sufficient for the country, is not taking the country in the right direction, and as such, we have made our decision not to support the budget implementation bill.

There are many things within the bill that have come out to show how, once again, the Conservative government's agenda goes beyond simply budget and into a whole number of areas where we have concerns, where we do not see that it is making progress and in fact it is taking steps that we consider to be inappropriate in this day and age.

I would like to start off by talking about an area that I am familiar with in terms of the transport committee. As transport critic for the NDP, I have been raising the issue of aviation security. During the prorogation break, we had the opportunity to conduct a forum on aviation security. We brought in many different experts, joined together with the transport critic in the Liberal Party. It was a very successful effort in understanding the nature of aviation security in Canada.

What we have seen over the last number of months from the government is a rather knee-jerk reaction to aviation security. Over Christmas, because of an incident in the United States, the minister decided in a late night session to purchase the new full body scanners, technology that was tested out briefly in an airport in Kelowna this year, with mixed results. When we talk to the experts, this type of equipment seems to be rather inappropriate and seems to take the security system in a direction which will not really result in more security, but just more cost. We see this playing out with the air travellers' security charge. We will see an increase in the cost of delivery of every flight in Canada, for the travellers' security charge of between $3 and $9 per flight, per passenger.

Canada already spends per capita more than most developed countries on aviation security. It is $1.5 billion over five years to provide those services, plus the additional costs that we pass on to the consumer. As well, the government has decided to cut out the professional police force that is put in place in most major airports. It has passed that cost on to the airlines as well, which will eventually be passed on to the consumer.

We see additional costs in aviation security which are not borne out by the experts in terms of the threat assessments and the actual results that come from our system. The aviation security system at most of our airports is like the Maginot Line. It looks very impressive, but it is very easy to go around it and very easy to circumnavigate the types of security that are in place. They are mechanical, very much simply to assure the travelling public that we do a good job. We need to move to a different system. We need to reassess aviation security to understand what the threat is and what the appropriate response is to this type of activity, and not simply add a cost on to the consumer.

This is something we will be moving ahead with on the transport committee if we can. We will be looking at these things. It is something I hope to work with the government on to change its direction. I do not see it as being something on which we have to act in a partisan fashion. Aviation security affects every one of us in this building, all our families and all our friends. We need to ensure that we are doing the right thing. Rather than simply add costs to the system, we need to ensure that what we do is adequate to cover the needs of aviation security.

Another item that has caused a lot of trouble in my riding is attached to the end of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. This program, successfully evaluated by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, should have gone ahead. We should have continued that program. Instead, funds were turned over to Health Canada. The ability of aboriginal people to guide their own healing following the residential school traumas and abuse was taken away.

This flies in the face of the apology that we all shared in the House of Commons, that wonderful moment when we stood together as MPs and said that we were sorry, that we wanted to do it better in the future, that we wanted to fix the problem, that we wanted to work with them to fix their problems and that we wanted them to fix their problems. That is not the direction we are taking here and that is a sad fact.

This is something the government has failed at in this budget. We should go back and reassess what is being done and really understand that the programs aboriginal people use to heal themselves and the directions they take are the most important. They are the ones we want to support.

The other item I want to touch on is the changes the government is proposing to regulatory systems of environmental assessment. In the North, they take two forms. One of them was something that was inserted into this bill. It involves changes to the federal environmental assessment, taking away certain triggers that would start a federal environmental assessment and changing the law so the minister could set the scope of federal environmental assessment.

These are really large issues for people in the North. So much of our land and resources are shared with the federal government. We are also the receiver of so many of the impacts of resource development in provinces. The impacts of interprovincial transfers of water and air on our systems are great. We cannot afford to see federal government renege on its responsibility to create environmental assessments that speak to all Canadians.

We cannot turn environmental assessment into a regional issue when it is a national issue and expect that we will get the results we want for the country in the future. We may get more convenience for provincial governments. We may get more convenience for large corporations that want to play provincial governments off each other in the development of resources.

All of those things may occur with a decline in federal environmental assessment, but it does not solve the problems of the environment. We as legislators, members of Parliament and Canadians are here to protect the environment, not allow it to be degraded. What is happening with the federal environmental assessment in this budget implementation bill is wrong.

When it comes to territorial environmental assessment, when we talk about the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the government has put $11 million in there to change the act, and act that has never been fully implemented. Everyone from the McCrank report through all the boards to the people there have said that the act must be finished off. They want the land use plans in place for the people of the North. Before we judge how an act works, we must finish it and make it whole.

What we have now is a situation that is not whole. We have to move that forward, not find ways that we can circumvent the legislation, that we can streamline it so it does not work. We need something that is going to work for northerners.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments with regard to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and the environment. In the Arctic climate change is not only an environmental issue, but also a social justice issue. Those who are most heavily impacted have had the least responsibility for it.

Climate change is real. It is happening now and the Arctic is the canary in the coal mine.

Could the hon. member discuss the climate impacts in the Arctic today and what action the government should take?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, climate change is affecting the north in a wide variety of ways.

One of the ways that stands out today is the decline of the caribou herds, one of the major points of sustenance and cultural importance. These herds are in decline because climate change has altered the ability of breeding and has changed the landscape for vegetation. Those impacts are very difficult to deal with, but the federal government in the last six months has said that it is not concerned about that. It will leave that in the hands of northerners even though the legislation clearly puts it as the government's responsibility.

The federal government is not paying attention to an issue that it should be paying attention to under the law. If it continues to do that, perhaps the only solution is to turn it over to the people of the north so they can take care of the animals in a correct fashion.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I was very struck by his line that we are all called here because we have an obligation to protect the environment.

I think of the situation that is happening on the James Bay coast now, all across the Nishnawbe Aski territory with the ice roads melting. We have never seen ice go out this quickly. It has had a devastating effect.

The most impoverished communities in Canada, the northern aboriginal communities, are facing serious shortfalls. They are living with the consequences of climate change now.

Therefore, I go back to the member's comment that we are all here to protect the environment. I would like to suggest for the member that many of us are here to protect the environment, but a certain party in the House is here to protect the interests of the Alberta oil and gas sector.

The Prime Minister himself said that his job and his party was to build a firewall to defend the tar sands.

When we look at Bill C-9,, we see nothing for the environment, nothing for protecting communities that are already living with the impacts of climate change. What we see is a bill tailor made to allow the pillaging of the tar sands to continue and allowing the people who are making the most money from destroying the environment to continue making that kind of money while our poor communities in the north are suffering and paying the prices of the government's inaction.

Does the member not think it would have been fairer that we actually look at dealing with the tar sands so our poor communities on James Bay and elsewhere could at least have some protection because climate change is hitting them now?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, the tar sands are an enormous environmental problem for Canada, but they also, in putting the tar sands together in a fashion that works, are a great opportunity as well for economic development.

What has happened with the tar sands is they started off as very mediocre oil development in this world and have escalated to a point where, with the price of oil, they are very profitable and everyone wants in on it. The developers have been given free licence to deal with the environment.

We need to change that now and put proper guidelines, procedures and laws in place that will protect the environment and will ensure that these tar sands, which are an enormous resource for Canada, are handled correctly. Instead the government is playing this game with our environment rather than dealing with it. That is the problem.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. The Bloc Québécois took the preparations for this budget very seriously. We toured all over Quebec. We met with hundreds of economic players. We were very disappointed, after making suggestions to the government, that the Conservatives stuck with their habit of acting as though Quebec does not exist.

Once again, the Conservatives want to help their rich friends at the expense of the less fortunate and the workers. This bill shows the government's desire to spare the rich, including the banks and major corporations, at all costs and make the middle class and working class pay off the deficit.

The measures contained in this budget attest to this desire because corporations are not asked to contribute to raising government revenues, except for the lower interest rate to be paid by the Minister of National Revenue on tax overpayments by corporations.

The bill attests to the Conservative government's inertia with respect to the environment and the fight against greenhouse gases. Rather than attacking the sources of the problem, the government is ignoring the national and international pressure for a radical reduction in energy waste and implementation of tangible policies to promote the production of clean and renewable energy.

In addition, as a woman, I am personally outraged by the measures, particularly the lack of measures, for women in this bill. In fact, the Conservatives are denying the existence of more than half the population and the challenges they face. There is nothing for women in this bill. It is an unacceptable step backwards. And we know that women are often the poorest in our society and often head up single-parent households, which compounds their problems.

I would now like to speak about Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and isotopes. As the natural resources critic, I have serious concerns about Bill C-9, specifically part 18.

Conservatives, like the Liberals, have dragged their feet on medical isotope production. These isotopes are crucial to detecting and treating a number of serious diseases. Because the core of nuclear reactors is exposed to extremely high temperatures and radiation, NRU reactors must be rebuilt every 25 or 30 years; otherwise, they become too unstable and dangerous. Consequently, the Conservatives' failure to act forced the “temporary” closure of the Chalk River reactor in May 2009, leaving Quebec health care institutions and hospitals to their own devices and creating an unprecedented medical isotope crisis.

Quebec has been paying for the government's negligence and incompetence on this issue for nearly a year now. It will soon be a year since hospitals have had a guaranteed supply of medical isotopes. We have yet to see any money to cover the cost of what the Quebec government has had to pay to manage the crisis. Waiting lists are growing longer and doctors are becoming impatient. Quebeckers want a long-term solution so that we do not put any more lives in danger unnecessarily and so that patients can get the tests and treatments they need.

There have been many calls for help from doctors. What will it take to get the government to act? The Conservatives made a commitment to have the reactor up and running by August 2009. We have seen delay after delay, and now they are saying it will be up and running at the end of July 2010, a full year after it was shut down. It remains to be seen whether there will be more delays. Forgive me if I have doubt the Conservatives' word on this.

Jean-Luc Urbain, president of the Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine, predicted that patients would experience dark days waiting to receive diagnoses and treatment.

It is important to remember that it is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited that owns and operates the Chalk River reactor. AECL is therefore responsible not only for producing isotopes for Canada, but for producing half the supply of medical isotopes in North America. It accounts for more than 30% of international production.

AECL manages the supply of isotopes, and it is no secret that the government is thinking of privatizing this crown corporation.

What is more, the government commissioned a study in February 2008 to set the corporation's long-term strategic direction. Part 18 of the budget implementation bill gives the federal government carte blanche to determine the corporation's future. We have absolutely no assurance that the federal government will keep on doing its duty and providing Quebeckers and Canadians with a supply of medical isotopes.

In addition, the process is blatantly non-transparent. The government is giving itself the right to notify the House of its decision on AECL only within 15 days after it takes effect. As a result, we run the very real risk of being faced with a fait accompli.

Another thing that troubles me is that the budget provides $300 million in 2010-11 to cover anticipated commercial losses and to support the activities of AECL, such as pursuing the development work on the advanced CANDU reactor, safely supplying medical isotopes and maintaining reliable and safe activity at the Chalk River laboratories.

It is curious. I wonder whether this $300 million of taxpayers' money is literally a gift for potential buyers. I was unable to get any answers about this.

In addition to the supply of isotopes, a number of other issues remain unresolved and are cause for concern.

How much is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited worth? We have invested more than $8 billion in it over the years. Can Quebeckers and Canadians expect a return on their investment with the sale of AECL? What sort of future can workers at the Chalk River laboratories and the Montreal offices expect? What will become of the intellectual property pertaining to the CANDU reactors if the company passes into foreign hands?

These are worrisome questions that still do not have answers.

I would now like to talk about the forestry industry. Quebeckers are worried. This industry is going through an unprecedented crisis in Quebec, and the bill contains no real measures to reassure Quebeckers.

Even though the forestry industry is the lifeblood of the Quebec economy, the latest budget completely ignores the demands of the Bloc Québécois. It is unacceptable that the Conservative government is putting 57 times as much money into Ontario's automotive sector, when the forestry industry has to make do with scraps.

The elimination of tariffs for the machinery and goods needed to modernize and improve productivity is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The industry does not have access to loans or loan guarantees to buy the machinery. Even if tariffs are eliminated, the issue will not be resolved.

The $25 million per year over the next four years is not nearly enough for all of the lumber and pulp and paper mills to modernize. They still need to borrow money to purchase the necessary equipment.

This budget blatantly ignores the demands of the industry. For five years, forestry companies have been calling for loans and loan guarantees, but they have not seen anything.

In conclusion, the government is following the path it set out in its 2006 economic statement, with policies geared towards Ontario and Alberta to the detriment of the pressing needs of Quebec.

We do not see any measures that meet the needs of the Quebec economy. This budget should take Quebec's interests and values into account.

For these reasons, I will certainly vote against this bill.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I have two quick questions, one relating to something the member said.

How confident is the member that the government did a gender-based analysis on the budget, on the budget implementation act, on the throne speech and on all the bills it brought forward, including all the crime bills that it cancelled for prorogation?

My second question is that first-line responders in Canada, ambulance, fire and police, are asking for a public safety interoperability centre in Canada so they can save lives and connect their communications. This is an omission in the budget but I assume the member would support my lobbying for that.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, this budget ignores the specific needs of the people and of workers. I agree with my colleague that by favouring the oil companies in the west and ignoring all environmental concerns, the government is ignoring the needs of the people. A more thorough study of what is needed in the criminal sector, which unfortunately I know little about, would certainly be in order.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, every so often, the real facts must be given. I will do so in English.

This budget commits $11 million per year in ongoing resources for the 67 Community Futures organizations in Quebec. In addition, this budget confirms $19 billion in new federal stimulus under year two of Canada's economic action plan, including job-creating projects in Quebec, from $50 million to improve the Jacques Cartier and Champlain bridges, to $18 million to improve passenger rail service between western Labrador and northeastern Quebec.

Quebec will continue to receive increased federal support. Total transfers will hit $19.3 billion, an increase of $281 million from last year and $6.8 billion more than the old Liberal government.

Why does my hon. colleague not support these benefits for Quebec?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are definitely voting against this budget. For Quebec, we are talking about tens of millions of dollars, but for Alberta, we are talking about billions of dollars. As far as I am concerned, I pay my taxes in all fairness based on my income. I expect a government to manage its revenues like a good parent and distribute funds fairly based on the population's needs.

I find this budget very disappointing. Even if they send us millions of dollars, if that money is poorly allocated, the problem will not be solved. We must listen to the people.

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

Madam Speaker, all day the government members have been hiding from this debate. We have not seen any government speakers at all get up to defend their 880 page budget implementation bill. We see the odd one sneak in with some notes from above to ask a planted question and then they retreat.

I am looking forward to asking a government speaker, when and if they ever get up to speak on this particular bill, to justify the atrocious salaries that the bank presidents earned last year on profits of $15.9 billion. We have bank presidents making upwards of $10 million a year. I would like to know when the current government will come in with some guidelines that are being--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières has 30 seconds to respond or to make a comment.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, we can certainly criticize bank presidents' salaries, but the Bloc Québécois has also suggested higher tax rates for the leaders of large corporations, the managers who receive bonuses and golden parachutes for their retirement. Greater responsibility needs to be taken in that regard.

The House resumed from April 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

It is my pleasure to make a brief speech on behalf of the residents of greater Moncton, my riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, and the people of Atlantic Canada.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak to the budget on behalf of Atlantic Canadians. We are all in this place representing various areas of the country and I want to point out what is a glaring absence of any policy, of any care or of any words related to the hopes, the aspirations and the mere existence of Atlantic Canada.

In the budget speech we all received a document entitled, “Leading the Way on Jobs and Growth”, delivered by the Minister of Finance who, like many in this House, has Maritime roots, in fact New Brunswick roots, which I know he is proud of. Nonetheless, in his speech of some 19 pages there was not one word toward Atlantic Canada, which is what we might call exhibit A.

Second, we in Atlantic Canada laud our coastal brethren in the Pacific for their initiative with respect to the Pacific Gateway and we understand that it is vital to Canada's economic growth and future. I could probably speak for all members of the Atlantic Liberal caucus when I say that we are happy there was mention of and movement toward forming and making stronger the Pacific Gateway, but there was not one mention of the term “Atlantic gateway” in the budget speech, the Speech from the Throne or the budget documentation.

We have a right arm and a left arm. We have a ying and a yang. In this place, we represent a country with three coasts. Economically, we have a Pacific coast but we also have an Atlantic coast and that coast deserves and is acting on a provincial level toward the crystallization of an Atlantic gateway, both port-wise and inland. No one need take my word for it. There are various provincial governments of all political stripes. We have a whole rainbow of colours of governments in Atlantic Canada now. We have a provincial NDP government, a provincial Conservative government and provincial Liberal governments. It is not partisan when I say that there is good work being done by all provincial governments on the Atlantic gateway and yet the federal government appears not to want to mention anything of it in its recalibration document. In fact, there is no real effort toward sustaining or helping the Atlantic lobster fishery which is in crisis.

I want to take a few moments to speak to other entry point aspects. Moncton is an area that is clearly inland and it is the hub of the Maritimes. It is a transportation centre. For a long time, after being one of the first airports to be transferred to a private authority in Canada, has been at the cutting edge of having small or mid-sized community transportation issues made important. The Greater Moncton International Airport handles over 500,000 passengers a year. It puts itself into the same category, with the same aspirations, hopes and struggles, as places like Abbotsford, Charlottetown, Mont Tremblant, Fredericton, Saint John and Kelowna, the airports that are not, frankly, Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal.

There are challenges presented to those points of entry, which is why, in the budget document beginning at page 299, there is the strange term called “strategic review savings”. To many people, this might go unnoticed, but we need to be clear that those are cuts to budgets. If they were cuts to budgets of Air Force One and the PMO's plane, maybe we would not have a big problem, but they are cuts to things like CATSA, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. Those are the fine men and women who, until I suppose a month ago or so, were not very well-known until a certain visit by a former cabinet minister to Charlottetown. However, they are the people who administer security in our airports. They perform a very vital function in flowing traffic for commerce and ensuring security, which needs to be top of mind for all of us.

In the 2011-12 budget, $12 million will be cut to the services, followed by a further $15 million in 2012-13. The government gives lip service to the notion of airport security. When the focus should be on ensuring security personnel in our airports, the only safety measure the government is able to employ is body scanners and there is no indication that the body scanners will be deployed in mid-sized airports. It is of crucial importance to people, like I say, in Abbotsford, Charlottetown and Moncton to ensure the flow of passengers continues.

The presence of body scanners suffices for the government while it cuts personnel. How will that help on the issue of security and with respect to the flow of goods and persons on a commercial level? For many of the airports in Atlantic Canada, it will be crippling. Frankly, the government is abdicating its responsibility in this regard to protect Canadians. We can forget about commerce, Atlantic Canada gateways and the importance of emerging economies, the real point is that there is an offloading of the costs of security to the citizens.

While the government talks about tax decreases and easing the burden for Canadians, what is happening through this budget instrument is that the Conservative government, in claiming to prioritize security in Canada, is hiking airport security fees to the passengers while simultaneously reducing the budget by some $12 million to $15 million for CATSA, the agency providing security. In the end, the Canadian traveller will pay.

Canadians already pay up to $17 in security taxes per flight and the government is proposing to raise it on some flights by over $8. It may not sound like a lot but for some people travelling across this country it may be the difference between some people choosing to stay home, to not travel through an airport or not to use the Moncton airport, for instance, especially if there is one scanner employed for over 500,000 passengers. We do not know what the future holds but there is certainly no emphasis on small and medium-sized cities and their airports in this budget and, as I mentioned, not a word about the issue of the Atlantic gateway.

The government claims to care about Canadian security but it is cutting funding to CATSA and expecting taxpayers, Canadian citizens, to cover the shortfall. It is another instance of a hidden tax. It is another incidence of untruthfulness in a budget document. It does not even provide sufficient funding for airport security in terms of personnel and there will be cuts of people employed at Canada's airports.

Another issue with respect to security, an issue of importance to the Greater Moncton International Airport and other airports, is the work of the Canada Border Services Agency. The disregard for the security and safety of Canadians citizens shown in this budget has been furthered by the fact that the CBSA cuts, which total $6.5 million in this year and $54 million in 2011-12, show a complete disregard for the need for service at our airports and ports. How will CBSA deal with the budget cuts?

I want to know where the champions of Atlantic Canada are. Where are the Allan J. MacEachens? Where are the Don Jamiesons? Where are the Roméo LeBlancs? They are not in the House or in the government. They are not on the government side because Atlantic Canadians have been told, along the lines of a famous 1997 speech given by the prime minister, that Atlantic Canadians should come to the House and mind their spots. They should just mind their place, follow the rules and be quiet about their aspirations.

It is no longer time for Atlantic Canadians to accept the ignorance of the government toward their dreams and aspirations. It is no longer time for them to be quiet about the future of Atlantic Canada. It also is not time for the Government of Canada to omit the words “Atlantic Canadians” from a budget document. We will not stand for it and I urge all members of the House to take that to the government during the budget debate.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have spent many a summer in my colleague's riding and it is certainly one of the most beautiful ridings in this country and it has great lobster.

He made some comments about there being an absence of policy in this budget and several times said that there was no mention of Atlantic Canada but I believe the policies of this budget affect the entire country.

I would like the member to comment on some statistics that have been put out that indicate that Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the G7, that Canada's decline in the real GDP was virtually the smallest of all G7 countries, that Canadian labour markets have fared much better than the U.S. where job losses are proportionately three times larger than Canada, and that Canadian domestic demand growth has rebounded more strongly than all other G7 countries since the beginning of 2009 and led Canada out of the recession in mid-2009. Other statistics tell us that Canada has weathered this recession much better than any other country on this planet, and we should be proud of that.

Whether the member is correct or not, I would like him to comment as to whether or not these policies affect the entire country, which includes Atlantic Canada.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member was doing so well up to beaches and lobster.

He is correct that the fundamentals of the economy, which were put in place by a good friend of many of us on this side, Paul Martin, and the resistance of a former government to things like bank mergers, which most people on the other side agreed with at the time, are largely responsible for the fact that we did not do as badly as some other economies.

The point is, and I will use an aeronautical analogy, had someone been doing something else other than just being on auto pilot, like those members were, we might have avoided racking up such a huge deficit. To turn the argument over on my friend, a huge deficit does affect everybody in Canada and probably will affect the regions more.

When we get down to budget deficit slaying, the people of Atlantic Canada know they will be the ones to suffer. They know that budget deficits need to be dealt with and ACOA and the other shoes that may drop, Marine Atlantic, who knows, these will be the first things that the Conservative government will look at because it cares not for Atlantic Canada.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, for many years Canadian workers and small business owners have jointly contributed into the employment insurance fund. However, instead of receiving some of these insurance funds when unemployed, many workers, whether they are from Moncton or Toronto, end up not qualifying as a result of the former Liberal government changing and tightening the EI rules.

This budget empties the employment insurance account of roughly a $57 billion surplus, which is money that was paid by workers and built up throughout the years. It is grossly unfair.

The hon. member is a member of the Liberal Party. How could his party possibly agree to a budget that ripped $57 billion out of the hands of unemployed workers?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, EI is a pressing issue for all of those who need access to it, whether it is in Toronto, Moncton or elsewhere.

We on this side prefer to take a calibrated approach to EI reform. My colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour leads the charge with respect to improvements to the EI program, which so far have been completely ignored by the government. There are people in need and people who need access to EI. There are people who need a longer term of EI.

The way to look at this subject, rather than just being outside the palace all of the time throwing snowballs, is to try to get into the palace and change the way we deal with EI, which is what we on this side are doing. We are coming up with constructive arguments toward sustainable, sensitive EI reform that will help all Canadian workers, whether in Atlantic Canada or elsewhere.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak against Bill C-9, which would bring into legislation a number of measures already announced in different ways and means motions or previous budget documents. It also spells out a number of measures originally presented as part of the most recent Speech from the Throne.

As the New Democrat consumer protection critic, I will devote the majority of my time to discussing the provisions contained within Bill C-9 that relate to the credit and debit industry. However before my analysis of the credit and debit sector provisions, I would first like to address two measures contained in Bill C-9 that are extremely concerning. The first is environmental assessments, and the second is the employment insurance fund.

With regard to environmental assessments, and in keeping with our party's concerns about the oil sands, the measures contained within Bill C-9 are very worrisome. If passed, Bill C-9 would exempt certain federally funded infrastructure projects from environmental assessments, going well beyond efforts by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to streamline the environmental assessment process.

Bill C-9 also would allow the minister of the environment to dictate the scope of environmental assessments. It would also weaken public participation and enable the removal of assessment of energy projects from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to the National Energy Board and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Eighteen months ago, the Conservatives came out with their now infamous economic and fiscal update. Within this update, they gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which had been in place for 100 years, and the Liberals supported them. Now the Conservatives are trying to finish what they started by doing away with environmental assessments for most projects that receive federal funding. Several provinces have rather weak legislation and no way to conduct real inspections and assessments. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was the only way some provinces could have an assessment done.

The second measure I would like to address, before going into my analysis of the credit and debit provisions, is the measure introduced regarding employment insurance. If passed, Bill C-9 would empty the employment insurance account, which held a surplus of roughly $57 billion, money paid by workers and businesses, built up over years of Liberal and Conservative rule. First the Liberals took the $57 billion from the employment insurance fund and transferred it to the government's general revenue fund, and now the Conservatives will finish off the job they admonished the Liberals for.

There is a fundamental difference between the employment insurance fund and the government's consolidated revenue fund. All Canadian companies and their employees have contributed to the employment insurance fund. If a company recorded a loss, it did not matter. It still had to contribute to the employment insurance fund. Only a company with enough profits to pay tax was required to fork over corporate taxes into the general revenue fund.

In other words, the same companies, primarily the forestry and manufacturing industries, which suffered greatly because of the high dollar, for example, that had not turned a profit and that did not have to pay tax, could not benefit from the $60 billion in tax cuts given to the most profitable companies, and yet each and every one of these companies paid for every single one of their employees and every employee contributed to the EI fund.

The manufacturing and forestry companies that were already suffering believed their contributions would be used for a very specific, precise and dedicated purpose. This means that those who paid, who suffered because of the high dollar, supported the rich, particularly those in the oil industry in western Canada.

Now I will move on to discuss the measures relating to the credit and debit industry in Canada. I would like to share with the House the opinions of various stakeholders in the credit and debit industry on the government's latest measures released in the budget.

The Credit Union Central of Canada appreciates the overall intent of the draft code as stated in its purpose. However, and that is a big however, it believes that the draft code should give additional consideration to protecting the interests of Canadian consumers, to ensure they are provided with transparency, flexibility and the opportunity to make an informed choice when using debit and credit services, and of course to preserve a competitive, balanced market that includes a strong Canadian-focused payments delivery channel, as provided by Interac.

The Credit Union Central of Canada continues by stating that the most significant concern of Canadian credit unions regarding the draft code is the combined potential of provisions 5 and 6. They negatively impact the future of Interac debit services and the viability of Interac itself. They believe that providing merchants with the ability to set priority routing for debit services will exacerbate the concerns put forward by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and that aggressive marketing practices and the dominant market positions of Visa and MasterCard may cause debit card processing fees to skyrocket and may ultimately lead to the end of Interac.

The CUCC believes that provisions 5 and 6, as currently written. will make it easier for Interac to be overwhelmed by targeted pricing strategies of the much larger international payment card networks. Provision 5 reads:

Merchants will be allowed to provide discounts for different methods of payment (e.g. cash, debit card, credit card). Merchants will also be allowed to provide differential discounts among different brands.

Depending on how this provision is interpreted and applied by merchants, consumers may find that it becomes hard to tell the difference between discounting and surcharging, particularly if there is no requirement for the discount to reflect or relate to the merchant's cost for the transaction or payment card network.

Provision 6 reads:

Merchants can decide whether they will accept multiple forms of debit card payment. In such a case, merchants can choose the lowest-cost option on transactions involving co-badged debit cards.

The draft code states:

When a consumer uses a co-badged debit card with a merchant who accepts both debit products on the card, the merchant will decide which debit payment option is used for the transaction.

By unintentionally facilitating a significant threat to the future viability of Interac, these provisions may ultimately hasten a reduction in competition and choice of debit services available to Canadian merchants, consumers and card issuers.

Canada's payment card industry is one of the most successful and stable models in the world, due in no small part to the unique role of Interac and its national infrastructure for the provision of debit card services. Interac has become a valuable national utility that Canadians trust and depend on to provide universal, cost-effective debit services and is uniquely positioned to design and deliver services suited to the Canadian markets and in the interests of Canadians.

The principle of protecting the public and consumer interest should be primary and should be reflected in the rules of conduct and operation for all parties involved in providing debit and credit services, including the payment card networks, card issuers, acquirers and merchants. We believe the draft code, as written, places consumers at a disadvantage. It does not acknowledge the consumer as an equal participant and party to debit and credit card transactions, and several of the code's provisions either do not adequately protect consumer interests or protect the interests of merchants at the expense of the consumer.

Option consommateurs, a not-for-profit association dedicated to the defence and promotion of consumers' rights, is also concerned about the adoption of the code of conduct for the debit and credit card industry. According to Option consommateurs, if adopted as is, the voluntary code would give more power to merchants, to the detriment of consumers.

It also argues that whenever consumers make a purchase, they must be able to freely and transparently choose their preferred payment method from among those offered by merchants. However, the voluntary code allows merchants to require the payment method of their choice.

Furthermore, the government should prohibit surcharging on the payment method in order to make it easier for consumers to compare prices.

In closing, the measures contained within Bill C-9, mainly the gutting of our employment insurance fund, the removal of environmental checks on government infrastructure projects and the implementation of a flawed code of conduct that would negatively impact consumers, are just some but definitely not all of the reasons why our party cannot support this budget.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I think it was reprehensible behaviour that the credit card companies raised the rates for individuals during the recession, the time Canadians needed it least. They also raised the fees for companies. I got all sorts of complaints from small businesses.

The chartered banks, which I have a great respect for and am a big supporter of, also unfortunately raised the rates for businesses and individuals for their loans. I commend the government for providing liquidity to the banks, but they did not pass it on.

I assume that, because the member deals with this topic, he got from a lot of his businesses this questionnaire from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business about the fairness and oversight needed in the credit and debit industry. I got a lot of them. I agree with him that the budget is not sufficient to deal with this. I wonder if he would like to comment further on that.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too have many small businesses in the riding of Sudbury, and they have been coming to me with their concerns about both Visa and MasterCard entering the debit market.

We had a voluntary code of conduct that was presented in November, and of course prorogation stopped the process in which we were supposed to have a discussion when that voluntary code of conduct assessment ended. When the toothpaste is out of the tube, we cannot stuff it back in.

Many small business owners are concerned about priority routing. Many of them are concerned about how this will impact consumers' choice. That is, if consumers come into their place of business, whether they will be able to even use their cards and whether the businesses will be able to take their cards.

Consumers are very concerned about the interest rates that we have seen on the credit side as well. When they go in there, they want to use their card, but now they are starting to hesitate because of the interest rates.

On that side, we also see small businesses having interchange fees increasing. In some cases they have a negotiated rate of 1.6%, but when we start getting all of these new cards in place, the premium cards that the companies are putting out, those negotiated rates go out the door and they end up paying about 2.6%, sometimes even 3%, on the interchange fees.

More needs to be done. We need to have an honest discussion and debate about this, because more needs to be done to help consumers—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his presentation, and he is absolutely correct when it comes to the whole issue of the credit cards and the fees.

The government constantly acts against the interests of consumers. Whether it is in the air passenger bill of rights issue, where it sided solidly with the industry, with the airlines, or in this case. Not only is the government acting against the interests of consumers, but it is actually acting against the interests of small business.

We have seen, as the member for Yukon has experienced, letters from small businesses, and I have seen some figures that are just astounding as to how much credit card costs have been assumed by businesses over the last year or two. It has doubled and tripled for a lot of small businesses.

Now the Conservatives are basically adopting their laissez faire attitude to the very people, the small businesses, that they purported to represent all these years. It is a big joke that they would suggest that they will come up with voluntary guidelines and somehow these business-oriented credit card companies will somehow take it easy on the consumers. It is absolutely nonsense, and I would like to ask the member to comment further on that point.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and commend him on the work he did on the airline passenger bill of rights.

There are so many things we need to implement in this budget to actually help consumers and small businesses, but let us look specifically at small businesses and how they are being affected by these credit card companies and the big banks. The interchange fees they are paying are costing them thousands upon thousands of dollars every year. What is that doing? That is stopping them from hiring another person, from expanding their business, from growing their business. That money is then going to the credit card companies who are making billions and billions of dollars in profits.

We need to implement a code of conduct now, not a voluntary code of conduct. That lacks teeth. If it is voluntary and we choose not to do it, what is stopping people from actually implementing it? We need the code of conduct now. It should not read in the budget, “only if necessary”. It is necessary now. Ask any small business in Canada.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I will be debating Bill C-9.

The Bloc Québécois is against this bill, and I will explain why. I will also talk about what has been excluded from this budget.

First of all, my colleague from Hochelaga did a tour of all the ridings, including mine. During his visit, he met with various organizations: an organization representing women, another representing non-profit groups, farmers, employment insurance recipients, as well as experts on social housing and homelessness.

It was noted that the budget does not offer anything to women, who represent about 52% of the population. As women, they are responsible for the family. A number of single mothers must find housing on minimum wage or with minimal government assistance. These women need social housing assistance. Since no money is being invested in social housing to help these women, we are seeing increasing poverty.

It was clear that the gap between the rich and the poor will widen even more because of this Conservative budget. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

It is also clear that the majority of caregivers are women. Our employment insurance system allows them only eight weeks of special leave, which is not much. These women who decide to stay at home to help their family will lose their jobs or quit them temporarily. But being a caregiver does not come with a contract. No one can know whether the person being cared for will pass away within six weeks. It is impossible to know.

Furthermore, the court challenges program was very important to women, who cannot afford to pay lawyers $1,000 an hour to defend a job.

That is why we are against this budget, particularly because of its impact on women.

This budget is also silent on the subject of moneys owing. The government owes Quebec $2.2 billion for harmonizing its tax with the GST. Considering Quebec's latest budget, which is a controversial attempt to deal with some financial difficulties, I sincerely believe that if the government were to truly take its responsibilities and stop scorning the Quebec nation, it would transfer that $2.2 billion to the province. That money would pay for the social programs that Quebec has chosen to implement, such as $7-a-day daycare for single mothers who want to go back to work or return to their studies. That costs money. It provides direct assistance to women.

In general, women who have part-time jobs are eligible for employment insurance. If a person who earns $9 per hour three days a week gets 55% of her salary, she will be living below the poverty line. I have much more to say on the subject of women, but I will move on to other matters.

Our seniors are our library. These are the people who built our society, who educated us and who raised us. These people have been forgotten. I am talking about the guaranteed income supplement.

I meet women who are living off their old age pension, which is $500 per month. How is anyone supposed to pay for housing, food, clothing, electricity and medication on less than $7,000 per year?

Not helping these people spend their retirement years and the last years of their lives in dignity suggests a truly narrow vision. It is unacceptable. Stranger still is the fact that when these people owe the government money for taxes, it does not take long for the government to collect. However, when it comes to helping vulnerable people, most of whom are women, the government just forgets. Apparently, it is a little more complicated to help these people than it is to collect money from them.

Just as unacceptable is the discrepancy between what this government promised when it was in opposition and what it is doing now that it is in power. That is what we call selective memory.

They talk about voting for power. I have power from my electors, the power to defend their values and needs in the House, be it in terms of agriculture or otherwise.

We asked for just over $625 million for the agri-flex program. The government gave nothing. They are simply holding consultations, but meanwhile nothing is being fixed. While they are travelling around Canada visiting farms, nothing is being fixed.

It is the role of government, which the public trusts, to fix what is broken. If the Conservatives are not able to fix what is broken, they can just stand aside and let us have our own country. We will fix our problems without always having to be at the mercy of a centralizing government that does not share our values. It is not that our values are better or worse, they are simply different.

The government could have found other ways to get money. In 2008, when we came back after the election, the Minister of Finance said that Canada had no problems. I do not know what colour his glasses were, but all of a sudden everything changed. This is the same minister who was once Ontario's finance minister. Things did not go well at the provincial level either. I wonder if it is mere coincidence that this happened twice or is it just a lack of knowledge?

The Bloc is doing a thorough job. It visits its electors every week, every month and every year in order to find out what they need. It would have been easy enough to get money from tax havens, which are worth $3 billion. That amount would help many young families with limited means.

Also, Quebec's equalization payments should be restored. We pay 25% of the bill and the $3 billion would have been a tremendous help to Quebec. In addition, there is the $2 billion for the GST, and Hydro-Québec's $400 million still locked in the federal government's coffers. This money has not been returned to Quebec. All these items add up to $6, $7 or $8 billion. It is as though this money was owed. It is not an amount owing, it is a right. This money belongs to Quebec and must be returned to Quebec.

There is also the matter of Quebec's responsibilities, in health, for example. The population is aging. Money is being transferred in small doses, and is not flowing very quickly into the population. For that reason, we must make intelligent investments and the money we send to Ottawa must be returned. This is taxpayers' money, money from people in my riding. They are experiencing difficulties or are going bankrupt because the money is not being returned. They have to feed their families and pay their bills.

This bill will mainly help banks and the oil sands industry by providing tax credits to oil companies and all the rest. I find that unfair.

Quebec has chosen to provide social programs such as a child care program, among others. That is the choice that we have made and we cover the cost.

Government expenditures must be cut. The government says that it cut 245 positions, phantom jobs that were already empty. They are abolishing 245 jobs, but creating 300 others to manage other things. I may not be a mathematician, but I do know how to do the math. When you get rid of five people and then hire 300, that makes an additional 295 hires.

There is also a great deal of duplication. There are officials at the Quebec ministry of health and officials at the federal health department. This is something that should be looked at in order to better manage public funds.

I will leave some time for members to ask questions, which I welcome. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill and I am proud of that because it is not a good bill.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about women's issues. I would ask her if she has confidence that the government did an analysis of the budget implementation bill and the throne speech so that they correctly reflect gender support.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, the answer is clearly “no”. The government seems to have a 1940s mentality, from a time when women were valued only for their cooking and cleaning. This is the 21st century. We have women entrepreneurs and business leaders, and others who take care of their families and all kinds of things. This is a very backwards-thinking government when it comes to women. Whether the government likes it or not, women are active in politics and we will practice politics as women.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the member spoke about the tax havens. She made reference to $3 billion. I am not sure where that figure comes from, but I would be very interested in finding out. I would like to be able to question one of the government members on the bill, but we have not heard one speak for the last couple of days. I am not able to ask them, so I will have to ask the Bloc member.

In terms of tax havens the whole issue became public a couple of years ago when an employee of one of the Swiss banks sold some of the bank's computer back-up tapes containing the names of all of the former nationals to the German government. The Canadian government and other governments became aware of citizens using these tax havens. As a result, Canada offers an amnesty. A lot of people in Canada were nervous and started voluntarily paying their taxes. To me, this just promotes tax havens as a risk-free venture because people know they can invest in tax havens and as soon as they start to feel the heat on them, they can voluntarily declare their taxes and get away with it. The question is when is the government going to step in and take tougher action?

Under the bill, if I could ask one of the government members, they do talk about applying provisions of the Criminal Code to serious crimes related to money laundering and terrorist financing to tax evasion. I am wondering if there is a connection between that measure and what we are talking about in terms of tax havens.

Could the member give us a little more background about the $3 billion?

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

Canada's five biggest banks released a financial report on the use of tax havens, which allowed them to save $2.4 billion. That is just the banks, to say nothing of the oil companies. Tax havens shelter 79 subsidiaries, thereby cheating Canada out of $2.4 billion in tax revenues.

Wikipedia lists the countries that are tax havens and anyone can access that site. If someone wants to invest money, they should consult that site. It indicates where to invest, even in the United States.

It is easy for people to shirk their fiscal responsibilities when countries allow it and accept it. Furthermore, the government, whether Liberal or Conservative—not progressive, but regressive—sees no problem with investing our financial capital there, since people are still making money in Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Hochelaga has only one minute.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is too bad that I have only one minute to speak.

I visited my colleague's riding this week. The member spoke at length about seniors and the people who are our living memory. These people are left out. In addition, high speed Internet access is absent from this budget.

My colleague is from a very beautiful riding, the second most beautiful riding in Canada, and I wonder if she can tell me how Internet access could have benefited her constituents, particularly seniors.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right.

This government wants to close Canada Post outlets, which mostly serve rural areas where Internet service is not accessible.

How can we help people isolated in rural areas when they do not have access to either mail or the Internet?

Money is available, but it comes with little and Conservative Party pictures and logos. Maybe there is a shortage of photographers or pictures. Money is often announced, but it does not go anywhere.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak briefly to Bill C-9, the budget bill, and what this means to most Canadians.

My constituents of Don Valley East are concerned, as in general this budget has very little positive impact on the average Canadian. Instead they feel the budget is providing businesses greater profits on the backs of average hard-working Canadians. For example, the budget does not provide any real relief for the unemployed or any hope for those who are in imminent danger of losing their employment.

Currently 1.5 million Canadians have lost their jobs and more will lose their jobs due to the inaction of the government. Young people are especially vulnerable. The current unemployment rate for youths is 16%, the highest it has ever been. The government needs to develop a strategy to get these Canadians back to work. It is very simple. If people work, they can spend and with that spending, they can enhance the economy.

The one thing the government has boasted about is the stimulus plan, the economic action plan. I would like to do a reality check on the action plan. So far the stimulus plan of the government has only created photo opportunities for ministers, a feel-good advertising campaign, which is all talk and no show, and false promises of jobs.

The question being asked by many Canadians is this. Where are the jobs that the government claims it is creating, the full-time well-paying jobs? A reality check, after the first year of the stimulus plan, is there are very few full-time well-paying jobs for Canadians.

The minister responsible for infrastructure and his officials are unable to verify either how much of the stimulus money has been spent or the numbers of jobs that have actually been created. How could they? They do not track the job numbers. The question my constituents are asking is this. Where are the thousands of jobs that the government is claiming it has created?

We understand the government spent about $250 million on advertising. How much did it spend on job creation? It was $9.4 million. If one does the math, the proportion is 1:25, $1 on job creation, $25 on advertising. That does not create jobs. The government needs to be more strategic in job creation and needs to spend less on advertising.

To add insult to injury, we have learned that more than $1 billion of this stimulus plan in the last budget did not even leave the federal coffers. How can that be possible? By not spending the money, the government can claim it managed the deficit. Talk about manipulating the public. How can Canadians trust it?

The government also lacks an economic antenna and fiscal credibility. Just last October, the Prime Minister claimed there was no recession, no economic crisis. The Prime Minister claimed that he would never create a deficit. It just goes to show that the Conservatives have never balanced a budget. The last time they did it was during the time of Prime Minister Borden, which was when the Titanic sank.

What are some suggestions that the government can do? It could extend the home renovation tax credit, with a new emphasis on energy efficiency and retrofit and build affordable housing for Canadians across the land. These are really the social determinants of the health of Canadians.

The government could invest in eco-energy retrofits and research and development to create value-added jobs. Canada has the technology and the know-how, but it needs a government to provide a conducive environment, not a government that cannot think beyond ideology, like it did with the Avro.

The government has a reverse-Midas touch. It kills everything that is good and progressive for Canadians, like the popular eco-energy retrofit program.

It is also a well-known fact that the most effective economic multipliers that provide stimulus are infrastructure. For every dollar that is invested, $1.60 comes back. In housing, the yield is $1.50 per $1 investment. Investing in the unemployed gives back $1.60.

Instead of doing the logical thing, what does the government do? It brings in a payroll tax. Increasing EI premiums, which is a payroll tax, kills jobs and is not an efficient way for the government to collect revenues. Canadians cannot figure out how the government can be so economically obtuse. A payroll tax of $13 billion to small and medium-sized enterprises is not an incentive for businesses to create jobs.

Officials from finance tell us that a percentage change in GDP equals approximately $16 billion and that its impact on job creation is around 0.6%. This means that $16 billion would create 96,000 jobs. However, the government's investment is only one-quarter of that, so how can it claim it is creating thousands of jobs? This is a plain falsehood.

One of the biggest losers of the stimulus program has been the women. They have not benefited from the stimulus package. Women have only seen a small part of the action in the Conservative government's economic action plan.

As the federal government rolled out the budget, a new study by Queen's University Professor Kathleen Lahey argued that men were seeing a disproportionate share of the benefits of Ottawa's record spending over the past years. Professor Lahey says that the top question for the government this week should be what budget 2010 will do to ensure that women receive a fair share of the benefits of these costly initiatives. Women have only seen a small part of the action in the Conservative government's economic action plan.

The study notes that of the $9.4 billion spent to date on stimulus, only $572,475, that is, 0.00006%, has gone to upgrade women's shelters, when nearly triple that amount has been committed to upgrading three animal shelters in Canada. While the care of animals is something very close to my heart, I believe the care of abused women should take precedence.

As I mentioned previously, the government has decided to massively increase EI premiums in 2011 for both the employees and employers. This impacts women and youth who are trying to seek employment or getting back into the workforce. How imposing a payroll tax helps stimulate the economy boggles one's mind.

The government also has proven itself to be an incompetent fiscal manager. In 2006 it inherited a $13.2 billion surplus, which carried over to the following year to about $9 billion. Today we find ourselves with a $56 billion deficit. When we add that up, it works out to over $70 billion in three and a half years that we have lost. That is shameful. If the government can claim it is an economic manager, I shudder to think what it would do next.

The government is putting a burden on every Canadian adult and child to the tune of $3,000, a burden on some who have not even started walking, let alone working.

What does the government have to show for this massive mismanagement of finance? There is nothing for seniors, women or the unemployed. There is no social housing, nothing for the homeless, older workers or informal caregivers.

What about the environment? Yesterday we learned that Alberta was facing a huge shortage of water. Why? Because of the lack of rain and snow. Climate change is a science that the Conservative government still refuses to accept.

What about R and D? The government let the space agency funds lapse and got rid of the government's leading scientists.

The budget does nothing for most Canadians. It is truly unfair to those who are most vulnerable and who care about the environment or the future. It affects the public service and programs of Canadians. The budget reinforces my belief that Conservatives are not here for average Canadians. They are only here for their ideological friends.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, buried in the budget implementation bill is a clause that would provide exemptions on any federally-funded infrastructure projects from an environmental assessment.

The federal Toronto Port Authority wants to construct a tunnel crossing a portion of Lake Ontario, linking Toronto to the island airport, thus enabling the airport to increase its air traffic dramatically. This proposed tunnel is extremely controversial and expensive, and Torontonians will be shut out of the consultations because there will not be a federal environmental assessment on the impact the tunnel will have on the water and air quality if this budget bill passes.

Furthermore, this environmental assessment exemption would allow for uncontrolled and dramatic expansion of the polluting tar sands projects without environmental assessments.

Not only will the budget implementation bill degrade the air quality of the Toronto waterfront, it will also increase greenhouse gas emissions, causing more climate change and global warming.

Given those terrible consequences of the budget implementation bill, how could the hon. member and her party allow this bill to get through the House of Commons?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member that Kyoto, which would have helped with the environmental assessment and reduce pollution, was defeated by her party after it got into bed with the Conservatives. I can only answer questions which come from people who are really committed to the environment. If she and her party were really committed to the environment, they would never have let Kyoto die.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have weighed the hon. member's question against the response that was given, and I would say that two wrongs do not make a right.

Let us just say that what is done is done. The hon. member voted against the budget when it was brought down, unlike other members in her party. I wonder why she was unable to convince the people in her party with all the arguments she has made, and that the Bloc Québécois and our colleagues in the NDP have made. Why is she unable to convince the members of her party to stand up together?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the issue is credibility. The Conservative Party did not have credibility on the environment. The Conservatives never had credibility. They did not believe in the science of climate change.

My question for the hon. member is this. Why did his party join hands with the NDP and defeat the Kyoto protocol? Where is its conviction? One cannot have conviction if one starts playing games.

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

Madam Speaker, I count myself lucky that I was not in the chamber for most of the member's speech because the parts I did hear were quite fanciful and full of nonsense.

With respect to the economy, the member obviously knows that we paid down close to 40 billion dollars' worth of Canada's national debt in advance of the recession.

[An hon. member]

And now it's going back up again.

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

I recall the members opposite complaining that we should have actually spent it. She also will know--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I should have warned the hon. member there is only 30 seconds left. I will have to give the hon. member for Don Valley East the opportunity to respond or make a comment.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the members of the NDP opposite supported that, but I should also point out that we did provide over $1.5 billion to the Nature Conservancy of Canada for natural heritage projects. We have a chemical management plan. We are the first government to bring in hard targets with respect to greenhouse gas emissions.

I wonder why the member does not support those type of initiatives when under the Liberals' watch greenhouse gases--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Don Valley East has 30 seconds to respond.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to ensure that the member opposite does not use fanciful and nonsensical language when it comes to economics. It was the Mulroney government that created the largest deficit. The Conservatives have never balanced the budget. We balanced the budget. We left a $13.2 billion surplus and the Conservatives have not managed it properly.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

An implementation bill often contains fine print. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. The government often tries to slip in certain measures in implementation bills that it did not announce in the budget. These measures end up in the overall bill, as do all the technicalities and all the details on implementing the budget. Everything must be read very carefully because often the government tries to pull a fast one, as is the case in this bill.

Fortunately, this poses no problem to the Bloc Québécois since it was already against the budget, which in no way meets the needs of Quebec in a context of economic crisis and the crisis in the forestry and manufacturing sectors. Obviously we will be voting against the budget implementation bill.

I have discovered that the budget says nothing at all about the restriction on Canada Post’s exclusive privilege that the implementation bill would introduce. Once that measure is implemented, it will allow exporters of letters to collect letters in Canada and transport and deliver them abroad. That means that Canada Post’s competitors will be able to collect mail in Canada and Quebec and then ship it outside Canada.

The people in the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have been publicly calling on the government for a long time to preserve jobs in this sector. Instead of listening to them, the government has proposed a measure that will end Canada Post’s exclusive privilege.

On June 17, 2009, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-44 to eliminate international mail from Canada Post’s exclusive privilege. The bill, which made it to second reading, died on the order paper because the House was prorogued. It died, like all other government bills.

So they decided to short-circuit the democratic process. They put that measure in the budget implementation bill. That shows the insidious nature of the Conservative government and its real intention to completely deregulate this crown corporation.

The people in our various ridings, particularly in rural regions, are continually lobbying for the survival of postal services as we know them today. This is not a matter of closing your eyes and thinking there should be no change in the services. But we know how governments work. I say governments because the Liberals did the same thing in their time. They were closing post offices in the regions left and right, saying they weren’t profitable. But we have the evidence that Canada Post is actually very profitable.

We have to accept that the services we receive in the regions must be paid for and that they may be less profitable than other services, but they do make it possible for a community to survive and keep its services. It is the same thing for schools and financial institutions. When those establishments close down, one after another, the regions lose their vitality and their population declines. These are services the public is entitled to. We pay for these services and governments use sleight of hand to reduce those services.

The Bloc Québécois is firmly opposed to privatizing Canada Post, even partially. This crown corporation must continue to be a public agency and maintain universal services with uniform rates throughout Quebec and Canada. When these services are eliminated, all rural regions suffer the same fate.

The change to the Employment Insurance Act is also not in the actual budget but in the implementation bill. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for substantial improvements in the employment insurance system.

A few examples of this would be to administer the system on the assumption that applicants are acting in good faith; increase the program's wage replacement rate to 60% of maximum insurable earnings; eliminate the much-discussed waiting period; standardize the qualification requirements for benefits at 360 hours of work; calculate benefits on the basis of the 12 best weeks of insurable earnings; expand the right of recipients to continue receiving benefits while receiving training; and make self-employed workers eligible for regular benefits.

More generally, we believe that the government should submit a plan for reimbursing the funds diverted to its own accounts from the employment insurance fund. It should also drop its obvious intention to loot this fund once again; the fund does not belong to the government.

We are very concerned about certain provisions in the implementation bill. The Conservatives’ 2008 budget established a new crown corporation, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, reporting to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. This board’s duties included administering a separate bank account. Any annual surpluses in the employment insurance fund were supposed to be retained and invested until needed to cover the costs of the program.

Budget 2010 closes the board’s separate bank account, the EI account, and creates a new one, the employment insurance operating account.

They are permanently eliminating the accumulated surpluses in the EI account, effective retroactively to January 1, 2009. This account will therefore no longer exist and will be replaced by the employment insurance operating account, which will start from zero. The EI surpluses, amounting to more than $57 billion on March 31, 2009, according to the Public Accounts of Canada, will disappear for good.

We very much regret the fact that there is no mention of the reforms needed to make employment insurance more accessible. That is a real problem. Most people who contribute to employment insurance do not necessarily qualify for it.

My colleague from Compton—Stanstead spoke about the situation of women, who are especially affected. They are the least able to access employment insurance. It is nearly as bad for young people. People contribute to EI but are not entitled to the fruits of their labour, that is to say, benefits. When someone loses his or her job and has paid into the system, that person should have benefits for a little time before finding another job. Unfortunately, though, some people cannot even get employment insurance benefits.

Furthermore, lifting the freeze on premium rates will not improve the system. The government will not hesitate to pilfer $19 billion from the employment insurance fund between 2011 and 2015.

When the Conservatives were the official opposition, they, like the other opposition parties, publicly criticized the pillaging of the employment insurance fund by the Liberals who were in power at the time. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin, when he was finance minister, was mandated by Jean Chrétien to get Canada's finances in order. He did two things: he pilfered from the EI fund and cut transfers to provinces.

The Conservatives were highly critical of these measures. They took power a few years later, and are now pilfering $19 billion from the EI fund themselves. For that reason alone, we must vote against the budget implementation bill.

Between 2011-12 and 2014-15, the government has estimated the surplus at $19.2 billion. With the 2010 budget, the government will be able to pocket these surpluses.

In order to generate these surpluses, the government plans on increasing premium rates by 15¢ a year, as of 2011, as permitted under the act. However, I must note that the increase will be suggested by the EI Financing Board, which we find very worrisome.

I will talk about other changes we found in the implementation bill, such as an amendment to the Banking Act, which will enable credit unions to incorporate as banks

I have just mentioned some aspects of the implementation bill that show that this government has tried to slip in some completely unacceptable measures. The people of Quebec are calling on us to vote against this bill.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I apologize, but I am going to ask a question that is not related to the member's speech. If he does not want to answer it or cannot, he can finish the last minute of his speech that he wanted to do.

My understanding is the Canadian Space Agency is upset that the PolarSat satellite program did not get funding in the budget. It would provide satellite coverage of the entire Arctic, of the entire north of Canada. It could measure the permafrost which is melting and having devastating effects on the north. It could provide Internet coverage to all northerners.

I wonder if the member would support the funding of that satellite project.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon is speaking of a very specific issue which probably affects his region more. I must say that we had asked for many measures which cannot be found in this budget. It is probable that during the consultations he conducted, the RADARSAT issue was very important for the people in his riding. So I hope that he voted against the budget and will vote against the implementation bill. I also hope that he will persuade his Liberal colleagues to be present insufficient numbers and all in their seats to vote against this budget that does not contain the many measures the public has asked for.

My colleague from Hochelaga conducted an exhaustive tour of Quebec. He made a stop in my riding. Like the hon. member for Yukon, we were in fact told by many people that there should have been certain measures in the budget. Unfortunately, however, they are not there. In particular the support program for older workers, for which people have been asking for a long time, was missing. We want this program restored. We had lengthy discussions on this subject in my riding when my colleague from Hochelaga made his visit, and unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that this was not a priority for the Conservative government.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the member dealt with the post office remailer issue in his speech. I remember the Liberal post office critic getting up yesterday and explaining very well what is going on. The Conservatives introduced Bill C-14 and a similar bill last year, Bill C-44. When they could not get the bill through this minority Parliament, they managed to stick it into an 880-page budget implementation bill. It is a totally sneaky and dishonest way of dealing with the issue.

I was even more surprised when my colleague from Hamilton Mountain stood up and reminded the House that it was, in fact, a Liberal member three or four years ago who introduced this very same bill. I am pleased to see that the Liberals have changed their position and are now back on the right track on this issue. They are opposing this whole business of trying to dismantle Canada Post and the remailer issue. I applaud them for getting back on track. I was not aware until yesterday that it was the Liberals who had initiated this whole effort two or three years ago.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member was not exactly asking a question, but I will be happy to remind him of something. Even if he says that the Liberals seem to have changed their position and are opposing the implementation bill, which includes a restriction on the exclusive international remailing privilege of the Canada Post Corporation, we should not applaud them too loudly.

As I said to the previous member, the Liberals’ tactic, for both the budget and the implementation bill, will be to count—even though they have had difficulty this session in counting all their votes correctly—sufficient absent members so that the budget and implementation bill are passed.

So my colleague in the NDP is right to be concerned about this situation. With the complicity of the Liberals, the implementation bill will be passed, and this measure to the detriment of the post office and our postal workers will be introduced. We can be sure we will hear about this in all of our regions. The people are very concerned about this.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today and give thanks to the proud, hard-working people of Etobicoke North.

I left a job I loved to run for elected office because I believed, and still believe today, that it is the job of government to make life better for Canadians and to have a plan, a real plan, to build for a better tomorrow.

Where is the help now for Canadian families in the budget? The budget comes up short and often offers mere gimmicks; for example, superficial tax changes to the universal child benefit that do not benefit low income and single parents.

Almost 20% of my riding is engaged in manufacturing, the second highest percentage for the entire country. About 25% of the families in my riding are headed by single parents who regularly work two jobs just to put food on the table for their children. As a result, I have served as the vice-chair for our Toronto breakfast programs. Sadly, we feed 100,000 students every morning in the city. That means one in four of our students go to school hungry, and hungry children cannot learn.

My riding has the highest rates of type 2 diabetes in children in Ontario. Children develop diabetes because it is the choice between a $5 litre of orange juice versus a $2 double litre of orange pop. The choice is clear for parents trying to stretch each dollar.

We will offer a real alternative, a better offer to Canadians: quality early childhood care and education. Canadian researchers calculated a two to one economic and social return for every dollar invested in child care. American researchers demonstrate a three or four to one return for low income families, and show that childhood development programs could have a substantial payoff for governments, improve labour skills, reduce poverty and improve global competitiveness.

Where is the help now for our seniors in the budget? A mere $10 million to encourage volunteerism and a day of recognition is a far cry from concrete help to fix pensions.

Where is the investment in our aging population? We have a federal government that has hardly uttered the word “health” for the last four years. Yet, worldwide there is concern that the baby boomers are retiring and entering their high demand period for health care. In Canada there will be 7.5 million people over the age of 65 by 2025. Population aging has tremendous implications for Canada, where most elderly people would not be able to meet more than a small fraction of the cost of the health care they incur. The average hospital stay in Canada costs $7,000 and does not take into account emergency or cardiac care.

Where is the investment in prevention? Worldwide the leading global risks for fatality are high blood pressure, responsible for 13% of deaths globally; tobacco use, 9%; high blood glucose, 6%; physical inactivity, 6%; overweight and obesity, 5%. These risks are responsible for raising the risk of chronic diseases such as cancers, diabetes and heart disease. Reducing exposure to the aforementioned risk factors, along with reduced alcohol use, cholesterol, and high fruit and vegetable intake would increase global life expectancy by an astounding five years.

Illnesses associated with aging such as cardiovascular disease and cancer cost $20 billion and $13 billion respectively. Moreover, the impacts of brain and psychological diseases are greater than cancer and cardiovascular disease combined.

Today, someone in Canada develops dementia every five minutes. This will change to one new case every two minutes in 30 years. In 30 years the prevalence of dementia in Canada will more than double, with the costs increasing tenfold if no changes are made. This means the total cost associated with this mind-robbing disease could reach $153 billion by 2038, up from the $15 billion a year today.

The Alzheimer's Society of Canada suggests four key ways to slow the growth in cases of Alzheimer's and dementia: promote healthier lifestyles including encouraging people over age 65 to increase their physical activity levels; add system navigators to guide families through the complex health care system; invest in support and education for caregivers; and combine risk reduction strategies to delay the onset of dementia by two years, particularly through the discovery of new treatments.

If we could merely slow the onset of dementia by two years for each affected Canadian, we would see a return on investment of 15,000% over a 30 year research effort. One of the biggest challenges we face, therefore, is how to best prevent and postpone disease and to maintain the health, independence and mobility of an aging population.

As someone who taught at a business school, I understand that we must slay our country's biggest deficit in history of $56 billion, but that we cannot do it by destroying what makes us Canada and in some cases, uniquely Canadian. We must dream of the future we want, whether it is the future of health care or the future of the earth's climate.

Incidentally, where was the investment in climate change and clean energy jobs in the budget? A mere $25 million does not cut it when the government spent almost none of its green infrastructure fund last year. It does not cut it when President Obama invested $50 billion for green jobs, the United Kingdom invested $1.5 billion, Germany invested $13.8 billion, and China invested $221 billion, or 110 times that of the U.K.

For a second year in a row the government is using the budget bill to weaken federal environmental laws. These amendments have nothing to do with implementing the budget and are a direct attack on Parliament.

Parliamentary review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is required to get under way by June 2010. The parliamentary standing committee is planning to start this review in May. Why not present these amendments to the committee as part of the review process and let members of Parliament determine if these amendments are necessary?

One last issue to cover today. I have always loved to listen to our vets and today I am honoured to serve Royal Canadian Legion Branch 286 in my riding. The most important lesson I ever learned from our veterans, while growing up, was that they went to war for my mom's generation, for my generation, and for those to come. They did not go for their own and 100,000 never came home.

I have never forgotten what one vet said to me, namely, “What will you and your friends do for the next generations? We are entrusting you with the future we fought for”.

We have to negotiate for our children who are not here. We have to accept moral responsibility. With every tough decision it is important to ask, is this something my children would be proud of? This is not a budget that looks ahead at the challenges of our times. It is hard to see how it will make Canada more competitive, more prosperous, or better prepared to create jobs or protect pensions.

We must start building for the future. We face tough decisions including our growing deficit, the future of our health care system, our warming climate, all of which will have an impact on future generations.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the member on her speech. It was certainly a speech I would have expected from any one of my 37 colleagues in the NDP. She is right on in her analysis.

She talked about health issues, disease prevention, high blood pressure, smoking, and other lifestyle issues in which the government should be actively involved. I am sad to say that the previous Liberal governments that had been in power for many years should have been more active on this file as well, but that does not excuse the lack of action from the Conservatives at this point.

The fact of the matter is that there are countries, such as England, which pay the doctors based on the doctors getting their patients to live a better lifestyle. In other words, the doctors are paid to get patients to quit smoking as opposed to approaching health on the basis of treating people after they are already sick.

We have been talking about this probably for 25 years. It is certainly a major issue for the NDP. It is a constant battle to get government to act, to do the right thing and take preemptive action. As the member pointed out, if we were to do that, we would actually save money in the long run. People would be healthier and would live longer as a result.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his comments about health prevention, which is key. There are opportunities to reduce costs. A recent OECD study looked at costs in 10 countries and there was tremendous variation. If we could reduce the cost to the best practices, we could reduce health care costs by 10% to 48%.

There are other opportunities for reducing health care costs, including prevention, early detection and mammograms. We know disease treatment costs less when we diagnose it early. We need to reduce blockages anywhere in the health care system. In particular, there are blockages between acute care and chronic care.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also listened to what our colleague had to say, and like my NDP colleague, I feel that she had some very good ideas that reflect the views of veterans in her riding who asked her what we are doing in the House of Commons to promote this sort of idea. At least that is how I interpret what she said.

I know that we cannot identify the people who vote for or against a motion or who are absent. But what will it take for her and her colleagues to defeat this budget, which they condemn, and send these people back to the drawing board?

What more does my colleague need to get all her colleagues to vote against this budget?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member was talking about veterans. Veterans in my community have asked for more of a focus on brain health. The brain is the most vital organ in the human body. If it does not work properly, every aspect of life may be compromised.

One in three, or 10 million, Canadians will be affected by a neurologic or psychiatric disease, disorder or injury at some point in his or her life. Parkinson's disease affects almost 200,000 Canadians. This is Parkinson's Disease Awareness Month. There is a common link among neurological diseases such as ALS, MS, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, and that is there are no cures or effective treatments that consistently slow or stop their course. It comes back to prevention. We have to build a better understanding of what these diseases are and how they impact society and invest in research in order to have better treatments.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation act. I would like to spend my time talking about some of the things that are in the bill but also about some of the things that are not in the bill and things that should be discussed.

I certainly appreciate the comments of my colleague across the way and thank her very much for those comments.

Let me talk about a couple of things that are in the budget that will create hardships not just for people in Thunder Bay—Rainy River in northwestern Ontario, but right across northern Ontario and other regions across the country. There is the increase of 50% in security fees in the airline tax. That is one of those hidden things that people will be hit with. There is the HST on financial services. We have talked about some of the problems with that before. Another is employment insurance.

Employment insurance is of particular interest to our party, to me and to our member from New Brunswick who is the critic in that area. The budget implementation bill empties the employment insurance account which held a surplus of roughly $57 billion. That was money paid by workers and employers which had built up over many years. The bill empties that account once and for all.

People talk about the budget being a budget that says nothing. There are a number of things in it that we need to be aware of.

There is very little said about pensions. I suspect that the Minister of Finance who is now going across the country will be getting an earful about pensions. We know where pensions need to go in this country. We are really in the dark ages as far as pensions are concerned. The NDP has a plan and we put it forward. The Minister of Finance is aware of what we are talking about regarding reforming the pension system.

I will make a quick plug for Bill C-501 which will be coming up for debate next month. It is a bill that moves workers' pensions from unsecured into secured status. It is a very simple, straightforward bill. I am hoping that everyone in the House will support it, including my colleagues from Saskatchewan and other places whom we try to co-operate with as much as possible. I am sure we will find some common ground on Bill C-501 and will be able to push it through very quickly to protect workers.

Imagine a country where workers and employers who paid into pension funds actually get the money back in the case of bankruptcy. That is what the bill would do. I certainly hope that members will support it.

I do not want to be completely negative when I talk about the budget. The budget extends the mineral exploration tax credit for another year, which is good. I am glad that the government has done that. The government is at least taking a couple of steps forward to fight contraband cigarettes with a new stamping regime which is a good thing. The budget also enacts certain payments to some charities, for example the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, the Rick Hansen Foundation and others. That is also a good thing.

Let me move from examining the propaganda in the budget speech to the nuts and bolts of Bill C-9. We see that the Conservative government continues to sell out our long-term interest for questionable short-term gains.

I was not surprised to see many items in Bill C-9, the HST payment to McGuinty's Liberals for example, a freeze on MPs' salaries and office budgets and huge corporate tax cuts. These were all expected.

Buried deep in the 904 pages of legal jargon that is Bill C-9 there are also provisions that eliminate the need for environmental assessments for stimulus projects, enable the sale of crown assets like Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and increase the export tariff penalty for Canadian forestry producers.

Given that we are blessed with a beautiful and relatively pristine natural environment in northwestern Ontario, I am very concerned that environmental assessments will no longer need to be completed before infrastructure stimulus projects get under way.

While the Canadian economy is in desperate need of public investment, northwestern Ontario is in desperate need of new roads and highways right through the region. I would rather have a month or two delay on these projects so as to ensure that they comply with existing environmental regulations and do not have negative long-term effects on our natural environment, which many families in our region depend upon for their economic well-being.

Just as it does not make sense to cancel environmental assessments in the name of short-term economic stimulus, it also makes little sense to sell off profitable crown corporations and crown assets when we are facing many years of large fiscal deficits.

In the case of AECL, Bill C-9 lays the groundwork for the selling off of particular assets or of the company as a whole, even though the company is one of the world's largest producers of nuclear technology and brings in millions of dollars each year through the sale and licensing of its cutting-edge technology. Would it not make more sense to halt the $100 million ad campaign the Conservatives are using to promote their budget? Imagine $100 million being spent on ads to promote themselves; the Conservatives are using that to promote their budget supposedly.

How about reducing the $60 billion in corporate tax cuts before selling off a proven long-term money maker? The answer is obvious but the government has never shown an ability to look beyond the next poll when it comes to its decision making.

Perhaps the most troubling detail contained in the fine print of Bill C-9 is the acceptance and enforcement of the London Court of International Arbitration ruling that Canadian forest companies owe $68 million to their U.S. counterparts, $68.26 million to be exact, due to an unintentional violation of the softwood lumber agreement. In fact, the unintentional violation is the government's fault. To comply with this ruling, the Conservative government included a provision in Bill C-9 that increases the export tariff on softwood lumber products from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan by 10% immediately.

When one subtracts the paltry $25 million in new forest sector investment that is also contained in the budget, Canada's forestry sector will actually be forced to pay out $43 million in new taxes and tariffs this year just as it begins to emerge from a catastrophic decade-long downturn. It makes no sense. At the very least, since the tribunal has already ruled, the government should be on the hook, not forest companies that are struggling to manage and are just starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

It is a horrible situation in Bill C-9, eliminating the need for environmental assessments on infrastructure projects and selling off profitable assets while running massive long-term deficits.

I talked about AECL. Also contained in Bill C-9 is the beginning, the thin edge of the wedge, in starting to dismantle Canada Post. Think of all the fine public sector workers who have good jobs, work hard, are paid well and have pensions at the end of their time. There is nothing wrong with people working hard, getting paid well, raising their families and having a little pension when they get to the end of their working lives. There is nothing wrong with that, but the government is making it more and more difficult for people in Canada to do that.

Surely Bill C-9 will go down as one of the most shortsighted and misguided budget documents ever before the House of Commons. Should the Liberals and Conservatives band together to pass this bill, as they did with the HST, then both parties must share the blame for the substantial damage that it is likely to cause to the long-term economic and environmental interests in our region.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's presentation on the budget.

One initiative that has cost our country a few billion dollars is the long gun registry. In terms of looking at the full picture with respect to our budget, we would continue to become more effective and more efficient in our administration and budget spending.

I know the hon. member supports getting rid of the long gun registry, but in committee the NDP members are dragging it out. Would the hon. member be able to persuade his colleagues to come onside and improve the financial position of the country with the dissolution of the long gun registry and get rid of that ineffective spending?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, I am not part of that committee and not privy to things that are said in camera. I am not really sure what is going on there.

However, I remind the member that one of the reasons we are in the House is to listen to our constituents and to represent them to the best of our ability. I continue to do that as do all members of the NDP.

Sometimes things are very clear in terms of how our constituents would like us to vote, or in terms of things that we would like to speak on, like my pension bill, Bill C-501. My constituents would like to see that bill go through for the benefit of all Canadians.

I would like to think we are all here for that reason.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River for his concern about the economy of northern Ontario. I have stated the case for my area of that wonderful part of the country.

Back in the sixties, 1,200 people mined ore and shipped it to Sault Ste. Marie and 12,000 people turned it into steel. That steel was then sent across the country where thousands of people made it into different things. Those things were sold to Canadians and we traded the leftovers. We had an interconnected economic system back then that saw everybody doing well. All our communities were prospering and supporting each other.

My colleague talked about the forest industry. Could he tell us a bit about how the forest industry worked back in the sixties and seventies and how we might get back to that kind of self-sufficiency again?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, the forest industry, like most resource-based industries, has always been a cyclical industry. There have been ups and downs. Sometimes they have been extended ups and sometimes they have been extended downs. Perhaps it is going through an extended down right now.

Back in the sixties and seventies people realized that communities were important. Everyone worked for the betterment of the community and for the families in that region. As the global financial situation changed, through no fault of anybody in northern Ontario, those things changed. One thing that will not change in the forestry industry is the fact that there will always be a need for paper and paper products.

We need to ensure when there is reorganization over the next five years, or however long it takes, that northern Ontario continues to be a major player in the forest industry.

The hon. member across the way is very interested in poverty issues and so on. Those are important issues. Let me reiterate that northern Ontario and other forestry regions across Canada are suffering from high unemployment rates. We were hoping there would be something in this budget for that, but there was not.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this government bill. One could have a number of bones to pick with the bill, but I will focus on three.

The first is the extraordinary slowness with which the government has sent out the money, thereby having a very limited impact on jobs, as confirmed recently by the government's ideological soulmate, the Fraser Institute. The second is the lack of direct action on jobs. The third is the fact that without admitting it, the Conservatives are imposing tax hikes in a number of areas, notably a tax on jobs by raising employment insurance premiums.

While we believe these are bad aspects of the bill, we do not think they are so egregiously bad as to warrant a general election at this time. As we have said a number of times, the Liberal Party will vote against the bill, but not in sufficient numbers to provoke an election.

Let me begin on the subject of the slowness of the stimulus money. We have been saying for many months that the government should have pursued a gas tax type mechanism, which would have allowed it to quickly transfer funds to municipalities. They then would have been able to quickly get shovels in the ground and create jobs months ago when the recession was at its deepest. The government refused to do that.

We have seen evidence over many weeks and months that a small fraction of the money had gone out the door. More recent, the Fraser Institute confirmed this by saying that the government stimulus spending had little effect on jobs.

Some may know that the Fraser Institute is an arch right-wing institute, an ideological soulmate of the government. Yet the Prime Minister attacked this report with great ferocity. There are two separate points worth making in this regard.

First, as the Prime Minister himself said, fiscal stimulus was the right thing to do in the middle of the greatest recession the world has seen since the 1930s. In this respect, the Prime Minister has moved away from his traditional soulmate and joined the rest of the world in recognizing that at this time John Maynard Keynes had made a remark about return from the dead and that his kind of policy was the order of the day. In that sense, I, my party and the Prime Minister are on the same page.

The second point is it is the inefficiency with which the government carried out these Keynesian policies, which is what we are now criticizing. As the Fraser Institute study noted, the fact is very little money had gone out and very little impact on the economy in 2009 came from the government's stimulus, and not because stimulus is a bad thing, but because the government managed it ineffectively.

The worst part of the recession, hopefully, unless something gets worse, was in 2009. That was the time when the job stimulus was most needed and because of the ineffective way in which the government managed it, very little help was provided in 2009 for those desperately needing work.

The second aspect is that partly because of this ineffective action, there is still a jobs crisis in the country. Yes, the GDP has shown improvement, but what really counts for many Canadians is jobs. The unemployment rate remains at 8.2% and the recent performance for permanent jobs has been poor.

Before the budget, we had proposed to the government that it adopt a number of policies to directly promote jobs. We proposed a policy to directly help manufacturing and forestry jobs through the accelerated capital cost allowance. We proposed tax incentives to directly help youth jobs because youth face an unemployment rate twice the national average. We had also proposed a policy to help the jobs of the future in the high tech sector. These proposals were at a reasonable fiscal cost.

Indeed, we identified wasteful spending by the Conservative government in areas like partisan advertising. Had it cut that wasteful spending in addition to following to our job proposals, the net impact would have been to reduce the deficit.

The government would have none of it. It adopted none of our job proposals. At the same time, the government carried on with its partisan advertising spending. That had a second negative and unfortunate impact on Canadian jobs.

My third and final point is the Conservative government continues to claim that it is not raising taxes, but over and over again in place after place we find out it is indeed raising taxes.

I am not talking just about employment insurance premiums, but about a number of other charges as well. The Conservatives will raise Canadians' taxes with this bill, but they claim they are not raising taxes.

It is not just a question of whether tax increases are a good thing or a bad thing. It is also a question of honesty, transparency and clarity with the Canadian people when the government is proposing significant tax hikes in a number of areas while denying it is raising taxes at all.

The first and most significant of these is huge increases in employment insurance premiums, starting next year, to the point where by year four those premiums will be up by $6 billion per year. The additional revenues arising from the EI premium hikes will amount to $6 billion a year, which happens to be about the same effect as if the Conservatives were to hike the GST by one point. That would also bring in $6 billion per year.

I might note that this same issue of job-killing EI premium tax hikes is at the heart of the U.K. election campaign as we speak. The counterparts of the Canadian Conservatives, the British Conservatives, are objecting to the job-killing employment insurance premium hikes announced for the United Kingdom.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has estimated that these job-killing EI premium hikes will kill no less than 200,000 jobs in our country. Given the fact that we are facing a continuing crisis in jobs, this is surely a misguided policy at this time.

It is not as if the government is content to only raise taxes in the form of EI premiums. It is also raising taxes on airport security and on research. Post-doctoral research fellows who previously enjoyed a tax exemption will now have to pay tax. It is even putting taxes on toupees. The government seems to be taxing here, there and everywhere. There are new taxes on jobs, health, research and travel, while at the same time it is claiming there are no new taxes.

For these and many other reasons, the Liberal Party will oppose the bill. We oppose it because it has been ineffective and extraordinarily slow in terms of fiscal stimulus. We oppose it because it does little or nothing directly to create or save jobs. We oppose it because of the job-killing EI premium tax hikes and tax hikes in other areas, while at the same time the government pretends it is not raising taxes at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member always does a thoughtful and thorough job when he speaks.

The member's colleague who spoke earlier this morning spoke passionately about Atlantic Canada and some of the challenges it faces. I live in a region of the country, northern Ontario, where we are experiencing some really serious challenges as well. If we do not have something done soon, there are communities that will no longer be viable in that wonderful neck of the woods because of an approach that has been taken over a number of years now.

In light of the collapse of the financial system last year, we have a chance to take another look at that. We used to be fairly self-dependent in northern Ontario and across Canada in terms of resource-based industries, like mining and steel and forestry. We used to sell a lot of paper domestically. We used to sell a lot of steel domestically.

When I first was elected one of the big problems that confronted us in the agriculture industry was BSE. The problem was we had turned all of our producing capacity over to the U.S. When the border was shut down, we could not ship beef into the States to get it produced to sell it back into our own market.

In the member's view, is there any way that we might turn this around so Canada's industries—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The member for Markham—Unionville.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal Party was government, we had a strong package of policies out there to help the forest industry. I know that because I was the minister of natural resources at the time and, working with the minister of industry, we had a multi-billion program that involved loan guarantees, measures to help find new markets and measures for the forest industry to undertake green investments, to modernize and to adopt newer technology. There was a whole package of policies in 2005 to help the forest industry.

However, lo and behold, when the Conservative government came in, it cancelled the whole thing. Had we pursued that policy, which would have been in place had we not lost the election, I think the forest industry today would be in much better shape than it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I represent a community where the forestry industry is very important. Over the last year, in spite of the downturn, we have particularly appreciated many components of the economic action plan, both year one and year two. I look at job opportunities, programs and building fences. I look at a recent announcement where we are helping a mill decrease its emissions by 67.2% while at the same time putting power into the grid. We have made significant expenditures with significant jobs.

Given some of those important initiatives and also given the stronger economic indicators that show that perhaps we are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, how can the member opposite not support a budget that is very critical for Canadians at this point in time and doing many good things for communities?

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

Mr. Speaker, those forestry measures that have just been described as being undertaken by the government are crumbs. They are crumbs thrown to an industry dying because the current government decided to cancel our program for the forestry industry when it came into power. Our program was in the billions of dollars. She is talking about maybe a few million dollars.

I can tell the member that the current government has been no friend of the forestry industry, as has been emphasized time and time again by every party in the opposition.

As to why we cannot support the budget, I gave three good reasons: that is has been extraordinarily ineffective in getting a stimulus at the time when jobs were needed most; that it has done nothing directly to help the jobs which are in such short supply in this country; and that it has been dishonest to Canadians in imposing these massive job-killing EI premium hikes, as well as tax increases in other areas.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is the budget implementation bill.

Since we were opposed to this budget, because it did not address any of Quebec's demands or concerns, we will of course also oppose the budget implementation bill. But as Bloc MPs and representatives of Quebec, we all plan to be here in the House, unlike the members of other opposition parties, to vote against this bill and try to stop this legislation that does not address any of Quebec's needs or concerns.

Before the budget was tabled, during the time the Prime Minister gave us when he prorogued Parliament and locked us out, our finance critic, the member for Hochelaga, toured Quebec. He visited Lanaudière, Gaspé, the North Shore, Saguenay, the Outaouais, the Montreal area, the Quebec City area—the national capital—Abitibi, Montérégie and the Eastern Townships. He came to Joliette to meet with socio-economic stakeholders. People expressed a number of concerns and needs during this tour. One thing that clearly emerged was that Quebec, like Canada, needs a phase 2 of the recovery plan.

Whole industries have been forgotten by the Conservative government. I am thinking of forestry, aerospace and the manufacturing sector in general. Once again, we do not disagree with the efforts made to help the auto industry, which is heavily concentrated in southern Ontario. But we are seeing a lack of fairness, since the forestry and aerospace industries are being left out. And yet we know that in these sectors of the economy, the recovery that seems to be just around the corner is having no effect. On the contrary, even more big layoffs are planned, both at the sawmills and at the pulp and paper plants, or even in aerospace, particularly among small subcontractors.

What we needed was phase 2 of the recovery plan, and that was made clear from the consultations held by my colleague from Hochelaga. The government has simply kept going down the unfair path it laid out in last year’s budget. No change is being made to respond to the concerns of the people and the various regions of Quebec.

When it comes to employment insurance, there again, there is no response to what workers, unions and municipal leaders have been calling for. We are well aware of the fact that, with adequate income security, not only would workers affected by layoffs have a minimum social safety net, but the regions could also maintain a degree of economic dynamism. Very clearly, if someone loses their job at Louisiana Pacific in Saint-Michel-des-Saints, the employment insurance benefits they receive will be used to pay the grocer in Saint-Michel-des-Saints and to buy clothing in Saint-Michel-des-Saints or Joliette. That will then help to maintain a minimum level of economic activity. The Conservatives’ approach has been to cut both corporate and personal income tax for the benefit of the wealthiest, the most well-off. What do those people do with the money? More often than not, they put it in tax shelters or send it to tax havens, as we unfortunately see all too often. Again yesterday there was a report about this happening.

In the case of corporations, the ones that get these tax cuts get them because they are making profits, while the ones that are not making a profit have received no form of assistance from the Conservative government.

On the question of employment insurance, we were hoping that the government would make an effort to make it an adequate social safety net. I would point out that in this respect the Liberals are just as guilty as the Conservatives. Let us not forget the famous Axworthy reform. The only “reform” about it was the name, because in fact it simply made a hash of employment insurance.

At the time, seven or eight people in ten contributed and could collect employment insurance if they lost their jobs. After the Axworthy reforms, this fell to four people in ten who contributed but were not necessarily entitled to benefits because of the excessively restrictive rules implemented by the Liberal government and maintained by the Conservatives. That explains why we have these huge surpluses.

Turning to what Quebec might expect regarding equalization, the Prime Minister promised for example during the 2005-06 election campaign to change the formula. He also promised not to change it unilaterally. Last year, the Minister of Finance changed it unilaterally by capping it, resulting in a $1 billion loss for Quebec. This is a recurrent loss.

The government has been unfair to Quebec in other ways as well. For example, there is the way in which Hydro-Québec revenues are treated in comparison with those of Ontario Hydro, resulting in a loss to Quebec of $250 million a year since 2008. It is absolutely incomprehensible. The capping of equalization, as I said, cost us $1 billion last year. There is talk now of $357 million a year, and this will continue. For example, between 2002 and 2004, the Government of Quebec received a little more in equalization than it was entitled to because the situation had improved. If my memory is correct, it was $2.3 or $2.4 billion more. The federal government asked the Government of Quebec to pay back the excess amount, and every year the Quebec government has to transfer $238 million to Ottawa, while the other provinces that also received too much have not been required to pay anything. That is what is called protection money. Here too there is $238 million a year that Quebec loses, which eats away terribly at its financial situation.

There is also the matter of the harmonization of the GST and QST. That is $2.2 billion that the Government of Quebec is entitled to but has not received. It is totally absurd. How is it that the first jurisdiction to have harmonized its sales tax with the federal GST has never been compensated while all the others that followed have been compensated? It is very clear that the Conservative government wants to use this debate and these negotiations over compensating Quebec for harmonizing its sales tax with the GST to try to take over the collection of the GST and the QST, which has been done since 1992 by the Government of Quebec.

What they want ultimately from the Government of Quebec and all Quebeckers is an act of submission in order to receive this $2.2 billion, even though Quebec is entitled to it for simple reasons of fairness and equal treatment with Ontario, British Columbia and the three Atlantic provinces. We obviously have an awful lot of grievances.

I am short on time, so I will not talk about the government's crazy plans for a Canada-wide securities commission, a plan despised by all financial stakeholders in Quebec, a plan with the sole objective of taking away Quebec's only remaining financial levers. Nobody in Quebec agrees with this plan. It is unacceptable to the Quebec nation and to all Quebeckers, be they federalist or sovereignist.

Everyone can see that there is absolutely nothing in this bill that is good for Quebec. That is why we will vote against this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly this is a one-sided debate here. The three opposition parties are debating this 880 page omnibus bill among ourselves. The government has not put up a speaker for two days. When we have questions that we want to ask it about this bill we are not able to do that.

The member talked about the whole issue of the infrastructure and how it would be advisable for another round of infrastructure projects across the country but he says that in light of the fact that the Conservatives did not want to bring in the first set of infrastructure projects last year. One will recall that when they were brought in, the Conservatives were very reluctant. They did not even recognize that a recession was going on in the beginning.

When they came back and announced the infrastructure program, they were hoping they would not need to spend all the money they were committing to the program in the first place. The previous Liberal speaker alluded to the fact that the Conservatives made a commitment to spend the money but that they were very slow in spending it for a number of reasons. One reason was that they did not really believe in the program in the first place.

Does the member have any comments or observations about why no government members have been speaking over the last couple of days? Why do we have an omnibus bill here that throws in all sorts of measures, including post office remailers that have nothing to do with the budget implementation bill in the first place? Why would they do all of this and then simply not speak to their own bill?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

It is clear to me that the Conservatives are unable to say anything in the House because many of them, particularly those from Quebec, are acutely aware that this budget implementation bill does not address the concerns expressed by Quebeckers and a good number of Canadians. That is why they carry on fawning instead of doing their jobs and representing people.

The member is absolutely right. I did not mention infrastructure programs. I should have done so because there should be a second phase. In Quebec in particular, there were elections in early November in all municipalities. I know that in my region, many new teams were elected and they did not have time to submit proposals.

That is why people asked the government to allocate more funds and extend the infrastructure programs, as well as to push back the submission deadlines because, as I said, there were many new elected officials. They had to pass their budgets before submitting proposals.

I will close by saying that the member is absolutely right. The Conservatives have gotten into a habit that proves they lack transparency. They put little poison pills in bills that are already quite toxic. In this case, remailing has absolutely nothing to do with the budget and the budget implementation bill. This is nothing more than a sneaky Conservative tactic.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague's comments very interesting. He spoke about the differences between the treatment of the automobile industry and Quebec's pulp and paper industry. I know that when I was running in the byelection, he was also very involved. I know that he said that if the government had treated the forestry industry fairly, it could have had a profound effect on very specific regions in Quebec. I would like to hear the member's comments on this.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague from Hochelaga is talking about F.F. Soucy in Rivière-du-Loup, in the riding of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, which has announced an impending closure.

When I was helping our candidate in the election, the people I met asked for loan guarantees in order to support this industry. This would support F.F. Soucy in Rivière-du-Loup as well as numerous businesses throughout Quebec. They were unanimous; there was a consensus on this. I am sure that the member for Hochelaga was hearing the same thing during his consultation tour.

The Quebec Conservative members—Conservative Quebec members would be more like it—say that market forces are to blame. If market forces can be a good excuse for pulp and paper and for forestry, they should be a good excuse for the automobile industry too. However, this was not the case for the automobile industry because the Conservative Party favours the traditional automobile and oil.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do ask your indulgence and the indulgence of members but in light of the terrible tragedy in Poland, I want to acknowledge the Poles in my constituency of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. St. Anthony's Church in my riding has a Polish mass once a week. It is the home of St. Faustina Kowalska Polish Mission's Rev. Jan Grotkowski. Like other members, my heart goes out to the people of Poland and the people of Polish descent. We offer our prayers and our best wishes.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the budget. I have had the opportunity on other occasions to speak to an issue that matters a lot to me, which is the issue of poverty. I will not focus on that today but I take every opportunity I can to commend to members reading the Senate report, “In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness”. I commend Senator Eggleton and Senator Segal for the work they did leading that group.

The human resources committee of the House of Commons is doing the same kind of work. I see a colleague of mine from B.C. who is on that committee. The work has gone on for a couple of years and I am very hopeful that the committee will be coming to a conclusion and issuing a report. This country needs to do more about poverty and the Government of Canada needs to follow the lead of the six provinces that have anti-poverty strategies. I do not think the government has done anywhere near enough for the people who are most in need in this constituency, and I hope we can do much more.

I also do not like the fact that we have frozen our overseas development assistance. I think that is a huge mistake. Canada is abdicating a place that was head in the world, which may not have been enough but which was better, which was a symbol of peace and democracy and also a symbol of support and partnership for developing countries.

The budget is very weak on the environment and has been criticized for its lack of action. After the embarrassment of Copenhagen, we need to do more.

I want to talk about three specific things, the first being on the research and innovation side with the Canadian Council on Learning not having its funding renewed. This is a travesty. The Canadian Council on Learning was set up in 2004 and was set up to help develop a coherent vision for education, particularly post-secondary education in Canada. It has done amazing work. It has received plaudits, not only in Canada but from outside agencies as well who have said that the work of the Canadian Council on Learning must on, and everybody assumed that it would go on. I think even the Government of Canada assumed that.

I have a copy of a letter here that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development sent in May 2009 to Robert Giroux, the chair of the board of directors of CCL, where she says, “I agree the Canadian Council on Learning has played a key role in supporting efforts in this area of knowledge and skills”. She also says, “I understand the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada officials began discussions with CCL in the summer of 2007 about stabilizing strategies for the organization”.

CCL has put out some fabulous information, which is what Canada needs. When we talk about research and innovation and about where Canada is, we have always been a very educated country but we are losing the edge that we had as we focus less on research and innovation and education and other countries focus more on those things.

In fact, CCL has produced, as part of its composite learning index, a chart that looks at a number of countries, Australia, EU countries, Germany, U.S., Switzerland, U.K., New Zealand and Canada, and looks at a number of areas where education can be measured. For example, has there been a major review in the last five years? Every country, yes, but Canada, no. Has there been system-wide goals and objectives? Every country, yes, but Canada, no. Is funding aligned with national priorities? Other countries, yes, but Canada, no. Are quality assurance agencies in place? Other countries, yes, but Canada, no. These are the things we need to have. We need to have accountability in education. We need to know where we are. We need surveillance. We need to know where we are in terms of having a national post-secondary education strategy, and we do not have that. It is my view, and I think the view of many others, that is just totally and completely foolish.

When people heard that the Canadian Council on Learning was being shut down or that the federal funding, which provides almost all of the funding, was being shut down, they could not believe it. Arati Sharma, the national director of CASA, said:

Without the research of groups such as the Canadian Council on Learning, Canada will continue to lack the knowledge needed to improve access, persistence and quality in our post-secondary institutions.

A Toronto Star editorial stated:

But without the council's work, it will be more difficult for us to know how we stack up as a nation.

Cary Brown, an associate professor at the University of Alberta, said that the loss of funding to an organization like CCL is shocking and short-sighted.

Even the Secretary-General of the OECD sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada saying that we need to keep CCL in place. That is how important this work has been.

Why would the government cancel the funding for CCL? It is not a huge amount of money. The best thing we could say about this decision is that it is stupid. The worst thing we could say about it is that it was a deliberate attempt to hide the inadequacies of the government. When we have a decision that the best thing we can say about is that it is stupid, it does not speak very highly of where we are going in post-secondary education, at least in coming to terms with where we need to be to compete with other nations.

We also had the example in this budget of the cancelling of the tax exemption for post-doctoral fellowships. This is something that not a lot of Canadians may understand but it will have a big impact on research and innovation in Canada.

The Minister of Finance, in defending that decision, had come up with the idea that the average salary of a post-doctoral fellowship student was $70,000 a year. In fact, the average salary is less $40,000 a year. It is nowhere near $70,000 a year. We have 6,000 post-docs in Canada, a large number of whom will be hit, in terms of taxation, to the tune of $4,000 or $5,000 a year. If we look at that, it does not make any sense. We are supposed to be encouraging research and innovation. In this move, we are telling post-doctoral fellowship students to go look at the United States where the tax regime is better and the funding is stronger. We do not have strong graduate or post-doctoral investments in Canada. We cannot afford to lose people who are doing this kind of work.

One specific post-doctoral student, David Davidson, has put on paper what he is actually earning and he talks about his four children. He must make some decisions now that will mean he may not be able to put his children into some of the programs that they were in. He needs to look at how they are being schooled. He even needs to look at how they are being fed. He also may possibly need to look at leaving Canada like other of his colleagues have done to do their work. This is a short-sighted decision that makes no sense.

At the very least, the government should have reviewed that decision. Probably some clarification would have been good because we do have some post-docs in Canada who were entitled to the exemption and some who were not getting it. However, it should not just come out in a budget and tell people, who we want in Canada and who in many ways epitomize the research and innovation agenda that this country is seeking to achieve, that it will penalize them by making decisions that may not be good for them and may not be good for Canada either. That is another decision that does not make any sense.

The budget also announced the extension of the enabling accessibility fund. At page 131 of the budget, it states:

Budget 2010 builds on the success of this program by extending the Fund and providing an additional $45 million over the next three years.

When the enabling accessibility fund was announced originally, with funding of $45 million, people looked at it and wanted to know what it was made of. It turned out that of that $45 million, $30 million would go to two projects. So, of all the needs in Canada, two projects were to get 66% of that funding. That never made any sense to people in the disability community. Right away they recognized that the program was tailored specifically for two projects, one of which would be in the Minister of Finance's riding for a project that I believe he and his wife were on the board of, and that I think his constituency assistant is still on the board of. The disability community did not think that made any sense.

The kicker to that is that the money was never even expended and the program never got off the ground. It may be that it is a wonderful facility, and I have no reason to believe that it is not, but we have facilities like that across the country. We need to ensure that any program that comes forward serves the needs of the people who are most marginalized in this country, and when we talk about poverty we talk about people with disabilities. They deserve, at the very least, to be treated to a standard of fairness and dignity that would allow them to have equal access across the country to the services provided by the Government of Canada.

We have seen decision after decision that does not make any sense, that does not take into account the needs of Canadians. For that reason, I do not like everything in the budget; there are many flaws. We do not believe that Canadians want to have an election, but Canadians deserve a lot better than this budget and deserve better than the current government.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made some very valid points certainly about the lack of a national education strategy on the part of the government and how necessary it really is. But can he imagine for a moment what a Conservative majority government would be like? If a minority Conservative government is doing these kinds of things, dropping an 880-page omnibus bill with things like post office remailers in it, if it can get away with that and not even speak to its own 880-page bill, if it could do that in a minority situation, imagine what our future would be in a majority situation?

Could the member tell us what he thinks a majority Conservative government would do in the areas of research, innovation and a national education strategy? Where would the Conservatives take us over 4 or 10 years?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asks a very good question which is what would the government do if it had a majority? I am probably not as equipped to answer as someone like my daughter who is a specialist in horror movies. She might have a better idea of what this country would look like. She is a beautiful little girl, 13.5 years old, but she likes horror movies, so she might have seen something that would resemble a Conservative government because I do not think we would recognize Canada.

I do not pretend that my values represent all Canadians. One of the great things about this country is that people have different points of view, different understandings and values. What is a common thread of citizenship in this country is that we take care of those who need help. That is a fundamental responsibility of government. That is the area, taking care of those who are most vulnerable, those who need the government's help, where the government has fallen down the most. If there were a majority government, which I do not believe would happen, people would be divided into the haves and have-nots, the winners and the losers, and there would be a lot more losers than winners.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member is so good at looking forward, I wonder if he could share with the House what the government would have looked like if there had been a coalition between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, if we would have seen the billions of dollars in tax cuts eliminated as the NDP as stated, if we would have seen the stimulus removed, if we would have seen greenhouse gas emissions standards removed, if we would have seen the job promoting agenda of this government, the focus on jobs and economic growth, killed by such a coalition government. Could he explain for us what that type of coalition would have looked like either going back or moving forward? Since he is so good at looking into things that might happen, could he also explain how he squares the circle with respect to working with his very good friends in the NDP and coalition partners in the Bloc Québécois?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have friends in all parties and I have friends across the country who would share the concern of a Conservative majority government. But if we had formed a coalition, I think the country could have survived with better EI enhancements, better investments in education, better investments in the environment, and better investments in health care. Those are things that would have been positive.

I also believe that our leader made the right decision when he said we had just had an election in October 2008. There was a potential of a coalition government, which probably would have definitely given more progressive legislation than the current government. But on the other hand, our leader was wise to say that we are going to let the government go for a while.

We supported the budget last year. We did not like some of the things that were brought in last fall. We are not in love with this budget, but on the other hand we do not think that Canadians want an election. But a coalition government would have offered a lot of progressive policies that could have benefited Canada. That is probably the only time in the history of Canada that the leader of a political party in Canada turned down a guaranteed opportunity to be prime minister because his first view at that point in time was not for himself but for his country. That continues to be his view and continues to be the view of the Liberal Party of Canada, that people come first.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity, brief as it is, to enter into the debate on Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, this massive tome that I hold before me today. My only regret is that I will not have the time to adequately go through many of my strongly-held views on the inadequacy of this particular document.

Let me begin my remarks by sharing with the House the content of a speech that I once heard by a civil rights leader in the United States. He began by saying that if there are five children and only three pork chops, the solution is not to kill two of the children and neither is it the solution to divide those three pork chops into five equal pieces because then all of the children go to bed hungry and none of them have enough to eat.

The social democratic point of view, as well as my own, is to challenge the whole idea that there are only three pork chops and to challenge the whole myth or lie, as it were, that in the richest and most powerful civilization in the history of the world, we cannot provide for the basic needs of a family to not only survive but to flourish.

This introduces the theme, in the few minutes that I have today, that Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill, fails Canadians in the most fundamental ways because a budget implementation bill is an opportunity for the redistribution of wealth in this country and speaks volumes about the priorities of the ruling party that crafted the budget and the implementation bill.

I am trying not to overstate things, but there has been an undeniable and recognized trend in recent years of the shift of wealth from the middle and working classes to a smaller and smaller elite of the very wealthy. This budget document does nothing to ameliorate this shift of wealth, what I argue is the redistribution of wealth, against the best interests of ordinary Canadians. In fact, it exacerbates the problem. It compounds that trend.

I will perhaps only have time to dwell on what I believe is an obvious argument to make my case. Within this document is found the argument that dealing with poverty or bringing seniors out of poverty through dealing with inadequate pensions, et cetera, is somehow a structural deficit and, therefore, the government cannot go there. Yet, giving permanent corporate tax cuts to the extent of $15 billion is viewed as a necessary investment in the economy.

How did we ever come to such a perverse view of the distribution of wealth in this country that lifting seniors out of poverty is viewed as a structural deficit that we cannot allow ourselves to enter into and yet, in fact, going even further, borrowing money to give permanent tax cuts to corporations is viewed as an investment in the economy? Nowhere can anyone find a single study that proves beyond doubt that giving corporate tax cuts leads to job creation. It simply does not exist. I challenge and defy people to show me the direct evidence that giving yet another corporate tax cut will create jobs in Canada and can, therefore, be viewed as an investment.

This is all an elaborate hoax, in my view. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accuse the neo-conservative mindset of perpetrating an elaborate, deliberate hoax on the Canadian people to further what I believe is a nonsensical argument that corporate tax cuts will produce the results claimed. It is a leap of faith that is not warranted. It was not even warranted when there was a budgetary surplus and now we have to borrow money to give another $15 billion away.

I will give one example of how wrong-headed this is. It is a point made by the leader of my party, the member for Toronto—Danforth, to our recent NDP convention in Manitoba. He and our party costed out what it would cost to lift every Canadian senior citizen up to the poverty line. There are approximately 450,000 Canadian seniors living below the poverty line. The cost of elevating every one of those seniors just to the poverty line would be $700 million. That is less than one-fifteenth of the corporate tax cuts that are inherent within this budget.

The leader of the NDP went to the Prime Minister with this very argument, suggesting the government put the brakes on these tax cuts for a year or two. Given that we are in an economic recession and we want to get money out there quickly, one way that we can stimulate the economy and achieve a secondary objective as well is to put more money in the hands of poor seniors. They would spend the money immediately and they would spend it in the right places, in the local economy. It would be in circulation the very next day at a cost of $700 million, not an insignificant amount of money but it pales in comparison to the $15 billion that the government contemplates giving in corporate tax cuts.

That is how wrong-headed it is, and one of the reasons that so many of these Conservative absurdities actually become government policy is the intellectual veneer that is applied to them by right-wing think-tanks that, in fact, are bought and paid for by the same people whose special interests are being served by this reasoning and this logic.

Again, I challenge the reasoning. I challenge the logic behind this spending. I am frustrated in my tone perhaps, but somebody has to sound the alarm. Somebody has to blow the whistle on this trend.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day on a car that said, “At least the war on the middle class is going well”. In fact, working people, or those from the middle class on down in the economic spectrum, are feeling the pinch. It is not their imagination. Canadians should be comforted to know that it is not their imagination that it is harder and harder to make ends meet. It is true, and this is the predictable consequence of economic policies and economic trends that, in fact, leave less money in the pockets, transferring this wealth, once again concentrating this wealth, in the hands of people who do not even necessarily have the best interests of the country at heart, who do not even reinvest in Canada.

When given the opportunity, again I challenge anyone to show me the empirical evidence that these tax cuts create jobs in Canada. More often than not, that money is transferred to these corporations in the form of tax cuts and there are no strings attached. They could invest in an offshore plant. They could actually lay off 1,000 workers in the same year that we are giving them money. The irony is that these tax cuts are not going to the very businesses that do need some help and support. Because of its nature as an income tax break, it is only businesses that are showing profits that are benefiting from these particular tax breaks.

It is just wrong-headed and the leader of my party was right to appeal to the Prime Minister, to urge him, even if he cannot see fit to cancel this round of even further corporate tax cuts, to delay them or cut them in half, reduce them, use some of that money for something more strategic that would, in fact, elevate the living standards of the people who gave us their confidence, who sent us here to advocate on their behalf.

I was shocked to learn that 450,000 seniors are living below the poverty line in this country. I believe that if we had used $700 million to address their specific needs, it would have put more money into circulation and it would have been the moral thing to do.

Let me perhaps spend the last minute that I have to comment on the last article of this 450-some-odd page tome, which is the final straw in the wholesale theft of the $57 billion surplus of the EI fund.

I have been speaking on this for the better part of 10 years. When someone deducts money from workers' paycheques for a specific purpose and then uses it for something entirely different and denies them the benefits they were guaranteed when it was taken off their cheques, that is wholesale fraud. It is not only misleading; it is fundamentally wrong. That is $57 billion that would have given us the fiscal capacity to address our social programs. It has been eliminated and gobbled up and used for different things—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to asking Conservative government members questions, but we cannot find one who will speak and support this 880-page omnibus bill, the budget implementation bill. I would like to ask if one of the government members would speak about the $15.9 billion profit that the top five banks in Canada made last year and the corporate salaries that those banks are paying their presidents.

The Bank of Nova Scotia president was paid $9.7 million. The Bank of Montreal president was paid $7.4 million. The Toronto Dominion Bank president got $10.4 million. The CIBC president got $6.2 million. This was at a time when we were supposedly in a recession. Bank profits are at record levels. The government's answer is to reduce the corporate tax rate even more.

Bank president salaries are at record highs in a recession. What is the government's answer? Its answer is to do nothing. In fact, the G7 and G20 have come out with guidelines on corporate salaries. Has the government implemented those? Not at all. I was speaking to a member of the financial community the other day and he said he thought it very unlikely that the government would ever support those guidelines, because the banks will not let it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that makes my blood boil. Corporate governance never used to be considered a blue-collar issue. I have heard people say that Canada did not have to bail out its banks because they are in good shape. In fact, we assumed $75 billion worth of risk from our banks to give them an easier ride through this economic downturn.

At the same time, these bank presidents have the nerve and gall to reward themselves with big, fat bonuses. I guess they should reward themselves, because they duped the government into underwriting all their risk so they can take all the profit. It is as if they like to socialize the losses and privatize the gains. They are socialists in one way. They want to share all their risk and losses. However, when it comes to their profits and gains, they are privateers again.

One of the most satisfying things I have experienced as a member of Parliament was when I crashed the shareholders' meetings of a bunch of the big banks. I moved a bunch of motions to limit the CEO salaries of John Cleghorn, Matthew Barrett and all these guys to 20 times that of the average worker. I was seconded by a wonderful guy from Quebec, Yves Michaud, who was seconding all of these motions.

One other motion we moved that I think the member for Elmwood—Transcona would like was for gender parity on the board of directors of every Canadian bank. The vote on that was the exact same as the Quebec referendum, 49.4% to 50.6%. We almost achieved gender parity on the board of directors of the Royal Bank of Canada through shareholder activism. People are going to have to stand up on their hind legs and demand that banks be more accountable to people, especially when they get away like bandits with their CEO salaries.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has about 30 seconds left.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague across the floor.

From my perspective, this government has not taken any action to stimulate Canada's economy, and more importantly, it has not taken any action to create a greener and more sustainable economy.

This morning I read that, in the United States, investments in clean technology jumped by 29% in the first quarter of 2010. That is 83% higher than the same period last year.

In order to “decarbonize” our economy and make it greener, should the government not have drawn inspiration from the Obama administration's budget from a few months ago and invested more per capita in energy efficiency and sustainable development?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc for a very poignant question.

The economic stimulus money inherent in this budget is a missed opportunity. We could have done something truly transformative with that money, like the Obama administration has done, to shift us from the carbon economy to a green economy rather than filling potholes and building more highways to accommodate more cars.

We could have spent that money on the work that needs to be done to save the planet. That is the work that could have been done to get us through the economic downturn.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the implementation of a budget that never would have passed if the Liberals had not been so complicit or passive. Some showed up in the House to vote against the budget, as did the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche in New Brunswick, but there were not enough of them. That was a form of complicity, which is why we are here today talking about the budget implementation bill.

Before I get to the heart of the matter, I must say, I am concerned about several current issues, particularly what is happening in the crab industry in Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, the riding I represent.

Earlier there was discussion about employment insurance measures that are missing from the budget. If the budget had truly met the needs of the public, the impact of the crab fishery crisis on the people of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine would not have been as great. They would have felt supported by a government that has their best interests at heart during such a difficult time. Some 1,000 jobs in Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and 2,500 jobs in New Brunswick are at stake.

To give hon. members an idea of what that means, 1,000 jobs in Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine is equivalent to roughly 20,000 jobs in Montreal and even more in Toronto. If it were a matter of losing several thousand jobs in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, there would probably be an emergency debate held today.

We have to take the time think about these people who are in difficulty as a result of mismanagement by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which has reduced the crab quota by 63% this year. Such a reduction will have an impact: less money will circulate in the economy.

We heard today that Michel Chartrand died. I had the chance to meet and get to know Mr. Chartrand. If he were to deliver a speech today, his language would undoubtedly be quite colourful. If I were to describe the budget using the names of symbolic objects generally found in a church, I would be called to order. As hon. members know, tabernacles, chalices and hosts are found in a church.

In addition to his rather colourful use of language, Mr. Chartrand was a passionate man. He defended people in difficulty, like the workers in the crab fishery who are in crisis right now. That is why it is important to pay tribute to him today.

I know that the people in my party will be paying tribute to him later on during question period and members' statements, but I think it is important to take the time to acknowledge him right now.

In any case, we have a budget and an implementation bill. We are examining some aspects of the budget implementation bill, but we must also look at items that, unfortunately, are not mentioned in the budget, especially tax havens and employment insurance.

I would like to talk about tax havens. What does this budget actually do?

It ignores the fact that, if we changed the laissez-faire approach to tax havens, we could stop the budget hemorrhaging, which will fatten companies and individuals who no longer know what to do with their money. They go to the Bahamas or elsewhere and put their money in the banks' vaults to avoid paying Canadian or Quebec taxes. That hurts because this is not done by just a few.

I was listening to some supposedly distinguished economists who have done major studies and concluded that taxing the rich will not change much. Excuse me, but it will yield many millions, even billions. And remember, one billion is 1,000 million. We could recover billions of dollars if we truly tackled the problem of tax havens and tax loopholes. That is what should be highlighted and considered when presenting a budget. In fact, measures have been introduced but there are other measures that have been forgotten, relegated, ignored, clearly set aside, and that could help to balance the budget, even just a little, and result in interventions that more closely meet needs.

Speaking of needs, I wish to linger a little longer on the employment insurance issue. It is frightful what is going on there. It started some time ago with the Liberals and the Conservatives of the period, when they used to call themselves Progressive Conservatives.

On this issue I think in particular of Gaétan Cousineau, of the Mouvement Action Chômage Pabok. This is a person who has always been dedicated to the cause of employment insurance and the injustices in that field. I remember working with him and others when I was waging the employment insurance battle in community and union organizations.

That battle continues for me as a member, but at the same time, there have been what one might call “mini-measures” on employment insurance announced right and left by the Conservative government and by the previous Liberal government. I say “mini-measures” because one’s final impression, if I may be permitted some colourful language, is that of a drop of justice in an ocean of injustice. That is really what is happening.

The regions of Gaspé and Îles-de-la-Madeleine, like other regions in Quebec and Canada, have had to absorb cuts and to suffer them at the same time, for those cuts have impacts. When this sort of decision is made to cut employment insurance, to slash benefits, to arrange that fewer EI benefits are provided or that eligibility is made more difficult, the money is recovered somewhere, but there is an impact that can be felt across many regions.

Such an impact affects individuals as well as communities. Yes, it can affect individuals. I heard someone talk about people who earned their living at the minimum wage. Consider, for example, a wage of $9 an hour for someone in the tourism industry who has to work as a cleaning lady,or in a restaurant or elsewhere. These people work split shifts for the minimum wage. This is not a job where you work 40 hours a week and everything is fine. On the contrary, there are situations where people have to work 20 hours during the week. Other times it is 35 hours or 60 hours a week, depending on what is happening in the tourism industry. These people must be available to work seven days a week during tourist season. That is why it is important to consider this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly interested in the member's comments about tax havens. There is a provision in this 880-page Bill C-9 that deals with ensuring the provisions of the Criminal Code that apply to serious crimes related to money laundering and terrorist financing are invoked in cases of tax evasion prosecuted under Canada's tax statutes.

I would like to be able to ask questions of government members, but we cannot find any government speakers. There have not been any for the last couple of days on this bill. I am not certain whether or not there is an application in the bill that deals with the tax haven issue.

Interestingly enough, at this point the government is offering an amnesty to people involved in tax haven activities. It is basically a risk-free endeavour for the people doing it. We were only seeing this happen recently. There is a lot of activity of people involved in tax havens asking for amnesty. Some computer disks were sold, I believe it was by an employee of one of the Swiss banks, to the German government so that it could chase down German citizens who were involved in tax havens. When Canadians read about this, they started rushing forward to declare their income on the money invested in these tax havens. This is not going to discourage it if we are offering amnesty.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the NDP member for his comments. I must say that it is very hard to defend the indefensible. Sometimes it is so frustrating that there is no point. I think that is what is happening with the Conservative Party: it is defending the indefensible.

I remember it used to be that when a bank was bringing in $1 billion in profits a year, that was a lot of money. I think that was the case not too long ago. Now, we do not talk about $1 billion in profits a year, but $1 billion in profits in a quarter, in a three-month period.

Furthermore, it is clear that these banks also take advantage of tax havens, which enables them to make even more profits and to provide more assistance to the people who also benefit from tax havens. It is a vicious circle.

The mini-measures announced are a smokescreen, a cover. They are a bunch of nonsense.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are learning a lot today about what a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition would have looked like had they had the opportunity to form one.

We know that tax cuts to Canadian families and creating jobs are not what they like. Cutting taxes or tariffs for our manufacturers, and investing in the environment and natural green technology are not what they are interested in. We know that our agenda on the economy and jobs is certainly not something they are interested in. We know they are not in favour of corporations that try to make money and employ people.

I wonder if the hon. member might share with me and Canadians some additional policies that a Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition might be considering in the future.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of coalitions, let us talk about the coalition between the Conservative Party and the oil companies. That is a coalition. And what about the one between the Conservative Party, big business and the banks? That is also a sort of coalition.

If a political party wants to defend the poor and the people who need help the most, I see no problem supporting it or forming a coalition with it.

The Bloc Québécois has supported a Conservative budget in the past. I humbly remind the House that was the case in 2006 and 2007. At the time, there were useful measures concerning the fiscal imbalance.

I also remember that the current Prime Minister, before he became Prime Minister and while he was in opposition, was fully prepared to form a coalition with us.

What is the problem with a coalition? Why are they trying to turn it into a scandal? It makes perfect sense to form a coalition in order to respond to real needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-9, the so-called jobs and economic growth act, but based on my reading of it, I believe it needs a new title. This rather large tome is short on potential for jobs and growth and long on gimmicks, fee increases and a lot of challenges.

The bill does not address some of the key issues of importance to Canadians, such as child care and pensions. It does not assist small business to encourage job growth. It does not address the requirement for future economic success. It does not address the skills shortage, nor does it encourage lifelong learning. Bill C-9 does not focus on productivity and does not focus too heavily on innovation.

What the budget did do was increase moneys for the Privy Council Office for ministerial advice. It continues the deep investments in government advertising. I guess government ads will be showing up during the Academy Awards and the Super Bowl in the future. This bill funds a record number of ministers, and we all know how that is going.

This bill ensures another huge deficit after 11 straight surpluses. The Conservatives formed government and within a couple of years the country was back in deficit. At the same time the bill does not provide security for Canadians in tough economic times. This bill fails to improve the lives of Canadians. It fails to ensure economic security. It fails to ensure job growth.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, there are some 400,000 more unemployed today than in 2008. Youth unemployment is double the average national unemployment rate. There have been several reductions in manufacturing shift hours, which means less take home income and a lower standard of living. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we are 4.5% behind where we should be in terms of job growth.

What did the Conservative government do? It laid out a plan that would raise employment insurance premiums by 35% over the next four years. This payroll tax would cost a two-earner family $900, and a small business with 10 employees $9,000 more.

This bill would also impose an increased charge for air traveller security. The cost of an airplane ticket will rise. For a domestic one-way trip the fee of $4.90 will rise to $7.48, a $2.58 increase. A domestic round trip fee will rise from $9.80 to $14.96, a $5.16 increase. The fee for trans-border trips will increase from $8.34 to $12.71, a $4.37 increase. The fee for other international trips will rise from $17.00 to $25.91, an $8.91 increase. This will raise about $1.5 billion in revenue over the next five years. That is quite a substantive fee increase.

I live on the island of Newfoundland. There are only two ways to get off the island of Newfoundland, either by plane or by ferry. We know what the government is doing with respect to air travel security. We know there is going to be an increase. To get off the island of Newfoundland, there are going to be increased costs.

On the other side of things, in order to get off the island of Newfoundland and Labrador I could drive and get the ferry at Port aux Basques. Marine Atlantic is a crown corporation. In the budget a small amount of money has been set aside to have additional capacity on this ferry. This small amount is a pebble in the ocean of requirements for Marine Atlantic.

The Auditor General produced a report which indicated that over $1 billion was required to ensure that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador had adequate service and to ensure effective and timely capacity so that the transportation of goods and services is efficient and effective and available. During certain times of the year grocery stores hang a sign saying, “Sorry the boat didn't get in”. In this day and age that is simply not acceptable.

I am concerned about this budget. There are several other things in Bill C-9.

There is some mention of pensions. The government is going to increase the maximum solvency ratio for pension plans from 110% to 125%, allowing for more overfunding. However, during the briefing on Bill C-9 the financial officials suggested there would not be many pension plans in a position to take advantage of this extra room. This is an overfunding of pension plans. I wish there were more businesses in a position to overfund their pension plans so that we could ensure that people who pay into their pensions actually have them at the end of their working lives when they retire.

For the second year in a row the government is using the budget bill to weaken environmental laws. We have this tome, as I said earlier, and buried in it is a change to ensure there will be some weakening of the federal environmental laws. This is not acceptable. If the government is going to change environmental laws, there should be full disclosure so that we can have a discussion and debate.

Also buried in this very large bill are changes to Canada Post. Bill C-9 removes the exclusive privilege of Canada Post to deliver mail outside Canada, allowing remailers to collect and transport mail to a foreign country. This is being done through the back door because it would not have been allowed through the front door.

In previous sessions of Parliaments the Conservatives tabled Bill C-14 and Bill C-44 to try to do just that. Now they have included it in this budget implementation bill. It should not be in this large bill. It should have a full discussion. It should go through the proper process. It should have a full review, complete disclosure. There should be complete democracy actually. People should be able to debate it and bring forward their ideas on how improvements could be made, or simply express their concerns with regard to remailers.

There is a lot in this rather large document that does not necessarily work for Canadians. It does not necessarily give the kind of economic security that Canadians are looking for.

We are coming out of a very difficult economic time. We still have a situation where, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said, over 400,000 people are still without work. We have been talking about this in Parliament.

Yes, the bill puts in place a second phase of the economic stimulus package and that is going forward.

My view on this bill is that a lot more should have been done to ensure Canada's position for the future. In my riding I have talked to a number of people. A lot more should have been done to ensure that we have the economic security that we require as Canadians, to have a vision.

KAIROS is an organization that did international development work. Sadly, its funding was cut by the government. For 35 years that organization did some great work worldwide. At the same time we see increases in advertising. I guess there is a disconnect between what Canadians want and what the government is prepared to allow to go forward.

This is a stay the course budget that is on the wrong course. I believe that Canadians deserve better. I believe that Canadians want better. I would be remiss if I did not say there is a lot in this bill that should be taken out, debated, disclosed and discussed in other ways.

Again, I appeal to the government and say there are things we should be addressing in this country. We take our international development work quite seriously. We take the needs of Canadians for health care and pensions quite seriously. It is time for us to buckle down and do just that.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, previously bills C-14 and C-44 were before the House, and they contained provisions to destroy the Canada Post legal monopoly on mailings going outside Canada. What it would do to Canada Post would be devastating. As a result, either our postage is going to go up or there will be massive layoffs in this privatization move.

I do not know where the Liberal Party stands. The hon. member said she is opposed to the privatization of Canada Post, but the provision is in this budget implementation bill, Bill C-9, and her party is about to allow this bill to pass.

Which is it? Does she support the privatization of Canada Post or does she not? If she does not support it, then why are they allowing this bill to pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a very interesting point about what is buried in this rather large document. What is buried in it is a provision that will remove the exclusive privilege of Canada Post to deliver mail outside of Canada, allowing remailers to collect and transport mail to foreign countries. As she indicated, that is very similar to what was being proposed in two previous bills, Bill C-14 and Bill C-44.

My point, and this is what I raised during my speech, is that it should not be encapsulated in this bill. If we are going to discuss Canada Post, bring it forward and look at whether there is a going to be an increase in the price of stamps or, as my hon. colleague called it, a privatization of Canada Post, do we not deserve to know the pros and cons, to have the conversation, the disclosure, the debate and the discussion to ensure we make an informed decision rather than having something buried in another bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the member's speech. There is no doubt that, though Liberal members have stood in the House of Commons to criticize this crude omnibus legislation, 12 bills packed into 1, they seem to be supporting it yet again. This has gone on year after year after year. Whatever the Conservative agenda is, Liberals seem to endorse it.

Within the bill, and this is very important, there are punitive measures taken against the softwood industry. Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan were hard hit by the softwood lumber sellout by the Conservatives, supported again by the Liberals, and thousands and thousands of jobs have been lost.

Now, within this omnibus legislation, we have an export tariff that is going to kill even more jobs in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec and yet the Liberals are going to give the green light and vote to endorse yet another Conservative policy. I have to ask why the Liberals are selling out softwood communities across this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recall that the party my hon. colleague represents voted in favour of the budget implementation bill in the past budget.

There are things buried in this document, and I have brought forward quite substantive things that I think are of concern in it. On at least two occasions, possibly a number of occasions, I have voted against the budget and I will be doing so again with this implementation bill.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. It is interesting that some of the final comments to the previous speaker were about the Liberal position vis-à-vis the exclusive privilege at Canada Post. That is a nice segue, a nice place for me to begin, because that is going to be the focus of my remarks.

What was previously known as Bill C-14 and Bill C-44 is now incorporated into the budget implementation bill, basically making it an omnibus bill. They have stuffed everything they can possibly legally manage and think of in there in the hope that one vote gets a whole bunch of things passed.

One of the cute things for the Liberals in this particular bill is that when Bill C-14 first arrived, the Liberal critic at the time was very clear. They were in favour of this bill and they were opposed to maintaining the exclusive privilege, without any question. Then the bill came back with a new number, but very little else changed. I am not really sure what the new critic for the Liberals said. They sort of modified it a bit.

When my colleague asked a very specific question about support, the answer was about process. They were playing games particularly with the union in this regard and in terms of conversations they were having with them, because of course the organization that represents the 55,000 people who provide our important, crucial, efficient mail service cares about this issue.

The Liberals got some heat from the first go-around, so what did they do in the second go-around? They made up some kind of nonsense about how they were going to help the workers when it got to committee. When it got to committee, they would roll up their sleeves and be there for the workers. The difficulty is that the Bloc was already on record as being opposed to both bills and so were we. This means that, had the Liberals taken a position that said they were opposed to the bill, we could have killed the bill and there would not be any committee for anybody to roll up sleeves at and play games.

We are hearing the same thing again. As I understand it, and things change over there a lot, they are going to roll in a minimal number of members to technically vote against it. However, by not bringing in enough members to actually win the vote, the government will get what it wants. Bill C-9, the budget implementation act, moves on to committee. Tagging along like a trailer hitched to the back is a little issue that the government is hoping nobody will pay any attention to, and that is the issue of Canada Post and the exclusive privilege.

We have been around and around on this issue. What is frustrating is that something has happened during the tenure of the government. Let us understand where we are. The law right now says Canada Post has exclusive privilege to all mailing, full stop. Canada Post is not obligated or mandated under the Canada Post Corporation Act to solely be there as a cash cow to make money. It is quite the contrary. The act spells out that it is there to provide a similar service across the country at the same price to every Canadian, and it makes sure they charge reasonable fees for doing that.

Let me just say what an undertaking that is. Canada is the second-largest country by land mass on the planet, and we are promising to deliver mail to the farthest corners of this huge country at the same price as we charge for halfway across downtown Toronto. We do it efficiently and the workers there do a great job. It is not perfect, but nothing is. However, when we look at this and compare it to other countries and the challenges, they do an excellent job.

All of a sudden, these private entities take a look over there. They are eyeballing Canada Post, as they do all the time. They are looking at the money to be made and they are saying that they want a piece of this action. So they just step right in and start getting involved in the international remailing issue. Canada Post reminded them it is against the law. To make a long story short, these private entities took Canada Post to court. They lost. They appealed. This is where it gets interesting.

On May 8, 2007, when the panel ruled on behalf of the Ontario Court of Appeal, this is what the judge said:

The purpose of the statutory privilege can only be to enable CP to fulfill its statutory mandate or realize its objects. It is meant to be self-sustaining financially while at the same time providing similar standards of service throughout our vast country. Profits are realized in densely populated areas which subsidize the services provided in the more sparsely populated areas.

It sounds like a great Canadian idea. That was to support the law. That means the work that these international remailers were doing remains illegal. It remains illegal this second as I stand here. So the government's intent is to change the law. If their buddies cannot win in the courts, the beauty of being the government is to change the law so the courts have no choice but to rule in the way it wants.

In fact, on July 25, 2006, the Conservative minister responsible said:

The activities of international remailers cost Canada Post millions of dollars each year and erodes the Corporation's ability to maintain a healthy national postal service and provide universal services to all Canadians.

What changed? It was illegal to start with. They went to court and lost. They went to the Court of Appeal and lost. The Conservative government in 2006 said it was standing by the exclusive privilege. What changed? I think what changed was that friends of friends got talking here and there. I am not suggesting anything illegal. I do not know enough of the details to make that charge. I would not say it was not, but I would not say it was. Anyway, discussions took place and the government had an epiphany. Conservatives woke up one day and said they had been wrong, the previous government was wrong, the courts were wrong, the strategic review in 1996 was wrong; they needed to sell off part of Canada Post and at the same time have their backbenchers make speeches about no privatization of Canada Post and hope that no one followed the details enough to know that they really were starting to privatize Canada Post. That is what is going on.

The Liberals are going along with it. We are going to have a couple of opportunities, if the Liberals want to suggest that what I have put forward is not accurate. We are going to ask that the bill be severed and we are going to need support for that. We have the votes and we would hope that the Liberals would join with the Bloc and us in severing off this piece of Bill C-9 and at the very, very least, allow Canadians an opportunity to have some input before the government monkeys around with the financial stability of something as important as Canada Post, particularly when 55,000 Canadians and their families rely on those jobs. It is not there solely to create jobs. It is not there to be a cash cow. It is meant to do exactly what it is doing, and that is why this change ought not to happen. It is wrong. It is not in the interests of Canada Post. It is not in the interests of the workers there and it is not in the interests of Canada. So we ask the Liberals to finally get off the fence, join with us, get it severed and let us kill this sucker before it kills Canada Post.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for a terrific speech on this matter. I have a feeling he wants to say a few more words on this subject.

However, I want to point out to him that the member for Hamilton Mountain, when she made her speech on Bill C-9 the other day, did point out that the bill under a different number was initially introduced by a Liberal MP, perhaps when they were in government. That was news and a surprise to me. Then the current government took up the torch and carried it forward under Bill C-14 and Bill C-44, knowing that it would never pass because of members like the member for Burnaby—New Westminster who would dig his heels in and make sure it did not get passed. The Conservatives put it in this omnibus bill, which is a treacherous way to approach an issue like this.

Would the member like to continue his explanation of why the bill should be severed and not proceeded with?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague for his remarks in this regard and certainly my fellow Hamilton MP and the hard work she does on this and every file.

The fact is this story goes back so far, it is like we have to pick a point in history where we want to work from. I will go from the point when the Conservative government came to office. There is no question that the previous government had been talking about this sort of thing, but then in 2006, fairly early on in the government's term, the Conservative minister, when asked about this, said:

The activities of international remailers cost Canada Post millions of dollars each year and erodes the Corporation's ability to maintain a healthy national postal service and provide universal service to all Canadians.

The question that remains is this. What has changed since the Conservative minister stood up and read what I just said as the government policy? Now it has flip-flopped and it is doing the opposite. The House and Canadians have a right to know what has changed. What is so important that caused the government such a massive flip-flop?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the budget implementation bill, but the budget passed the House by a vote of 142 to 132.

We have a minority government. If all three parties, the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP, come together, we would have the majority vote to kill the budget implementation bill.

What would my hon. colleague say about members who on one hand said in the House that they were very much against the budget, but then when it came to vote, at least 30 of them disappeared and allowed the budget to pass? This may happen again with this bill.

What does he call that kind of behaviour?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague puts me in a horrible position. What would I call that? I am standing on the floor of the House of Commons. I cannot call it what I would like to call it, but I think people will sort of get it by looking at the circumstances.

When people say one thing and do another, there is a word for it, and I will not go there. However, make no mistake. This is the trickery on the part of the Liberals. They want everything to focus on the budget. They have already cut the deal and have said that technically they are opposed, but they will not bring enough members in to actually win the vote and stop the government.

My question to the official opposition is this. The NDP will put a motion to sever this part of the bill, to deal with it separately and vote on it separately. Will the Liberals be there to do that? It will be interesting to see.

The main point I want to make is the fact that there are two political shell games going on. One is the government has snuck this into a budget implementation bill rather than let it stand on its own, as it has done twice before. The second one is the Liberals, who hope that one of their big, hot political potatoes gets dealt with quickly under the cover of—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brampton--Springdale.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a budget which impacts my constituents in Brampton—Springdale and many Canadians across the country.

In attending numerous events in my constituency, meeting with many Bramptonians, both men and women, in their workplaces, listening to seniors in seniors homes and visiting with children at schools, I have had the opportunity to hear first-hand of their needs and their priorities.

The past few years have been a very difficult time for many families in Brampton. Brampton based companies, such as Nortel, Saputo and Chrysler have closed their doors. Other small and medium-sized businesses have also struggled. The impact has been felt by many men and many women who were employed at those companies.

There are men and women who have been let go and others who have been laid off. There have been seniors and many of the people who have been laid off who have been forced to make that choice between filling up the fridge, the medicine cabinet or their gas tank.

Many of those families that have struggled in the past few years are looking for opportunities for themselves to ensure they can put bread and butter on the table. They are looking for opportunities to ensure their children have the very best in education, resources, tools and skills they need to succeed. Then there are new Canadians who are looking for opportunities, the opportunity to contribute, to build a better Brampton and a greater and stronger country. Also seniors out there want to have the opportunity to age with dignity and respect.

I think all Bramptonians, like all Canadians, are looking for that better hope for tomorrow and a brighter future. This is why the budget implementation bill brought forward by the government is so incredibly important. It is important to those Bramptonians who are struggling to be heard and those individuals who are the vulnerable.

Let us take a look at the areas in the automotive and manufacturing sectors, both crucial to the economy of Brampton and Brampton families. When Chrysler closed its doors, over 2,000 men and women lost their jobs overnight.

It was amazing to see how the community came together in this time of need. The Chrysler Action Centre was opened for the men and women who had just lost their jobs. The union showed its leadership. Chrysler took leadership. The provincial government also took leadership in opening the centre, which provided resources such as resume writing and job finding for those who had lost their jobs.

They were also looking for leadership in that time of need from the federal government. The budget claims to have created many jobs, but the fact is the country has lost almost 300,000 jobs. Look at our unemployment rates, which continue to rise.

Just a few weeks ago in my riding, Saputo, Canada's largest cheese maker, announced its decision to close its plant. The result is 190 Bramptonians are out of jobs. These are hard-working families that are looking for hope and for the opportunity to give back.

We must ensure that as these people struggle in this recession, there is the opportunity to provide them with job security for the future and with the resources and the skills they will need to find new jobs.

This global recession really knows no boundaries or barriers. A demographic that has often been forgotten is our young people. This recession affected everybody. We only have to take a look at the unemployment stats for young people aged 15 to 24, which reached a record high in 2009 of 20%, the highest jobless rate since 1977.

A report of the Community Foundations of Canada, called “Canada's Vital Signs 2009”, provides insight into the dire situation young people face. The normally lucrative summer months for these young people was 30 hours. It now is down to 23.4 hours. We must ensure these young people have the opportunity to go to university or college. They need that employment during the summer months.

Investing in education, investing in our young people is really about investing in our country's future economic prosperity and productivity. No government can turn a blind eye to young people. We must ensure they have the opportunity to get the educations they desire. As Canada moves forward, we must base the opportunity to go to college and university not on the pocketbook but on the desires and passions of students.

Another challenge we have faced is the issue of infrastructure. Communities like Brampton, one of the fastest growing cities in the country, put forward a number of projects for which they needed funding assistance from the federal government. We heard during the Speech from the Throne and budget 2009 that funds were committed but many of those funds had not been spent.

Out of $2 billion for the infrastructure stimulus fund, $874 million were unspent. Out of $200 million for the green infrastructure fund, $186 million were unspent. The list goes on. Money unspent means projects have not started, which mean people do not have the opportunity to work.

The government needs to act to help Bramptonians who are looking for those jobs. If the projects Brampton had put forward had been implemented, it would have created an estimated 21,000 jobs for Bramptonians who lost their jobs in the past few years.

Then there is the issue of health care. In many ways Brampton's new civic hospital has been leading edge both in terms of technology and the provision of services. However, there still continues to be a challenge faced by not only for my constituents but by many people across the country, and that is the issue of wait times.

Looking at the statistics of Brampton Civic Hospital, individuals with complex conditions are having to wait 17.5 hours versus the average of 13.6 hours. We realize much work needs to be done in the area of health care. People are looking to the federal government for leadership on this issue.

As a health care provider, I have had the opportunity to see first-hand the challenges encountered in our health care system. There is the issue of wait times, as well as the shortage of doctors. We must ensure we provide Canadians with access to doctors, specialists and nurses. We must invest in health human resources to ensure that every Canadian, regardless of where one lives in Canada, or the amount of money one makes or one's socio-economic status, has the opportunity to receive the very best in health care. It is the hallmark of our great country.

I also want to touch upon the issue of poverty. Poverty is a growing concern in my riding. People look at the medium income of almost $80,000 and think my riding must be doing very well. The fact is the issue between those who have and those who have less continues to grow.

The issue of poverty is increasing and impacting many individuals. Many low-income and single-parent families are living too close to the poverty line. People like Edna Toth with the Peel Poverty Action Group have done incredible work to raise awareness.

We must ensure, as we move forward, that the federal government once again takes leadership and puts together a national housing strategy. We are one of the only industrialized countries in the world that does not have a national housing strategy.

There are many issues to discuss and many challenges being faced by constituents, Bramptonians and Canadians. I hope the government will take this opportunity to examine these challenges and work in a co-operative and collaborative manner to ensure Canadians get the changes they need and, most important, the hope for a better future and brighter tomorrow. We must ensure that every man, child, woman and senior in Canada are given the resources, skills and tools needed to succeed. When Canadians succeed, our country succeeds.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member said how terrible the budget was in that it did not deal with poverty, health care, wait times, housing and youth employment. Astoundingly, reading from Hansard, not long ago she did not show up to vote against the budget. She was among the 30 Liberal MPs who did not show up. As a result, the budget passed. Maybe they deliberately did not show up, I do not know.

Is the member planning to vote in favour of or against the budget implementation bill or is she planning, like last time, to simply not show up?

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take the responsibility that my constituents have given me very seriously and whenever there is a vote, every attempt is always made to show up to ensure that we vote. I am a strong voice on behalf of my constituents in Brampton—Springdale. The member's implication that it may have been deliberate is certainly not the case and was certainly not the intention.

When we talk to Canadians at Tim Hortons or meeting them at various events, they are not looking toward an election right now. Hearing the NDP members, I think if they had their way Canadians perhaps may be at the polls on a monthly basis.

Canadians are looking to have work done and action taken on the issues and priorities that are important to them. I am glad that we in the Liberal Party are working in that co-operative and collaborative manner to ensure that Canadians receive the results that they need.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit unclear. If the member does not want an election which is why she did not turn up or she did not turn up because she was busy in her constituency, I am terribly confused. Perhaps the member can clarify this. Is she going to turn up next time and perhaps she could also tell us why she did not turn up last time or was it something to do with the Liberal inaction policy? How does this all fit together? It seems so bizarre.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot recollect the exact date that the vote took place, but I can tell the House that every attempt is made to always show up for all votes. There is certainly never a deliberate attempt, I hope, by any member of the House to ever miss any votes.

I think when Canadians and our constituents elect us, they expect that we would actually be here to represent their views and their ideas. I can say that by no way, shape or fashion is the budget perfect, but we all know the consequences of what could occur in voting against a particular budget which is a confidence measure.

I would hope that in 2010 we would all be able to turn a new page and start talking about the ideas and the issues that are important to Canadians across the country. I think the time, politically, has come to really put partisanship aside, to put political rhetoric aside, and to really start getting down to work and start delivering results.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in an effort to move this very fruitful debate between the New Democrats, the Conservatives and the Liberals forward, I would like to inform my colleague, who does not recall the date of the vote, that it took place on March 10, 2010. Now I would like to hear the member's response.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, being a very community-oriented and grassroots constituency MP, I am going to ensure that I get back to the member with my exact whereabouts of where I was before I say something that is incorrect.

I want to take this moment as well to wish the entire Sikh community a very happy Vaisakhi. It is our new year today. I wish everyone who is watching CPAC the very best wishes for the new year, great health, happiness and prosperity moving forward into the new year.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-9 on the implementation of the budget that was passed in March.

This bill has over 800 pages and implements various initiatives set out in the budget presented on March 4. However, two measures that did not appear in the budget were added to the budget implementation bill. The first is the change to the Employment Insurance Act and the creation of the employment insurance operating account. The other measure, of greater concern to me, has to do with the liberalization of one of Canada Post's business lines.

In the 10 minutes I have, I would particularly like to discuss the measure included in Bill C-9 concerning Canada Post. I will address only that issue, for it is very important to me.

I represent a rural riding, where many communities have rural post offices. I recently presented petitions with over 6,000 signatures expressing the wishes of the people of my riding, who want to keep their rural post offices. They are worried about various measures taken by the government, including privatization and more recently, the restriction of Canada Post’s exclusive privilege.

The Bloc Québécois strongly opposes the privatization, even partial, of Canada Post. We believe that corporation must remain a public entity in order to maintain universal services and consistent rates throughout Canada.

I just want to talk about this part of Bill C-9, because I want to draw attention to the hypocrisy of this Conservative government, which has been trying since 2007 to get a bill passed that would take away Canada Post's exclusive privilege concerning international mail.

First, in 2007, the government introduced Bill C-14, which died on the order paper. In June 2009, it tried again with Bill C-44, which also died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued.

Now, the government is using the budget implementation bill to introduce this measure and avoid public debate on restricting Canada Post's exclusive privilege concerning international mail.

I also want to talk about this measure to show the insidious nature of the Conservatives' tactic, which is designed to push through their plan to deregulate the crown corporation. We know that the government wants to completely privatize Canada Post, and it is clearly taking the first small step toward that end by including this measure in the budget implementation bill.

I am very active and very close to the people who work in the post offices in my riding. Since Bill C-9 was introduced, I have received many letters from my constituents who work as letter carriers. They are asking me to oppose this bill, because they are afraid of losing their jobs. I also share their fears about how the bill will affect the crown corporation's revenues.

For the people who do not know what I am talking about, I will explain what will happen if Canada Post's exclusive privilege—what we call remailing—is removed.

This measure will permit letter exporters to collect letters in Canada for transmittal and delivery outside Canada. That means that Canada Post's competitors will be able to collect mail in Canada and Quebec and send it outside Canada.

What that means, in fact, is that the forwarding of mail by a remailing company consists in collecting mail items from business clients residing in one country and sending those items to another country where the postal rates are lower. This usually involves a developing country where the mail is sorted and remailed to a third country. This is a cost reduction method and a way of ensuring that the revenue from that mail goes to Canada Post.

Allow me to illustrate this by way of a specific example. A Canadian company wanting to send mail to the United Kingdom goes through a remailing company. The company then sends the mail in bulk to a branch office in another country where the sorting is done at a fraction of the price. The mail is then resent to the United Kingdom. The company will have saved up to 30% of the delivery cost because the mail will have already been sorted.

A business using the services of a remailng company could save up to 66% of the price Canada Post charges. I am getting letters from my constituents about those figures. It is only natural that people working at Canada Post are as concerned as I am because they have good jobs with good working conditions that allow them to live in dignity and be consumers and thereby participate in the economic development of their community and region.

Who does this benefit? We must understand who will benefit from this measure. Some time ago, the government undertook a strategic review of Canada Post. The government reviewed all of Canada Post's activities and, as a result of its analysis, made a number of recommendations. One of these was to revisit the exclusive privilege of Canada Post in the area of international remailing.

However, the strategic review did not indicate the negative consequences for Canada Post of deregulation, even partial deregulation. It was also unclear whether partial deregulation would permit remailers to directly or indirectly attack Canada Post's exclusive privilege within Canada.

They are opening up a crack in order to challenge the exclusive privilege of Canada Post with respect to international mail. However, this may be just the first step. In fact, the entire issue of postal operations within Quebec and Canada may be next.

The Bloc Québécois believes that this bill will weaken Canada Post by eliminating some of its revenue sources. This situation could speed up its desire to regroup the distribution of mail in certain areas, which would result in cuts to home mail delivery to many Quebeckers as well as potential job losses.

I will conclude my speech by stating that, for the Bloc Québécois, it is important to maintain this universal public service and uniform rates throughout Quebec and Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely 100% correct in her analysis. This bill was introduced by a Liberal member a number of years ago while in government and then it was variously introduced by Conservatives, under Bill C-14 and Bill C-44 last year in a minority Parliament.

Knowing that it could not pass the minority Parliament and it would be held up, the government seized upon an opportunity to throw it into an 880-page omnibus bill dealing with the implementation of the budget. This has nothing to do with the budget. This is basically an attempt to privatize the post office by stealth at the end of the day.

If this remailer issue is passed by the House, we will see a gradual erosion of the post office's position in the country. These letters, I believe, are going to be sorted in places like Jamaica where the costs are much less. We will see a reduction in jobs in Canada as a result.

It is the dishonesty of the government in its approach. It does not have the courage to bring this bill forth, as it did last year, and subject it to proper debate and scrutiny in the House. It has stuck it in an omnibus bill that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

It has basically said, “Here it is. Take it or leave it. It is a matter of confidence. If you vote against it, the government falls”. What has that done? It has scared the Liberals, who are against this measure, into having to either support the government and get what they do not want or cause an election. That is where we sit right now with this issue. It is a terrible spot that the government has put us in.

Would the member like to comment any further on this issue?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I see we share the same concerns about the hypocrisy of the Conservative government, which is using the budget implementation bill to introduce a measure that would end Canada Post's exclusive privilege to redirect mail.

This will lead to financial losses. Canada Post has estimated that it is losing between $50 million and $80 million a year. It is already losing that money, because remailers are already in business. Canada Post filed a lawsuit and won, indicating that it has the exclusive privilege to handle international mail.

Of course, Canada Post told us that if the bill were ever enacted—Bill C-44 at the time—it would suffer financial losses. This will probably pass, since the Liberals will support it. At least, that is what I predict will happen.

One thing is certain: the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill. It is estimated that Canada Post will lose approximately $45 million to $50 million more if it loses the exclusive privilege to handle international remailing. By including this in Bill C-9, the government is removing Canada Post's exclusive privilege over international remailing. This is completely unacceptable because it is hypocritical, and it makes it impossible for us to have an informed debate, as Bill C-44 allowed us to do.

I hope the Liberal members will rise and vote against this bill, which will remove Canada Post's exclusive privilege to handle international remailing.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join in the debate today. I will try to focus my comments mainly on a number of the rural aspects of the budget. My riding is rural, for the most part. There are a couple of bigger communities, Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury, but for the most part, Cape Breton—Canso is rural. When I go from one end to the other, it is about a four-hour drive and there are about three traffic lights. That would give an indication that it is a fairly rural constituency.

Some of the concerns of the people from Cape Breton—Canso obviously have to do with the out-migration, the shift in population from rural to urban. Many of the issues are being experienced by many rural communities right across this country. What I see in the budget is a lack of initiative, a lack of understanding of rural Canada and how to deal with some of the challenges that are taking place in those communities.

I want to talk about the fishery first. I would like to speak particularly about a program the government brought forward. With regard to the lobster industry last year, it pledged some short-term assistance. Too much fanfare, it announced $15 million in short-term assistance to the lobster industry. As we know, with the economic downturn, many ports along the Atlantic coast saw a downturn in the price of lobster and crab. It was compounded by the fact that catches were down in many areas.

The government announced $15 million in potential assistance for the fishers in these communities. We knew it was a fairly modest sum at the time, but what has compounded it was the criteria that were laid out by the government that made it almost impossible for fishers to receive any of that money.

I saw a cute sign the other day. I have been a Toronto Maple Leafs fan my entire life. I saw a big billboard out in front of one of the local bars in a neighbouring community that said, “Free beer for all Toronto Maple Leafs playoff games”. That is an easy pledge to make. It has been a number of years since we have been in the playoffs, so it is easy to boast the free beer.

This transitional fund for lobster assistance that the government put together is pretty much the same thing. It announced $15 million for those who qualify, but when the criteria are made so abstract and obscure, it is very difficult for an average fisherman to qualify for such funding. We saw just barely over half of that money being allocated to those who really needed that money at that time. It was a very difficult year in the fishery.

I was in Port Hood this past week and had an opportunity to speak at the installation of officers at the Port Hood Volunteer Fire Department. A number of fishers were there from some of the harbours around Inverness County. I spoke with a group from Little Judique Harbour. They said their catches have gone down each of the last five years. The way the program was structured, very few from those harbours along the south side of Inverness County were eligible for any funding assistance at all.

Some fishers in Mabou qualified, but nobody qualified within Mabou Coal Mines. Just a little bit better than half of those funds were expended. It sounded like a good thing to do at the time, but I think the government really fell short in the delivery of any kind of assistance for the lobster industry and let down the fishers along the many harbours in Atlantic Canada.

Some of the representatives back in my riding, including Josephine Kennedy and Trevor MacInnis, said it seemed from the outset that the government was intent on making sure that not one of these full cheques was ever cashed. The maximum was going to be $5,000. Of course, because it was taxable, about 22% would go back to government coffers. About 22% of the money that was issued to the fishers who needed it would be signed back to the government.

On average these fishers would have lost $20,000 to $25,000. For any small business operator, if $20,000 or $25,000 is taken out of that enterprise in any one year, that is a significant amount of money to take off the bottom line.

The reality is that there are very few other opportunities for these fishermen, when we look at the reduction of crab quotas in the gulf and the drop in the price of the crab. They are very limited in their ability to generate other revenues with any other species. They are expensive operations to run. Running a fishing boat operation has a great number of costs involved.

We thought it was a good idea at the time, but it was the execution of the plan that really fell short and disappointed many. It is not the only concern we have about the fishery with the government. We are on record, on a number of occasions, questioning the minister herself as to why she wants to meddle in some past agreements signed off by some ministers but is not willing to in other cases.

We can look at a crab plan that was signed off in 2005. The minister arbitrarily went in and changed the whole context of that particular arrangement. And yet the minister is not willing to revoke the privilege that was issued to Tim Rhyno, a $1 billion licence that was issued by her predecessor, Loyola Hearn, just before the last election.

With respect to the lobster plan, as excited as we were when we first heard about it, the end result was something we probably expected anyway.

There are so many rural issues. The lack of attention that rural Canada got was stark. When the volunteer firefighters were speaking with me the other night, they said they were really hoping this was going to be the year that some recognition would be given for their efforts. If people come from Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver, a major centre, when they go to bed at night they are quite confident that their safety is in the hands of full-time firefighters, full-time professionals. In case of a tragedy or if a fire breaks out over the course of the evening, then full-time professional firefighters will attend them.

However, in rural communities, we all know it is volunteer firefighters. They are very dedicated, committed community members who put their own safety and their own time into making sure we are able to live in safe communities.

The volunteer firefighters were hoping that maybe in this budget there would be some type of recognition, maybe in the form of a tax deduction for volunteer firefighters. That was certainly absent.

I know that all members in this House hold in great esteem and admiration all people who contribute to their communities through volunteerism. The firefighters, the first responders, those types of volunteers stand apart from the regular hockey or soccer coaches or fundraisers for the local charities. It is these people who are rushing into the buildings when everybody else is rushing out.

The volunteer firefighters were very disappointed that there was nothing in the budget for them.

We saw cuts to CAP sites and cuts to ACAP. I know the Minister of Industry came back and said it was all just a mistake, that they did not really mean it and that they found some money for them. So the government will maintain those programs for at least one more year.

Now we see what is going on here, and I think Canadians understand. The government is just trying to sort of rag the puck through to the next election. It certainly does not want to see another budget. It does not want to make it to another budget, because harsh decisions are going to have to be made after the situation we have sort of tumbled into under the guidance of the government.

Therefore I think we fully expect that an election will be triggered this fall. I think Canadians will understand that there were many opportunities missed in this budget, and they will keep that in mind when that opportunity presents itself, probably this fall.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say at the outset that this is a rather one-sided debate. We have not heard from a Conservative member for the last two days on this matter.

When we are talking about an 880-page budget implementation bill, we would think they could at least get one member up who could answer some of the questions that we in the opposition have regarding the bill.

The Conservatives have a provision in the bill regarding the provisions of the Criminal Code, applying them to serious crimes relating to money laundering and terrorist financing, and they are going to apply them to cases of tax evasion, which is probably a good idea, but we need some answers as to what sort of application that would have.

Currently the government's policy on tax havens is that it is offering an amnesty. When the gentleman sold the computer records from one of the Swiss banks two years ago to the German government and to other governments and uncovered all these foreign nationals who have money squirreled away in these banks, what is the government's answer? The government's answer is, “We are going to give you an amnesty. Just simply walk into the nearest Canada Revenue Agency location and report that you have been hiding money in Switzerland for the last few years, pay your taxes and you will be scot-free”.

This is the government's tough-on-crime approach to the tax haven issue.

I think we need some answers here. I would like to know what the member thinks.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona has asked a legitimate question.

It would have been good to have the current government engaged in this debate. Perhaps if it were engaged in this debate we could get some clarification.

The Conservatives make an investment in building more jails, but when they advertise that, it is social housing in their eyes. It would be good to have them stand and give an explanation on these various points, but I guess they have decided not to.

Still, the opportunity exists here today for us to engage in this. We can highlight those points and bring them to Canadians. I think Canadians appreciate the opportunity to be enlightened.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Cape Breton for his remarks and certainly his insight as he spoke of the situation with the fishery in his riding. I have spoken on occasion in the past with one of his constituents, Josephine Kennedy.

I want to ask the member about what is tabled in the bill as well as what has gone through the economic action plan. It is almost as if there is a strategy, a gamble, by which some people will be excluded from certain programs.

Specifically, the member spoke of the lobster program, which is a valid point, but we also want to talk about community infrastructure. The smallest of our communities are unable to take part in many of these initiatives, one being the RInC program, the recreational program that is 50:50. The smallest of the communities are unable to come up with their half of the funding. Therefore after being told they are approved for $100,000, it is yanked from them, similar to the lobster program where the take-up was.

I would like to get the member's thoughts on where that money should be going, how that program should find its way through to the end, the lobster program, and also about the smaller communities in his riding.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this time and time again from smaller communities.

My colleague, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, represents a community not dissimilar to mine.

In these smaller communities, the tax base is limited. There is limited access to corporate dollars, where they can begin a fundraising drive and help with the community pool, the rink or whatever it might be. The communities understand it is essential and important to provide those recreational opportunities for their young citizens, but they are handcuffed and they are limited.

Therefore I would think, if the government were serious about trying to help rural and smaller communities, there should have been an envelope of money available for those in those special situations.

In many cases the province plays a role. We see in the bigger centres that the corporate sponsors and the fundraising initiatives are more easily accessed, but in smaller communities—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

On debate, the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will be no surprise to you, since we opposed the budget presented a while ago, that we will oppose its implementation for a number of reasons. I would like to discuss a few of them. I know that I have ten minutes and I will try to highlight as many as possible. At any rate, the Bloc Québécois has a whole host of reasons for objecting to the implementation of this budget.

First, the government has decided to spare rich taxpayers with the result that the middle class and the working class will pay for a good part of their budget in the end. I have a number of examples.

The Bloc Québécois had asked that people making more than $150,000 per year pay an additional 2% in taxes in order for them to contribute their fair share to debt reduction and permit the government to function. They have the means to do it. We had also proposed an additional 3% tax on income of $250,000 or more per year. The government did not accept this proposal. Yet, these two measures would have contributed $4.8 billion to the public treasury. The government decided to ignore the Bloc Québécois proposal.

The fact that the rich can cash in their stock options and pay tax on just half of the income costs the government $1 billion every year. We know who this government is choosing to support. It is certainly not the people who, day after day, have to live on minimum or average wages. They will be the ones filling the government coffers, and not the rich who, I believe, have been given many favours.

There are also the big organizations. The banks and oil companies are, I believe, the most important organizations in Canada. This budget does not make them contribute. These banks are allowed to continue sending their profits to tax havens. Big oil companies are allowed to continue benefiting from tax loopholes, even though they do not make the required contribution to the public purse.

The government's focus is clear. It is protecting those with more money and the big organizations that make a great deal of money and it is asking the middle class and small taxpayers to make the largest contribution to the tax base.

The government's use of the employment insurance fund is an example of a great injustice. In 2008, a separate bank account was created for the board. The government has just closed that account and created a new one called the employment insurance operating account. I remind members that this fund owed $55 billion to workers, the very workers who pay into it, and also to the small and medium-sized business who pay into it. As a result, with the creation of this new account, the slate was wiped clean. We can forget the $55 billion that has been stolen from EI over many years. We will never see it again. It disappeared into the government's current accounts, and that is that.

What is worse, the Conservatives are prepared to plunder another $19 billion from that fund themselves by 2015. This government is just like the previous Liberal government in this respect. Instead of paying back those who overpaid or relaxing the EI rules to help benefit those who need it most, especially during these tough economic times, the government has emptied the account.

The same goes for women and the status of women file. We saw absolutely nothing for women in this budget or its implementation act. Not only is the government not reopening the Status of Women offices that were shut down, but it is also allowing other injustices to continue. Incidentally, I am currently in talks with the government regarding preventive withdrawal.

In a supposedly forward-thinking society, why are women in federally regulated jobs not eligible for preventive withdrawal? That is not the case in Quebec. Women in provincially regulated jobs are eligible for this benefit. Because of the federal labour code, thousands of women are forced to either continue working or claim employment insurance benefits, which penalizes them.

The Quebec system is generous: women receive 90% of their net pay during preventive withdrawal. If their jobs are hazardous, they can stay home and take care of themselves. That is not how it works in Ottawa. Their income drops to 55% because they have to rely on the employment insurance system. If a woman claims employment insurance benefits too soon, she will not be able to stay home for as long after her baby's birth.

Women make up 52% of voters, yet they are a completely neglected segment of the population.

There are other elements with which we disagree, such as support for the forestry industry. The government gave $9.6 billion to Ontario's auto industry, but just $177 million to the forestry industry in Quebec and British Columbia. It is clear that the government's priorities do not lie with Quebec. This is extremely unfair to Quebec.

The same applies to the aerospace industry. Quebec's aerospace industry amounts to 55% of Canada's aerospace industry. There are figures for the industry's economic benefits. The government is no longer supporting Quebec's aerospace economy. It is giving out military contracts here and there, contracts that represent huge sums in the aerospace industry, sums exceeding $16 billion. The government recognized the critical mass of Ontario's auto industry, but it did not do the same for Quebec's aerospace industry. Right now, businesses are not getting enough funding from the federal government.

The federal government's support for Quebec's forestry and aerospace industries is negligible compared to its overwhelming support for Ontario's auto industry.

The same is true when it comes to the environment. We see where the government's interests lie. Creating a carbon exchange is out of the question. Yet it would be very easy to bring in such a measure. Nor does the government want to restrict the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the big oil companies, which, as we know, are its darlings. Not only is this harmful to the environment, but the government is losing out on the money it could levy from big oil companies, which can afford to pay. We are coming full circle, and it is the middle class and the poorest citizens who contribute the most to the tax base.

Nor can we forget the guaranteed income supplement. For several years now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the guaranteed income supplement to be paid automatically to the people who qualify, rather than telling them they have to apply for it. People can be cheated out of it for several years, yet the retroactivity applies for only 11 months. The money given to these people would go right back into the economy, since they are a poor group of people.

I could go on for some time, because the budget contains 50 or 60 points that we do not agree with. I outlined five of them here today. For these reasons and all the other reasons I have not had time to mention, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the budget implementation bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made a fine speech on the budget implementation bill. Canada's chartered banks last year made a profit of $15.9 billion. This is in a recession when people are suffering. They made $15.9 billion and the government obviously does not think that is enough because it is lowering the corporate tax rate.

Let me say what the bank presidents earned last year. The Bank of Nova Scotia CEO was paid $9.7 million. The Bank of Montreal president was paid $7.45 million. The CIBC president was paid $6.6 million and the top earners of $10.4 million were the presidents of RBC and TD Bank.

The G7 and the G20 have come up with corporate compensation guidelines and the government is dragging its feet as far as adopting those guidelines. I would like to ask the member whether he thinks it is high time that the government should follow the guidelines of the G7 and the G20, and implement them to put some kind of controls or curbs on corporate pay in this country?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.

It is time for the government to get involved and tell the chief executive officers of large corporations that they must admit their salaries are too high.

They could go one step further, and I spoke about it in my speech. People making more than $150,000 could pay an additional 2% in taxes, and those making more than $250,000 could pay an additional 3%. This measure, along with the salaries of directors of those large corporations my colleague is talking about, would add $4.8 billion to the public coffers.

But there is more. We are talking about the profits made by big banks, but these profits are often invested in tax havens, evading the government's control. And the banks are then able to evade paying their fair share into the public treasury. It is scandalous and they have to be brought into line.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec, back in the mid-sixties to late sixties, played an incredibly large role in this country in regard to establishing government pension securities through the CPP-QPP negotiations and the establishment of that program. I state that because many of the social policies that were very progressive came out of Quebec around that time and continue to do so.

I wonder if Quebec likes the idea that is being talked about in a recent edition of Policy Options magazine. A couple of its authors pointed out that one of the best ways to go forward with secure pensions from the public sector is to allow individuals to volunteer, to make a supplementary payment into the Canada pension plan itself so that they could take advantage of it when they turn 65. It is a policy idea that is being initiated in Great Britain and other countries in Europe. I wonder if the discussion in Quebec has been toward that as well.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, additional contributions to pension programs are extremely important. However, it does pose a problem, one I have seen. When federal pension plans generate a surplus, the government often claims that the surplus belongs to it. Instead of reinforcing the pension plan with the accumulated surplus, the government tends to take this surplus or a part of it.

It is true, my colleague said it: a lot of good social policy ideas come from Quebec.

Earlier I gave the example of preventive withdrawal for pregnant women, and that is just one example. Normally, Quebec's social programs are much more advantageous, as are pension plans, such as the government and public employees pension plan, a solid plan with benefits that total 70% of the average of the employee's five best years.

In my opinion, we could give people the opportunity to contribute more to their pension plans, while ensuring, however, that the government does not dip into these pension funds.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain amount of frustration followed by anger that I rise to speak to the budget when I look at the negative impact this budget is having on my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, indeed all of eastern Canada. I want to zero in specifically on a few items and dovetail on some of the issues brought forward by the member for Cape Breton—Canso.

When we look at what is in the budget, there are a lot of things that could make someone very frustrated, but what makes one very angry is what is not in the budget. This is going to be one of the most difficult, absolutely impoverished years in the fishery that we have had on both coasts.

On the Pacific side, in British Columbia, as a result of the Fraser River sockeye decline and the unexpected, drastically lower returns, we not only see what little is left of the commercial harvest of sockeye salmon on the Pacific, we also see that the fishery for our aboriginal and first nations users, our sport enthusiasts and our outfitting industry is absolutely decimated.

Salmon is to the soul of B.C. what cod is to the soul of Newfoundland and Labrador. People in B.C. are experiencing first-hand the very same turmoil, the same deep experience of anxiety that Newfoundlanders, Labradorians and Atlantic Canadians felt in 1992 with the collapse of northern cod and Atlantic cod stocks. The people of B.C. are hurting.

What has the government done? Absolutely nothing. There is absolutely no plan in place. Granted, the Cohen commission is now studying the issue. I am not expecting any results in terms of specific recommendations for several years, but here is what we do know. Right now there are people in B.C., first nations, sport outfitters and commercial operators that are hurting. We do not need the Cohen commission to come out and say that it would be a responsible move to assist those who are facing negative economic impacts as a result of sudden drastic declines in that precious resource all Canadians share but is unique and very special to B.C. There is nothing in this budget, absolutely nothing.

On my coast on the eastern side, this past year the harp seal hunt basically has been shut down, not through the actions necessarily of Pam Anderson or any of her like, but the reality is that as a force of nature, ice conditions in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in the front are significantly limiting the opportunities to prosecute that age-old economic mainstay first created by the Europeans to feed their need for oil to light the street lamps of London.

The largest seal hunt that will occur anywhere on the globe this year ironically will occur in Europe. In Ireland, Scotland, Norway, Iceland, Germany and Sweden, there will be a massive cull. The largest hunt in the world will be in Europe and it is all sanctioned by PETA, the IFAW and all the rest of them. When people want to make a contribution to any of those organizations, they should remember that they are supporting the cull of seals in Europe, but I digress.

Let us get back to the issue, which is that in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands, P.E.I. and other places, there is no real commercial hunt under way because of a force of nature. A lot of money will necessarily be lost by our commercial seal hunters for this year. We would expect that the government, if it stands with sealers as it suggests that it does, would bring forth some sort of assistance. There is none.

In New Brunswick and Quebec, in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, the crab industry just faced a 63% cut in crab quotas, 63% in one year. I do not know how much members know about the fishery, fish or science, but I can tell them this. Any person understands that when a minister cuts a stock by 63% in one year, there is a failing of one of two sources. Science may have failed to detect the decline over the last number of years and failed to provide the proper advice. There cannot be a 63% decline in one year. Science may have failed to detect a gradual decline that was occurring over the last number of years.

Of course, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for conducting the science, so either DFO failed to do its fiduciary responsibility and engage in the necessary science of that stock, or the minister failed to act on the policy requirements of that stock over the last number of years. It is one of the two. Either science failed us all and the minister, or the minister failed each and every one of us and especially the fishermen who depend on her leadership to manage the stock in an appropriate way.

We cannot have a reduction of 63% in one year without some fundamental catastrophic cause. I do not think there was any fundamental catastrophic cause. What I believe happened is that science provided a certain amount of advice to the minister that said this stock was in a certain amount of trouble, and over the last number of years when that advice was being provided, the minister failed to act on it.

Those who prosecute that resource, those who depend on it and depend on its stability, those who depend on the leadership of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are right in asking for some sort of economic compensation for a failure in leadership either from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans itself or at the policy level from the minister who neglected her fundamental fiduciary duty to do the right thing over a period of several years.

Tens of millions of dollars will now be lost, over $80 million to the province of New Brunswick alone. This is a federal government responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the provincial government. It does not set quotas. It does not initiate the science. The province of New Brunswick has absolutely no capacity to intervene whatsoever on the decisions of the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

It is absolutely abundantly clear to each and every one of us that the federal government must intervene. The people of New Brunswick, the people of Quebec, those whose livelihood depends on this particular resource, those who bring in tens of millions of dollars in export opportunity are depending on the federal government. All of the crab is exported to the U.S., Europe and Asia. All of this resource is a fundamental mainstay of the rural and coastal communities throughout that particular region.

What does the government provide? What does the budget provide? Nothing. The government does not even acknowledge that it is the root cause of the problem. The government tries to slough it off and suggest the provinces somehow have a responsibility, even though the provincial governments have no capacity whatsoever to make any decisions when it comes to the management of the resource itself.

As the member for Cape Breton—Canso alluded to earlier, we have the issue of the area 23 and area 24 crab. The minister said in no uncertain terms that the previous minister's decision to allow Tim Rhyno to overturn the decision of the independent advisory council, to overturn the recommendations of departmental officials, not one individual was able to rise to the top, get to the former minister and be allocated a multi-million dollar crab licence by bypassing the entire process. The current minister says that is perfectly acceptable because sometimes ministers have to take the responsibility, have to right a wrong.

Yet the minister is proposing a fisheries act in which she says that should never be allowed to happen, that the decisions or recommendations of independent advisory panels should be adhered to regardless, that the minister should have no say. The minister is becoming the greatest advocate as to why this House should never ever vote for her own act. Her own act is basically an act of her asking us to please protect her from herself.

We have the situation of another former minister, the member from Halifax, who basically brought in a management plan that said that crab should be shared on a fair and equitable basis with a 50:50 split. That was the management plan. The present minister came in and tore up the entire plan and said that she needs the right to be able to do so because she needs to right a wrong. She said that if she gets her act passed she will never be able to do it.

This budget needs to be changed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member at the outset for all his help last year in promoting the air passengers' bill of rights, Bill C-310, which is still alive after all this time, thank goodness.

Last year the member will recall we had an emergency evening session in this House in which we debated the actions taken by the European Union to ban seal products while I believe the Europeans themselves were engaged in some culling process of the seal population.

What is the current status of that European boycott that we debated last year?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the government was totally inoperative and useless in actually avoiding the ban. It is still scheduled to come into effect this coming fall. Quite frankly, it is going to be devastating to the entire industry.

The member is quite right to point out that certain exemptions were put into place. The largest seal hunt in the world in 2010 will be conducted in the European Union. Every Canadian, every activist, needs to understand that when the ban came into place against Canadian seal products, the exemption was in circumstances where a cull was required. In other words, to protect certain commercial activities, whether it be salmon sport fishing or other things, if a seal is at the mouth of a river, then go ahead, it can be eliminated. Why? Because Sweden, Austria, Germany, Ireland, Scotland, Iceland, a lot of northern European countries as well as central European countries, are actively engaged in seal culling.

The only difference is they do not harvest the seal for a commercial purpose, taking its hide, its meat, rendering it into very rich omega-3 oils, which is very important to the nutraceutical and the medicinal industries. They do not manufacture the goods into clothing. They do not use the material for food sources, as a protein source. They let the animal sink to the bottom. They kill it and for no commercial purpose in mind. I say to people to give their money to PETA, give their money to the IFAW, give their money to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, support the cull in Europe, because that is exactly what they are doing. It is totally irresponsible.

I want to thank the member for his support in this initiative.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the member's concerns are my concerns, as we are neighbours both by land and by sea.

With regard to one of the comments about sealing, I would like to point out that in haste I think what happened in Europe was that members of the European Parliament rushed ahead with what they thought was an issue winner for all of them. They wanted to be more relevant in the eyes of Europeans. I think in some cases the voter turnout for a member of the European Parliament averages less than 10%. They just wanted to be relevant and they rushed ahead with this, overriding some of the suggestions made by the experts in Brussels.

Speaking of Europe, my colleague spent a lot of time on the issue of what concerns us off the coast. Of course we have the co-management regime on the high seas outside of our 200-mile limit. All international agreements were supposed to be brought to the House for vetting and voting, as was said by the minister originally. That story sort of changed because we did have a vote. We turned down the amendments to the current agreement of these countries on the high seas and then we found that the next day the government ratified.

I would like my colleague to comment on the seriousness of allowing some of these agreements in the House but yet not so serious.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right that we do share a certain passion for these issues. He is quite right that there has been absolute hypocrisy on the government side in relation to the matters of international fisheries management.

We did indeed have a very lengthy debate, a prolonged debate, as decided by the government because it refused to actually allow the debate. It just kept it going and going, thinking the issue would go away. We forced the issue on the floor of the House of Commons as opposition parties, as the Liberal Party of Canada showing its leadership on this particular front. We brought it to a vote. We expected the government to honour the will of Parliament. Twenty-four hours later, it ratified the deal anyway. It is disgusting.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we have been debating Bill C-9, a number of things have come to our attention.

As my friend from Winnipeg has shown, the depth of these 880 pages is a bit of a doorstopper. In the document, we see things that we normally would not find in the budget. We have seen this as a pattern with the government.

When there are things the government has not been able to get through the House in other ways, they are stuck in the budget. This is not just with this particular document, Bill C-9, we also saw it with the previous offering from the government, Bill C-10. We can remember when there was actually a bill to deal with censorship. That clearly was not a money concern of Canadians, but it was a way for the government to include things that it could not get through the House previously.

Here we go again. We see things in this bill that have little to do with the financial concerns of the country. We can look at further stripping environmental regulations, dealing with Canada Post and remailers, and issues that clearly have purview in other areas, and we find the government stuffing them in a budget bill. Why is that?

I could critique the government's adherence to its own principles around transparency and accountability, but we have seen that fall of the table recently so perhaps that is not a surprise. What it should indicate is very poor practice in terms of how budgets are presented. I think that is critical.

If we see governments after this one looking to this method, it is not really what Parliament is set up to do. It is not set up to have bills of this volume that have little to do with budgets but have everything to do with initiatives that the government could not get through the House in another manner.

We have the remailer issue, which was noted by my friend from Winnipeg, and the issues around environmental assessment, which my friend from B.C. noted. It means that the government is actually abusing the economic priorities of Canadians by inserting its own agenda.

When Canadians saw the government prorogue, they heard the government say that it needed to recalibrate and that it needed to hear from Canadians and get some ideas around what the priorities of Canadians were for this budget.

What was astonishing when the Minister of Finance rose and presented his budget was how little there was, notwithstanding the volume of the document, in new offerings. What we saw was a continuation of the government to deregulate at a time when the world economy was looking at re-regulating. We saw the same offerings in terms of corporate tax cuts at a time when people were saying that the government could not afford to hand out corporate tax cuts because it would be too hard on our fiscal commitments and that it would further the period in which we had to climb out of the debt and deficit.

People started to wonder what the government was doing during that period of prorogation because it certainly was not listening to Canadians. What we were hearing was that Canadians wanted to see us reinvest in things like infrastructure, and not in the way the government has done but in infrastructure that would allow Canadians to actually deal with the economic crisis they are facing in their households.

Things like affordable housing are a no-brainer. If the government invests in affordable housing, it creates jobs and provides people with what they need, which is affordable housing, reducing the costs in their households and, in fact, making our communities more liveable and sustainable.

We know that if the government had looked at a long-lasting retrofit program that actually used the investments from the federal government to make transitional changes in our economy, we would have had retrofits not only to private homes but to public institutions, as well as greening our grid and the way we distribute energy in this country. We could have seen not only the creation of jobs but the greening of our economy.

We did not see that. We saw an abandonment of even some of the small offerings the government in previous years had offered in terms of retrofits where people were able to make their homes more energy efficient and environmentally friendly and creating jobs that would help us get to the next steps in terms of getting our economy on the right track. One is kind of aghast when looking at what the government offered and what it said it would do.

We had provided the government with some very smart ideas. Instead of taking the corporate tax cuts that the government has presented to corporate Canada, which, by the way, has not taken the government up on the offer and reinvested in its own capital, we thought it made sense to put it in smart targeted investments.

If we look at other jurisdictions, that is what they have done, be it provincial, state or other countries. They have said that if infrastructure dollars are going to be put on the table, there should be some sort of test that is met. The test should be whether it will be helpful to the economy in general. In other words, will it create jobs? Will there be a ripple effect?

Anyone who has looked at the greening of the economy sees the ripple effect. When there are investments in things like retrofits, alternative energy and greening the grid, not only is there the initial impact of the dollars invested but there is a multiplier.

Manitoba did a great job in the last decade and continues to do so to this day. It invested its infrastructure money into conservation and into greening their buildings and infrastructure. Because of that investment, Manitoba was able to bring down its dependence upon hydroelectricity, which, as we know, is the export of hydroelectricity, because it saw the benefit in terms of conservation. It took the surplus it had and exported it.

One of the dilemmas, however, notwithstanding the work that Manitoba did in terms of conservation and ensuring that it preserved the energy it had and had extra energy, is that when it sells its surplus energy there is no place to put it in terms of an east-west grid and Manitoba ends up sending it south. That benefits the northern states, and Manitoba will sell the energy because it obviously has to sell it somewhere and it benefits its treasury, but what Manitoba and the NDP have requested for years is to have an east-west grid in this country.

I do not have to tell the House that the fabric and skeleton of this country, when it was created and conceived of, was the national rail system, which obviously required public infrastructure investment. Here, in the 21st century, we need something similar to that, which is why an east-west grid makes sense. The NDP has campaigned on this three times. It is a smart thing to do but, alas, the government did not do that. We see south of the border that the Obama administration is saying that the thing to do is to green the grid.

At the end of the day, things like affordable housing and green collar jobs that we could have been investing in are lost. Not only that, but the meagre offerings the government offered before are gone. Instead, we have corporate tax cuts, the shredding of environmental oversight and, at the end of the day, a budget that is not in the interests of Canadians or my constituents and, therefore, something I and my party cannot support.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member has focused on one very important issue, which is that the budget does not address a vision of where Canadians see themselves going, both domestically and internationally. I am sure that he, like all other members of Parliament, have been receiving information, postcards, lobbying and pressure from all kinds of groups like the Group for Development and Peace and their Life Before Profit campaign.

They ask one simple thing. They ask the Government of Canada to demonstrate that it has a vision of responsibility throughout the world. Since we will be hosting the G8 and G20, they are asking, and I wonder if the member for Ottawa Centre would be in agreement, that we put pressure on the government, because it seems to be susceptible to very little else, to increase support for small scale, sustainable agriculture in the global south.

Mr. Speaker, you come from an agricultural community, and agricultural policies should be and ought to be guided by the principles of food sovereignty. Hunger and poverty can be reduced by giving priority to small scale farmers, to local production for local markets and other needs for the future.

The member will know that current agricultural policies support industrial agriculture and threaten food sovereignty of people everywhere--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem with the budget. We do not see innovation or the kinds of commitments that organizations like Development and Peace want to see, like sustainable agricultural.

In the eighties I was involved in development and in sustainable agriculture. Since that time, we have seen that it works, if we look at the multiplier effect, as I referenced before, in terms of the investments.

The government does not seem to be looking forward at all. It seems to be mired in its own ideology and it seems to lack any understanding of the consensus, particularly on issues around development in the south. It is really important that we look at sustainability and do not always go for the big goal. The big goal has put us into problems in terms of international development. We saw that throughout the seventies and into the eighties. We need to look at sustainable methods, small farming, and that is exactly what the budget did not do.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from my perspective, this budget was all about what was not in it or what was taken away rather than what actually was in the budget implementation act. I think, for example, of the taking away of the federal environmental assessments, which the member spoke to eloquently. The only thing it did not take away, unfortunately, was the $6 billion in corporate tax cuts.

When I think about the opportunity cost of that, I think about the poor seniors in our country. They are the ones I am hearing from in my office. For a mere $700 million, we could have raised the GIS to lift every senior who is living in poverty out of poverty; $700 million for seniors as opposed to $6 billion for corporate tax cuts, when we have one of the lowest corporate tax rates and certainly lower than in the United States.

First, does my colleague agree with me that seniors should have been a high priority in this budget or should have been mentioned for that matter?

Second, as an advocate for the Nortel workers in particular, would he share his thoughts on workplace pensions and what we could do in the House to better protect them?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for the work she has done to fight for seniors.

The choice was clear. We could have invested in supporting seniors by putting in a measure that could have been easily done to ensure that when companies go bankrupt, the workers who actually created the wealth, who allowed those executive to get the big bonuses, would actually be referred to in some way. All the government had to do was change the BIA. It could have changed two pieces of legislation and that would have been done. The Nortel workers who have been left out in the cold would have been recognized. Finally, it was about $700 million versus $6 billion. The equation is clear. The government should have at least invested the $700 million for seniors and their pensions.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the debate on Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. Ten minutes is not long enough to address the 880 page document, a document so omnibus it makes one wonder if there could ever be enough allotted time for that debate.

Last month, I debated the government's wasteful expenditures and I spoke to the shortcomings of the budget: the lack of a job creation strategy; no investment in early childhood development; no national child care plan; no affordable housing strategy; no pension reform; no national vision or legacy; and after having invested $50 billion in infrastructure spending, no real jobs. The bottom line is there are no real benefits for Canadians and nothing has changed.

Bill C-9 would do nothing to address these concerns. In fact, it confuses the matter even more. What is worse is the underhanded and sneaky insertion of amendments that deserve their own independent worthy consideration and their own debate.

Instead of dealing with the real problems facing Canadians, the Conservatives are ignoring the cries for job growth and job creation. Over 300,000 Canadian jobs have been lost and Canadians remain out of work. The budget offered no solution to compensate for lost jobs or for the 8% of Canadians who are unemployed, or a staggering 11% of Mississaugans. To inflict further pain, the Conservatives will impose a $3 billion job-killing small business tax. Even the CFIB reported that this measure would kill more than 200,000 jobs.

Today, however, I want to concentrate on the government's underhanded tactic of inserting amendments into the bill. Let us be clear. These amendments are not sellable as orders in council or regulation changes. These proposed changes merit their own introduction and their own debate.

As the Liberal critic for crown corporations, I would like to focus on part 15 of this omnibus bill. The Conservatives' steps taken toward the deregulation and the privatization of our crown corporations are vivid and they are clear. I quote from part 15:

The exclusive privilege referred to in subsection 14(1) does not apply to letters intended for delivery to an addressee outside Canada.

This would not be the first time that we have seen an amendment to the Canada Post Act. It is not even the second. It is the third time. Since 2007, the Conservative government has been unsuccessful in trying to pass the same bill that would eliminate Canada Post's exclusive privilege, the first step toward deregulation of an $80 million industry.

At least the first two times, the bills were given their fair share of independent debate, but never passed second reading. The unexpected election of 2008 put an end to Bill C-14. Six months into the next session the government introduced Bill C-44, with the exact same wording. The unexpected prorogation put an end to that bill as well. Once in 2007, again in 2009 and now most recently in 2010, the Conservatives seem transfixed on the road to deregulation.

My colleagues from Hamilton Mountain and Elmwood—Transcona have misspoken the facts. My party has never introduced legislation on remailers. They should do their homework and stop misleading Canadians. They have misinformed Canadians on at least two occasions and I want to correct the record.

The Conservatives, however, continue to fight dirty with trickery, chicanery and underhanded tactics probably hoping people will not notice. Well people have noticed. Canadians have noticed. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers, CUPW, has noticed. It too knows the drill. When such a large and omnibus bill is tabled, there are many issues that do not get a full and proper debate. I quote from a CUPW release:

It appears that the federal government has grown impatient with the democratic debate that accompanied earlier bills and is attempting to ram deregulation of international letters through Parliament by attaching it to a budgetary bill.

That sums it up. The federal government has grown impatient. It is ignoring the democratic debate process and ramming the deregulation of our crown corporations down the throats of Canadians. The government has lost touch with Canadians.

As the Conservative agenda continues to push for deregulation and privatization, it threatens Canada Post's ability to provide affordable, accessible and universal services for residents across Canada. In 2004 the Ontario Superior Court ruled that Canada Post had the legal right to exclusive privilege of both domestic and international mail.

Canadians still value a stamped and sealed envelope which carries strong sentimental messages for their most special occasions such as birthdays, weddings, funerals or other holiday occasions. Canadians value the affordability as well of our postal system. Our country has one of the lowest basic letter rates, at 54¢ per stamp, whereas the U.K., Japan and Germany charge 70¢, 80¢ and 90¢ respectively.

What do the countries with the higher rates have in common? Each one of those countries have deregulated its postal industries.

As the Conservatives continue to push for privatizing parts of Canada Post, they also threaten the delivery to higher cost regions, such as remote and rural areas. With the one price policy, Canadians know that sending a basic letter from Ottawa to Montreal is the same as sending a letter from Halifax to Vancouver, from Iqaluit to Point Pelee.

However, Canada Post reports that the reserve market of letter mail, representing nearly half the company's revenue, is steadily declining. The parcel industry alone reached $10 billion. Canada Post holds 12% of that market. Canada Post boasts the capacity to be a major leader in direct marketing, but now it only maintains close to 10% of this growing industry.

Even in the international remailing market, Canada Post stands to lose $40 million to $80 million. This lost opportunity is one the government should not give up on. However, with the Conservatives when trouble looms, privatize. Privatization is their motto.

In July 2006 the minister responsible for Canada Post at the time stated in a letter to CUPW:

The activities of international remailers cost Canada Post millions of dollars each year and erodes the Corporation's ability to maintain a healthy national postal service and provide universal service to all Canadians.

Since then, that has changed. In 2007 the Conservatives tabled Bill C-14 to modify the exclusive privilege of Canada Post Corporation so as to permit letter exporters to collect letters for transmittal and delivery outside Canada. Inserting an amendment to Canada Post Act in the budget is underhanded and blatant trickery. This is another example of the Conservative Party's iron curtain of transparency at its best. The week Bill C-9 was introduced was a bad week for Canada Post and a bad week for Canadians.

The Conservatives' attempts to deregulate and privatization did not stop with this sneaky Canada Post amendment. In the same week they announced the slashing of 300 Canadian jobs in Edmonton, Winnipeg, Antigonish, Fredericton and Ottawa. The jobs come at the expense of privatizing Canada Post's call centres. The call centres will obviously be outsourced to overseas markets. This guarantees 300 Canadian jobs lost as a result of this announcement.

Union after union complains that the Conservatives do not care. Again, when trouble looms, they privatize. Public Service Alliance of Canada spokeswoman Janet May told CBC News that “the changes are part of a broader effort by Canada Post management to move the company further toward complete privatization”.

In a press release the other week, PSAC, the largest union of its kind said:

Canada Post is in its 15th year of profit...“So to an average Canadian, does it make sense that part of your postal system is getting privatized?”

No, it does not and PSAC is correct. It goes on:

The union said it also worries about the loss of people's privacy if they have to offer up personal information to a private company—especially if the call-centre work is outsourced to a U.S. company.

The list of opponents to the deregulation and privatization goes further. There are other groups that are impacted as well. Organizations representing the blind are concerned. Right now Canada Post offers free mailing of Braille documents and sound recordings. Opening up the market to unfair and unlevel competition would inevitably result in slashing services in order to compete. Senior citizens on fixed incomes need to know that they have reliable access to affordable mail services to suit their needs. Canadians everywhere depend on universal access to reliable postal service.

If it is necessary to radically alter a fundamentally Canadian industry owned by our taxpayers our, citizens deserve a full committee analysis before the current government potentially deprives so many residents. Canada Post can rightfully claim to be one of Canada's most trusted brands in Canada and its services have connected our expansive land. Canada Post must serve all Canadians, regardless of economic ability or geographic location, ensuring that all citizens are valued and have an equal opportunity to the services that the state provides.

The Conservatives have created a slippery slope that threatens this very premise.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the Liberal member is firmly onside in opposing the deregulation of Canada Post. I do take issue with the fact that she suggested that I had said the Liberals introduced a bill to do the same thing. I said no such thing yesterday. I did suggest that the notion of starting down this partial deregulation did start with the Liberal caucus when it was in government, and I stand by those comments.

The Liberal member for Mississauga—Streetsville spoke about her opposition to the changes to Canada Post. Could she assure me that she and all of her Liberal caucus colleagues will be here when we vote against the budget? The only way to stand up against something in the House is to be in our seats to vote against it.

The three opposition parties obviously have enough members to defeat this budget. If she really believes the changes to Canada Post must be defeated, could she tell the House today that she and all of her Liberal colleagues will be here on the day of the budget vote to defeat it?

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain I was present for the debate when the member for Hamilton Mountain stated correctly into the record that a previous Liberal minister had introduced the bill on remailers. I wanted to correct that statement.

I am in no position to take any lectures from the member on voting against a budget that I oppose. Certainly, the NDP was responsible for bringing down the Paul Martin government. As a result, we do not have national child care. We do not have the initiatives on Kelowna or Kyoto because the NDP did not support the Paul Martin government.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague's intervention and the very clear and eloquent fashion in which she pointed out some of the deficiencies of the bill. It goes beyond sneaky that the government would place its agenda in a bill that is 880 pages long and not its vision, as my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville has rightly pointed out.

There is no vision, no sense of purpose and no sense of direction. There is no purpose to government in that 880 page document. It is a cut and slash, privatize, eliminate government from the life of Canadians type of document. There is very little there that one could say represents a step toward the future or a step toward a more expansive Canada, one where citizens and communities take care of each other and develop a format or procedure whereby individuals and government interact. There is none of that at all.

However, we are immediately going to have government members saying that we voted for this, that it is in the budget, that it is in the book. Remember that humourous little skit “It's in the book? I do not know whether it can tell us where it sees a vision of Canada in those 880 pages. What line would it refer to? Where in that book do we find protection for Canadian jobs, for stimulating Canadian jobs and for providing a future for Canadians?

Maybe my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville can tell us whether that is empty rhetoric and garbage in that 880 pages or whether it is a document worthy of any consideration.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would concur. It is absolutely 880 pages of empty rhetoric. There is no investment in jobs. There are no jobs, no job creation, no protection for the jobs of today and no creation of the jobs of tomorrow. There are no investments in education, national child care, R and D, innovation or employment insurance. There is no lasting vision or legacy.

We will have nothing to show for $50 billion in infrastructure spending that is lasting. That is even if we are certain that $50 billion will have been invested at the end of the day. We all know the stories about the lapsed money, the money that is committed but is never actually spent or sent out.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have two points of order. First, I will go to the chief government whip on his point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak about the implementation bill for the Conservatives' March 4 budget. This is my opportunity to inform my constituents and the people of Quebec about the negative impact many of these Conservative budget measures will have on our social and economic well-being.

I already had the opportunity to speak to the budget in the House and to point out the Conservatives' serious lack of compassion and desire for social justice. The current budget implementation bill naturally confirms that the Conservatives are more determined than ever to protect wealthy taxpayers and to make the middle class pay for the budget deficit. Furthermore, the Conservative government has reaffirmed its intention to plunder the EI fund and to begin the process of privatizing Canada Post.

This privatization is particularly worrisome to me and to my constituents, especially the people of Saint-Mathieu-de-La Prairie, because the future of their postal outlet remains uncertain after months of endless talks and discussions regarding the renewal of the local postal concession.

We need to remember that the current government introduced Bill C-44 in June 2009 to take away Canada Post's exclusive privilege concerning international mail. Fortunately, this bill died on the order paper when the House was prorogued, but the same measure is now included in the budget implementation bill. This is still more proof of how devious this Conservative government is and how it wants to completely deregulate the crown corporation.

The Bloc Québécois strongly opposes the privatization of Canada Post to any degree. The crown corporation must remain a public concern in order to maintain universal services and consistent rates throughout Canada, including in rural areas that are threatened with losing this essential public service.

On another note, in denying the huge socio-economic challenges that more than half of Quebeckers have been grappling with since 2008, the Conservatives are showing a total lack of compassion and vision. Seniors and women are the notably missing from this budget implementation bill, which contains nothing to improve the guaranteed income supplement and nothing to promote pay equity. Clearly, this government is continuing to take an arrogant attitude toward the less fortunate. This disdain for the more vulnerable members of society is especially hard on older workers, who are left in the lurch by the Conservatives' 2010 budget.

What does the budget the Conservatives brought down on March 4, 2010 have for older workers? Nothing. Yet for years the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the federal government to bring in a new income support program for workers 55 and over who cannot be retrained and who are victims of massive layoffs.

There will always be workers who cannot be retrained, and they need an income support program. In its 2006 throne speech, this same government promised to create such a program by adopting a Bloc amendment that called for an income support program for older workers. What has happened since? Absolutely nothing.

On October 28, 2009, there was a vote on the Bloc Québécois' Motion M-285, moved by my colleague, the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour. Only the Conservatives voted against the motion. Older workers still do not have access to a proper program for older worker assistance. The Conservatives are ignoring them and they are among those who have been left out of this budget, which is utterly lacking in compassion for society's poorest.

The Conservative government would rather maintain generous tax measures for banks and big corporations than help the people who were hardest hit by the recent economic crisis. In response to the crisis, the Bloc Québécois submitted dozens of proposals during its pre-budget consultations, such as bringing in a heavy tax on the excessive bonuses that some companies give their executives. We would like to see that kind of heavy tax along with a measure preventing companies that pay such bonuses from deducting those expenses from their corporate income taxes.

The Conservative government is refusing to consider these measures even though Quebeckers have said that they fully support them.

The one thing that this bill and the budget it seeks to implement make absolutely clear is that Quebec has nothing to gain from remaining in the Canadian federation. The bill does not include a measure to compensate Quebec for harmonizing its sales tax even though Ottawa has already agreed to generous compensation for all of the other provinces.

The Conservatives have also turned down Quebec's urgent requests for more federal transfers, particularly for education. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, primary transfers from the federal government to the provinces for health care and social programs will decline between 2010 and 2015.

The Conservative government is also sticking with its decision to unilaterally cap equalization payments. No doubt it believes that the vast majority of people do not really understand the issue.

I would like to briefly explain the concept of equalization for the benefit of my fellow citizens.

First of all, I should point out that Quebec's current government considers this to be an extremely important matter, so important that it discussed it at length in its latest update on federal transfers published in the March 30 budget plan.

What is equalization in Canada? It is simply a means of distributing a portion of federal revenues in order to reduce the socio-economic inequalities between the provinces. Like many other federations around the world, Canada's federal government created an equalization program in 1957 to try and close the fiscal gap between the provinces.

The money paid out by the federal government comes from taxes paid by all taxpayers, including taxpayers in Quebec, who finance their share of federal equalization.

This was how Canadian equalization functioned until just recently.

Now let us take a look at some of the myths circulating about how Quebec unfairly benefits from this program. As the Quebec government has said, some people are claiming that Quebec has always benefited substantially from the equalization program, which is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from one province to another. But it is a program paid for exclusively by the federal government and all Canadian taxpayers contribute to it. Residents of Quebec, through their taxes, pay their share of equalization, as do all other Canadians. In fact, out of all the provinces that received payments last year, Ontario is the only one that received a smaller equalization payment per capita than Quebec. Quebec is not unfairly benefiting from the equalization program, far from it.

Others claim that Quebec is able to fund its innovative social programs such as daycare and pharmacare because of equalization money. They also claim that this money comes in part from Alberta's tar sands development, insinuating that it is the Alberta oil industry which enables Quebec to offer generous social programs. Quebec finances these innovative social programs on its own.

Equalization certainly plays an important role in Quebec's budget, but it does not use that money to fund its visionary social programs. Quebec taxes its citizens more than the national average, specifically to fund its programs, like the $7 a day child care program and drug coverage. This political choice simply reflects our collective desire to create a Quebec, a society that is more equitable. Quebeckers have opted to give themselves public services and they finance them themselves through higher taxes, which they pay to the Government of Quebec.

Quebec could have fewer social programs and lower taxes, but it would receive exactly the same amount in equalization payments. So Ottawa must reverse its decision to change the equalization formula and give back to Quebec the money it is entitled to. It must eliminate the equalization cap and treat Quebec fairly and equitably, taking its water resources into account in the equalization formula.

In light of everything in the bill, the Bloc Québécois cannot support it.

Accordingly, we will vote against the bill.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my hon. colleague regarding equalization payments. I am not quite certain as to how she envisions the formula. Is it purely on a per capita basis regarding Canada's social health transfer, or is it something a bit different that would allow building upon that formula?

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Currently, Quebec receives $1,111 per capita in equalization. Prince Edward Island receives $2,400, New Brunswick, $2,226, Manitoba, $1,673 and Nova Scotia, $1,452.

Quebec and Ontario are the two provinces that receive the lowest equalization payments per capita under the current formula.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly interested in what the member had to say about the provisions in Bill C-9 regarding the removal of Canada Post's legal monopoly on outgoing international letters, or the remailer situation.

Members of the House know that this bill was introduced on two previous occasions as Bill C-14 and as Bill C-44. The government was not able to get either one of those bills passed through the minority government. The government has taken advantage of a situation and it has simply added this bill, totally unrelated as it is, to an 880-page budget implementation bill. It has nothing to do with the matter at stake. One wonders whether the government has a wish for defeat and an election, whether that is what it is doing.

I have seen this before. The Filmon government in Manitoba did the same thing in a similar minority situation. Every year it would bring in a big omnibus bill like this, throw in a whole bunch of surprises and dare the opposition to call an election. If that is what this is all about, then let us call a spade a spade.

The government is trying to privatize Canada Post by stealth. This is just the thin edge of the wedge. This mail is going to be sorted in places like Jamaica, where the wages are a fraction of what they are here. Once the remailers get peeled away, it is only a hop, skip and a jump from there to when the entire postal corporation gets turned over to private hands, as part of the privatization of crown assets program.

We are on the same side as the Bloc on this issue. The Liberals are saying they support where we are going with this as well. This whole business has to be exposed. The fact that in the last two days no government members have stood up to speak to their own bill says volumes about what is happening in this House.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

This omnibus budget implementation bill provides for the dismantling of Canada Post. In my speech, I described this budget as a very devious move by the government. This is not the first time the government has tried to dismantle the postal system, which should be an affordable universal public service.

I presented numerous petitions from people in my riding protesting against the attack on Canada Post by Bill C-44, as it was called at the time. This bill outlined how services would be dismantled, starting with remailing, as my colleague just said. We know that this is just the thin edge of the wedge and that the government will go after postal outlets next.

Last fall, the government declared a moratorium, saying that it would not touch postal service, but it did not keep its word, because in Saint-Mathieu-de-La Prairie in my own riding, it is closing postal outlets in a roundabout way.

The government always does things through the back door, by stealth. What it cannot do directly or indirectly, it does another way. It has Canada Post in its sights in the budget.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on implementation of the budget presented on March 4.

First of all, I believe that this is not a good budget for Canadians because it does not address the issues we are currently facing. It is a laissez-faire budget, the budget of a government that steers a course depending on which way the wind is blowing. This is a facile and lacklustre budget, one devoid of ideas.

I will repeat my comments made on March 4 after reading the budget. I said that this budget offered nothing new, that it was a budget “that did not propose any specific measures to create jobs or encourage research and development...Given that it took three months to recalibrate his government, it is far from impressive.” I am still waiting for this recalibration.

Not only has the Conservative government proposed freezes and cuts, it has put forward a budget that is extremely misleading. Let me explain.

As the member for the National Capital Region, I am very concerned by what is in and what was left out of the budget with respect to the public service. A large part of the labour force in our region works in Canada's public service and its agencies. At the same time that the government is leading the population to believe that its budget will create jobs and support economic growth, it is announcing that it will make departmental cuts. It is not creating jobs, it is cutting jobs.

A few days after the budget was presented, the President of Treasury Board proudly announced that the government would not fill the 245 positions on government-appointed boards and commissions that were deemed redundant. However, he was hiding two partisan secrets. The first is that 90% of these positions were already vacant, and some of them had been for some time. Therefore, where are the savings announced with such pomp?

The second thing the government was hiding is this: the very same boards targeted for cuts were filled with 79 Conservative donors, volunteers and candidates since the last election.

The government was again trying to control the boards. As I said at the time, if the scandal at Rights & Democracy is any indication, this government will stop at nothing to ram its right-wing, ideological agenda through boards that should be professional, not political. By filling boards with Conservative cronies and axing other positions entirely, it is cementing its stranglehold on power while wiping out the potential for dissent.

We have now seen that the government has stopped at nothing to entrench its right-wing ideology and to claim that it was saving money when it was not spending any in the first place.

The Minister of Finance even went so far as to buy a coffee at the taxpayers' expense at Tim Hortons in London, Ontario. He hired a private plane for a return flight at a cost of $4,575, but flew back on a commercial flight at a cost of $400. In other words, he spent $5,000 to get a cup of coffee.

The government is completely out of touch with the reality Canadians are living in. On one hand it claims to be reducing expenses and making cuts, but on the other hand it is squandering public funds.

The Conservatives claim they can develop budgetary strategies and attack the deficit. I do not believe them. They do not even know where to begin to make cuts in government expenditures. They have delegated this thankless job to their officials, claiming that the cost-cutting will not hurt all that much.

Let us not forget that the government plans to put its fiscal house in order, specifically by cutting $17.6 billion over five years. How does it intend to do so? By freezing departmental budgets and reviewing programs? It was this same government that granted salary increases to its employees: 1.5% this year, 1.5% next year and 1.1% the third year. How will the departments absorb the cost of inflation?

I strongly believe that the government will have to make cuts to services, and that taxpayers will end up paying for these cuts.

The government should have the guts to tell us now which programs it plans on cutting.

Will it cut the programs that are not in line with its right-wing ideology? History shows us that programs it does not like will surely be on the chopping block.

Even the former clerk of the Privy Council, Mel Cappe, admitted to a journalist at Le Devoir that public servants could find ways to cut costs, but that it would affect the quality of services.

The two major public service unions are worried. The Public Service Alliance of Canada said the following in response to the budget:

Management will likely propose layoffs and job cuts to deal with the budget freeze. Our union will fight any cuts and any proposed reduction in workforce.

So much for peaceful labour relations.

Although the Conservative government will not reduce public service pensions this year, the President of the Treasury Board is refusing to be pinned down. Will he admit that his government intends to dip into the public service pension fund later on?

The government was certainly counting on the retirement of public servants to offset the government's administrative costs.

However, the recent report of the Clerk of the Privy Council and cabinet secretary mentioned retirements, and I quote:

Compared to the previous year, the public service retirement rate declined slightly in 2008-09 (by 0.1%), after steadily increasing...between 2004-05. Projections for the next several years call for a slight increase followed by a level retirement rate, assuming a stable employee population.

What I understand from this is that the government cannot count on an increase in retirements in order to reduce its workforce and rejuvenate the public service, while also hoping to meet its objective of reining in its expenditures. Will public servants who are eligible for retirement be reluctant to quit their jobs sooner in order to take early retirement? This could be a show of their lack of faith in this government.

This government did not hesitate to freeze the operating budgets of all departments while it wastes—I repeat, wastes—taxpayers' money on partisan advertisements and fees for consultants.

And this government was awfully quick to take credit for the reinvestment of $32 million this year, even though it slashed $148 million in funding for research councils in the last budget.

Instead of investing in research and innovation, the Conservatives refused to let the Canada Space Agency spend $160 million in approved spending over the past two years, but want to take credit for adding $23 million in this budget. What a farce.

Furthermore, the budget contains nothing to give a boost to Quebec: not a single word about culture, nothing on climate change or renewable energy.

It offers too little, too late to help the forestry and manufacturing sectors, which have been abandoned by the Conservatives.

After years of undermining the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, which could have helped create jobs locally, the Conservative budget allocates a pitiful $29 million over two years. Once again, this is too little, too late.

This government is a tired government that does not know how to respond to the issues of our times.

We, the Liberals, are determined to create a better choice for Canadians. We are proposing clear measures for employment and pension plans, because we are the party that defends the middle class, seniors and families that are just trying to get by.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his presentation today. I know he did deal with issues about the government freezing the civil service and advertising wildly as it has about how great a government it supposedly thinks it is. But the fact of the matter is we are dealing with the biggest recession since the Great Depression. What did the current government do at that time? It brought in initiatives to lower the corporate tax rate even lower than it is right now, which is already 14 points or 15 points below that of the United States.

This is at a time when the five biggest banks in Canada made $15.9 billion profit last year, which evidently is not enough for the current government, at a time when CEOs of these banks are earning in the neighbourhood of $10.4 million, in the case of RBC and the TD and $6.2 billion in the case of CIBC, and I could go on with the figures for the other banks for the members.

At this time, we have the G7 and the G20 that has developed guidelines to deal with corporate compensation. The question is, when is the current government going to adopt those guidelines? The indication is that it is not going to because the banks have convinced the government that those guidelines are too onerous and that it should let these executives keep earning what they are earning right now.

It is impossible for me to ask a member of the government because, for the last two days, we have not seen one. We have not seen a speaker for the government on its 880-page bill.

So, does the member agree with me that the current government should do something to rein in these corporate salaries and corporate packages that are just totally rampant in this country?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and his question.

It is true that the government is clinging to its right-wing ideologies, and the member has every reason to believe that the Conservative government wants to lower the corporate tax rate yet again. I have nothing against lower corporate tax rates, but the government needs to consider the fact that we cannot afford them right now.

That is why the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada made his party's position clear a few weeks ago, indicating that he would freeze the corporate tax rate, and that the money would be put towards other programs, and particularly towards bringing down the deficit and the debt.

But the government continues to waste taxpayer money on a shocking number of advertising minutes. Ads for the government's economic action plan are all over the television. It is ridiculous. This spending is unnecessary, and the government keeps doing it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence greatly desires to ask a question, so I thought that I would cut the hon. member off to allow a brief question.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know that my colleague was talking about gaspillage. As I said earlier on, this is a government that is determined to be known as a squander and tax punitive government.

Do members know that every one of these 880 pages in Bill C-9 is costing every Canadian taxpayer $60.2 million a page? And do members know what they are getting for it? They are going to get something that they did not expect: $1.5 billion in additional taxation for security. At the same time, the government is going to withdraw services. It is going to withdraw police services from airports, so that it can pick up another $16 million.

I wonder what my colleague has to say about that.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. He is much more eloquent than I could ever be. But he is right, and I will give some examples.

In my riding of Hull—Aylmer, which is on the other side of the river, there are federal government office buildings. This government put up posters about repairs in the buildings, when the posters cost more than the repairs themselves. That is wasteful.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During an answer in question period today I commented on the contents of a committee report from a public meeting which had not yet been tabled. I wish to withdraw my comments and apologize to the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House appreciates those remarks.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some pleasure and frustration that I enter into this debate today on Bill C-9. It has been referred to by many of my colleagues as being quite a substantial bill, consisting of some 880 pages.

It is up to us as members of Parliament to attempt, for the average Canadian citizen, a translation or interpretation simply because it is clearly not an expectation for Canadians in their leisure time to read through examples such as on page 416, where it states:

Tariff item No. 7320.10.00 in the List of Tariff Provisions set out in the schedule to the Act is amended by replacing--

It is up to us as parliamentarians to interpret what Bill C-9 actually means in the lives of Canadians. When we in the NDP look through this bill, we find that in fact the government needed so many pages because this bill is, in reality, a Trojan Horse. Within these pages are all sorts of actions the government has taken that it did not actually want to debate in the full and proper light of day. There are many examples.

This from a government, if we recall the Conservatives' election win the first time around in 2006, that was going to bring in new accountability. We have in Bill C-9 nothing but unaccountability to Canadian taxpayers. I will provide some examples.

One is the Environmental Assessment Act. The willingness of the federal government to assess the environmental sustainability or impact of major industrial projects has been stripped down to virtually nothing in this bill. The number of projects that need to be assessed by the federal government so that Canadians can understand their impacts are too numerous to mention in the brief time I have.

Canadians have a sense that one of the roles and functions of government is to protect them from harm, particularly to protect them from projects they may have no knowledge of or nothing to do with. We are talking major industrial projects, oil sands, energy, bridges, highways and all the rest.

In Bill C-9, this Trojan Horse, the government has said it will simply defer to the provinces or, in other circumstances, will give the power to the Minister of the Environment to decide what should be assessed and what should not have an environmental assessment. The irony of this new move is that the minister will somehow determine beforehand what is going to have a major environmental impact.

Canadians know the reason an assessment is done is to find out if something is going to have an environmental impact or not. The minister is somehow being given this divine knowledge and right that he will understand what is going to cause harm to the environment and what is not before the project has even been proposed or implemented.

A second piece is the selling of AECL, Canada's nuclear industry, also contained in these pages, without debate or comment from members of the government. Here they are, the great defenders of the nuclear industry, trying to sell off that same industry, which begs a few questions. Will they bring that in a separate piece of legislation, a bill which is required by law? No, they stick it in a Trojan Horse, threaten the opposition and get the support of the Liberals to do it. Something they could not do in the full light of day they bury in 880 pages. They bury something that Canadians, over the 50 years of AECL, have contributed $50 billion toward.

It staggers the mind that the government would say it is going to selloff a Canadian asset, but it does not want to talk about it. It is going to selloff a Canadian asset that by law says it has to be brought to this place as a stand-alone bill and the government buries it on page 556. This is not a government of accountability, clearly not.

There is the environmental assessment, the burying of AECL, and the raising of taxes at airports. Of course, this is a government that likes to proclaim it is lowering taxes, but here we see it raising taxes, user fees that will garner a 50% increase. A 50% increase for security costs on travellers is also buried within this Trojan Horse of a bill. Are Canadians being asked for their comments or opinions about a tax hike like this? Of course not.

Such was the case when the government raised taxes with the HST, also contained within Bill C-9. The HST will be applied to a whole bunch more services that Canadians use, thereby raising their tax burden again. This is Orwellian at its base, hypocritical at its source, and the government must be held to account.

This is what the debate is about. It is ironic and yet tragic. Government members are so proud of their record on taxes and on this budget, which supposedly is the miracle cure for the recession, yet 93% of the projects did not get out the door. Another 50% showed no effect, and if we believe the Fraser Institute, it actually may have been counterproductive to the economy's recovery.

The government that claimed so much credit for its economic prowess will not stand up and debate the bill in this House. The Conservatives will stay in their seats and type their emails, but will not engage in a debate about something so fundamental. There must be something in these 880 pages that they like.

I found something that may be of some benefit to Canadians. I am somewhat of a fan of the credit union movement, and if I take one moment to give some small modicum of credit, the government decided to finally allow Canadian credit unions to compete and operate under the Bank Act, which will allow them to go beyond their limited provincial jurisdictions right now. This is something that has been called for by New Democrats for a long time. Credit unions will now be able to compete fairly and competitively with the banking system. We just heard my colleague from Manitoba talk about the exorbitant salaries that senior bank officials pay themselves continuously. These banks just received, not a year ago, a $75 billion backstop from the federal government through Canadian taxpayers.

We can look at the HST. Being a member from British Columbia, I talk to my constituents in Skeena and the northwest of B.C. Just this past weekend I was in one of my favourite barbershops, which I know bears some irony itself, talking to my friend, Klaus Mueller Jr., the good barber of Smithers, B.C., asking him what the impact of the HST was going to be on his business. The HST was not debated, not discussed, and not presented forthrightly or truthfully, either by the Conservative government or the provincial government in B.C. It is devastating and the folks that he is most worried about are those that can least afford it, those who are already sitting on the margins economically of society.

Those on fixed incomes, seniors, those at the lowest incomes, struggling single moms, families, folks who are just trying to make ends meet are being whacked over the head by a government here in Ottawa that throws its hands up and says it has nothing to do with it, that the HST is purely a provincial decision. Yet, it found in a budget $6 billion to bribe, in a sense, the provinces along the path of redemption on the HST route, thereby using taxpayers' money to bribe another level of government to raise taxes on the same taxpayers.

If this is not an offensive, twisted and contorted way to do politics, I have never heard of one. Taking $6 billion of Canadians' own money from across Canada, which was a generous contribution I suppose from the other provinces to this nefarious effort, it shoved it out the door to Ontario and British Columbia, having them raise taxes on their own citizens and calling it good for the economy. All the while we hear this government trumpet its own ability to lower taxes when in fact that is not the case. We see in Bill C-9 880 pages of misdirection and misappropriation.

I want to step back and conclude my remarks around the environmental assessment component of this act because here is something that we will be paying for, for generations. Many of these issues and the damages being done in this bill will be felt for the next two years, but we know, through trial and error and through experience, that when we do not have proper environmental assessments, when we do not have any basic regulations to guide us on how major industrial projects operate, which is the suggestion in this bill by the government, we pay for it eventually. We pay up front or we pay eventually, and oftentimes, paying eventually means paying more.

An example and a case in point, in 2007 we paid $175 million in the district of Yukon alone to clean up old mines, disasters, orphaned abandoned mines, because they did not go through any kind of environmental assessment 45 or 50 years ago. We are paying for them all now, collectively. This is not how Canadians want their house managed. Their affairs are not being benefited by the government.

We need to not have this bill pass. We need to not bring this Trojan Horse to bear because not only will we be paying for it now but for generations to come.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the hon. member has noted, despite the great number of members from the government side present in the House over the course of the last couple of days, that not one of them has had the temerity to speak in favour of their own bill; 880 pages of no vision, 880 pages of imposition of taxes. We know there are going to be lots of taxes, because the Conservatives have to make up for having squandered, yes, I used the word “squandered”, the absolute legacy of surpluses they had, the lowering of the national debt, and now they have to make up for a $53 billion deficit.

Through these 880 pages, they are going to charge Canadians $60.2 million per page. Think about that, because the hon. member has referred to it as a Trojan Horse and there was disaster in Troy as a result of that Trojan Horse. The government side is too shamefaced to speak to a bill it presented to the public of Canada for consideration, the 880 pages of taxation. Squandering is their history and taxation is their future.

I wonder whether the member would agree that is their Trojan Horse.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a fair point that the very foundation and principle of this place is that we engage in debate with one another. We present opposing views. We discuss those views and try to come to some reconciliation over what is best for the country. The fact is that the government members will not come to their feet, all the members present here today and the members present yesterday. Any of the Conservative caucus who feel so strongly about their government's direction failed to show up and actually speak and support that direction and present why they think it is a good idea to raise taxes on Canadians at airports, and why they think it is such a great idea to eliminate the federal role in environmental assessments over major industrial projects, and why they think it is such a good idea to have no debate whatsoever about selling AECL, for which we have all pitched in to the tune of $19 billion.

If they thought all these things were such great ideas, here is the place for them to describe it, not in their cheap mail-out program, not in the stump speeches they give to partisan crowds, but here in the House of Commons where we all gather to debate these ideas and put our best foot forward. But I see again that, even through the enticement, none of our Conservative colleagues will rise to their feet to defend their government's action.

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

Mr. Speaker, several speakers have pointed out over the last two days that there are $3 billion missing in tax havens. Seeing how the government is so desperate to get tax revenue and is supposedly a law-and-order type of government, one would think it would be taking some sort of action to try to recover some of the taxes on some of this money invested in tax havens.

What does the government do? It provides an amnesty so Canadians are streaming into Canada Revenue Agency offices over the last year declaring money they invested in banks in Switzerland. They are only doing it because an employee of one of the banks a couple of years ago took a computer back-up and sold it to the German government and made the information public. So now these people are running into Canada Revenue Agency under the amnesty program to own up to the fact that they were evading taxes all these years, and the government thinks that is acceptable.

I want to know when the government is going to get tough on people who take money and put it in tax havens and avoid taxes. When is the government going to get tough on them and live up to that claim of being tough on crime, which is certainly not what it does?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it should be tough on certain crimes, certainly not white-collar crimes, certainly not crimes that allow $3 billion to go out the door when a government is running red ink all over the place. I would think it would want the $3 billion, but it does not because it does not mind raising taxes, but on certain people, those who it does not necessarily feel are within its constituency. Now the folks who can afford to run these offshore tax havens, tax dodges, those are the folks in whom the Conservatives seem very interested. Compare this to the United States; it offered no such amnesty. It simply said it is going after the Swiss accounts to get the money back for the American taxpayers. In Canada, suddenly the Conservatives said, “Here is a haven”, but if average Canadians missed their taxes by $5,000, would they be provided a haven? Would they be provided an amnesty?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, because this budget implementation bill contains nothing good for Quebec, it confirms the fact that the latest federal budget is fundamentally unfair to Quebec. I am thinking of the growth-generating economic sectors that receive more support in Ontario and the west than in Quebec. That is an understatement. I am also thinking of the sales tax harmonization that everyone but Quebec got.

I can hardly believe my ears when I hear the Prime Minister say in the House, without batting an eyelid, that harmonization did not happen in Quebec. On page 68 of his 2006 budget speech, the Minister of Finance said that five provinces had not harmonized their sales taxes, and Quebec was not among them. I am sure that everyone will agree that sales taxes have been harmonized in Quebec since 1992.

The Conservative government also seems to think that the Great Lakes make up a closed basin. It renewed the Great Lakes action plan for $16 million over two years, but there is no money for the St. Lawrence. There is no long-term vision for this waterway, which flows alongside the riding of Verchères—Les Patriotes, where water, in the form of the Richelieu river, a tributary to the great river, and the St. Lawrence itself, plays an important role. That is why I am so disappointed and worried that on March 31 the St. Lawrence plan to develop an integrated vision and management strategy for one of America's largest waterways expired without any announcement by the government regarding its extension.

Part 15 of Bill C-9 limits the exclusive privilege of the Canada Post Corporation. I will not talk about this at length. People can refer to the speeches by my colleagues from Beauharnois—Salaberry and Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, who have spoken about this in detail. It is clear that the government is trying to avoid a debate on this subject in the House, even though it introduced Bill C-44 itself to study the issue.

Trying to eliminate certain exclusive privileges of Canada Post without debate, on the sly, quickly, through the back door, leaves us asking a tonne of questions. Our constituents are concerned about the services they are receiving from Canada Post. In my riding, a number of constituents are drafting petitions. Municipalities, such as the Lajemmerais RCM, have adopted a resolution calling not for the reduction of Canada Post services, but for the improvement of the services that have been cut and for the moratorium on post office closures to be maintained.

It is as the health critic that I would like to come back to certain parts of Bill C-9, namely part 18 on privatizing AECL. Nowhere in part 18 is there any assurance that the federal government will continue to take its responsibilities and provide Quebeckers and Canadians with a supply of medical isotopes. Knowing the serious and unfortunate consequences of closing the Chalk River facility and the NRU to patients and health care providers, this is worrisome.

On November 23, 2009, Patrick Bourguet, President Elect of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine, came to speak to the Standing Committee on Health about a global approach to technetium. I wonder whether the budget and Bill C-9 will ensure international unity in order to prevent what we are currently going through. Therefore—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes will have six minutes to finish his speech the next time this bill is studied by the House.

It being 5:13 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from April 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures be read the second time and sent to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the bill was being studied in the House on April 13, the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes still had six minutes left for his remarks.

The hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I have the unanimous consent of my colleagues, I want to take a bit more time. I will not repeat what I said last Tuesday evening at 5:25. I will continue my speech, but if I have additional time at the end, I will be able to say more about various aspects of BillC-9.

I listened very attentively to the point of order raised by the House Leader of the Bloc Québécois, who pointed out once again all that should be done to ensure that Quebec’s constitutional prerogatives are respected here in the House.

Yesterday, the hon. member for Saint-Lambert and the hon. member for Hochelaga jointly introduced a bill that would eliminate the federal spending power to ensure that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces are respected. With Bill C-9, the federal government is again infringing on the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

As our health critic, I am not surprised. At the Standing Committee on Health, hon. members in federalist parties ask certain questions to enhance the federal government’s role in health care, even though this is an exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Some people will say, of course, that when it comes to health care, this is a good thing because it is supposed to help people, cure them and improve their lives. But that is not the point. We should not be asking whether particular measures are wanted or desirable, but whether it is up to the federal government to concern itself with them. My colleagues will have to agree with me that this is clearly not the federal government’s role.

In part 22 of Bill C-9 on payments out of the consolidated revenue fund, we see that millions of dollars will be paid to a foundation, a not-for-profit organization, to heal injuries. The question is not whether this should be done, but whether it is the federal government’s job to do it. When it comes to health care, we want the federal government to forward all the available money to Quebec and the provinces, which are most able to make wise choices in view of the needs of the people they represent.

We worry when we see the federal government once again disregarding the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces and insidiously encroaching on the jurisdiction of health.

And when we listen to the leader of the Liberal Party, their ideas are no better. They want to implement Canada-wide strategies to block the initiatives that might be introduced by the Government of Quebec.

Part 2 of Bill C-9 implements an enhanced stamping regime for tobacco products. As the health critic, I am pleased to see that measures are being introduced to block measures to increase tobacco product consumption. We were in complete agreement with the government when it introduced Bill C-32 to eliminate flavoured tobacco products and cigarillos. We invite the government to continue down that path and adopt the regulations related to Bill C-32.

As far as stamping tobacco products is concerned, the government has listened to the Bloc Québécois' proposal to implement this marking system, but again, it is not nearly enough.

The government needs to take firm action to block the illegal activities of tobacco smugglers because the measures announced are largely inadequate. In the Bloc Québécois, my colleague responsible for public safety, my colleague responsible for justice, and I are calling on this government to take serious action to stop the growth in smuggling and even eliminate it altogether because if we do not want our youth to have access to cheap tobacco products then we have to address this problem head on.

I will now list a series of measures the Bloc Québécois wants to see the government put forward. It is aware of these measures since we have already talked about them in this House, but I would like to go over them again at this stage since, in part 2 of Bill C-9, the government is introducing a measure that is interesting, but falls far short of what is needed.

My time is up, so this will have to wait, but if the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of Health would like to hear what I have to say about this, I invite them to contact me directly and I would be pleased to share my thoughts on this with the House another time.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member is an expert on health and on the health committee, at which I filled in. I want to ask him a question related to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

There has been a national outcry that it has been closed. There were 134 institutions across the country that provided these excellent services, which were well evaluated by the government, but they were all shut down. The minister's excuse is that the Department of Health could provide those services. The Department of Health was providing those services before, but it was not enough. Obviously these other 134 programs or institutions were needed.

Would the member like to comment further on that?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague very much. Clearly, if he had listened to the Bloc Québécois member, our aboriginal affairs critic, we believe that limiting aboriginal people's access to health care is out of the question. It is appalling, especially knowing—as we heard in the Standing Committee on Health—that some isolated reserves do not even have clean drinking water. How can anyone possibly ensure adequate, effective public health measures in places that do not even have clean drinking water?

The Conservatives need to stop burying their heads in the sand regarding the urgent needs facing Canada's aboriginal people. The federal government is responsible for taking care of these populations. They cannot ignore reality. Concrete action is needed and the hon. member for Yukon is quite right to rise in the House and demand that the government take concrete action. I thank him for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the member's speech. I must point out that the bill currently before the House of Commons does not really address the priorities of real people across Canada. As the member well knows, the Conservatives seem to want to give billions of dollars and tens of billions of dollars to the banks and big business, instead of investing money in communities across the country. Furthermore, we see that they want to do things like reducing Canada Post's capacities and adopting other measures that do nothing to help Canadian communities.

I wonder if the member found the slightest indication of any priorities in the bill that could improve the daily lives of real people in Canada, or if he believes that the Conservatives are way out in left field.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He spoke about what real people would want. There is nothing in this bill for the middle class. How many times has our colleague from Hochelaga risen in this House to tell the government to focus on where the money is?

The banks are putting billions of dollars into tax havens. That is appalling. The money is there. My colleague from Hochelaga did an incredible tour of Quebec and heard from a number of citizens and organizations who really have their priorities straight when it comes to this government's budget. Once again, this federal budget completely ignored the strong measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois.

My NDP colleague mentioned Canada Post. The government wants to put an end to some exclusive privileges of Canada Post and quietly slipped some measures into Bill C-9, without debate, having let Bill C-44 drop. It slipped these measures into Bill C-9. That is completely unacceptable.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-9, the 2010 budget implementation act. It is called the jobs and economic growth act, but that is a bit of a misnomer because there is absolutely nothing in this budget that will create the jobs and the economic growth of the future for Canada. It is important to consider this budget in the context of the challenges and opportunities that Canada faces in the 21st century.

This is not a normal recession, but rather a global economic restructuring. Canada cannot return to where we were before the recession if all the other countries have restructured their economies in order to move forward. We should never waste a good crisis.

We should never waste a good crisis. Throughout history smart companies, smart entrepreneurs, smart governments have used crises to change, to create opportunities. In fact, in Mandarin the word “crisis” is the same word as “opportunity”. Throughout history we have seen intelligent leadership during crises create remarkable wealth for people. That is not what is happening in Canada today. In fact, we are wasting a good crisis.

This budget is another example of the Conservatives' failure to provide any level of vision. While other countries are using their stimulus to make their economies more energy efficient, greener and more competitive in a global carbon-constrained economy, the Conservative government is doing nothing with this visionless budget to address the changing nature of the global economy.

The focus should no longer be on environmental responsibility, but increasingly on economic opportunities and energy security. It is very important to make our economy greener and more competitive for the jobs of tomorrow.

At the World Economic Forum in January, everybody from U.S. Republican senators like Lindsey Graham to industry leaders agreed that the new green economy and the clean energy economy is going to become the largest economic growth area of the 21st century. Lindsey Graham actually said, “Six months ago, I was opposed to putting a price on carbon in the United States because I felt it would create a disadvantage with the Chinese economy. Today, I believe that with every day we wait to put a price on carbon in the United States, we are giving the Chinese a head start in the emerging green economy”. That was said by a Republican senator from South Carolina who believes that the time has come in the United States to move forward with a price on carbon and green investments to create a more competitive economy in a global carbon-constrained world.

At Davos this year, France's finance minister, Christine Lagarde, said, “It's a race and whoever wins that race will dominate economic development”. She was speaking of the race for success in the green economy. The Conservative Prime Minister of Canada was the only leader at Davos who was saying that environmental responsibility and measures to address climate change will ultimately hurt the economy.

Other governments around the world are investing to create competitiveness in the global green economy, but not Canada. South Korea invested 79% of its stimulus into green technologies. This is to create 1.8 million green jobs in the growing sector. China dedicated $218 billion of its stimulus toward clean environmental technologies. On a per capita basis, the United States has put six times more money into green and clean energy investments than Canada has.

The Conservatives, however, do not look beyond next week's polls. They are so focused on next week's polls that they are ignoring the challenges and opportunities of the coming decades, particularly the opportunities in the green sector. Canada has one of the lowest proportions of green spending in its stimulus package of any OECD country.

In fact, a document from the World Economic Forum entitled, “Green Investing 2010: Policy Mechanisms to Bridge the Financing Gap”, lists the investments. In Figure 13, regarding the green investments of various countries, it lists clean energy stimuli by country in 2009, including the U.S., China, South Korea, EU countries, Japan, Spain, Germany, Australia, the U.K., France and Brazil. Canada, with a paltry $1 billion of investment in clean energy last year, was at the very bottom of that list in terms of investment in green technologies.

If we believe that the opportunities of the future are going to be in the green economy and clean energy and if we are going to fulfill the government's promise of Canada being a clean energy superpower, we have to start making those investments now. The government talks a good game, but unfortunately there is no first-talker advantage, there is only first-mover advantage. Other countries are moving and we are sitting still, and as such, we are falling behind.

Other countries have invested in research and development and innovation. In terms of scientific investment, our stimulus package in Canada has been among the lowest in the industrialized world. The problem is not only are we failing to create the jobs of today in what is effectively a jobless recovery, and it is a statistical recovery but a human recession, but we are not even protecting the jobs of today, let alone creating the jobs of tomorrow.

Almost one in five young Canadians is looking for work. Farmers have been devastated by drops in demand. The forestry industry has all but collapsed. We are leaving many Canadians without their livelihoods. This jobless recovery and human recession is devastating to a lot of Canadians as they hear the government boast of a recovery.

On page 34 of the government's budget, its own figures project that unemployment will continue to rise this year. We need to focus on protecting the jobs of today and creating the jobs of tomorrow.

We need to focus on the three Es: energy, the economy and the environment. We need to make Canada a global clean energy leader. We need to invest in clean conventional energy technology. We need to invest more in technologies like CO₂ sequestration where we have a head start. Forty per cent of the CO₂ stored anywhere in the world is sequestered in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. That was because the previous government, the Martin government, invested alongside the private sector in the technologies of the future. It put Weyburn on the map as a centre of excellence globally for CO₂ sequestration.

Yet in December when the U.S. signed a deal with the Chinese government on CO₂ sequestration, we were not even at the table. This is an area where we have the best technology and the best example of the implementation of that technology in the world in Saskatchewan and Canada was not at the table when the U.S. and China signed a deal on CO₂ sequestration.

There are other examples of areas where we have a comparative advantage in clean energy technology. In Nova Scotia, for example, the Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world. We should be investing to harness those tides as a source of clean energy.

While many ordinary Canadians in fact want the government to provide leadership for the future, the Conservative budget actually looks backward. The fact is there are a number of areas of failure in the budget.

I want to also talk about the importance of healthy communities. Across Canada there is a need for investment in healthy communities.

In my riding we have facilities that are quite aged, for instance, Glooscap District Arena in Canning, Nova Scotia. There is the East Hants Sportsplex in the community of Lantz and the East Hants corridor area which has doubled in population in the last 10 years. There is also the Hants County Exhibition arena in Windsor, the birthplace of hockey no less. We need investments in these important recreational facilities. We cannot have healthy citizens if we do not have healthy community infrastructure.

The province of Nova Scotia has committed $5 billion to the East Hants Sportsplex. East Hants has committed--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to stop the member there. His time has expired. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the statement by the member for Kings—Hants. I enjoy working with him on the international trade committee.

The budget implementation bill is an everything but the kitchen sink bill. The Conservatives have thrown in a whole number of provisions that have no business being in a budget implementation bill. There is everything from legalizing the theft of the employment insurance fund to softwood lumber tariffs. Probably one of the most egregious elements is around Canada Post, and the removal of Canada Post's capacity to serve the public including smaller communities right across the country, as in the member's riding of Kings--Hants in Nova Scotia.

I would like the member to comment on how inappropriate it is for the Conservatives to throw all of those provisions into a budget bill rather than to have the courage and the honesty to bring those provisions forward one by one so that members of Parliament could evaluate them and vote on them one by one, rather than this deceptive and irresponsible practice.

Could the member comment on that, please.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member has identified a real problem with the budget implementation bill and with a lot of legislation that the government puts forward.

The government puts in all kinds of measures that merit individual debate, discussion and ultimately voting on the floor of the House of Commons. It makes it very difficult for the opposition, and in fact members of Parliament in all parties including the Conservative Party, to participate meaningfully in debate, discussion, the crafting of legislation and ultimately the passage of legislation.

I think one of the reasons for the diminution of the role of Parliament has been the fact that the government and the Prime Minister have no respect for Parliament. This budget implementation bill is another example.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting listening to the member's speech because he was able to outline why Canadians, in essence, turned to a new government in 2006. He was outlining many of the failures of the previous government when he talked about the environment. I wonder if he could share with us some of the reasons why it was that the previous government was unable to meet any of its targets with respect to the environment.

He also outlined some of the infrastructure problems in his riding. I note that we have one of the largest infrastructure programs in Canadian history under way. Much of the time, while he was a member under a previous Liberal government, the infrastructure that he talked about was allowed to deteriorate. I wonder if he has some insight as to why the previous government was unable to make its commitments to the environment and why when the Liberals were in government for so long did he allow the infrastructure in his riding to deteriorate so badly?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the previous government inherited a $43 billion deficit from the last Conservative government. The first priority was to eliminate that deficit, such that the Liberal government was able to then make the investments that were important to Canadians, to invest in things like early learning and child care so that all Canadian families would have access to it. Deals signed with all Canadian provinces were annulled and cancelled by the Conservative government.

The member raises the issue of infrastructure in my riding. I want to talk about the importance of recreational infrastructure. The fact is that in the East Hants Sportsplex we have the provincial government of Nova Scotia committing $5.6 million and $3.5 million committed by the municipality of Hants East. It is time for the federal government to stand up and invest in this important project, the East Hants Sportsplex.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to be either biased or very discriminatory when it comes to infrastructure or RInC applications. In my riding the Greek community has been snowed out. Could the member elaborate on why the Conservatives are being biased? Also, regarding carbon capture technology, what is the government's investment in comparison to other countries?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that when families in Canning, Nova Scotia, whose children play hockey, need probably a couple of hundred thousand dollars invested in the Glooscap District Arena for upgrades so that it can continue to operate, people should not have to see their tax dollars invested in megaprojects elsewhere when all they need is an investment to keep that rink open. The fact is the partisanship of the investments of the government is absolutely offensive because all Canadian taxpayers deserve--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. The misnomer of course is the subtitle, which is “Jobs and Economic Growth Act”. I think a number of speakers from this corner of the House, from the NDP, have pointed out how inappropriate that term is, given that the current government has absolutely no fundamental economic approach, no industrial policy, and no real attempt to create jobs and prosperity for the middle class. What the government loves to do, as members well know, is just shovel money off the back of a truck to bankers and the richest of Canada's CEOs. That is the government's attempt at economy policy.

In this corner of the House we actually believe in sound economics and a fundamentally economic approach that includes an industrial policy, that includes building export markets abroad by providing the same supports that our competitors are providing to their export industries. So, we have different approaches.

I would like to say that Canadian values and Canadians are much closer to where the NDP is going than what the Conservatives are offering in this budget implementation bill.

As I mentioned previously, this should be called the “everything but the kitchen sink act” because what the government has done is thrown in a whole range of inappropriate measures into this bill.

Is this in keeping with where Canadians want to go? Of course not.

Do Canadians want to see Canada Post gutted in its ability to provide services across the country? Of course not.

Do Canadians want to see punitive softwood tariffs imposed that would hit the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec? Of course not.

This would force more mill closures and more job losses. We had the softwood sellout that killed 20,000 jobs across the country. The budget implementation bill would continue that tradition among the Conservative government budgets and policies of killing our softwood jobs in this country.

What this bill would also do is legalize the employment insurance theft that took place. This is $57 billion of money that was taken from Canada's middle class, Canada's workers, by the former Liberal government, a practice continued by the Conservative government. This was money that Canadians paid into an employment insurance account as an insurance policy against loss of wages.

Yet, what this budget implementation bill would do is legalize that theft. It is quite simple. It is as if we rob a bank and then afterward we change the law to say that robbing banks is okay. Well, robbing the employment insurance fund was robbing Canadians, robbing unemployed Canadians. For the Conservatives to offer the legalization, the retroactive legalization of this theft, whether it occurred under the former Liberal government or the current Conservative government, is equally inappropriate. I believe Canadians will punish the Conservatives when they get the opportunity to voice their disapproval on what is a fundamentally irresponsible and dishonest act.

What this bill would also do is centralize control in Ottawa the environmental assessment process. We have seen this with other Conservative ministries. We have seen how the Conservatives have tried to centralize control in Ottawa, that growing sense of entitlement of the Conservative government. We have certainly seen it perhaps most particularly just in the actions of the last few weeks.

However, the centralization of control, putting into the hands of very few people, or one or two ministers, the ability to determine whether or not the environment is protected in various parts of the country, again, is something that conflicts with basic Canadian values. Canadians are a fair people. Canadians want to see increased protection of the environment, not decreased protection.

What this budget bill would do, the everything but the kitchen sink bill thrown in, in addition to all of these other measures put into this completely inappropriate omnibus bill, is simply allow the Minister of the Environment to dictate the scope of environmental assessments or whether they even occur at all.

For my province of British Columbia, perhaps the worst aspect of this budget implementation bill is that it would compound the incredibly unfair redistribution of taxes through the HST. In my province of British Columbia, HST is a hated word, an epitaph. The B.C. Liberal government is on the retreat and desperately falling in the polls because of what it has done. What it has done is restructured taxes. It has given corporate CEOs another free ride, and it is saying to the average family in British Columbia that it is going to pay $2,000 more a year to supplement this tax-free ride that is being given to the corporate bigwigs.

It is $2,000 at a time when British Columbia has been hard hit by incredibly inappropriate economic policies, both by the Conservative government and also by the B.C. Liberals. To force B.C. families to pay $2,000 more out of pocket so that corporate bigwigs can have an even longer tax-free holiday is absolutely inappropriate.

What we have seen over the last few days shows the willingness of British Columbians to fight back. In places like the Peace River Country, which is certainly not a hotbed of the NDP, we have had hundreds of British Columbians lining up to sign the referendum question, basically a petition to force a referendum on the HST. Those names have been coming in so quickly that Peace River is virtually finished in meeting the threshold to force that referendum.

In places like Delta, we have had 1,000 people out at community meetings. Right across the province, Vancouver Island, the Okanagan, and the lower mainland, we are seeing a record level of support to sign the petition to force the referendum and to force back the federal Conservatives from their incredibly unfair attempt to give corporate bigwigs a tax-free holiday and force ordinary British Columbians to pay more.

The budget implementation bill just compounds that problem by enlarging the HST into other areas like financial services. It is like the Conservatives have completely lost the ability to understand British Columbians. They just do not listen to British Columbians anymore. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, as we heard from one of the budget speeches that was made by the Conservatives, Canada basically ended at the Rocky Mountains.

That inability to understand British Columbians and their belief in having a fair tax system, and their abhorrence of unfair redistribution of taxes to penalize the average B.C. family $2,000 while giving corporate bigwigs a tax-free holiday, is something that will cost the Conservatives quite dearly whenever that next election occurs. Whether it is this spring or next fall or next year, there is no doubt British Columbians will punish the Conservatives for refusing to listen to them.

In the meantime, British Columbians are lining up to sign the petition. There is no doubt we will see a referendum in British Columbia that will cut the HST.

The B.C. Liberals have been pointing their fingers at the federal Conservatives and saying that if the HST bill is not passed in the B.C. Legislature, the Conservatives are going to doubly punish British Columbians. I would just caution the Conservatives. British Columbians are already fed up. They are angry enough at Conservatives.

If the idea of the federal Conservative government is that it is going to punish British Columbians and make them pay more if this bill does not pass the Legislature, I would say that they will see a degree of anger and rage against these federal Conservatives that has never been seen before in British Columbia.

I would be inclined to say every single Conservative seat in British Columbia would be put in jeopardy if the Conservatives are foolish enough to threaten British Columbians by saying that it is going to impose an additional 5% PST on top of this 12% HST unless the bill is passed in the Legislature. That is a warning that I think all British Columbians will be delivering to Conservatives in these coming days.

With all of these inappropriate measures, given what Canadians and British Columbians are living through, there is no doubt that the strong B.C. caucus of federal New Democrats will be voting against this budget implementation bill. It does nothing to address the fundamental economic challenges that we are facing and nothing to help the middle class in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would comment on the process for a minute, getting away from content and into a wider vision of process. He made a good comment about process, what obviously should not be illegitimate in the budget implementation bill, just like last year with the Navigable Waters Protection Act and pay equity, where the government did the same trick.

The member is quite experienced on another process issue. In a normal government situation, policy would come from expert bureaucrats. The government would take that policy and make bills. It then would have programs evaluated and spend a lot of money for the purpose of seeing whether the programs should go on.

However, it is backwards with the current government. The recommendations coming up, for instance, from the experts in justice are totally ignored in its crime bills. It does the exact opposite of what its officials are recommending. When it gets excellent evaluations for programs, such as the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the government shuts these two programs down in this budget, laying off all those experts who are doing great work. That is a great economic action plan.

Would the member like to comment on the process of the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the fundamental problem that we are seeing with the Conservative government.

The member for Yukon may disagree with me on this but I believe that the Liberals were thrown out of government because of corruption and their inability to respond to ordinary Canadians across the country.

The Conservatives made a series of promises that they promptly broke. One of their fundamental promises was transparency and due process in Parliament, and they have completely betrayed Canadians who voted for them on that basis.

We are seeing as many scandals as we saw under the former Liberal government but, arguably, the Conservatives are much worse when it comes to secrecy, central control and the inability to provide for access to information. The Information Commissioner has given them an F on access to information, and that was one of the fundamental promises that the Prime Minister made when he was elected to government.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot throughout this debate from the Liberals about why they were such a failure in government, all the policies they were unable to enact, why they were so unsuccessful as a government and why Canadians ultimately turned to a new government that would cut taxes, invest in Canadians' priorities and focus on jobs and the economy.

We have also been hearing throughout this debate a lot of the policies that the extreme left-wing coalition opposite would have introduced had they ever gotten the opportunity to govern in this country.

I wonder, though, if he could shed some insight into why his Liberal-led coalition partners are actually voting in favour of this budget and other budgets and why they continue to allow our good government to do what Canadians want, which is to focus on the economy and jobs. If, as they have been saying, things are so bad, why would they be voting in favour of it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the Liberals voting for this budget and supporting and propping up the Conservatives over the last four years. Canadians have already cast their judgment on the Liberal Party, which is why it has collapsed in the polls and why it is non-existent west of Toronto. Canadians have had their say.

What I would like to do is respond to the comments about the Conservative government being good. He used the word “extreme”, which is very appropriate in describing the Conservative government. The Conservative government, yes indeed, is extreme, extreme in its betrayal of the fundamental promises it made about transparency and respecting democracy, and extreme in its sense of entitlement.

The NDP had to stop the Minister of National Defence from taking a $100,000 joyride to Vancouver when commercial flights were available. If the NDP had not intervened, $100,000 would have been splurged on a 10-hour joyride. We have seen that sense of entitlement from other ministers as well. Some of the ministers have had to resign and some ministers should resign. The Conservative government is an extreme government.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I join the debate on Bill C-9, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, which should really be called the Budget Implementation Act. This bill is about implementing the last budget. Since the Bloc was against the budget, it is against this bill on jobs and economic growth, or rather this budget implementation bill. The name has been changed to give the impression that something is actually happening and something new is being put on the table.

There are many reasons for our position. One need only think of the manufacturing and forestry industries, successful industries in Quebec, which are being left to their own devices. Jobs could have been saved in many regions where there have been layoffs and plant closures. For five years these industries had been asking the government to take action and help them so they can purchase new equipment or harvest the forest differently, for example. The manufacturing industry was also faced with having to restructure companies.

The government therefore released the amount of $170 million, but what shocked us is that it was able to find $10 billion for the automotive industry. The forestry industry, which is an important industry in Quebec, was thus suffering, since the $170 million had to serve the forestry industry all across Canada. We are really talking about crumbs here. The lack of sensitivity toward Quebec was obvious; nothing was done to save this industry. Yet for the automotive industry there was no problem, and they could find the money, that $10 billion, to save it.

One need only think of another priority: equalization. The Prime Minister made a commitment in the 2005-06 campaign to change the equalization formula, and in particular, not to do so unilaterally. But he did the opposite. The change he made to the equalization formula created a shortfall for Quebec. The loss was $1 billion for last year alone, and every year it will grow by $350 million.

So we have reasons not to vote in favour of this budget implementation bill. These are not small amounts. Added up, they total billions of dollars. Quebec finds itself left out of this government's priorities.

Furthermore, the calculation of equalization for Quebec takes account of the revenues of Hydro-Québec, yet the calculation for Ontario does not take account of the revenues of Hydro One. There, once again, is the double standard. The automotive industry has favoured Ontario. To repeat, calculation of equalization for Quebec takes account of the revenues of Hydro-Québec, but in the case of Ontario, it does not take account of the revenues of Hydro One. The effect of this is to increase the relative wealth of Quebec and decrease its equalization payment. For Quebec, the shortfall in this regard comes to $250 million per year. How does this government explain this double standard?

Harmonization of the sales tax is another reason to vote against this bill. Here too, the policy of the double standard prevails. Whereas Ontario, British Columbia and the three Atlantic provinces were compensated for harmonizing their provincial sales tax with the GST, the government refuses to do the same for Quebec. The amount of this compensation is $2.2 billion per year. The Conservative government alleges that there has been no harmonization. Many questions have been asked in the House. The Bloc Québécois has been very persistent on this demand for compensation, but it always receives the same response.

Yet, certain documents recognized that the Quebec sales tax and the GST had been harmonized. Then, all of a sudden, this process was no longer called harmonization. The QST and the GST were harmonized in 1992, and a unanimous motion was passed by the Quebec National Assembly. As I mentioned earlier, in its 2006 budget, the Conservative government itself recognized that the QST and the GST had been harmonized.

This was recognized in the 2006 budget but now that the time has come to deliver the goods and give the money to Quebec—particularly considering that the government did it for other provinces—it no longer wants to give back to Quebec what it is entitled to for harmonizing its tax with the GST.

The government has changed its mind. It refuses to compensate Quebec to the tune of $2.2 billion, because it is trying to put pressure on Quebec so that Canada will collect the harmonized tax itself. But Quebec has been doing it since 1992. This is nothing less than blackmailing Quebec taxpayers, who are being asked to tighten their belt. But the fact is that this money is owed to Quebec. This is another reason why we voted against the budget.

As for the environment, we are nowhere near making the green shift. We are well aware that the Prime Minister's performance in Copenhagen was mediocre. Instead of behaving like the leader of a country that seeks to be a model and encourage other nations to follow its example, this government has decided to contribute to the wealth of oil companies and to oil sands development in Alberta. Again, this is happening at Quebec's expense.

As I mentioned, the government's last budget provides $1 billion for the nuclear industry, compared to $51 million for a few tepid environmental measures. As we know, the nuclear industry is primarily located in Ontario, not in Quebec.

We can see that the choices made by this government do not allow Quebec to develop at an adequate pace.

Moreover, there is nothing in the budget to help reduce greenhouse gases at the source. However, there is a lot for oil companies, through tax benefits and also the absence of a carbon tax.

The Bloc would also have liked to see in the budget a recognition or compensation program for industries that have made efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, including Quebec industries, such as its manufacturing industry which has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 24%.

The Bloc proposed many other measures for the environment, such as allocating $500 million, over five years, to a fund for green energy initiatives, and developing a plan to promote electric cars and the electrification of transportation. Obviously, we are talking about huge investments of billions of dollars.

Preference has also been given to tax havens. This budget very certainly does not do what was announced to combat tax havens. That was also something the Bloc Québécois had called for. The government is engaging in double talk. On the one hand, it says it wants to tackle tax havens, and on the other hand, it uses this bill to open loopholes in the Income Tax Act to allow corporations not registered in Canada not to pay their fair share of tax. That is a double standard. We would have liked to see a second recovery plan in this budget, to get the economy going. There is nothing in this budget that suggests that the right decisions have been made.

The Conservatives have decided to eliminate tax withholding for certain non-resident corporations that sell their assets in Canada, which many experts in the field say will open the door wide to tax evasion. So this facilitates tax evasion.

We know that that there are also some corporations that use tax havens to avoid tax. The figures from the auditor general tell us that corporations would save as much as $600 million a year by doing business in tax havens.

The Bloc Québécois therefore urges the government to stop talking and start acting, instead of proposing pseudo-solutions made up of empty words as the Conservatives are doing. The Bloc Québécois has been proposing concrete solutions since 2005 to do away with access to tax havens like Barbados and eliminate the double deduction of interest.

The government has done nothing in this regard and it is plain that the bill confirms the Conservative government’s desire to protect rich taxpayers at all costs, among which we find the banks and big corporations. This shows contempt for workers in our industries, including the forestry industry, which are experiencing hard times in Quebec. Right when those industries need help the most, they are not offered a hand.

We could also talk about the reduction and elimination of positions in the government. The adjustments made are merely cosmetic. A large majority of the positions they said they want to eliminate, 90%, had been vacant for several years.

So it is ridiculous to offer to reduce positions that have been vacant for several years. The measures proposed by the Conservative government to cut operating costs in the federal bureaucracy are very insignificant, when we compare them to the stringent recommendations made by the Bloc Quebecois.

We had proposed some $5.4 billion in savings per year. There are several reasons for this, and I think they are justified.

We held consultations across Quebec and our new finance critic, the member for Hochelaga, also heard other suggestions. Numerous people told us we were not heading in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a friendly question and request for the member. Bill C-9 enables a voluntary code of guidelines regarding credit cards and debit cards. The government is constantly siding with big banks and big business against consumers.

Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights was opposed by all the Conservatives, who are more interested in protecting the interests of Air Transat and Air Canada. All opposition parties, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals, voted for the bill at second reading. However, at the transport committee, the Bloc critic turned against Quebec consumers, and he is now supporting the Conservatives to kill the bill.

I know most of the Bloc members are very progressive in their outlook politically. Could the member investigate why the Bloc critic has turned his back on Quebec air passengers and sided with the Conservatives? I think that would be very helpful, because I thought we had a very good understanding with all three opposition parties supporting the bill. Something went wrong at committee, and I am very curious to know why it happened.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by voting against the budget implementation bill today, the Bloc is reflecting the entire population's disappointment with this budget that does nothing for ordinary people. It is a budget primarily for the richest people, the banks and big business.

The Bloc is watching very closely. The context of committee discussions must also be watched. I was not there, but we study each and every decision that is made in committee or by the parties. Quebec's political will must also be considered.

If the Bloc members feel that a measure is advantageous for Quebec, they will often vote with the Liberals or the New Democrats or the government. We are not dogmatic. We are realists when it comes to Quebec's situation, which we know so well.

We also present the unanimous consensus of the National Assembly on a number of issues. So I cannot respond to the member right now, but I am sure that my colleague, the transport critic, has studied this issue. We have to look at the details of the proposed measures.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech. She said that the Bloc Québécois cannot vote in favour of the budget. She gave the example of the more than $10 billion provided to the automobile industry, which is highly concentrated in Ontario. She added that a measly $170 million was given to the forestry industry, which is a fundamental part of the Quebec nation.

The Conservative government has recognized the Quebec nation, but not in a concrete way. It was recognized, but only in words. It is absurd that the budget does nothing for the numerous single-industry municipalities and villages that depend on forestry. The budget does nothing to help this industry either.

I would like my colleague to comment on this.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague.

Indeed, it is absurd and very shocking that the Conservatives, who promised to be fair to Quebec and who recognized the Quebec nation, would present an empty shell. It makes no sense; it is absurd.

The $10 billion they managed to find for the auto industry is 57 times more than the $170 million invested in the forestry industry. They found $10 billion, but Quebec receives a pittance. It is ridiculous. They recognized the Quebec nation, but what does that mean—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was studying the budget document in preparation for this speech, like others in the House, I found that the title is a bit of a misnomer. The title reading “Leading the Way on Jobs and Growth” perhaps should be, in my opinion, “Missed Opportunities: Letting Others Take the Lead”. That would more appropriately describe this budget.

The reason I say that is that the budget is a missed opportunity to begin or, in some cases, continue laying the groundwork for solutions to many of the problems we face today and will face in the future. As my main area of interest as a member of the environment committee is water policy, I of course look at the budget through the lens of water. A good starting point in terms of comparing the weaknesses of this document to what it could have been would be to look at the Ontario throne speech, which was delivered only a few short days ago and which, contrary to the throne speech that was delivered here on Parliament Hill on March 3, has only half as many words yet says so much more. Let me read a few lines from that throne speech:

As part of its Open Ontario Plan, your government will introduce legislation that will build on Ontario's expertise in clean water technology.

The Water Opportunities Act would lay the foundation for new Ontario jobs and make our province the North American leader in the development and sale of new technologies and services for water conservation and treatment.

The Conference Board of Canada estimates the global market for water technology at more $400 billion US per year—and doubling every five to six years.

The question becomes: Why do the federal budget and the throne speech that preceded it not include visionary statements such as that? The reason is that the government does not believe in vision. It believes that vision is Liberal philosophy's evil twin and therefore does not think in visionary terms. When we do not think in visionary terms, we miss opportunities. There are things staring at us that we cannot see, and that is the problem when we do not have a vision.

Here is an example of how the government has eschewed the whole notion of vision. I presented a motion in the House a few years ago calling on the government to create a national water strategy. Now if the government were thinking in terms of a national water strategy, it would see the opportunities for actions like those the government of Ontario has mentioned in its throne speech. The motion passed because I guess many of the members on the government side did not feel they could look their constituents in the eye if they voted against such an obvious and important motion.

However, that was three years ago, and on the government's website today there is no national water strategy. There is a PDF file called “Federal Water Policy”, but if we click on that file, we see that the national water policy is the Pearse report that was commissioned in 1987 by the Mulroney government. As a metaphor for the way the government looks backward, just go and look at the website and see that it has posted as its national water policy a task force report from 1987. I think that says a lot.

The budget also forgot to mention the St. Lawrence River, which is one of the 15 largest waterways in the world. Its watershed occupies one-third of the territory of the province of Quebec. About 40% of Quebec's municipalities draw their drinking water from the river, and more than 75% of Quebec's industrial facilities, including its large hydroelectric plants, are located on the St. Lawrence River. Finally, the St. Lawrence valley contains 70% of Quebec's population, yet we do not hear a word about the St. Lawrence River. Why is it particularly important in March 2010 that the budget mention the St. Lawrence River?

It is because the fourth installment of the St. Lawrence action plan, which extended from 2005 to 2010, ended on March 31, 2010, and there is still nothing to replace it. It is one of the most important rivers in the world, one of the most important rivers in Canada and North America, and the government has not even begun to think about extending the St. Lawrence action plan. That is what happens when we do not have a visionary mindset. We do not see the obvious, and that is very unfortunate.

The budget also will give extraordinary powers to the Minister of the Environment to undermine environmental assessments in Canada. Let me give the House a bit of background on this.

There is a practice going on, especially in northern mining communities, where mining companies, to save money, instead of building impoundment areas for mine tailings, take those mine tailings and dump them in freshwater lakes, thereby killing the lakes. This has been permitted by part of the metal mining effluent regulations, which allow a mine to be listed on schedule 2 and therefore be given permission to use a lake basically as a tailings pond.

Ever since the government took power, the number of mines that have been added to this list has exploded, while the opposite has happened in the United States. One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on hold some 200 coal mining permits from companies that wanted to dump waste in streams and wetlands. While the Obama administration is protecting its water bodies, in Canada the government is rushing to destroy them, and that is really unfortunate.

The solution to that would be to make environmental assessments stronger. In the past when a project went to a federal department for environmental assessment, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in this case, it would split up the project into different pieces and then it would do a cursory assessment of each piece. If the project were looked at as a whole, a much more comprehensive assessment, maybe even a panel assessment, would be needed. But officials in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were not doing that. They were in fact undermining the principles of environmental assessment.

What happened? About a month ago some environmental groups took the government to the Supreme Court of Canada and won. How did the government respond to that? In the budget it gave the Minister of the Environment the legal power to basically reverse that Supreme Court decision. The minister would now have the power to define the scope of a project. The minister can now do what fisheries officials were doing before. This was found to be against the spirit and the letter of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act when the Supreme Court looked at the issue.

Now we have a government that is going to make sure mining companies can still use freshwater lakes as dumping grounds for toxic mine tailings, and that is an awful development. I hope more attention will be given to that by environmental groups that are already doing good work on trying to underscore this problem and also by the media and other parliamentarians.

The budget mentioned the government would be investing in a RADARSAT project called the RADARSAT Constellation Mission, which is essentially a process for linking up satellites. That is all fine and well, but the government has been dragging its feet with respect to RADARSAT on another issue, a water issue.

Ducks Unlimited, in partnership with Environment Canada and the Canadian Space Agency, had begun phase one of what is called the Canadian wetlands inventory. This is a project to map all of Canada's wetlands. The reason it is important is that Canada contains about 25% of the world's wetlands, more than any other country in the world. Wetlands are very important to us. They are an essential part of the hydrological cycle. This project had begun but was then starved of funding by Environment Canada, so it never went beyond the point of establishing the methodology for mapping Canada's wetlands.

Why did the government not take the opportunity in the budget to mention that it would relaunch this project and that it would fund phase two? This is an extremely important issue, especially in the oil sands. Last week we found out that the oil sands companies now say that they cannot afford to restore the wetlands they are destroying even though they previously made commitments to do so.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw on the extensive parliamentary experience of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who has much more experience than I do. He has heard many political speeches, dealt with many strategies and listened to members on all sides of the House.

I listen to the speeches given by some of his colleagues and find them very interesting. I even agree with them in some cases. I know the Liberals are speaking out against the budget, but will vote to support it. I probably do not have enough political experience to understand that contradiction. They see that this budget is really bad, which is why we will be voting against it, but they are incapable of bringing down the government.

I really have to wonder about this. Perhaps my colleague can draw on his political experience and enlighten me.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to enlighten my colleague and I welcome him to the House of Commons.

He is incorrect when he says that the Liberal opposition voted in favour of the budget. We voted against the budget.

I would like to remind the hon. member that the parties that come into power, here in Parliament, are parties that have principles and that listen to the public. If we want the power, we have to listen to the public. The public was quite clear in telling us that now is not the time for an election. That gives the Liberal opposition time to prepare to take power eventually. It gives our party time to develop Canada-wide strategies and visions to offer to all Canadians in the next election.

To answer my colleague's question more specifically, I would add that a number of the measures in the current budget will be overturned by a more enlightened Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again we are in our third day of speeches on an 880 page omnibus bill, which has a number of measures that do not belong it, and not one government member has spoken to it. The debate is just among the opposition parties. We are not debating the government. We cannot ask the government questions on aspects of the bill. We have a lot of backgrounder notes that need clarification, but there is nobody here to answer for the government.

The Liberals say that they will vote against the bill, but not in sufficient numbers to defeat the government. The other day, their postal critic talked about how important it was to stop the remailer issue, which the Conservatives have tried to get through the House over the last couple of years, under Bill C-14 and Bill C-44, but have been unable to it. They knew they could not get it through the minority Parliament, so they dumped it into this bill, where it does not belong. It has nothing to do with the budget. They are basically defying us to defeat them and have an election.

How can the Liberals defend the issue of postal remailers knowing full well—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am going to have to stop the member there to allow the member for Lac-Saint-Louis enough time to respond.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct in the sense that the government should be putting up speakers. It is a sign of disrespect for our parliamentary democracy that it has not done so. Is the member surprised by this disrespect for our national Parliament?

We just came back from six weeks of prorogation, where the people were denied a voice through their elected representations so the Prime Minister could attend the Olympics and try to avoid some difficult issues, which are still dogging him.

I also remind the hon. member that we do not get much better answers in question period. One wonders if having the government debating us would really add much to the conversation. At least we have the opportunity to raise issues like the ones the hon. member has raised and the ones I have tried to raise in my speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to start by digressing for a moment to respond to the answer that the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis gave to the question posed by my colleague from Hochelaga. When asked how they could possibly not vote in sufficient numbers to defeat this bill, he said the Liberals needed more time to prepare an alternative to the government. It is true the Liberals have only been in the opposition for four years and it takes them a lot of time to prepare alternative plans. It does not take us that long, though, in the Bloc Québécois. Every year when a budget is about to be tabled, we draw up a presentation. We bring our ideas forward in the context of a serious, credible budget. This year, it was done brilliantly by no other than our colleague from Hochelaga. That goes to show there is no need to sit around for four years on the opposition benches in order to present alternatives.

Turning to the budget, I want to say a few words today on environmental issues. Next April 22 is Earth Day. It is a good opportunity to look at what there is in the budget for the environment, or unfortunately, what there is not. We cannot ignore the fact that this government has no vision at all when it comes to the environment. There is not the least desire to make Canada a country where the environment is taken seriously, with all the consequences this obviously entails for future generations as well as for Quebec from an economic standpoint. I will return to this point later.

First, we should remember what the issue is here. The Conservatives often say we should not bring too many environmental measures forward or fight too hard against greenhouse gases because it could harm the economy. I will come back to that later because I think this claim is utterly false. Quite to the contrary, we have an incredible economic opportunity here, especially in Quebec.

Even if they were right, we are talking about our planet. We are talking about the future. We are talking about what we will leave to our children and grandchildren. They say that if we are not able, especially under a Conservative government, to meet the economic challenges involved, we should not take any chances and should continue to pollute and degrade the environment to the point where we would leave our grandchildren a very sad planet indeed. It is shameful. It is hardly surprising, though, given that many members of this government, former Reformers, simply do not believe the science of climate change, starting with the Prime Minister himself. He even said that Kyoto was a socialist plot without any basis in reality.

We still see this regularly in the comments of various members. Recently the member for Beauce, with his party’s support, even wrote to the Quebec media to say that this was alarmist, that that these predictions of global warming could not hold up, and that by way of precaution—I see that you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is a little shameful to say this—what ought to be done is nothing. By way of precaution, in case the predictions of almost all the scientists are wrong, let us do nothing. If they are wrong, we will have done nothing. Obviously this is totally ridiculous. It is the opposite of the precautionary principle, which says that when you are in doubt, refrain; when in doubt, make sure you do the right thing.

In the end, we have a government that does not believe in science. Personally, I trust the scientists and the scientific consensus. The only scientific statement that I am starting to doubt is the statement that dinosaurs are extinct, because from the behaviour of the Conservatives one has the impression that there continue to be quite a few dinosaurs on this planet.

Second, I would say that even though the environmental challenges facing us are substantial, they also represent a substantial economic opportunity. For Quebec, in any case, this is clear. Oil and the oil economy that Canada is developing are weakening and impoverishing Quebec.

There are various mechanisms to explain this: for example, the upward pressure on the Canadian dollar caused by exploitation of the oil sands. Every time the price of oil goes up, people have to procure more Canadian dollars to buy oil in Alberta, thereby creating an artificial increase in the value of our dollar. This has an impact on Quebec’s manufacturing industry, which is a major source of exports. Since the dollar costs more to buy abroad, the products we export cost more and we become less competitive. Far from making us richer, this situation is making us poorer and weakening us economically.

In general, this is not very complicated. Every time a barrel of oil enters Quebec, money leaves Quebec, making us poorer. Let us be clear that the oil is not coming from Alberta. People sometimes say that if we are not nice to Alberta, they will cut off our oil supply. However Quebec does not get its oil supply from Alberta, but from the Middle East.

If we fill up at a service station, we do not get richer, we get poorer. That is the same thing. The federal government’s refusal to put measures in place to reduce our consumption of oil makes us poorer still.

The government of Quebec has some latitude, but there are things that can only be done at the federal level. The lack of such measures is preventing us from moving toward a petroleum-free economy.

What measures could be introduced? One would be carbon exchanges, which are starting to crop up in countries around the world. In a carbon exchange system, companies, countries, governments and institutions that exceed their emission reduction targets can sell greenhouse gas emission credits to others that fall short of their targets. This sort of system rewards effort and penalizes lack of effort and would open up attractive economic opportunities for Canadian companies.

There are not even any tax benefits to offset Quebec's economic weakness. A few weeks ago, the media said that we should not complain too much about the Alberta oil sands, because that is what funds equalization payments for Quebec to make up for its lack of revenues. But one cannot say that anymore, for the simple reason that it is not true.

Because of the way oil resources are treated, 50% of revenue is excluded from the equalization calculation, which is very favourable treatment indeed.

I would like to read an excerpt from Mr. Bachand's most recent budget. I am not going to criticize his budget, because you do not kick a man when he is down, but it does contain some interesting points:

As a result of the caps imposed on the equalization program in November 2008, Québec will receive $8 552 million in 2010-2011, whether or not Alberta’s oil sands are included in the program.

This means that even if the tap were shut off tomorrow morning and oil sands development in Alberta came to a halt—which the Bloc Québécois obviously is not suggesting—Quebec would receive the same equalization payments.

It is therefore wrong to say that oil sands revenue funds equalization for Quebec. And it is not the evil separatists who are saying so, but the staunchly federalist government of Jean Charest in Quebec City.

In conclusion, I do not believe that this policy would be any different under the Liberals. The Leader of the Opposition has gone on record as supporting oil sands development. That will always be the case in Canada, because a country defends its interests. The problem is that the interests of Canada and Quebec are once again different. Ultimately, the solution is for Quebec to become a sovereign nation. Then, Canadians will keep on defending their interests and Quebeckers can defend their own environmental and economic interests.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the comments on the environment, which is what I would like to ask the member about.

I do not know if he remembers, but when we were children, or at least when I was a child a long time ago, there was a game where we would take a little step forward and a giant step backward.

The member has probably asked the government questions on the environment. The government will respond by giving examples of a couple of things it has done which are little steps forward, but it has taken giant steps backward.

I wonder if the member could comment on some of the programs the government has actually cancelled for these giant steps backward.

My other question relates to the government's cancellation of the funding for the scientists at the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. I will not use the term “dinosaur”; I will not be as pejorative as that, but the government must be living in the dark ages to cancel funding for scientists in Canada who are studying climate change and drought. This work is very important for farmers. It is closing the PEARL station, which is the northernmost station, which will hinder Canadian sovereignty. Weather and temperature records are very important to the functioning of any country in the world. It is bizarre that the government would cancel this entire foundation. Now all the scientists across Canada will have to go to the United States and elsewhere and we will not have the data.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether calling the Conservatives dinosaurs is more insulting to the Conservatives or to the dinosaurs. That remains to be seen.

I will answer the question regarding programs that encourage people to reduce energy consumption. These programs are effective. In fact, some have been cancelled because they were extremely effective and the demand was too great. I want to stress that they were working. It is a good sign when these programs are popular.

I recently converted to a geothermal heating system, which uses the energy in the ground for heating in winter and for cooling in summer. This is a very efficient system. Government grants helped me to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Such programs benefit society and help our country reach its objectives. As an individual, I also benefit by reducing my heating costs.

It was unfortunately these types of future oriented programs, which benefit everyone, that got cancelled. That is unfortunate. I hope they will be restored as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a friendly request for the member. As he knows, the Bloc, the Liberals and the NDP all supported Bill C-310, the air passengers' bill of rights, but when it got to the transport committee, the Bloc critic, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, basically turned against Quebec air travellers and joined forces with the Conservatives and recommended that the bill not be proceeded with. I know that most Bloc members are very progressive people, so I was quite surprised by this development.

I would like to ask the member whether he would investigate why his party's critic joined the Conservatives and effectively attempted to kill the bill. It still has to be dealt with in Parliament and I just want to make certain that all members are aware of what actually happened at the committee.

If he would investigate this, that would be a very positive step.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, who is very active in the House, has asked me questions during a debate.

It is also not the first time that he has asked a question that has nothing to do with my comments. I know that this is a very important matter for him, but out of respect for voters and those who place their trust in me, I will not comment on a discussion that took place in a committee in which I had no part. I am certain that he will understand, as would any member, that we are trying to stick to the topic at hand.

I am out of time and cannot elaborate further on the previous question but I will have other opportunities to do so.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, here we are having returned to the House. We have had a throne speech. We have had a budget announcement, and now we are discussing the budget implementation bill. Like other budgets before it, I was hopeful about this budget. I was hopeful that it would be bold and visionary and that it would actually steer Canada toward a position of strength, but unfortunately, like other budgets, I was left disappointed.

The piece I am maybe the most disappointed with is the disconnect between the throne speech and the budget. In the throne speech, we actually saw some pretty interesting language about an innovation and productivity agenda. That really caught my eye. I was pretty excited about that language, but to even take that language at face value, we would have to ignore recent history.

If we just think about the Nortel experience very recently, the government essentially allowed Nortel to collapse before our very eyes. That company did the bulk of private sector research and development. It made Canada a leader in telecommunications. We just stood by and watched it fold and watched all of that research, all of that knowledge, all of that innovation get bought up by other countries.

That knowledge was our knowledge. That knowledge is our knowledge and now it is gone. If we add to that the fact that the government has utterly failed at least to try to protect the pensions of those knowledge-based workers, it does not bode well for any future innovation and productivity agenda the government purports to have.

Despite that recent example, in thinking about the future I was still optimistic about this productivity and innovation agenda. If we think about how best to accomplish that agenda, the moment was the stimulus budget and it was another lost opportunity. Innovation requires basic infrastructure such as broadband Internet access and investments in energy infrastructure. Last year's stimulus budget was the perfect time to invest in those infrastructure basics. It would have created jobs. It would have laid the groundwork for a real innovation and productivity agenda, but the government did not act then and this budget actually makes things worse.

The government's strategy is not to build infrastructure but actually to deregulate. Deregulation has proven to stifle innovation, whereas investment has proven to boost it.

We are on the wrong track. Members might wonder why. What I see is that the government has its head stuck in the tar sands and is unable to look beyond a tar sands growth strategy. This is what is going to impede any innovation agenda no matter how strong it is.

Canada has a history of resource dependency which has led to a tendency toward lower rates of productivity and innovation. Canada has done fairly well as a hewer of wood, drawer of water and pumper of oil, but we have paid the price with a less productive economy. This is an economic history that is catching up to Canada.

We have an ageing population. Add to that the growing importance of innovation to participate in a world economy, as well as the ecological cost of a resource-dependent economy, and we find ourselves in a very difficult position when considering the future. It is one that demands vision and bold action, but sadly, the government's economic strategy thus far has been to get rich off the tar sands.

We still offer subsidies to these companies, making the Canadian dollar a petrocurrency that fluctuates. These fluctuations make long-term value-added investments very difficult. That does not sound like very much of an innovation strategy to me.

We have been told the problem is that Canada's business class was lazy and that reducing the tariffs through free trade would whip them into shape. Free trade, corporate tax cuts and deregulation were supposed to solve our productivity problem, but they have not. What they have done is reinforced our nation's dependence on resource exports. It has hampered the government's ability to facilitate real innovation strategy.

Innovation almost by definition means doing something different. It means experimenting. It means promoting diversification of our economy. A laissez-faire approach will actually do the opposite. Giving tax cuts will increase profits to sectors that are not a part of the cutting edge, but they are actually a part of Canada's resource track.

A real strategy would provide direct support to entrepreneurs in the communities they are a part of. It would nurture them in early experimentation. It would help them network with other sectors and industries to facilitate knowledge exchange. It would give them basic infrastructure, and this does include social infrastructure, such as access to family security and strategies to gain community support for their endeavours.

An innovation strategy for Canada needs to include social infrastructure that will support communities and support hubs of knowledge sharing and innovation. This basic infrastructure must include housing. We are a country in desperate need of a national housing strategy. We are the only G8 country not to have this strategy.

My colleague from Vancouver East has introduced Bill C-304. This would create a national housing strategy for this country, a strategy that would also incorporate the very latest environmental and energy efficiency standards into this framework. We could transform communities across Canada, by providing not just stable and affordable housing, but sustainable and energy efficient housing as well. A stable community, a housed community, a community that has the means to survive: this is a productive community and yet the overwhelming majority of Conservative MPs do not support our housing bill.

While the U.K. is committing to retrofit all homes by 2030 with firm interim targets, our government just announced that it is going to cancel the very successful eco-energy home retrofit program. According to Green Communities Canada, which was actually the first organization to deliver the national home energy efficiency program, this program has stimulated hundreds of millions of dollars in energy savings for Canadians. A program like this generates huge savings. It also creates green jobs and improves our competitiveness, yet the program is being cancelled.

We are fed the line that the answer is to cut taxes, that if we cut taxes, we will instantly become productive and competitive. I recently attended a showing of Poor No More, a Canadian documentary. It was shown here on the Hill. It did a great job of dispelling this myth. It took a look at Ireland.

Ireland is often held up as being an example of a country that cut all of its corporate taxes and then succeeded economically, providing a model to follow. However, the example of Ireland is much more complex and nuanced than that. One piece of the puzzle is that Ireland has free post-secondary education. Ireland is committed to educating its citizens, inspiring them and creating a strong competitive and knowledgeable workforce that is the perfect breeding ground for innovation and productivity.

We need to take that kind of bold action in Canada. We need to ensure that every generation of Canadians has access to training and education in order to maximize the nation's productivity and responsiveness to new trends in research. We need to remove barriers to post-secondary education and stop the year-to-year increases in debt that graduates are laden with.

As the NDP critic for first nations, Inuit and Métis affairs focusing on urban aboriginal issues, it is of particular interest to me that aboriginal friendship centres have again been left out of this budget. Friendship centres need increased funding to provide services, to renovate their crumbling buildings and to better their technological capabilities. They are the heart of the urban aboriginal community. We have learned that about half of our first nations people live in urban centres. The friendship centres are vital to Canadian urban centres. They are a hub of activity and culturally appropriate programming and community collaboration. They deserve a fair shake. They are an economically sound investment.

If we invest in social infrastructure and add to that investment in other infrastructures that will specifically support innovation, we can start to piece together an innovation strategy for Canada. Imagine that. It can be done.

We know historically that certain technologies have created waves of innovation and that nations can position themselves strategically within these dynamics to achieve economic performance. In the last century we saw growth position around oil, and automobile and mass production, as well as a move toward an economy based on information and communications technologies.

Last year we found ourselves in a recession. Well, this was an opportunity because typically recessions are periods of change, when new periods of technology break through. This is why the Conservatives' scattershot stimulus spending was so short-sighted. They have run up a deficit, with nothing to show for it, and they failed to position Canada for the next wave of innovation, and the next wave is very likely to be one based on ecologically friendly technologies, and it needs to be if we are going to avoid catastrophic climate change. This is where Canada should be building new knowledge and expertise and encouraging entrepreneurship.

The NDP has already fostered successful co-operation with our green car industrial strategy. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are pushing against this wave, as we have seen in their attempts to--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Order, please. The member is out of time. We will go now to questions and comments. The hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy the member mentioned social infrastructure. I chaired a forum during the prorogation on the Arctic and one of the issues raised was the need for more women's shelters and residential substance abuse treatment centres in the north.

The question I want to ask her relates to health care. The member appropriately mentioned that we have a quickly aging population that will put huge strains on our health care system. She also said that this budget and the throne speech should be a vision and bold action. What vision and bold action is there in the throne speech and budget to do with this huge increase in demand on the health care system?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, where is the bold vision for health care? I do not see one. As the member very rightly points out, we do have an aging population, so there are opportunities to be bold about the future. However, it is not just opportunities. I think it is necessary for us to do that.

I would like to give one example. I have talked a lot with various associations working on Alzheimer's. We do have this aging population. More and more people are being diagnosed with dementia and Alzheimer's. This group has said that if it could get the federal government to take on a leadership role and actually have a strategy about how to deal with dementia and Alzheimer's, then it could save what could be an impending collapse of our health care system trying to deal with this issue.

Let us be bold and visionary and let us plan for the future. Let us have a summit and bring together the great minds on dementia and Alzheimer's to actually plan out what our future will look like. It is not just Alzheimer's and dementia. It is so many other aspects of our health care system that will be pushed to the very brink because of our aging population. This budget certainly does not have a vision for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that last year the banks made record profits, in fact $15.9 billion, and the CEOs of the banks received record salaries and benefits as well. The presidents and CEOs of the RBC and the TD made roughly $10.4 million. One would think that the Conservatives would be supporting President Barack Obama to overhaul the financial institutions given what we have seen with a world recession over the last year. We have The Globe and Mail reporter, Tara Perkins, today reporting that the bankers in Canada are concerned about these international rules that are coming from the G7 and G8. In fact, they have the finance minister of Canada out there acting basically as an unpaid lobbyist for the banking industry in Canada.

As a matter of fact, I have been told that guidelines are being put forward by the G7 and G8 on compensation for bank CEOs and presidents. We have the banks lobbying actively against it and we have the finance minister of Canada looking out for those banks trying to make certain that for whatever the G7 and G8 want to put forward in terms of guidelines that he exempts the Canadian banks. He is supporting this laissez-faire approach to free enterprise, which, by the way, got us into this mess in the first place. It is basically a throwback to the George Bush Republican days in the United States.

Does the member have any comments about why the Conservatives would be actively promoting the interests of the banks at the international level?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his passionate question.

What intrigued me the most was when the member likened the finance minister to an unpaid lobbyist for banks. All I could think about was, what if we had a finance minister or, God forbid, a human resources and skills development minister who was an unpaid lobbyist for people living in poverty, for Canada's most vulnerable citizens.

We do have in the budget an increase to the child tax credit of $3.23 a week. No one will say no to that, but the way that people are forced to live when they are low income Canadians is shocking. If those ministers could actually see what is going on in the households of Canadians, I am sure they would act. They would need to.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in this House to speak out against the implementation of the recent budget and to show how much the Conservatives have once again failed to meet their responsibilities to the Canadian public, and especially how badly they have failed the Quebec nation.

In fact, they had time to listen to the people, because to conceal their incompetence, the Conservatives suspended the work of Parliament. They wanted to silence criticism about the Afghan detainees affair, about the environment and about a number of other important issues, rather than accept the recommendations of the three opposition parties, which, I would note in passing, represent 60% of the members of the House of Commons. What is the result of all that, of this whole fine farce? A budget that in no way reflects the interests and aspirations of Quebecker.

To ensure that Quebec was respected in this budget, the Bloc Québécois travelled to the four corners of Quebec. My colleagues and I met with numerous organizations, community groups and socio-economic groups, and numerous individuals, throughout the time Parliament was prorogued.

After analyzing those meetings, we sent the Minister of Finance a complete list of recommendations. Because we had done all the work for him, it would have been easy for him to include measures in the budget to meet the needs of the Quebec nation, but once again, that has not been done.

When we go back to our own ridings, people talk to us about the injustices in the budget, and they are shocked at the lack of measures that benefit them. This is particularly true for regions like mine, for the riding of Rimouski—Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, in the Lower St. Lawrence region, because we have to admit, development in regions like mine and others in Quebec, and keeping the land populated, are certainly not priority issues for the Conservative government. That is unfortunate, because those regions are an essential part of our communities.

During my 2008 campaign, I made high-speed Internet access one of my priorities. Today, this issue is still high on my list, because I think it is crucial to the maintenance and development of a region like ours. High-speed Internet access is not only an indispensable means of communication, it is also an essential tool for business management and development.

I will give just one example. I am a dairy farmer. I am lucky because my farm is located not too far from an urban centre and I have had access to high-speed Internet for a long time. Many of my fellow dairy farmers do not have access to it, and to manage their herds—which is essential in the competitive world we now live in—they have to take their farm data to their neighbour's in order to transmit it to a network centre. It is very difficult for these people to be on the cutting edge.

In my region there are also a lot of sugar bushes and maple syrup producers. They need this tool to market their products worldwide. They do not even have high-speed Internet access. This is very regrettable. It is a curb on economic development. Appropriate investment in high-speed Internet would not be an expense, but an investment.

I am talking about high-speed Internet service because insufficient funds were allocated to its expansion in the last budget. Everywhere we went, in all the regions and sometimes even in a few urban centres, this demand for better access to high-speed Internet was constantly being made to us, every day. So this demand should be given priority.

I don’t know if the Conservatives are aware of it, but the era of tom-toms and smoke signals as modes of communication is over.

Where I live in the Lower St. Lawrence region, the regional conference of elected officials has headed up and submitted a very complete project to the broadband Canada program, requesting a grant which would enable the great majority of all the people in the Lower St. Lawrence—eight RCMs—to have access to this service. Only $7 million dollars is needed. I myself have supported this project, and I have called upon the minister responsible for an update on the decision on granting the money for this project. The incredibly long delay is leaving far too many citizens, businesses and communities in distress.

It is not surprising to see the Conservatives acting this way. They seem to delight in announcing their intentions at the very last minute. Such delays are often harmful to the management of organizations and businesses. One need only consider the announcement in the last few hours about the renewal and funding of the CFDCs. One need only consider as well the incredible delay surrounding the semi-announcement of the employment insurance transitional measures. All of these delays are creating uncertainty and distress for those who need this project.

The CFDCs are very important to certain regions in Quebec. These organizations work hard every day in support of their communities, and this delay has been very worrisome to them. Over the last few weeks, we have had the opportunity to question the government about these provisional measures, and as might be expected, the answer came in the last few minutes before the expected deadline. Once again, unfortunately, it was only half an answer. This is very unfortunate for these people who are suffering and need the small amount of support the government provides.

Returning to high-speed Internet, my colleague the hon. member for Sherbrooke asked an excellent question of the government yesterday, when he asked why the decision-making process surrounding the broadband Canada program was so slow. Unfortunately, the answer was not as interesting as the question. However, it enabled us to conclude—even though we already knew—that the regions are not very important to the Conservative government. If things were different, they would not put off the deadlines and would put more effort into these grants.

As the Bloc critic for private woodlots, there is another matter of great concern to me. Owners of private woodlots were also totally ignored in the last budget. Despite the economic situation in which forestry producers find themselves, for the third budget in a row, the Conservative government totally ignored their needs, especially owners of private woodlots, of whom I am one.

The government does not seem to realize that Quebec’s private forests are owned by 130,000 people, of whom 35,000 are legally recognized as forestry producers. Even more important, 20,000 of these producers sell lumber, and of them, 3,000 have silvicultural work and the sale of lumber as their main source of income. Nothing was announced to help them, even though what the Bloc Québécois wanted was not very complicated. They could be helped through certain tax arrangements, including a registered silvicultural savings plan, so that they could spread out their income from forestry operations and reinvest it in their woodlots. The 3,000 producers who live off Quebec’s private forests have received nothing at all since the start of the forestry crisis. These people have equipment and investments and so we wanted a program for them.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we had a national dream for a railway that joined the country from coast to coast. In this modern world, the national dream may be Internet and cellphone access for the entire country. That is why the Liberal leader mentioned how essential it was that rural and remote Canada be connected by the Internet. The member eloquently mentioned that. I can imagine the shock that community access sites must have felt when they received letters saying that their funding would be reduced.

Could the member continue on with his theme about the government's vision of electronic infrastructure in this modern world?

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am pleased to see that he agrees with us regarding access to high-speed Internet service across the country.

In this day and age, Internet is a cutting edge way for people to communicate effectively with one another. The Internet also provides highly rural areas like mine the tools to develop and gain access to markets and advanced information. As we know, the Internet is a great source of all the latest information.

It is absolutely deplorable that the Conservative government fails to provide rural communities with enough money to have access to the Internet. It is also deplorable that it has yet to announce initiatives which are anxiously awaited, particularly in areas like mine, including the Conférence générale des éluEs du Bas Saint-Laurent, which involves eight RCMs and would allow almost every citizen and business to connect to high-speed Internet.

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

Mr. Speaker, as usual, I greatly appreciated the remarks by my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. He is always well prepared and he once again gave an excellent speech.

With Bill C-9, the Conservative government is attacking Canada Post. This bill, if passed, will weaken Canada Post's ability to provide services, particularly in rural areas like his.

First, I would like to know how worried my hon. colleague's constituents are about a possible reduction of Canada Post services.

Ma second question concerns softwood lumber. An additional tax has now been put on softwood lumber products from Quebec. Does the member think that the Bloc Québécois was wrong to support the softwood lumber agreement, in light of the additional taxes which are—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I must stop the hon. member there to allow enough time for the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques to respond.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his first question but, unfortunately, I do no think I have enough time to answer the second one.

The hon. member is absolutely right regarding Canada Post. It is very worrisome. In a predominantly rural riding like mine, it has been a constant concern for my constituents ever since I was elected, in 2008. There are 39 municipalities in my riding and each and everyone of them has sent me letters saying that people are very concerned about the Conservative government's desire to introduce bills that may weaken Canada Post.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to join in the debate on Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. We are in the House of Commons, Commons referring to commoners or ordinary Canadians in today's terms. We are called here to participate, debate and make decisions on behalf of ordinary Canadians.

This budget gives money to the people who have the most money and ordinary Canadians, especially those who have the least, the least amount of money. Remember a budget really is the soul of a government, so what are the priorities for the Conservative government? In my mind this budget makes the wrong choices. The budget chooses to hand out tax breaks to big corporations, but does little to help struggling Canadians make ends meet.

It is obvious who gets the most in the budget. It is the $6 billion in a corporate tax giveaway that is the highlight of the budget. We cannot afford those the tax cuts. We can not only afford them, it does nothing for our economy but pad the pockets of the big polluting oil companies. The tax cuts create very few jobs. They wind up in the wallets of the corporate executives after they increase their own bonuses. Do these millionaire executives really need a raise, courtesy of the taxpayers of Canada? I do not believe so. Who needs the raise? The 250,000 senior citizens who live in poverty.

A few weeks ago, at a pension forum in my riding of Trinity—Spadina, a woman called Vera told her story, among other seniors who told their stories. Her story stands out most in my mind. She is in her mid-eighties and is very dignified. She used to be the founder of the African Theatre Company of Canada located on Madison Avenue. During the seventies and eighties, she did a lot of good work creating culture and training many actors who are now in Hollywood. She gave up her nursing job in order to do that, but as an artist she does not have much of a pension. Now that she is retired, she finds herself in deep financial trouble.

After the meeting, she pulled me aside and told me that she did not know how she would pay her $200 hydro bill. A few months ago she could not pay the hydro bill and that was not the first time it had happened. We worked out her income. She gets less than $16,000 a year, combining her Canada pension plan, which is not much, the old age security and the tiny guaranteed income supplement. How will she pay her hydro bill? She has to make a decision whether to turn off her heat, or stop travelling, or pay the rent, or cut back on her food costs. That is not the way to treat our seniors.

As New Democrats, we have suggested to the Conservatives that instead of the big corporate tax cuts, why not take some of the funds, only $700 million, and invest them in the guaranteed income supplement. That would lift every senior in our country out of poverty. That is what we should be doing as Canadians, as participants, as members of Parliament in the House of Commons. That is the kind of decision we should make, but it is not in the budget.

What else can we do with that $6 billion? We could invest in children who are our future. Let us invest in high quality, affordable child care so parents can go to work knowing full well that their kids will be in good learning and care facilities in a loving environment, in stimulating child care centres. We know the OECD reports that of all the industrialized countries we rank last in our investment for children.

Part of the $6 billion, a small portion of it in fact starting with only $25 million, would create universal nutritious food and healthy snacks for our children. Whether they are in schools, community centres, child care centres, they could get a decent meal, a hot lunch perhaps, apples, milk or something nutritious.

Over the last two decades, our children are growing obese and becoming unhealthy. A girl who is 10 or 11 years old is now 11 pounds heavier than 20 years ago. For a boy, it is something like 15 pounds heavier than a few decades ago. What does that say to members of Parliament and government? We are not investing in our kids to ensure they are eating properly and combatting child poverty and child obesity. We could spend part of that $6 billion on our children.

We could also use part of the $6 billion to create and build a clean energy future. We could commit to providing dedicated funding for public transit, transferring 1¢ of the existing gas tax to municipalities to fund public transit, invest in transit expansion programs, like the exciting Toronto transit city projects that have six streetcar and LRT lines across the city. However, this budget does not designate funding to public transit.

Toronto taxpayers will have to shoulder the costs of new streetcars and light rails. Riders will continue to face excessive wait times for buses and streetcars and commuters will continue to waste time and energy idling their cars on clogged highways and roads. Transit is a backbone of our urban economies.

The government could have strengthened our economy and created green jobs by funding public transit. Instead it made the wrong choice.

The budget could also have continued and expanded the very popular eco-energy program so it covered even more buildings, homes, condominiums and even affordable housing. Those residents living in affordable housing need their buildings retrofitted so energy bills, like the ones that Vera has to pay, would not be as high. Right now they are using electric baseboard heat, which is expensive and it is also very energy inefficient.

A part of the $6 billion could have gone to help struggling students by lowering the tuition for post-secondary education. It could have helped graduate students to do volunteer work overseas, or participate in internship and apprenticeship programs by allowing them to delay their students loans while they were doing meaningful work overseas. Most of those are non-paying jobs or very poorly paid jobs.

We could have used part of the funds to hire more doctors, nurses or even nursing aids so more seniors could stay at home and receive better home care.

Part of the $6 billion could have paid a bit more in foreign aid. Right now we are only spending .033% of the GDP to foreign aid and that is nowhere near enough.

The budget could have plugged some of the leaks and closed the tax havens, whether it is in the Bahamas or in Belize. That could bring in more revenue for the government and it would provide funding for ordinary Canadians.

That is the kind of budget we should support. Instead the Conservative budget is making the wrong choices. That is why we are not supporting the bill.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Trinity—Spadina.

The member talked about specific things, for example, affordable child care, public transit, affordable housing and student financial support. I agree with her. However, I am not going to stand up and criticize the Conservative government. It has an agenda. That is what it does.

I want to ask this hon. member a very simple question. If, indeed, she believes in this stuff, then why did the NDP betray Canadians in 2005 when there was a deal for child care?

We had the program and the provinces signed on. There was money for public transit and the provinces signed on. There was money for affordable housing, $1.3 billion. There was money for students.

Today, if these groups do not have money, the NDP members should be ashamed of themselves because they betrayed Canadians. They were in cahoots with the new government and good for them, but I do not blame the government for what it is doing. It told us what it would do. The NDP just simply agreed.

If the member does not like these cuts, it is her party's doing. How is she going to answer to the voters who support her?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at March 2010.

On March 10, 30 members of Parliament from the Liberal Party chose to walk out and not participate. As a result, this budget passed.

Recently, the Liberal leader said that he, too, supports stopping the corporate tax cuts. We welcome him to that club. The New Democrats have been saying that for a quite a long time. We welcome the Liberals who believe in what we have been proposing.

However, if that is the case, then will the Liberals not stand up within the next few days? The budget implementation bill is coming up for a vote. All MPs should show up in their seats, and stand up and vote with their conscience.

Instead, what we are going to see, just like on March 10 of this year, is that the Liberal Party of Canada is going to absent itself, even though it has said this budget makes the wrong choice, there are missed opportunities, and it does not believe in it. However, the Liberals are going to let this budget pass one more time, just like the last budget, just like the last bill.

I really lament this kind of behaviour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Trinity—Spadina is one of the foremost advocates for equality in this House of Commons.

She knows, she is well aware, that what we have seen, dramatically, under the former Liberal government and the current Conservative government, is a push back on the kind of equality that Canadians want to see.

Income inequality in Canada is now at the same level, shamelessly, shockingly, as it was in the 1920s. Prior to the CCF and the NDP coming into being, pushing the big business parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, into some measure of equality, we have now seen the Conservatives and the Liberals push back and push the middle class and poor Canadians to the point where there is more inequality than there has been in any other time since the 1920s. They have basically pushed us back a century.

I wanted to ask the member, since she represents Toronto and since the only part of the country where Liberals still get elected is really the city of Toronto, how people in Toronto, her constituents, react to the fact that the Liberals are once again propping up this tired old right-wing agenda, this time being brought from the Conservative Party rather than the Liberal Party?

How do her constituents react to this sellout and repudiation of basic Canadian values?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Toronto has a large number of new immigrants, for example. This budget is really missing the mark. New immigrants are not seeing any more funding in this budget. Family reunification still takes a huge amount of time. It takes 3, 5, 8, even 10 years to sponsor a parent from overseas. New immigrants are having a hard time finding a job that they trained for, and as a result there is a higher percentage living in poverty. We see that very much in Toronto. It is unfortunate that this budget does nothing for immigrants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this budget implementation bill. All Bloc Québécois members were opposed to the budget because they think it is a bad budget, particularly for Quebec.

The Conservative government had an opportunity to send a true message of support to Quebec, which is experiencing serious problems related to the last financial crisis, which is not over yet. That crisis began long before the financial crisis that has affected the other provinces. The decline of the forestry industry over the past number of years was the prelude to this crisis. Once again, the Conservative government did not include anything in its budget to correct this most unfortunate situation for Quebec.

In that budget, on the same page, the government agreed to give in excess of $10 billion to the automotive sector, which is primarily located in Ontario, while allocating a measly $170 million for the forestry industry in all of Canada.

It is completely bizarre and it is a slap in the face to Quebec. For that reason alone, it is absolutely inconceivable that Bloc Québécois members could come out in support of this bill. We had proposed several very specific and very concrete measures to eliminate the deficit and the debt in the long term.

This budget implementation bill confirms the desire of the Conservative government to protect rich taxpayers at all costs. One thing we had proposed was to impose a surtax on people earning over $150,000 and another on people earning over $250,000, but we found nothing like that in the budget, even though that could have brought in nearly $4 billion a year for the government’s coffers. The government has ignored those proposals, and, once again, has chosen instead to put all the problems on the shoulders of the middle class. As well, the banks and big corporations are still not being asked to pay their fair share in this budget.

This morning, I was reading in La Presse that the Minister of Finance in the Conservative government is even rejecting proposals made by other members of the G8 and the G20 to tax the profits of the big banks, which are in large part responsible for the financial crisis we have gone through and the effects of which we are still feeling. By refusing to make the ones that are responsible pay, we are automatically making the middle class and working people pay for the consequences of the mistakes they have already had to endure.

The measures set out in this bill clearly illustrate that desire, since corporations are not being asked to pay their fair share in order to increase government revenue. The Bloc Québécois submitted precise recommendations to the government and suggested options worth considering. The finance critic held consultations all over Quebec, with the entire population, in order to propose concrete measures, but the Conservative government did not accept them.

Once again, it has opted to protect the wealthiest, the banks and corporations, at the expense of working people and the middle class.

Tax loopholes are another major point. The government is engaging in double talk. On the one hand, we hear the Minister of Finance, or other ministers, saying that they make no sense. The Minister of National Revenue said that, for one. He said he wanted to tackle tax havens, but essentially, with the bill we have before us, he is opening loopholes in the Income Tax Act to allow corporations that are not registered in Canada to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

There are a lot of examples like that one, where the Conservative government is engaging in double talk. It says it is acting in good faith, it says it wants to face the facts and try to get back all the taxes that should be paid in Canada, and yet on the other hand, it is putting in place measures that preserve the loopholes. We are hearing considerable discontent among the public on this issue. People are disillusioned. We know what is going on in the government of Quebec. It has been hit with a major credibility crisis.

At the same time, I think this affects the federal political class as well because the general public realizes that when the government tables a budget like this, it is not ordinary people who benefit. The public knows that, once again, the government did not take into account the people who pay their taxes every day. It simply carried on with measures to protect the rich. It protects people who are powerful and busy making their money grow. The public is fed up with hearing this and seeing these kinds of things perpetuated year after year. It still continues today.

We could point as well to the Telecommunications Act, which was amended to allow foreign companies, the owners or operators of certain transmission facilities, to function as telecommunications companies in Canada. This does not help our companies. They talk about helping companies. We are against the government doing too much for companies, but when they adopt measures like these to help foreign companies, it is doubly nonsensical. Once again, there is a double meaning. They say they want to help both companies and consumers. However, the companies already established in Quebec and Canada will have to pay for decisions like this.

We also saw in this budget and in Bill C-9, ensuring the implementation of the budget, that the government will not even shrink from looting the employment insurance fund. A kind of independent fund was created two years ago. I say a kind of fund advisedly because many people criticized it and said it was not large enough. At least the government made a start on an independent employment insurance fund. Now it will fall back to zero. All the fine principles used to justify its creation have been jettisoned and the government will not shrink now from pillaging it. It will fall back to zero and be replaced with an employment insurance operating account, which will start from zero.

When this fund was established two years ago, both businesses and big banks said it was a good idea to create a fund like this. However, it should have $15 billion in it instead of the $2 billion the government injected. Now the government is even coming to get these $2 billion. That money was there as insurance, in case of difficult years for employment. Now all is lost. The Conservative government and its Liberal predecessor pillaged a total of $57 billion from the employment insurance fund—money that belongs to employers and employees.

It is totally absurd. I have mentioned only a few examples which make it absolutely impossible and unacceptable for the Bloc Québécois to vote in favour of this bill.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech on a very technical area.

Just a few minutes ago, I got a question from a constituent, and I would like the member to give his view on it. The constituent said he is sick and tired of what he called the big cable and big telecom twins. He said it is time we had some real competition “up here” and opened up copper and fibre. He would appreciate it if I could support legislation that finally gets them some customer competition, and that means everyone getting access to copper and fibre and getting rid of the evil twins.

I am wondering if the member has suggestions on opening up competition, having better competition and therefore consumer rates in these areas.

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

Madam Speaker, I could answer the member's question by referring to the whole issue of the initiative launched by the government in last year's budget introducing a program to extend high-speed Internet access to many remote areas of Quebec and Canada. This year, the Conservative government missed a great opportunity.

From what we have gathered so far from the answers we have been given, there was a demand totalling almost $1 billion, or $900 million, but only $75 million or $80 million a year was provided in the budget. This would have been a great opportunity to move these areas forward, help them and promote their economic and cultural development. Funding should have been provided to meet the demand. This way, everyone in Canada and Quebec could have been connected and could have developed very equitably. But once again, we can see that $10 billion was invested predominantly in Ontario regions for the automotive industry only, while all that was required to meet the needs across Canada and Quebec might have been $1 billion. That was not done, and that too is unacceptable.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the budget and this government's agenda.

Does it concern him that this budget actually gives precedence to profitable Canadian industries like the oil industry or the banking industry, instead of giving precedence to the people, those Canadians who have suffered because of the recession job losses in other sectors, such as the forestry and manufacturing industries? The fact is that there is not really anything in this budget to help these Canadians in terms of all they need at this time.

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

Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely. I understand my NDP colleague's question. In fact, this reminds me of the proposals the Bloc Québécois made to the Conservative government before it tabled the budget. We told the government that it was important to include measures for people who have just gone through this crisis, for communities and for businesses. We said it was important to support them. However, the Conservative government, ever ideology-oriented, continued focusing its efforts and assistance on the banking sector and the oil industry, which is one of the biggest polluters. It is completely ignoring people who have lost their jobs, who are having difficulty just getting by, and who are going through serious hard times.

As we know, in all single-industry environments, especially in the forestry industry, people are having a very hard time. Proposals have been made, such as eliminating the two-week waiting period for EI benefits. That would have helped. Everyone we meet tells us that when two people in the same family lose their jobs, the worst part is that there are no measures to help them during the first two weeks of unemployment. This is completely unacceptable and the Conservative government should have introduced such a measure.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the title says it all: Bill C-9, jobs and economic growth act. On the face of it, this critical bill ignores an important federal mandate, the legislative and constitutional duty to protect the environment. Part 20 represents a clear abrogation of federal duty. It appears to contradict the government's stated mantra of the need to balance the economy with the environment.

In the 2010 budget, the government declares Canada to be a clean energy superpower. Then in its budget implementation act, the environment component is completely exorcized in both the name and the measures.

The Prime Minister promotes seeking for Canada to be a clean energy superpower. His government committed in the fall, 2008, throne speech to support technologies that will not emit greenhouse gases. His government also committed to a 90% national target for non-emitting electricity sources. How is the government going to do this? It is going to do this by deep-sixing renewable power and giving further subsidies to the dirtiest source of power, coal.

While Canadians thought the 2009 federal budget set a new high-water mark for perverse economic policies, this year exceeds that backward slide. The government is leaving our country mired in 19th century fossil fuel economy. The Harper government's failures can be found not just in the specifics but in the very principles that guide its regulatory and fiscal policies. The Harper government is holding fast to its long-held and—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would just ask the hon. member to remember not to mention the name of a sitting member.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I am sorry, Madam Speaker.

This government, led by Prime Minister Harper—

[An hon. member]

No. Prime Minister.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

No, I can't say that? I am very sorry. I was not aware I could not say his name. That is fine. I will not mention his name again.

The current government is holding fast to its long-held and false assumptions that protecting the environment always comes with a significant impact on the economy. If this trade-off ever existed, it has long been replaced, at least in informed circles, by the need to move into the new economy.

The International Energy Agency weighed in this week by saying that Canada's record to date in addressing greenhouse gases suggests meeting even the meagre targets committed by Canada at Copenhagen “will present policymakers across the country with an immense test. It remains unclear how national targets are to be co-ordinated, divided and enforced among the provinces and territories.”

The IEA recommended that Canada produce a more coordinated national energy efficiency policy. Counted among many others who have recommended federal action on national energy efficiency are the former Conservative trade minister and chair of the Energy Policy Institute of Canada, David Emerson, and the right-of-centre Alberta-based Canada West Foundation.

Yet, what the government delivers in this budget is cuts to the very programs that were enabling more efficient energy use, including the highly popular eco-energy home retrofit program.

While the current government argues that it is in sync with the United States, nothing could be further from the truth. The United States government is proceeding with bills and expenditures focused on U.S. energy security and sustainability, encompassing actions on climate and energy efficiency and investments in renewables. The U.S. clearly gets it. When will the current government get on board?

However, I wish to focus particularly on part 20 of this bill. There is clear intent in this part to erase environmental considerations from all federal stimulus spending and to emasculate the remainder of federal reviews. The proposed legal reforms directly contradict the legal mandate of the environment minister.

The Department of the Environment grants the minister his powers, duties and responsibilities. And contrary to the minister's assertions that his responsibility is to balance economy and environment, nowhere in that act, which mandates his power, is there any mention of that need to balance.

The intent of part 20 directly contradicts one of the minister's duties; that is, to require the assessment of any new federal projects. The minister's duty to assess impacts was first abrogated in last year's budget when the Navigable Waters Protection Act was eviscerated.

If Bill C-9 is passed, the majority of federally funded projects will be exempted.

First, part 20 of the bill exempts a large swath of federally funded projects from a key regulatory trigger: federal financing. This is done despite the fact the majority of projects merely undergo an initial screening.

Second, the government is responding to recent court rulings confirming federal responsibilities to assess project impacts, by simply empowering the minister to narrow the scope of any assessment.

The most obvious question is: Why are these significant amendments to the federal law included in a budget implementation bill?

The legally required review of the federal law, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, is slated to come before the parliamentary committee within weeks. Unlike the process for this bill, reviews before the parliamentary committee allow detailed consideration and hearing from all the affected stakeholders.

Is this simply another example of the failed promises on transparency and participation in governance?

Next, is this emasculation of federal impact assessment simply being done to save money. And if so, is it money for the government or for industrial proponents?

Where is the evidence of this alleged unnecessary duplication and overlap? The government has yet to table a single example.

The key to considering the appropriateness of this reform is the recognition of federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada has, in a series of decisions, clearly upheld federal jurisdiction and responsibility for the environment, including environmental impact assessment.

One of the most frequently cited Supreme Court cases is the decision on Friends of the Oldman River Society vs Canada.

As the court held:

Local projects will generally fall within the provincial responsibility...federal participation will be required if...the project impinges on an area of federal jurisdiction.

The federal law specifies three triggers for federal assessment. One of those is federal finance. The second is any areas of federal responsibility. Both are eviscerated by this bill.

Is the rationale to ensure more coordinated federal and provincial cooperation in environmental assessment? This was recognized and responded to years back. Measures taken included the harmonization accord; federal-provincial bilateral agreements; coordination in the field; and joint panels. By these provisions, the government has slung an axe to its duties where only a scalpel slice may have been necessary.

Of equal concern is the decision to grant the Minister of the Environment the complete discretion to decide to narrow the scope of any federal assessment. Again, the sense is that this change was simply to limit future judicial scrutiny of the government's decisions.

Separate and apart from that concern is the potential for conflict of interest. Surely the decision on the scope or extent of a federal assessment should be removed from any potential political considerations. For example, any assessment of a pipeline or export power line that the government has endorsed surely should not be made based on the decision of a minister who may well have endorsed those projects. Again, that is the case of the Mackenzie pipeline.

Contrary to what the minister has suggested, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, in his 2009 audit, did not in fact recommend that this role be assigned to the minister. The commissioner merely recommended that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency propose options to the minister, and the agency in reply said that it looked forward to putting forward options to the parliamentary committee in the very hearings that will commence in a few weeks.

A bigger question is whether this law change represents an underhanded attempt at a constitutional amendment. This is a long-standing request by the Alberta government and perhaps other governments to get the federal government out of the environment business on their turf. This is certainly the case on fisheries, a unilateral area of federal jurisdiction. What of the duty to assess impacts to first nation peoples, their lands and waters? What of the federal power over transboundary impacts? Are these, too, being ceded to the provinces? Is this a case of illegal sub-delegation?

In considering this bill, members must consider the duties under federal law to regulate, manage, prevent or mitigate environmental impacts. The very purpose of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is to implement the government's duty under the precautionary principle to identify and prevent unnecessary environmental impacts. Where the effort is not made to assess these potential impacts, how can the government credibly claim to be exercising those powers effectively?

Finally, to the matter of the transfer of environmental impact assessment duties to the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Indeed, this is already allowed under law. What is of grave concern is the broad brush policy decision to completely transfer the environmental assessment function for the majority of these reviews to these agencies out of the very agency set up at arm's length to review environmental impacts.

Contrary to what the minister has asserted, impacted communities and families have not been satisfied with the way those agencies have delivered environmental reviews. A non-government report on the New Brunswick facility did not give it the glowing review the minister professes. In the case of the National Energy Board review of the first export power line out of Alberta, dissatisfaction in the assessment of impacts resulted in court action. Central to the case was the failed consideration of impacts on farmers by the Energy Board.

In summary, I am absolutely opposed to the passage of Bill C-9, particularly part 20.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the detail on the environment and understand the member's expertise in that area. I would like to ask her two questions relating to that area.

First, the Conservatives have sort of made a laughing stock of themselves in the other place by putting forward a motion related to freedom of speech when they do not even allow their own members the freedom of speech. However, in relation to that, can she comment on the freedom not allowed to scientists on the environment or environmental officials, which was quite an issue recently?

Second, in my area in the north, climate change is causing change faster than anywhere else in the world so we need adaptation. The government, in this budget and the projections, is allowing all the adaptation programs to expire with no sense of hope of reinstituting them. I wonder if she could comment on that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yukon for his ongoing support for environmental measures in the House.

With regard to the silencing of scientists, I share the member's concern but I share it in a much broader avenue. We have heard a lot about the concern, for example, that government employed scientists have not had the freedom to share the results that they may have in their own research, or issues of concern that they have raised that should be brought to the attention of the government.

My sense of the concern is even much broader. We have an entire agency, with appropriately skilled people who will conduct the independent review or at least oversee the review by proponents of projects, being completely removed. We can guess that the appropriate officials are probably not vested in the other two agencies that will conduct those reviews.

We need to start looking even deeper into the problems with science. Not only are the scientists not allowed to speak but now they will not be allowed to do the work as well.

On the important matter that he raised about the cutting of funds to adaptation, I share his concern, but I am more deeply concerned that the adaptation costs will escalate due to the fact that the government insists on not taking action and not setting those binding targets.

It should not cost taxpayers the money to respond to climate change. If we simply impose those legally binding targets and reductions on the major emitters, they will incur those costs rather than taxpayers, and then we can put our money toward helping the lesser developed countries that are bearing the brunt of the impact of our industry.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, with whom I sit on the environment committee, if she has heard the fantastic news that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, for the first time in a number of years, have actually been decreased to the tune of 2.1%.

That report was file today. It is good news for Canadians. It is clearly a signal that the government understands, after a previous Liberal government failed and signed on to these glorified numbers, much like what we saw in Bill C-311, which passed yesterday. The Liberals did not do anything about it, other than attempt to ruin Canada's economy and, in particular, Alberta's economy.

I wonder if the member can stand in her place and actually congratulate the government for getting greenhouse gas emissions down with all the investments that we put into the budgets previous to budget 2010, which her party voted against.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would have thought the member would have liked to have expressed similar concern to the fact that our committee is not proceeding with the CEAA review, rather than it being done through a budget with little discussion.

It is good news if the greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced by 2.1%, but I find that rather pathetic, given the fact that they have gone up 35%. I do not know if that is 2.1% of intensity or if it is absolute. What was it?

The thing that I found most noteworthy was that yesterday in the House the parliamentary secretary informed the House that it was no doubt due to the fact that we are reducing coal-fired power. I would like the member to be aware, as he is from the same province as I am, that as we sit here, coal-fired power is expanding in Alberta and various companies are asking to ratchet back their requirements to reduce the greenhouse gases. I do not see the jolly forecast that the member sees.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was not expecting it to be my turn to take the floor, but I am happy to speak to Bill C-9. This is not a very attractive bill because it relates to implementation of the budget, a budget which the Bloc Québécois finds very disappointing.

While I find this bill to be disappointing, I would like to say that the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona has indeed given a very good statement on part 20. That was the subject I wanted to address today, but I will not do so since she has handled it very well.

All the same, I shall speak on the environment, because I find that this budget implementation is truly contemptuous, particularly of the forestry sector. In Canada and Quebec, the forest is truly a key component in the reduction of greenhouse gases. The members opposite say that greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced. It is bizarre for the Conservatives to say this, given that they won the third fossil award in Bonn last week. They won this award because greenhouse gases in Canada have risen 3% over 1990 levels. I do not see how they can claim to be happy with an alleged reduction.

All that was only an aside, and I shall continue now to speak of the lumber industry. Many people speak of this industry as if it simply involved paper mills and mills that cut softwood into two by fours, but it is much more than that.

There is one thing I want to say. The money that should have been invested in the forestry sector would have been used for much more than just cutting down trees and shipping them to the United States. It would have been used to develop engineered wood, something that is now being done, in fact.

Engineered wood is bonded with glue and assembled to make immense spans or big fire-resistant pieces. It is interesting to note that one sawmill employee creates five jobs. One mill employee who cuts two by fours or two by sixes creates five jobs in the lumber industry. It is my impression that the members opposite think that only wood cutting is involved, but it is far more than just that. We have to invest in the forest. Proper forest management is important. This is called stewardship. It means increasing the potential of our forests by managing them so that trees grow larger, there are more of them, and they are in better condition.

It is important to invest in private forests and not just in public forests. It was the government’s responsibility to do so, but it did not. In addition to better quality lumber, more forests are created and greenhouse gases are reduced. It is self-evident.

The more trees we have and the bigger they are, the more greenhouse gases are reduced in the atmosphere. That goes without saying. It is also essential to increase incomes in the regions in the short and long run. Our forests are managed very well and are of major importance.

So what do we find in the budget in this regard? Nothing. There is nothing about the management of private forests and the forests that are the future of our regions. There is absolutely nothing about this in the budget. It is not just the future of our remote regions that is at stake but of our less distant regions as well. As I mentioned, a job in a sawmill creates five others in related factories.

The budget dwells on the automobile sector, as if we were going to live or die by it alone. We are going to die with our trees, and they are what is important. If we take that approach, it is possible that one day we could be autonomous in our construction industry and in our biomass from one end of the country to the other.

That is vital. They always take the short-term view, and that shows real contempt.

They treated the automobile industry like a god of some kind and gave it 57 times as much as the forest industry. For every employee who works in a sawmill, five others work in related plants or have a job maintaining our forests.

Trees grow. They are like money in the bank that earns interest. They are something we can give future generations. Unfortunately, we have a government that looks at the future in the rear-view mirror and sets nothing aside for our children.

We will all pay for the numerous tax breaks the government is giving the oil companies. They cost money and are a way of taxing people. These tax breaks amount to $2.7 billion, and every province and city will have to pay its share.

If green industries had been given the billions of dollars in tax breaks handed out to the oil companies, jobs could have been created. Instead of giving this money exclusively to shareholders, we could have created jobs in healthy work environments, for the future of our country and the future of our young people. The government thinks that oil companies are the future because there will be a shortage of oil. But there is enough in Alberta for a very long time.

There is no overarching vision of our strengths and no strategy for helping the younger generation. Creating green energy means creating an economy that could be exported and could replace fossil fuels. Unfortunately, that is not what they did. They always favour fossil fuels.

The budget increases funding for nuclear energy. Some governments think that nuclear energy is clean, but that is a farce. We have not even found places yet to store the waste. So long as these places have not been found, nuclear energy will remain dirty. In addition, it produces plutonium.

Recently, an agency of the Canadian government produced a report stating that the CANDU reactor might overheat and explode. This is a real sword of Damocles hanging over our heads, but we still keep promoting the reactor, because we know we will make a profit from it. They tried to build a reactor in Ontario. At the end of the day, a kilowatt hour generated by nuclear energy was so expensive that they abandoned the plan. Nuclear energy is starting to be compared to green energy. We are realizing that green energy creates a lot more jobs and is much safer. A windmill will never explode, and the same is true for solar and hydraulic energy.

Getting electricity from deep geothermal energy is also something that will not explode and that will last for years. We might say forever. So why not invest in green energy instead of investing in polluting energy? I know there is a very strong lobby. Nuclear energy has a huge organization lobbying the Canadian government.

We know that our government is very sensitive to lobbying. In fact, that is why there was not much money for forestry. The steel lobby is very strong, as is the cement lobby. So they want to keep wood for small houses only and build them out of two by fours, when we know that engineered lumber could be used to build rooms much bigger than here. So the environment and climate change have been completely ignored in the budget.

We could have changed tack and said now is the time to put money into the green economy. They did not do it and I am very disappointed. The Bloc considers this to be a major reason not to vote for the budget or for this Bill C-9, precisely because it is not looking to our children’s future. In this kind of bill we are looking to the past.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member. I have two questions for him.

First, does the member think the budget provides any uncertainty, as opposed to certainty, for people? While he is thinking of that, I will give two examples, the food mail program and aboriginal post-secondary education.

The government announced it would make changes, but it has not said what they would be. It will be at some time in the future. If the food people get is in jeopardy, I think they would be pretty worried and would want to know what the changes are.

Second, the member talked about the environment and the cancellation of a number of environment programs, like the eco-energy program, the adaptation programs for climate change and the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, where many major scientists are involved in climate change and temperature studies, on droughts, on environment sciences, et cetera and keeping data on that, which is irreplaceable.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his two questions.

I do think the government is currently engaging in a diversion. First, it mentioned a certain number for education. We did not pay too much attention to it because that is under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec, of our province and eventually our country.

However, if we look at the environment and the way the bill has been worded, in Part 20, the decision will now come from the minister. What does that mean? If we look at it, the minister will always be deciding everything. It will no longer be groups saying it needs to be done. It will no longer be Parliament, but the minister.

That means that the minister can very well follow the policy issued by cabinets: to promote the development of the oil sands to the exclusion of other things. Whenever an environmental impact study might block a project, it will not be taken into account. We saw the situation two weeks ago with the big Keystone pipeline. Now, we have a Baker train going by. Will an environmental impact study be done? We think not, because that might block the development.

So I agree entirely with my colleague when he says that a lot of things are being concealed. They chose their words carefully to make people happy. People are going to think this is wonderful, but in reality it is so the government will be able to decide as it likes.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, earlier, the hon. member wanted to talk about the environment, but since the member from Alberta had already done so, he chose to deal with another issue. A question had been asked by a government member. We were discussing the Conservatives' record and the announcement made yesterday. The member for Wetaskiwin had put the question. He said that greenhouse gases had been reduced and that we did not recognize that.

Perhaps the Bloc member could tell me something. If there has been a greenhouse gas reduction, is it not once again because since 2006, when the Conservatives took office, the mills in Miramichi, Bathurst, Dalhousie and New Richmond have all shut down? Paper mills across the country have closed. All sorts of plants and mills have stopped operating. Perhaps the Conservatives registered the greenhouse gas emissions that came out of these chimneys.

Greenhouse gases may have been reduced, but the Conservatives cannot claim that economic development is responsible for a less polluted environment. It is because plants have shut down. We do not expect the government to protect the environment through regulations.

Does the member agree that this is a more accurate picture of the environmental situation in Canada?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi has about one minute to respond.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I fully agree with the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

Of course, the Conservatives will say that it is thanks to them, but what did they do to achieve that result? Nothing, zero, niet. Therefore, they should not take credit and pat themselves on the back. The economy has weakened. As the hon. member pointed out, mills were closed, including some that produced electricity from coal. My colleague is right: in Bonn, last week, Canada received a third fossil award because greenhouse gases have increased in Canada. This was demonstrated by international groups. There has been no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 but, rather, a 3% increase.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. The NDP is opposed to this bill for a number of reasons. My colleagues have addressed a number of topics, but since I am the employment insurance critic, I will focus on that part. For the record, that is not the only thing I am opposed to in Bill C-9. I could go on about many other points.

Bill C-9 includes certain amendments to legislation. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission is continued. It consists of four commissioners. A new employment insurance operating account has been created in the accounts of Canada. This new account was created because the old account in the consolidated revenue fund has been closed.

The Conservatives boast about creating a new employment insurance operating account that will open with $2 billion. They also boast about not being like the Liberals and not dipping into the employment insurance fund.

This is 2010 and the Conservatives have been in power since 2006. Between 2006 and 2010, who are the mysterious people who stole from the EI fund? It had to be someone. Who stole from the fund between 2006 and 2010? We cannot blame the Liberals for everything. Not everything is their doing. They stole from the EI fund between 1993 and 2006. It cannot be denied; it has been said often enough.

Ironically, during a question period, the Minister of Finance said:

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the plain fact is that the previous Liberal government, in the middle of the 1990s, siphoned off the $58 billion to $60 billion from the EI fund and put it into the consolidated revenue fund. People do not have to take my word for it. Read what professors—

I remember the words he used, but they were changed in Hansard. He said the Liberals stole between $58 billion and $60 billion. “To steal” and “to siphon off” mean the same thing.

Normally when a thief is caught, he has to return the stolen money to its rightful owner. There is more than $57 billion in surplus in the EI fund. I did not make this up. The Minister of Finance said so in the House of Commons on March 29 .

The blues show that that same day, the Prime Minister rose and acknowledged that the Liberals had stolen money from the EI fund. If money is stolen and then recovered, it must be returned to the people it was stolen from. Who are those people? They are the same people to whom the government is bragging about cutting taxes to major corporations. The government is cutting taxes for the corporations and at the same time wants to increase EI premiums by 15¢ per $100 of insurable earnings. So it is a tax for workers. But they claim to want to lower taxes.

The government does not believe in taxing people, and the previous government pillaged the employment insurance fund. The Conservatives continued this from 2006 to 2010. Now, with a bill, they are legitimizing this pillaging and are wiping out the government's debt, the surplus belonging to the workers. Now, workers will pay an additional $223 per year for employment insurance contributions and employers will pay an additional $312.

The government lowered taxes for workers by $100 and patted itself on the back, but it will tax them $212. That is what the government did. It is a tax on workers because workers and employers already paid into the employment insurance fund. They already put money into the employment insurance fund.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst is not the only one saying it. In the question I asked, and I think it is worth repeating, I mentioned that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently conducted a survey that showed that 82% of Canadian business owners wanted to see the federal government freeze future increases to EI premiums until the $57 billion surplus has been fully paid back.

Workers are not the only ones saying that they want the money that was taken from them. Business owners are saying it too: 82% of business owners say that they want the money that was taken from them. They are not asking for a cheque for $57 billion. What they want is for their premiums not to increase. They are saying that if the government needs money, it should use some of the $57 billion that it took from them. The government borrowed that money. If it did not steal it, then it should return it to them. If the government stole the money, then we should call the RCMP to come pick up the ministers. That is what we should do.

There are only two things that can be done. On March 29 or 30, the government acknowledged that funds were stolen. But what happened between 2006 and 2010? This same government stole money from the employment insurance fund, too. They want to use Bill C-9 to legalize this theft. But I cannot vote for a bill that would legalize such theft, the biggest theft in Canadian history.

The sponsorship issues in the past were nothing compared to the scandal perpetrated on the backs of this country's workers. It is unparalleled. This is the biggest national scandal ever: taking employment insurance premiums from workers' pay, putting it towards the budget and paying down the debt with this money. The minister acknowledged that funds were stolen but he does not want to turn around and pay back the workers and entrepreneurs. I remind the members that 82% of independent entrepreneurs tell us that they want their money back. That is what has happened.

In addition, there have been changes to employment insurance in this budget. It is all very well for them to pat themselves on the back for new bills as though they can fix everything. I will support the government bill for our people in National Defence. However, there are bigger problems. How many people in this country have cancer, heart problems, and how many need employment insurance benefits for a year but are not entitled even though they paid into them? They are only entitled to 15 weeks. Something could have been done to help workers. Something could have been put in the next budget.

There are other areas where something could be done for the workers, such as lowering the EI eligibility criteria to 350 or 360 hours rather than maintaining the current requirement of 455, 700 or 900 hours. This would help people who are not eligible for employment insurance during an economic crisis. We must not give money only to major corporations through tax cuts. We cut taxes for big business and we put workers on social assistance. Instead, we should be providing assistance to the people who helped make these corporations profitable. These companies have turned a profit a number of times. There are corporate presidents who pay themselves salaries of millions of dollars, not just hundreds of thousands, every year.

The government has turned around, taken pity on big business and given them tax breaks. It is doing the same for banks. The government says that big business and the banks need tax breaks. However, workers who lose their jobs and go on employment insurance are accused of abusing the system. They do not want workers to abuse the system. How many times has the government said in this House that if the number of hours to qualify for benefits is changed to 350, people would work only 10 weeks and receive employment insurance the rest of the time?

I find that shameful. It is an insult to workers. For example, France pays workers 75% of their income when they apply for employment insurance. If asked the question, France would reply that it respects its workers.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, the member waxed eloquently on EI. He covered that topic very well. He is an expert in that area and I appreciate that.

However, I want to ask a question on a topic in another area. I know he is well versed in all areas, being the whip for his party. My question is in regard to the government's suggestion of reducing the number of people on boards to save money.

Many people have brought forward the fact that it is not going to save much money because most of those are vacant positions and it is only about 18 part-time people, so that is a red herring.

When we eliminate people from boards, usually they represent someone like the unemployed, or the province of New Brunswick, the federal government or NGOs. If we are eliminating positions, who is going to eliminate them?

Does the member have any concerns on this particular part of the budget implementation bill about eliminating positions on boards and if it will really make a difference?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, if we eliminate the people who represent the people, there is a problem. I do not think we have ever heard any workers in our country who said that boards are too big. I have heard workers say that there are $57 billion that belongs to them. If they cannot be represented, it encourages the government to hide what it is doing instead.

I think this is wrong. The labour movement and employers should be able to have a say because they are the payers. The government does not pay 1¢ to employment insurance. All the money comes from employees and employers. They should have a say about who will be on boards to represent people across the country.

It takes longer to travel from Newfoundland to Vancouver than from Montreal to Paris. Just imagine that. It is a big thing to go to France, but that is how big our country is.

I think we have to have a fair representation across the country and it is wrong to eliminate people and put them out of work the way the government is doing, but we understand that.

The Conservative government is a government that is not very transparent. We have seen that in the last couple of weeks. It wants to be transparent by eliminating people as representatives of the people.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague from the NDP, who said that, sadly, the Conservative government had ignored the unemployed in its budget and had once again failed to improve the employment insurance system.

I would like to hear him on the misappropriation of $57 billion initiated by the previous Liberal government and continued by this Conservative government at the expense of the unemployed and businesses.

I find it appalling. They do not even have the decency now to give the money back to the people who have worked. Not even a portion of the money is given back to these people at a time when they need help. They are facing financial difficulties, and workers are losing their jobs left and right. Now is the time to give back the $57 billion, but the money has been squandered.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if my Bloc Québécois colleague heard me, but I spoke about that. I can speak about it again. It gives me the opportunity to say that the problem exists everywhere, not just in the Maritimes and the Atlantic provinces, as they would have us believe.

I did a national tour myself. I went all over the country, to every province. I went to Timmins, to Sudbury, Ontario, Winnipeg, Manitoba and Edmonton, Alberta. I went to Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Vancouver, Prince George and even to the Yukon. The problem was the same everywhere. All of the workers said that it was their money and that they should be entitled to it when they lose their jobs.

It all comes back to what was said in France. This is the workers' money. I am happy that they are able to get insurance and participate in the economy instead of having to receive social assistance. I tip my hat to France on this one. We need to stop insulting our workers as the previous government and today's government have done by saying that they abuse the system. These are families who are losing their pay, their income. These are children who are living in poverty. There is a good reason why 1.4 million children in this country are hungry. It is because of the previous governments and today's government, the Liberals and the Conservatives. The money should go to the workers immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois regarding this budget implementation bill. It is no surprise that the members of the Bloc Québécois will be opposing this bill, just as we opposed this budget tabled by the Conservative government. Unfortunately, I have only ten minutes to explain to my colleagues the reasons why our party is opposed to this budget implementation bill.

The reasons are many, and each of them might require a speech of at least 30 or 40 minutes. But I shall review just a few of them in the time I am allotted. One of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill is that it confirms the desire of the Conservative government to spare rich taxpayers at all costs, including the banks and large corporations.

Earlier, during question period, our colleague the hon. member for Hochelaga and Bloc Québécois finance critic was telling us about the astronomical profits made by the banks in recent months. He mentioned profits of $5.6 billion. When it is time to look for money in the pockets of the middle class and the disadvantaged, governments, and this Conservative government—a government which, by the way, is heartless—have no hesitation about making the middle class, workers and the disadvantaged pay for the deficit.

Another reason why we are not in favour of this bill is that the measures it contains are proof of the above-mentioned desire, since corporations will not be asked to contribute to the government’s coffers. It is workers, people who cannot benefit from tax havens, people who work very hard in plants, in factories, in stores, people who often work for minimum wage, that the government will turn to. But unlike the big corporations that benefit from tax deductions, they are taxed from their first penny, and as soon as they build up a little nest egg, the government is immediately upon them with its taxes.

With regard to tax loopholes, it could be said that the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, the government says that it wants to go after tax havens and, on the other, in this bill, the Conservative government is opening loopholes in the Income Tax Act to make it possible for corporations not registered in Canada to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. It is despicable on the part of the government to take this approach.

Once again in question period, we went back to the former minister of the status of women, now an independent MP, who, according to rumours here and elsewhere on the Hill, allegedly took advantage of a ministerial trip to Belize to open three bogus companies to again avoid paying income tax. We know that Belize is most definitely a tax haven, just like Barbados and certain other islands in the West Indies or some other small countries where corporations can take advantage of tax loopholes.

In Quebec, there have been two cases of flagrant fraud where small investors were literally fleeced. I am referring to the cases of Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones. The money of the small investors who were swindled was not in the bank accounts of Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones.

That money was hidden in countries that serve as tax havens. When they have served their sentences—I will remind members that the Bloc had asked for the abolition of release after serving one-sixth of a sentence, but the Conservatives refused—they will get out and collect their money, which is somewhere in the West Indies. They will be able to resume their princely lives, unlike ordinary investors.

There is the case of two young girls who lost their parents in a car accident. The insurance award was managed by the girls' grandfather. They literally lost everything. That is unacceptable and astounding. That is what tax havens are used for. The Bloc Québécois is anxious for the government to assume its responsibilities and ensure that those listening to us, the middle class workers, are not the only ones who pay their fair share of taxes.

There is another point I want to say a little more about. This budget implementation bill will allow the government to dip into the employment insurance fund surplus until 2014-15. Once again, as we have said many times, the employment insurance fund surplus does not belong to the government. It belongs to the workers and employers who pay premiums. In 2008, the fund reached $1.5 billion and the government cleaned it out. It helped itself to that surplus. That is completely unacceptable.

The Bloc Québécois proposed an independent employment insurance fund that would be jointly managed by workers and employers, similar to the CSST model in Quebec. If there was a surplus in the fund, the board of directors—or whatever it is called—of the independent employment insurance fund could decide which categories of unemployed workers or which categories of workers would benefit from improvements to the plan.

I see my colleague from Manicouagan nodding his head. On the North Shore, in the Lower St. Lawrence, and in Gaspésie, they have to deal with seasonal work. We need to stop calling them seasonal workers. They are not “seasonal workers”; the work is seasonal. Even if they wanted to plant99 trees and do silvicultural work in the forest when there are several centimetres of snow on the ground in February, it would not be possible. It is rare to have a winter where there is almost no snow on the ground, but either way, the ground is frozen, making it impossible. The fishing industry cannot be forced to operate in February. Charlevoix, in my riding, is a very touristy location. There are inns and beautiful sites. We would love to have the inns full in February, but that will not happen in the winter. Some tourists come to go snowmobiling, but not enough to keep our inns and lodges open year-round. So, employers are forced to shut their businesses down, or those that remain open are forced to cut staff.

With the current EI system, which is totally unfair to seasonable workers, these people are forced to experience periods of unemployment on a regular basis. That is not their choice; there is just no work to be done. So, when the working season is short, as it was last summer, these workers do not get called back to work because of poor weather conditions and do not qualify under this unfair employment insurance system. They then experience what is known as the spring gap, which they are currently going through in March and April, when benefits have run out, but it is too early to be called back to work, which will likely be sometime in May. Since it is not May yet, these people have nothing to live on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did sense the member could have made a lot longer speech and I will give him an opportunity to continue.

The member talked about bank profits, and we know they were $15.9 billion last year, with the CEO of the Royal Bank making about $10.4 million. This was at a time when 800,000 Canadians were out of work. This was at a time when the world was slipping into the worst recession since the Great Depression.

The government essentially supports the big banks. Tara Perkins has a story in the Globe and Mail today. In essence, the Minister of Finance is pretty much an unpaid lobbyist for the banks, by the looks of it. She says, “bankers are more concerned about a number of international rule changes, and when it comes to fighting those they have Ottawa's backing”. Therefore, the Minister of Finance is fighting international rule changes on behalf of the banks at the international level.

President Barack Obama is trying to overhaul the entire financial regulatory system. Meanwhile, Ottawa is working on just minor changes.

In addition, the G7 and the G20 nations are trying to set up a fund to take care of failing banks in the future. Once again, the Minister of Finance and the government are opposed to this. They are fighting the measure on behalf of the banks.

In addition, the G7 and G20 countries are coming out with guidelines for remuneration for bank executives. Guess what? The government and the minister are opposing it on behalf of the banks. Once again, the minister is essentially an unpaid lobbyist for the banking interests in our country.

Would the member like to comment on that and offer any other insights and information about that point?

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

Mr. Speaker, five minutes are usually allotted for questions and comments following a 10-minute speech. I figure that the member used 4 minutes and 50 seconds to put his question. I will therefore attempt to answer within 10 seconds.

Banks are the classic case. Tell me who feeds you and I will tell you who you will look after later. The Conservatives are more favourably disposed towards banks and oil companies because these generously feed their campaign fund. Anything that will further regulate the powers of banks and the earnings of bankers is a good thing.

President Obama warned people that after the health reform, they will have to seriously consider reforming banks, which are making absolutely obscene and unacceptable profits, and I am all for such reform.

In the budget, the Conservatives' handouts to banks and oil companies came as no surprise. They are acting like reliable poodles. It is payback time for those who influence Conservative government policies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the constituents of Vancouver Kingsway and to offer their feedback and views on Bill C-9, the budget presented by the Conservative government.

Prior to the budget being presented in the House, I spent several months meeting with my constituents in my office and in my community in every kind of context one can imagine. I visited owners of small businesses. I went to community centres. I went door-knocking from house to house. I visited my constituents on the streets, in the markets, in the businesses and in the cultural and recreational venues of Vancouver Kingsway.

I asked them about their lives. I asked them about the federal government and about the priorities they would like to see presented in the budget. This is a particularly cogent question. As we all know, over December, January and February of 2009 and 2010, many people, including the people of Vancouver Kingsway, had to deal with a challenging economic environment. Many people, from children to seniors to working men and women, to single mothers to owners of small businesses have been struggling.

These are the priorities that my constituents overwhelmingly and repeatedly mentioned they would like to see in this budget.

They wanted to see a budget that focused on creating jobs and not just jobs as a number on a page, but good, well-paying jobs upon which someone could raise a family. They wanted to see the federal government get back into developing affordable housing in the country. They wanted to see the provision of federal funds to create a national, universal, affordable and accessible child care system.

My constituents told me they wanted to see the federal government increase its transfers to the provinces in every aspect of education, from preschool to elementary and secondary public education to universities, trade schools and community colleges of every type. They told me they wanted to see the federal government increase spending on public transit. They wanted to see the government make a clear stand, both in policy terms and in financial backup to protect our environment.

The people of Vancouver Kingsway told me they wanted to see help for seniors, whether that was providing medical, dental and transportation support. They wanted to ensure that every senior in British Columbia and across Canada could have a decent, comfortable, safe and secure place to live.

They told me they wanted to support for small businesses. They told me they wanted to see fair taxation returned to the country. On that score, the people of Vancouver Kingsway, unlike the people on the other side of the House, believe in government and believe that if we pool our resources together, we can collectively build the kind of country that will provide strong public services for every person from coast to coast to coast.

Last, the people of Vancouver Kingsway wanted to see action taken on pensions. As the baby boomers age, as the demographics in the country move us closer to retirement in ever-increasing numbers, people across Canada, including those in Vancouver Kingsway, are starting to be concerned that they will not have enough money to live decent and dignified lives when they retire at the age of 60, 65 or 70.

I submitted these submissions to the Minister of Finance and I submitted them well in advance of the budget. I am also proud to say that I submitted a number of specific requests that also emanated from direct requests from the people of Vancouver Kingsway.

They wanted us to build a mid-sized performing arts theatre in Vancouver Kingsway. They wanted to see federal help to build a Filipino cultural centre and a Vietnamese cultural centre. They wanted to see investments in affordable housing at the Little Mountain site and at the RCMP headquarters site, which will soon be vacated. They wanted to see senior stand-alone housing, public housing projects and affordable renting housing developments backstopped by the federal government.

The people of Vancouver Kingsway wanted to see the federal government make a clear stand for the children and youth of our communities and the recreational needs of our citizens by helping contribute funds to the Mount Pleasant outdoor pool, to help fund the programs and capital requirements of Cedar Cottage, Little Mountain and Collingwood Neighbourhood House

They wanted the federal government to help make sure that our community centres, such as Renfrew Park, Douglas Park, Trout Lake and Riley Park, have adequate space and enough funding for their programs.

They wanted to see increased services for new Canadians, the funding of more language training programs and more settlement and counselling services which are critically important to ensure that new Canadians can get settled and prosper in their new country of choice.

The people of Vancouver Kingsway specifically wanted to see more investment in community crime prevention programs and increased community policing in the riding. They wanted very practical environmental solutions right in the riding, things like bicycle paths and greenways in Vancouver Kingsway. They wanted to see increased tax credits and government grants to encourage the green retrofitting of residential and commercial buildings. They wanted to see the federal government lead the way in encouraging urban food production by investing in community gardens and other community food safety and security programs.

Most importantly, the people of Vancouver Kingsway wanted to see investments in our children. They wanted to see federal contributions to help us seismically upgrade our elementary and secondary schools. As we all know, Vancouver is in a seismically active area, and schools are the first places that people will go to in the case of an earthquake. We have seen earthquakes devastate so many countries in the world. I can say that the schools in Vancouver Kingsway and Vancouver are seismically unsafe.

They wanted to see capital and operating funds for elementary and secondary schools in Vancouver Kingsway, and operating funds for new and existing child care providers, because nothing is more important to the people of this country than their children.

Last, as I said, they wanted to invest in public transit to increase service levels on overcrowded bus routes, expand rapid transit in Vancouver and keep transit fares affordable.

This is what the people of my riding told me they wanted to see. But what did they see? Did they see the Conservative government deliver those priorities? Absolutely not.

We see very little new in this budget. It shows a government that has no clear vision for the economy. Even worse, it is repeating the failed policies of the past instead, policies that are based on the flawed assumption that increasing corporate tax cuts and deregulation are the way to fuel the economy of the future.

We see a budget that provided a missed opportunity to create jobs, help the vulnerable and contribute to building the strong kind of economy that will be needed in the years ahead. The truth is that none of the priorities expressed by the people of Vancouver Kingsway are reflected in the budget.

I heard it expressed recently that a budget represents the soul of the government. When we read the budget's priorities, we can see deeply into the very soul of the people who make up the government. We can tell what they think is important. In this respect we have a very clear picture of the type of soul on that side of the House, which is one that favours corporations, ignores the vulnerable and needy and does not fundamentally believe in building a strong, public system and delivery of services to all Canadians.

The budget should have included a national industrial strategy that focuses on investing in green jobs and the green economy. We would have liked to see a budget that provided high-paying jobs that are based on fostering innovation in green technology and green energy and, at the same time, adopting provisions that save families money on energy costs and that make sure that we have clean air, clean water and protect the environment for future generations.

We wanted to see a budget that was an opportunity to deliver on child care. Canadians need help getting back to work. Nothing is more important to them than their children, so what better way to invest and support working families than by making sure that when they drop their children off in the morning, they are in safe, secure, stimulating environments. Having a lack of child care disproportionately impacts women and low income families of all types. It is time we had a national child care program. Canadian families are waiting.

The budget was an opportunity to launch an affordable housing strategy. In Vancouver, housing is incredibly unaffordable, and the lack of affordable housing is a huge issue for many families. Too many Canadians have no adequate housing at all. Shamefully, in this country there are many people who are homeless.

Many people who are struggling to maintain housing, would like to purchase housing, or rent clean and affordable housing cannot do so. It is time that we had a federal government that came back into the housing file instead of leaving it to the provinces and cities. Without federal government participation we simply cannot provide acceptable affordable housing for everyone.

My colleague from Vancouver East has Bill C-304 before the House right now and it is time that we all got together and supported it.

I could go on, but I will conclude by saying that the budget needs to be rejected by members in the House. We need to replace it with a budget that works for everyday Canadians based on the priorities that have been identified by my constituents.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague with great interest and heard him talk about many things that he wanted to see in the budget. If he looked more closely at the budget, he would actually see those things.

I will use my riding as an example. We had an amazing announcement to support seniors in rural communities, in low income housing. We have provided upgrades for our aboriginal communities. Last week we announced a green transformation for our pulp industry which is actually going to decrease emissions by 67.2%, increase power to the grid. This is all great news. I am sure these things are going on in ridings throughout the country.

Does the hon. member not recognize the importance of also having a strong economy, strong businesses so that they can support these very important things that we all want for Canadians?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course New Democrats absolutely want a strong economy for this country, but our vision of how that would be delivered is very different from that of my friend opposite.

The budget delivers no tax cuts for Canadian families. The budget increases EI premiums on working Canadians and businesses which the government simply refuses to acknowledge. It imposes more fees on the travelling public at airports. It gives tens of billions of dollars of tax cuts to corporations that do not need it. I am talking about big companies such as the oil companies and banks. On the other hand, small businesses in this country are struggling and that is why the New Democrats support the amount of small business income eligible for the reduced federal income tax rate of 11% being increased from $400,000 to $500,000. That is a positive move that we support.

The bottom line is that the budget does not provide the priorities that I mentioned. There is no national child care system. There is no national affordable housing strategy. It guts environmental examinations and environmental reviews. Unbelievably, it transfers environmental assessments from the Environmental Assessment Agency to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board. Now who could stand in the House and say that represents a positive move to protect the environment when the government is transferring assessments from the chickens to the foxes?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to drift away from Bill C-9 for just a moment to ask my colleague a question. He spoke of the social groups within his own province.

Recently I read a report about the despicable occupation of human trafficking. I found in my reading that his province and the social groups there have gone a long way in trying to alleviate the social cost in human trafficking of mostly women, by getting women out of the business and providing a safe haven for them. It seems in the House the debate is focused primarily on the penalties being given to those who traffic, which is a good thing and I supported the bill in relation to that. What would the member support for the federal government to get involved in providing a social safe haven for people who are victims of human trafficking in this country and around the world?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from the member. I would indeed like to get into that dialogue at some appropriate time, but really the matter before the House is Bill C-9, and I want to focus on that.

The government's own budget documents show that corporate tax cuts are the worst way to stimulate the economy. Page 281 of the Conservatives' own budget, which I have read, reveals that in 2010 every dollar spent on infrastructure grows the economy by $1.60. Every dollar spent on housing grows the economy by $1.50. Every dollar spent on low income households grows the economy by $1.70. However, every dollar spent on tax cuts for families only grows the economy by 90¢, and every dollar spent on corporate tax cuts grows the economy by a mere 20¢.

If we are talking about smart economics, what government would put forth a budget that is based on massive corporate tax cuts that we get 20¢ on the dollar return when we could get $1.70 return for every dollar spent by giving that money to low income households?

That is what I mean by the New Democrats proposing measures that are smart economics for the 21st century that will build an economy that works, that is green and that is fair. That can be done, but this budget does not do it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking about Bill C-9, which would implement various initiatives presented in the Conservative government's budget of March 4. Unfortunately, it is a budget that represents the government's own interests and the interests of its friends, the banks—which we have often discussed in the House—and, of course, the oil companies, all to the detriment of those who are often the poorest in our society. They have simply forgotten about supporting families and those who are so often in need after a period of recession and economic crisis such as the one we recently experienced.

This budget was very disappointing. Contrary to the Liberals, who also find this budget disappointing, the Bloc Québécois has stood up and voted against it because it goes against the needs of Quebeckers as well as Canadians with their numerous needs.

We will vote against this budget. The Conservative government continues to spare the rich, including the banks and major corporations. They want to make the middle class and working class pay off the operating deficit. They do not want to take profits from big banks or big oil. And then they justify it by saying that more jobs will be created for the unemployed if we give preferential treatment to the banks and big oil.

We have seen that the big banks do not necessarily create jobs. They move their capital to tax havens. We have seen it and we have the numbers to prove it. This budget does nothing about the problem of tax havens. It even allows some businesses that are not registered in Canada to avoid paying taxes in Canada when they do business. The government is protecting these people.

In term of tax loopholes, the government is still talking out of both sides of its mouth. On one hand, in its speeches and to the public, it is saying that it will target tax havens. On the other hand, it creates loopholes in the Income Tax Act allowing businesses not registered in Canada to avoid paying their fair share of taxes

This is doublespeak. There are two messages here. Rather than protecting the rich, the government should implement the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois. In doing so, it would free up additional funds to deal effectively with deficits, while distributing wealth more equitably for all Quebeckers and Canadians.

Why not ask an extra 2% from those who earn over $150,000, and an extra 3% from those who earn more than $250,000? The Bloc Québécois proposes that the budget include a surtax in this regard. This would allow the federal treasury to collect $4.8 billion annually. That is a lot of money, and this measure would not affect the poor in our society. Those who earn $150,000 have the means to pay and to support those who make less. They can support the unemployed and low-income seniors by improving the guaranteed income supplement. This is money that could be used to support the manufacturing and forestry sectors. We could do a lot with $4.8 billion, but the government prefers not to do it.

The government refuses to pick on the rich, those who have high incomes, and it also refuses to pick on the banks' outrageous profits. Instead, it goes after the poor in our society. The government makes them pay more taxes, while protecting those who hold the economic levers, under the pretext that this will generate wealth and create jobs.

Of course, this is not an approach that the Bloc Québécois supports. The Conservative government prefers to give generous deductions to oil companies and banks, while neglecting to support those who are in need.

In fact, this government wilfully refused to improve the employment insurance program. Fifty per cent of those who lose their job do not qualify for EI benefits. This is shameful. We are talking about people who contribute to the program. We know how much profits large corporations and banks make. Employees and employers pay into the EI system, but the government has taken close to $60 billion of these funds, over the past 10 or 15 years. It has taken this money from those who lose their job, and it has reduced access to EI for people who are in need. The government has taken that money and used it for various expenditures. Surely, that money must have helped reduce taxes for banks and make oil companies a little richer, because this is what the Conservative government has been doing for the past few years.

The Bloc Québécois has made suggestions. Some of my Bloc colleagues have presented proposals to improve the EI program. We introduced three bills. The waiting period is an issue on which I have worked very hard in my riding. I tabled a petition in the House signed by over 4,000 citizens, demanding that this unfair measure be abolished.

Not only does the government refuse to improve the employment insurance system, but it will not hesitate to dip into the EI fund, just like the Liberals before them. The waiting period must be eliminated. When someone loses their job, why should they lose another two weeks of income? Not only did they lose their job and see their income drop, but they are also penalized for two weeks. Will their landlord give them two weeks of free rent because they lost their job? Do they stop feeding their kids for two weeks when they lose their job? No, they still have expenses. Despite the staggering surpluses misappropriated from the employment insurance fund, the government still deprives these workers of an income for two weeks. It is shameful.

The Bloc Québécois introduced another bill, proposing another initiative. In our respective ridings, people who have been ill, people who have cancer for instance, come to our offices. They are entitled to only 15 weeks of employment insurance when they have a serious illness.

Once again, the Conservatives decided to put the burden of the deficit on the middle class and refused to ask for more from those who have more.

I would like to talk about Bill C-44 from the previous session, which would have amended the Canada Post Corporation Act. As part of the budget implementation, the government wants to privatize international mail. Yet that is Canada Post's cash cow. If we cut Canada Post's revenues, the repercussions will be felt in rural communities.

The Conservative government wants to privatize international mail, but this will mean lower revenues and then it will certainly have a hard time making the Canada Post Corporation make ends meet. That is why rural services are being cut.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague on the work that he has done on the EI file. He spoke earlier about the elimination of the waiting period and about reducing the amount of hours.

I wholeheartedly agree with one of the issues that he brought up and that is with respect to the 15 week benefit period for compassionate care and sick benefits. The government went ahead and extended the weeks of EI, but in this particular part of the EI fund people who desperately need compassionate care or sickness benefits cannot get any more than the 15 weeks, yet in some areas regular EI benefits go for much longer.

EI is also part of seasonal work in general, and I would like for the member to comment on how Bill C-9 lacks a vision or lacks any assessment of both the fishing and the forestry industry. I would like for him to comment specifically on what he would have liked to have seen in this budget for those two particular industries.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. He talked about fishers in his area. I know that many people in his riding rely on fisheries. In my riding, we have large numbers of seasonal forestry workers and tourism workers. Often, these workers are not eligible to EI.

The employment insurance system needs to be improve, so that these workers can be eligible. For example, the minimum eligibility requirement should be set at 360 hours of work, and the rate of benefits should be raised to 60% of earnings. The waiting period should also be eliminated. This is the kind of measures that support workers.

For the past several years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for an older workers assistance program. Regardless of who is in power, this House turned a deaf ear. These are measures to help our seasonal workers.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments on the budget. The budget does not provide for extending the benefit period for the unemployed. What is more, there is no additional funding for creating jobs. Nor is there anything to make access to employment insurance easier for women.

I know that my colleague has worked hard on this file. I too have introduced a bill on employment insurance. I would like him to say a few words about the difficulties our voters face when it comes to getting employment insurance and on what we had hoped to see in the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, my NDP colleague has raised an important issue. I remember that the issue of women was addressed here, in 2006, when the Conservatives came to power. They simply said that there was now equality between men and women. They therefore abolished Status of Women programs and a number of other programs to improve living conditions for women.

When there are cuts to employment insurance programs, they affect women in particular because men and women are still not equal socially and economically. In Quebec, there are a number of statistics to back this up. When there is nothing in a budget for social housing, that also affects women.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the budget. Part of that issue is about what it means when we talk about a Speech from the Throne. We talk about a budget and we talk about this whole sense of what it means to place action toward that. The budget is the piece of legislation that places action toward that.

What we have seen here, indeed, is a lack of that because it talks about jobs and prosperity, but what it does not do inside the budget is actually place action. It does not put the money into the programs that indeed we need across this country to ensure that we are actually going to see jobs and prosperity.

One of the things we have heard constantly from a great many of the economists who have talked about where this economy is going is about a jobless recovery. I know members opposite in the government will talk about increases in the GDP and all those lovely numbers that have constantly been set forth, but that does not translate into jobs for folks on main street.

What we are seeing across this land is stubbornly high unemployment. In fact, we are seeing people who are not covered by employment insurance anymore. As we saw in 2009, a great many people did not qualify for EI. What we now see is a whole group of people falling off EI, and we also see a huge number of people who are underemployed if not unemployed, but no longer registered because they no longer collect EI, so therefore they are not counted.

Indeed, with a national rate that might be 8%, when we add on those who are underemployed, who want to be employed full-time, when we look at folks who ultimately, at the end of the day, are not gainfully employed at this moment in time, who want to be but are not counted in the rate, that 8% might indeed be more like 12.6%, even closer to 13% or 14%.

When we talk about jobs and prosperity, especially for young people, what we see with the unemployment rate across this country for young people under the age of 25 is that it is exceeding 20%. This is not a transition of young people going from school to the work force. It is that young people just cannot find work.

In an area like mine, where we have the fourth oldest population base in this country, we see young people leaving because they do not find work in the communities that they want to stay in, where they have been raised by their families, where they have attachments to families, and where they actually want to stay and continue to grow that community.

We lose from both ends. We lose the young people. We lose those skills going forward to somewhere else, and then when they find out that it is not as good there either, quite often they find their way back, sometimes to mom and dad for that type of support because it is that bad.

I have heard colleagues talk in the House in the last couple of days about EI and what this budget does or does not do. My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst really set the tone today on the debate when it comes to EI and what happened. I know that fingers get pointed back and forth between the Conservatives and the Liberals about who spent the $57 billion. Let me not point the finger and just simply say it was spent. The issue now is that it needs to be put back. It is owed to those who contributed. It was a contribution from workers and their employers to cover workers in their greatest time of need, when they were unemployed. What needs to happen now is it should be re-established. The government owes that money and it should be put back. It was taken. It does not matter which stripe we want to suggest took it. It was taken and spent.

By the government's admission, the cupboards are bare. It is gone now. That is fine. That happens to all of us in family finances from time to time. The cupboard goes bare, but what we do is we work toward filling it again, and that is what the government should set as a course for itself.

The talk about why it disappeared is somewhere I do not necessarily want to go, but I want to talk about what could have been done if indeed it had not been spent willy-nilly. If it indeed had been spent in a constructive way, we would not need to see the number of private members' bills on EI reform that we have seen. I am not suggesting that they are not good private members' bills for reform. Indeed, they are.

The New Democrats, the Bloc and the Liberal Party have put forward a number of bills to enhance and change the system.

The problem is that this is a piecemeal fix. It is not a substitution for taking the overall plan and asking how we fix it. I heard my colleague from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor talking earlier about the EI piece when it comes to sickness benefits. If we had looked at the whole system, as a holistic approach, we could have fixed what is a reprehensible system where one is only allowed to be sick for 15 weeks. Tell that to the person who has contracted the illness. If people contract an illness that makes them sick for 30 weeks, they still only get paid for 15 weeks. Does that mean they are any less ill? Of course not. The system is skewed and needs to be fixed.

If either government had not spent the money, we could have fixed the system in its entirety, not one little bit at a time with a Band-aid here and a Band-aid there to try to stop the hemorrhaging.

I believe we have an opportunity with this budget to tell the government that the entire system needs to be fixed. The government has heard lots of good ideas. Time and time again I have seen the Prime Minister stand in his place and implore us on the other side of the aisle to give him our best ideas.

We have been giving him our best ideas, especially when it comes to EI reform. We have a myriad of private member's bills that talk about reforming the system and that, if taken in their totality, would fix the entire system, whether it be the sick benefits, the waiting time period, the hours or severance and vacation pay that were part of a bill I presented to this House but, unfortunately was defeated.

We could have fixed all of that system and had a system that works for Canadian workers in their greatest time of need, when they are unemployed. When they are unemployed they need the system to protect them, and that is why they paid for their insurance.

I will now move on to pensions. This budget gives us the opportunity to fix pensions, especially when it comes to CCAA. We can look at the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, which is a federal statute. I can give an example of what happened in my riding a number of years ago with workers at Atlas Steel in Welland. They received a registered letter at their home on a Friday evening telling them that Atlas Steel had gone into CCAA and that their pensions would be reduced by 50% as of Monday, not a year Monday but as of Monday, and that their benefits were expiring at midnight on Sunday. They had two days to get their house in order. They were losing their benefits and losing half of their pension. This was to a group of retired workers, not workers in the plant who knew they were going into bankruptcy and who were still working. This was to the workers who had been retired, many for a long time, who relied on that pension to survive. Their pensions disappeared.

What we need to do is protect pensions and this budget gives us that opportunity because there is some mention about what we do about unfunded liabilities and pensions, but it is not very clear. However, there are bills in this House that talk about how we should fix it. We can do that. The unfunded liabilities and pensions is a budget issue.

I have something to read to my colleagues, which I know my good friend from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor will like to hear. This statute comes from the AbitibiBowater workers in my riding in Thorold. They have come together to talk about what has happened to them under CCAA and what is going to happen. They say, “Faced with the prospects of such a reduction in our monthly pensions, we formed an association in mid-2009 to protect contractual rights to full pensions, as AbitibiBowater was searching for ways and means to restructure its operations and finance it to get out of court protection”.

They have come together as a community group of retired persons. These are not workers and plant management. These are retired workers who are saying that if they lose their pensions because of the CCAA at AbitibiBowater in Thorold it will have a huge impact on their community.

I believe my colleague from Windsor had said that before. What will happen is that these folks who are left in the community will have less money in their pockets to stay in their homes, pay their property taxes and feed themselves.

We not only had an obligation, we had the ability to fix it but we simply blinked and let it go away. I think that is a great injustice, not only to the workers at AbitibiBowater and at Atlas Steel in Welland but across our broader land where people are looking to us. They are telling us that the EI is in crisis and that their pensions are in crisis. They want to know what we are doing to ensure that during their most vulnerable time they will be protected.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. He has pegged my riding quite well.

The AbitibiBowater situation was, for him, as it was for me, an incredible eye-opener. I hope this House realizes that for people in the United States right now, credit protection for them is more beneficial than what we have here.

The member made a valid point about communities. It was not just the AbitibiBowater workers who as of last year were losing out on the value of their pension, which was down by 30% because of the economic downturn, but in the absence of the mill that closed down in Grand Falls--Windsor, these high salary jobs were eliminated, which means the pensions received by the former workers now comprise a major economic driver in the Exploits Valley region.

We keep forgetting that a better way of receiving remuneration once we are retired, a better pension is also a vanguard to economic development for some of these smaller communities. I do not think I am far-fetched by saying this.

What are some of the measures he is proposing to help these people who are suffering from deficient or unfunded liabilities in their pensions?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. I think his riding and mine are somewhat mirror images of each other, even though my riding is on the lake and the Welland Canal. His riding is a beautiful place because I have been there on vacation. It is a wonderful riding and a wonderful place to be. However, he is right about the impacts we have seen on those workers in his riding, in my riding and in other ridings across this land.

We had an opportunity and still have an opportunity in this House with the bill from the member from Hamilton which deals with how to fix it.

We have unanimously said in this House that we need to fix the pension system when it comes to the creditors and whatnot but we are not doing that. The government does not implement what it says is a good idea. It is not implementing what needs to be done. This is about the most vulnerable at a stage in their life where they need to be protected. It should not need not be repeated but I guess I need to do that. These are the folks who built this place and this country for us and now we are saying, ”You know what? Thanks for that, but that's a memory. See you later. Get on with it. We'll put you in a long-term care institution and then we'll be done with you”.

That is not what it should be. We owe them respect and dignity later in their life. We have an obligation to them to fix the system that they helped create which was supposed to allow them to go into retirement and enjoy their retirement years with some sense of respect and dignity that would get them into their later life. This is not a right that they think they should have. It is an obligation we have to them. They are simply asking us to please fix it. We owe them that fix and I think we ought to be doing that, not today but yesterday.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to what my colleague was saying. I agree with most of his comments but I would like his thoughts on something else.

The government is trying to ram the partial deregulation of Canada Post down our throats through this mini omnibus budget. The fact that this measure is now included in this budget implementation bill illustrates the somewhat hypocritical and devious nature of this Conservative government and its desire to completely deregulate the crown corporation. The Conservative government is obviously trying to fool the public by slipping this deregulation plan in with everything else in this 800-page budget implementation bill. It is an indirect way of making cuts by using this bill on the heels of Bill C-44 that was introduced in the House.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this because, as I have said so many times, cuts to Canada Post result in cuts to revenues and often the impact is felt in rural areas. Often there is reduced postal service for people living in rural areas. I would like to hear—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Welland has about 40 seconds to respond.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, a large component of my riding is rural and it relies on Canada Post.

The member is absolutely right. It is duplicitous in nature to put into the budget bill all of the additional pieces that we should be debating in the House. Whether we have decided to do or not do certain things when it comes to Canada Post and the other measures, this basically amounts to an omnibus bill, and, as my colleague who sits beside me said, of 880 pages. He is absolutely correct.

The House and Canadians deserve to have parliamentarians debate the issues of their needs across this land, not just the budget. The budget is what it is. We should debate it, move on and then we should be looking at all those aspects one at a time, bill by bill, ensuring we have the opportunity to debate it, make decisions about it and not have it all stuffed into one big book.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010. I brought in my own copy of Bill C-9. As you just heard, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who is doing excellent work, spoke about Canada Post. I am the Bloc Québécois critic on Canada Post. One of the major challenges in the past two years has been the remailer issue. Two bills were introduced by the Conservatives on this issue. The elections in 2006 and 2008 ensured that these bills never passed. When Parliament was prorogued most recently, another bill introduced by the Conservatives died on the order paper. I want to show how sneaky the government can get with a bill. As we have already heard, this bill has 880 pages, and the section that applies to Canada Post is summarized in a quarter of a paragraph. It is in part 15, which takes up seven lines out of 880 pages. It states:

Section 15 of the Canada Post Corporation Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The exclusive privilege referred to in subsection 14(1) does not apply to letters intended for delivery to an addressee outside Canada.

It is important to note how the Conservatives slipped this into the bill. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to the budget and will therefore oppose Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. But we will be doubly opposed to this bill because the Conservatives, who campaigned on a platform of transparency, are using the tried and true tricks Conservatives and Liberals have used for 140 years in this country, and by that I mean burying major reforms in a bill. This represents a significant change to Canada Post.

Why did the government previously introduce two bills that went nowhere? Because putting an end to Canada Post's exclusive privilege gives rise to a great deal of debate. Canada Post is the only service the Government of Canada provides for the public. The Government of Canada does not look after health, education or transportation, even though it tries to tell us that it invests a lot of money in these areas. These services are delivered by the municipality or the province, at least in Quebec.

The only hospital that belongs to the Government of Canada is the veterans hospital in Saint-Anne-de-Bellevue. Yet the Government of Quebec will likely take over running that hospital in the near future under a memorandum of understanding. So mail delivery is the only real service the Government of Canada provides for people.

For purely partisan reasons and obviously under pressure from lobbyists, the government is siding with a whole industry that has sprung up alongside Canada Post: the remailing industry. I am talking about companies that serve large businesses by collecting mail going outside Canada, even though collecting letter mail is an exclusive privilege of Canada Post. Canada Post has tolerated this, because there are businesses that turn all their international mail over to private companies because postage rates differ from country to country. In my riding, there are aeronautics and aerospace firms that have clients all over the world.

The problem is that the companies that offered this service, which was tolerated by Canada Post, decided that, as long as they were collecting mail going abroad, they would collect all the mail, handle all the mail, offer services, do home delivery and everything.

On account of Canada Post’s exclusive privilege, the burden of proof was on the private companies offering this service. They lost in the courts, and Canada Post obtained an injunction to have certain operations of its competitors who had procured this service stopped, because Canada Post had the exclusive privilege to collect lettermail.

Obviously, the remailer lobbyists have succeeded in convincing the Conservatives—and I would even say certain Liberals—that the service they are offering has to be maintained, even if they collect some mail for inside Canada. The remailers will try to revise their methods and focus on mail collected for outside Canada. The snag is that, in amending the law, it will now be up to Canada Post to prove that these companies are in non-compliance. How will it be possible to prove that, when a private company decides to collect a business's mail, it is not at the same time collecting mail destined for inside Canada? So the burden of proof is being reversed, and Canada Post has tallied this at $80 million in lost revenue. The president of Canada Post, Ms. Moya Greene, told us that the corporation was going to lose $80 million because of this.

This week Canada Post sent me some of its executives, who explained that Canada Post will be experiencing some difficulties in the years ahead and will have to cut back its services, modernize its operations and try to recover what it can. Tens of thousands of jobs will be lost at Canada Post over the next five to eight years because the corporation will have to recover some money. But a portion of the money to be recovered will include the $80 million that Canada Post is going to lose because the government has just allowed private companies to have a share of this market.

The fact that jobs will have to be cut means that services will be lost. What poses a problem is service in the regions. Every citizen, every taxpayer, has the right to have their mail delivered. Whether they live in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Notre-Dame-de-la-Paix or Lac-aux-Sables, whatever the municipality, everyone has the right to have their mail delivered. The reality is that this is being worked on now.

Canada Post tried to argue that there were safety concerns, that they had to be careful and that routes were dangerous and should be cut. Members of the Bloc Québécois took up the fight and put an end to this idea. The routes were maintained. Some safety studies were done, but ultimately the president just wanted to reduce and eliminate rural mail delivery. That is what she wanted. She wanted to concentrate the mail in boxes very close to village post offices.

I was told today that safety had cost Canada Post more than expected. That is for sure because our members were vigilant and managed to let everyone know that Canada Post was trying not to have to deliver the mail any more. The government evidently issued directives to Canada Post indicating that it should maintain this service. If we look closely, though, at the delivery protocol drawn up by the minister responsible for Canada Post, a lot of escape hatches have been included: if a postal worker becomes sick and Canada Post cannot replace him, it can close his post office, or if the post office is located on the premises of a private company and the contract cannot be renewed, the post office can be transferred. The purpose is to succeed some day in centralizing postal services in major cities.

Once again, in a bill that is 880 pages long, we see them introducing a part 15, just seven lines in length, that puts an end to Canada Post’s exclusive privileges. The Conservative members do not even realize the harm they are going to do to mail delivery, but they are not Conservatives for nothing. It is hard to hold it against them. As soon as they get up in the morning, the boss issues the orders. They cannot think for themselves. In actual fact, the government is trying once again to avoid discussion in committee. It did not table a separate bill. As a result, there will not be any discussions in committee about Canada Post, and all the towns and the citizens of Quebec will suffer the consequences.

The Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I wish to commend my colleague on an excellent speech. It would appear that the democratic debates in this House on bills to privatize international mail have had the Conservatives grow impatient.

Now, they have put before us a big, 800-page budgetary document, which is a hypocritical way of cutting services at Canada Post. Of course, there will be cuts at Canada Post, and these will have an impact on rural areas, like when the decision was made to redistribute postal boxes.

Does this mean that the Conservatives do not like democratic debate in the House? They sneak through their legislative proposal, as they have done numerous times in the past. I would like to hear my colleague on that.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. This is an underhanded way of proceeding. What is worse, the Conservatives are taking advantage of the Liberals' weakness. They know that the Liberals will do everything they can to ensure that this bill is passed. The Liberal members will be hiding behind the doors. Some of them will be absent or say that they are sick, others will remain seated. As a result, mail delivery services will be cut.

The Conservatives have seen the Liberals' weakness. They knew full well that if they had introduced a separate bill in committee, the Bloc Québécois would have stood its ground and done everything it could to ensure that the bill did not pass. We have already managed to keep this bill from being passed.

They are taking advantage of the Liberals' weakness. I cannot wait to see what they will do. How are they going to justify cuts to postal services? Will they hide or stay seated? We will see what the Liberals end up doing, but they will be going against their constituents' interests if they choose either of these courses of action.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has analysed this quite well. However, we are missing another big element. Where are the Conservative speakers? We have debated this 880 page implementation bill for three days now. As the member said, there are issues in the bill all cobbled together, such as the post office remailer, which have nothing to do with the budget, and nobody shows up to speak for the government. Therefore, we have a debate going on among the opposition parties. It is all about that. We cannot ask the government any questions because there is nobody to ask any questions of.

Several Bloc members have talked about the issue of tax havens. The government is obviously siding with the banks. The banks are making $15 billion at a time of recession when 880,000 people are unemployed. Bank presidents are making $10 million a year. When it became apparent that people were using tax havens, the $3 billion that have been sitting in tax havens, the government's answer was to offer a tax amnesty. When the information became public, because a bank employee sold records to the German government a couple of years ago, Canadians were running into Revenue Canada offices to take advantage of the amnesty to pay the taxes.

In other words, the message of the government is to take advantage of tax havens and all people have to do is pay—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I must give the hon. member time to respond.

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right about the Conservatives' reaction. When a government is sneaky enough to put an end to an exclusive privilege of Canada Post in an 880-page bill, it certainly does not want people to talk about it in committee, much less in the House of Commons.

The Conservatives will not want anyone to talk about this in the Standing Committee on Finance, which will be analyzing this budget. It will be interesting to watch what they do. This bill will mean less door-to-door mail delivery for people across Canada. The Conservatives certainly do not want us to talk about this in the House, and they do not want us to ask them any questions about it.

In Quebec, it is the people who will be penalized. In all the other provinces, once again, the people will be penalized by the federal government's budget measures. I am not even sure the Conservative members themselves read the bill.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak to the budget. I will shorten my speech as I need to be at another location. However, I want to touch on a couple of important points that are critical for the economy, also for social policy to evolve and to tackle some of the challenges of today.

One interesting thing about the budget is the series of new taxes in it, yet the conservatives claim that they are not. There is also a whole series of new types of policies that will undermine the strength of our country.

It was mentioned earlier about the new taxes on security to the airline industry. It is important, especially coming from my area in Windsor. The proposed new type of screening facilities came about because of a situation that eventually ended in Detroit. Someone overseas boarded a plane, with a one-way ticket, in the middle of winter with no winter gear. He was not seen as a threat even though the government of the United States knew about it. The father of the person phoned the U.S. government and told it that his son was not feeling right or had a problem. Despite all that, he went through the system, came across Canada and tried a terrorist activity in Detroit, Michigan. Thank God nothing happened and the people there were able to fix the problem. However, the screening equipment ordered for Canadian airports would not even stop that type of situation from occurring. There is no connection to this new expense. There was no debate or discussion about it. Now this new tax is being thrust upon the industry at a time where it is struggling.

This is the type of behaviour we see from the government, “It's my way or the highway”. We have seen this behaviour with one of the most critical issues to take place in Ontario and British Columbia, and that is the implementation of the HST. It is a creature of the finance minister. He has been discussing this issue for many years. It has been suggested that this came from rogue Liberals in other provinces, although they have been accomplices to it. However, it does not have to take place because federal legislation is required. Interestingly enough a federal bribe is required in billions of dollars to those provinces.

In this whole equation, Canadians will be taxed more. This shifting of the tax arrangement will punish the middle-class quite significantly. On top of that, the Conservative Party is borrowing those billions of dollars from taxpayers who will have to pay interest on it over the next number of years. I had the parliamentary research do an analysis of the borrowing costs over 10 years and estimations of what the tradition has been in those 10 years of paying it back. Until we go back into a surplus, we will pay for this borrowed money with a new tax on people. It is absolute insanity. The estimated cost from the Library of Parliament, depending on the circumstances, is maybe $7 billion to $9 billion, depending upon whether is paid back over 10 years and we get back into a surplus. That is what the government is doing. It is borrowing money and paying a premium on it, so Canadians are going to be taxed further. It is absolute, utter nonsense.

The Conservatives rammed this through Parliament, with the help of the Liberals. They wanted to ensure their cousins in those provinces would be able to get this cash payout, especially because of the circumstance they were in as well as the ideologies meet up quite well. This was rammed through with very little debate, discussion and no study.

The industry committee was one of the few that had any type of involvement whatsoever with this issue on a parliamentary level because we needed to have the tourism sector come in. The government did not even study the impacts of the HST implementation. We have a major tax policy change, no study on it and there are no qualifications or reparations if there are problems.

We heard significant testimony from the tourism industry. American visitation is down. The Canadian dollar is up. Ever since 9/11 and the increased security, there has been less travel for some sectors of the tourism industry. It is concerned with this tax. Since there was no study on the effects of it, we have a whole slew of new costs that will go into the system.

As well, it came when the government in previous budgets got rid of very beneficial programs like getting the GST back after visiting Canada. One could actually claim to get it back. It was an attractive way to be able to promote Canada. The government got rid of that and it expanded it.

When we look at the budget and its priorities, we see that it redistributes the wealth again. I want to touch briefly on the corporate tax cut, which is really important. It is significant because we are also getting rid of the fiscal capacity of the country.

I had a study commissioned by the research division of Parliament to look at the cost of corporate tax cuts and what they have meant to this country. It studied it from 2000 to 2007, the first wave. What it cost the coffers of the country is approximately $86 billion.

To get to the actual next level of corporate tax cut, reductions to 15% over the next year, the research division estimated the total cost to Canadians is $171 billion.

What is important to talk about is that we are borrowing money to do this. We are borrowing money from Canadians to provide a corporate tax cut.

When we talk to business people about it, they understand this and they get that this is wrong. The oil and gas companies, the insurance companies and the banks, all those companies right now that are gouging Canadians in the extreme are going to get a benefit, and our coffers are bare.

I want to conclude by saying that it is important that Canadians are supported during this process. That is why we had an NDP amendment on pensions, employment insurance and a series of things to redirect the money and put it back in the pockets of people.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I share my hon. friend's concerns about airports and access to travel for businesses and travellers in parts of Canada that are, let us say, outside the major metropolitan areas. With all due deference, the member probably thinks very highly of Windsor, but it is not Toronto, and Moncton is not Montreal, and Kelowna and Abbotsford are not Vancouver.

Therefore the budget hurts those mid- to smaller-size airports.

I want him to elaborate. In addition to the user fee, essentially, that is being tacked on to each individual traveller, I would like the member to comment on the deleterious effect, from page 292 of the bill, with respect to the cuts to CATSA in general and also the Canada Border Services Agency for international airports that have to have personnel to accept passengers returning home to Canada from charter flights. Many small and medium-size airports, from Mont Tremblant to Abbotsford to Charlottetown to Windsor, rely on these flights.

Many of these airports rely on passenger travel for survival. The Greater Moncton International Airport has more than 500,000 passengers a year, and these measures will hurt that airport because perhaps there will be one scanner for 500 passengers a day in a 20-minute or half-hour period.

That is going to really deter people from using airports like Moncton and Windsor. Perhaps the member could comment on those cuts.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a problem and the cut is significant.

I was actually on my municipal council when it assumed the airport, when it was devolved down to the city of Windsor after the town of Tecumseh turned away from the project.

The federal government walked away from many of these small airports that are very important for the region, economically as well as socially.

One of the things it had to do was augment service through cargo and passenger flights, as noted by the member. One of the services was tourism. We have Sunwing, for example, which will go into these smaller markets and be able to offer direct-destination flights, which is important because it brings in revenue for the airport and it also creates jobs and is so often like running a small or medium-size airport. It is almost like a Frankenstein type of operation, because we need to add parts and elements to make sure it is going to be sustainable.

Therefore it is very important that these airports are profitable. The cuts are going to put on more of a burden. The costs of customs, officials and the support system that are necessary for people coming home from these international flights are now going to be increased and passed on to the passenger. It is going to be very difficult for some of these operations to stay in place.

If the operations do not stay in place, then these airports have lost a source of revenue that is critical in the overall footprint of their operations and for the country to be successful, because we just cannot survive with one or two big airports.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. A very brief comment or question.

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

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the government is sending the wrong signals to the unemployed and the working people of this country when it takes a corporate tax rate and lowers it to 12%. When it has record bank profits of $15 billion and allows CEOs to make $10 million a year, that is not reality for average people.

An article in today's Globe and Mail talks about the Minister of Finance acting as an unpaid lobbyist for the banks. He is trying to get a good deal for the banks, negotiating with the G7 and the G20, who are trying to regulate the banks, bring in a new regulation scheme and put some restrictions on what these bank presidents can earn. Does the member agree with what the G7 and the G20 are trying to do?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, this relationship is ironic. The member summed up the situation quite well. I will not expand on that, but I do want to note that I was here during the years when John Manley tried to open up the Bank Act. The argument was that we needed to Americanize our banks, that they were too small to survive and their operations were antiquated and that we should open up the Bank Act and make it look like the American one.

The Liberals at the time were looking at it and they had their pals in the Conservative and the Alliance who were basically pushing for this as well. I will give the Bloc Québécois credit. It was a small band of New Democrats that stopped that. Ironically, I had banking officials in my office. They came in to lobby one day and I reminded them of those days. Check Hansard and read the history. They are now talking about how good they are, but it was only because they were stopped from themselves.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Etobicoke North, Agriculture; the hon. member for Don Valley East, Government Spending; the hon. member for Labrador, Aboriginal Affairs.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

This budget was very disappointing. That is one of the main reasons all opposition parties will vote against it.

Unfortunately, as usual, the Liberals will manipulate the vote to ensure that the government does not fall and that an election is not called. The government will continue going from bad to worse, in light of everything going on right now. With their outdated thinking, the Conservatives will continue governing in their own special way.

I could talk about what the bill, over 800 pages long, does contain, but instead I will talk about what is missing. The budget does not contain compensation for Quebec for post-secondary education. In 1994 and 1995, the Liberal government, under the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, cut post-secondary education transfers to balance the federal budget.

Once again, we saw the Liberal government's open-minded approach and the wonderful open federalism that all federalist parties have been practising in the House since the beginning of the Constitution. There is a serious lack of respect for provincial jurisdictions and the government refuses to give money back to the provinces so they can overcome the challenges they face. As a result, the provinces have been sinking deeper and deeper into debt for the past 20 years. All this so that the government can have it easy and enjoy surpluses and spend them on areas of provincial jurisdiction, particularly in Quebec. We have seen this on many issues, such as the sponsorship scandal, when we clearly saw the federal government manipulating things to promote and spout propaganda about its federalism.

Post-secondary education transfers were cut in 1994 and 1995, which created a fiscal imbalance of over $800 million for the Quebec nation. Because of that deficit, Quebec had to make some crucial, unpopular choices in order to be able to balance its education budget.

I find it extremely sad that the Conservative government has recognized the nation of Quebec, but has not allowed it to thrive. If you are going to recognize a nation you must give it the means to thrive mainly by promoting education and through massive investment. Young people need to be encouraged to get an education, do research and become better citizens in order for the nation to thrive. On one hand, the government recognizes the nation of Quebec, but on the other hand it is not giving that nation the means to thrive, educate itself and grow.

The government has created a deficit of more than $800 million since 1994-95. I find it extremely sad that the Conservative government has not tried to correct the problem that the Liberals created at the time. There is nothing in the budget to help the nation of Quebec in terms of education. There is nothing about giving us what we are owed. We did not steal that money. We gave it to the federal government in taxes.

What did the federal government do? It invested the money in areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction and we were not given the right to opt out with full compensation. The federal government invests in areas of its own interest and not in areas that are viable for the nation of Quebec.

The nation of Quebec has therefore had to make extremely difficult choices in its education budget. Again, the problem has been offloaded to someone else. Again, the nation of Quebec ends up empty handed and having to resolve major problems. There is absolutely no help coming from the federal government.

That is one of the reasons my colleague from Hochelaga introduced a bill in the House to limit the federal government's power to spend in areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. When it comes time to vote, we will see where the Liberals and Conservatives stand.

How can the Conservative members from Quebec tell the people of Quebec that they practice an open federalism and recognize the Quebec nation, and that they are helping the Quebec government with its dreams and ambitions, when the government is taking away everything of interest to Quebec and cannot even give back what it owes to Quebec?

I find that very sad. Once again, it proves that federalism is not a viable option for the Quebec nation. This is compelling evidence that Quebec sovereignty is and will always be the best alternative to federalism. What is even more unfortunate is that the Liberals will probably do the same thing as our Conservative colleagues and vote against the bill on spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction introduced by my colleague for Hochelaga.

The Liberals have shown on a number of occasions that they do not intend to stop federal spending. On the contrary, the government will put provinces into debt and cut transfer payments in order to present a positive balance sheet to the world. That is very unfortunate because our fellow citizens pay taxes and will be impoverished.

The Conservatives will probably vote against the bill by the member for Hochelaga even though it fulfils an election promise they made in 2006. Members will recall the campaign speech given by the Prime Minister when he came to Quebec to explain that not only would he recognize the Quebec nation, but that his open federalism was completely different than the dominating federalism of the Liberals.

That is more proof of the Conservative Party's deceit. It promises one thing and then, when the time comes to take action and to vote in the House, it does the exact opposite of what it promised.

I will be very interested in seeing how the Conservative members from Quebec can defend the Conservative Party and its open federalism when their Prime Minister, in this budget, has broken his own promises once again.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments on this bill. My question is regarding pensions and seniors. We have heard a lot of talk about seniors. We have heard that they do not have enough money for housing, food and medication.

The budget does not address the crisis facing the pension system. There is no agency to pick up orphaned pension plans. There is no extension for CPP or QPP benefits, and no increases to GIS payments. The government refuses to invest about $700 million every year to lift our seniors out of poverty. There is no protection in place for pensions when the employer goes bankrupt.

Can my colleague explain how the public will be affected by the government's inaction, when that government said that it would address money issues for retirees? What should the government do in its budget to benefit the public?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

My predecessor and friend, Raymond Gravel, former member for Repentigny, introduced a bill in this House with regard to the guaranteed income supplement. Unfortunately, this bill was defeated, mainly because the Conservatives voted against it. This bill asked for very little when you think about how much seniors, as taxpayers, have done for the Quebec nation as well as Canada. We asked for an additional $110 a month. Considering how much the federal government spends in certain areas, especially the astronomical amounts allotted for military spending, maybe we should have redirected some of this money to those who are most worthy of it, to those who built this country. That would have been much fairer.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to stick with the same topic here, which would be the pensions. I want the member to flesh out some of the ideas that he has about the increase in the GIS as one aspect of it.

What we forget is that back in the old days when the QPP and CPP were created in the mid-60s, as a wonderful piece of social legislation, Quebec played a huge role in the genesis of that particular program. It has progressed socially through some great policies, no matter what political stripe the government of the day was in the province of Quebec.

When the member talks about jurisdiction, what is he talking about? Is he talking about the federal government in Ottawa handing out money to be administered by the QPP within the province of Quebec alone, with complete jurisdiction over this?

Second, does the member believe that people should be allowed to voluntarily up their payments to CPP as a way of securing their pensions?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate the hon. member's question.

The issue of pensions is an international problem. Unfortunately, it is not exclusive to Canada. It has also arisen because of the predominant mentality of the time. First, life expectancy was much lower and pensions were funded accordingly. No one really thought that people would live to be so old and retire so young. The issue of age would create a serious change, but the problem lies in the fact that there is a shortage of money. This has been an astronomical actuarial problem. The way in which pension funds are managed will seriously need to be rethought.

I think it is a shame that instead of taking action, the Minister of Finance simply offloaded the problem onto the provinces and dithered. He was no longer sure what to do and finally he decided to launch consultations even though he has the means to take real action to help our seniors.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand here to speak as the member for Churchill, as a member of the New Democratic Party in this House, to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

While it is an honour to speak to it, this is fundamentally a document of ideas that is profoundly disappointing. Why is it disappointing? Because this is a budget, an implementation bill, and an agenda, that leaves Canadians behind.

As the MP for Churchill, this budget leaves my region behind. It leaves northerners who live in my region of Manitoba and all across the country behind, when it comes to the needs that they have expressed so clearly are important to them.

Take, for example, one of the greatest needs that we have, housing. There is nothing there. In the area of health, an area in which we face great challenges, whether it is the lack of medical professionals or the lack of services, while the government maintains the continued amount of transfers as there was last year, there is no investment in our health care system in a way that meets the demands people have.

More broadly, in terms of infrastructure for our regions, many of our communities are far away from each other and are looking to diversify their economies, looking to build linkages. This budget has nothing new. While some things were promised last year, there is no vision for rebuilding, for reinvesting, and for ultimately moving forward at a time of difficult economic recession.

Also, in terms of the industries that are integral to our region, this budget holds nothing. When it comes to forestry, not only is there no plan to support forestry communities, but we actually have measures in the budget implementation bill that further continue the suffering that communities such as The Pas, Manitoba or Opaskwayak Cree Nation experience in my region. Through this budget implementation bill we see the raising of export tariffs on softwood lumber products from my province by 10%, in addition to the pain felt as a result of the government selling off our lumber and refusing to stand for forestry communities.

More broadly, the budget implementation bill leaves Canadians behind across the board, in light of the experiences they have had over the last few years, more specifically in the last year. For Canadians who have lost their jobs, some of them in my region and regions all across the country, the budget does not hold the support they need. When we look at employment insurance that workers have paid in, week after week, year after year, and hold on to that for times of difficulty, we have a government that, instead of supporting the workers at the hardest time they are experiencing, instead of helping, is actually looking at emptying the employment insurance account and also increasing premiums over time.

When it comes to pensions, there are some references to pension measures, but we in the NDP have been proud to forward so many initiatives called on by the labour movement, called on by working people all across this country, and called on by seniors. Yet, this budget holds none of that. It does not propose to improve the retirement security that so many Canadians are looking for.

The budget also holds nothing for young people. While there are some measures in terms of summer jobs and certainly some charitable enterprises, the budget leaves young Canadians behind. What about job initiatives year round?

Young people who have been the first to lose their jobs and are struggling to find new ones during one of the most difficult economic times have been coming to me and sharing the challenge of trying to find proper employment, not just during the summer but year round. Many of them get stuck in minimum wage jobs, oftentimes even after they have graduated or invested years in post-secondary education. They are forced to look at jobs that do not remunerate them in a way that reflects the education they paid for and invested in. The budget has nothing when it comes to supporting young people entering the job market and finding sustainable work.

It also has nothing to support young people with the continued burden that a post-secondary education is proving to hold here in Canada. Tuition fees are increasing in almost every province in Canada, with the exception of a few. As a result, student debts are increasing at historic rates. I mentioned it before in this House, but we have the shameful number of $13 billion as the amount of money that students, former students and current students, now are faced with as they go into a very uncertain job market. This budget holds nothing to alleviate that stress.

This budget is also dangerous. It leaves Canadians behind because it takes away some of the supports that link us, that link our communities, that make us stronger. I reference two areas in particular.

One is that of privatization. The budget implementation bill talks about removing Canada Post's legal monopoly on outgoing international letters. Much has been said about protecting Canadian institutions. Canada Post is one of the institutions that Canadians are very proud of and would hope that our government would support. We are seeing that the government not only is not standing up for it but it is choosing to chip away pieces of it. It is selling off parts of it. The government is weakening an institution that allows us to communicate, an institution that is part of our identity as Canadians.

This budget also puts Canadians behind. It weakens Canada through deregulation. My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona has spoken with regard to the environmental regulations that are being done away with in this budget. As many Canadians hear more information about this, they are becoming increasingly disturbed by these measures that are found in budget, such as exempting federally funded projects from environmental assessments.

Further deregulation is proposed in the telecommunications area. We have heard from the CRTC and from others. There is great concern with respect to the government's agenda in this area.

What I and many others cannot understand is how the government proposes to move forward as a country while it sells off, deregulates and privatizes parts of our economy, parts of our identity that truly keep us together and that reflect who we are as Canadians and that reflect Canadian values.

Finally, I would like to note the way in which this budget forgets many people whom I have the honour of representing, and they would be first nations and Métis people.

This budget is a disgrace when it comes to aboriginal issues. Front and centre is the failure to commit funding to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. This area is a great passion of mine. I know first-hand what it means to the people in my region. I know what it means first-hand to the survivors, young people and people all across the board who live in northern Manitoba who depend on community-driven programming to help them heal from the trauma of residential schools.

I was in my riding last week and I heard not only from my constituents, but I also heard from people across Canada. They spoke of the hypocrisy of a government that apologized to residential school survivors, made them believe that a new page would be turned when it came to our history and yet, all it said was “sorry”. The programming that residential school survivors and their communities have called for has been cut.

While the current government with this budget is leaving Canadians behind, we in the NDP have hope. We have hope that our initiatives, whether they be on pensions, EI, the environment, housing, restoring funding for aboriginal organizations, are the initiatives that ought to be followed. Canadians are calling for these initiatives to be followed. In fact the majority of members in this House are calling for these initiatives to be followed. Because this is not something for us. This is for the benefit of all Canadians, the people we are here to represent.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for an excellent speech.

In the 1880s, John A. Macdonald and the Conservative Party had a dream of unifying the country by building a railway across the country. A similar type of dream exists in that a lot of people want to build an east-west power grid to move clean hydroelectric power across Canada, as opposed to just north and south, as is the case now.

The minister for democratic reform has been a leader on this issue, but he is not getting the support from the nine Conservative MPs from Manitoba nor the 14 Conservative MPs from Saskatchewan. The fact of the matter is that in the last three days, no Conservatives have been speaking to this budget. I am sure that the member for Portage—Lisgar would have liked to speak to this budget and talk about the east-west power grid. I am sure the member for Brandon—Souris would have liked to speak to this budget and talk about the east-west power grid. The member for Kildonan—St. Paul, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, the member for Winnipeg South, the member for Saint Boniface and the member for Selkirk—Interlake, I know all these members would have loved to get up and put on the record that they want their government to commit to building an east-west power grid.

I want them to start helping the minister for democratic reform because he is doing a good job. We have to work together as a federal government with the provincial governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan to make this dream a reality.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague and fellow Manitoban and call on our fellow Manitoba MPs to show some leadership and truly support what is not only a positive environmental strategy but a truly sustainable economic strategy, one that would plug in our province's hydroelectric power in such a great way.

Not only are we not seeing Manitoba MPs on the Conservative benches speak out, but in general, we are not seeing Conservative MPs speak out on the huge gaps that are in this budget and the way they are selling off our country, not just for Canadians today but for their children, for our future. I would be very interested to hear with what conscience they do that.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague just spoke with respect to the Conservatives not getting up and talking on this issue. I can understand why they do not want to get up. They are probably ashamed of the fact that they are only giving $3.25 a week as part of an increase in the child tax credit and they consider that to be a child care subsidy. That is a shame.

My colleague also spoke with respect to youth. I would like to ask my colleague to talk about the environment and what is in this bill, or more so, what is not in the bill, and how this will impact on the youth of this country, because they are our future.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the environmental piece in this budget, which is fundamentally one of the hidden poison pills, is in fact one of the most disturbing.

Our party has done a great deal to provide leadership through Bill C-311 and truly to guide the government into regaining some credibility when it comes to the environment. Unfortunately, we have not seen it do so. It was embarrassing that we went to Copenhagen in the way we did. Quite frankly, the state in which the rest of the world views Canada when it comes to the environment is embarrassing.

As a young Canadian and somebody who grew up in a school system that talked about the need for the next generation to care, become involved and be environmentally conscious, this is not the kind of Canada we would imagine. This is not the kind of Canada that most young Canadians view. By and large, it is young people who are increasingly very concerned about the environment. We have seen different displays of that concern. The Conservative government is letting down Canada's next generation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. I want to begin my remarks by commenting on the enormity of this bill. It is 872 pages long and has 24 different parts.

When one goes through the bill, whether one goes through the summary or starts looking at the bill in its totality, one can see immediately that the Conservative government has decided to use this bill as a cover for all kinds of very negative and bad public policy initiatives. We are certainly aware of that and this is one of the reasons it is very important that debate take place on Bill C-9.

I would add to the comments made by my colleagues that it is very ironic that Conservative members are choosing not to debate this bill, because it is simply enormous when one considers what is covered in it. We did hear the budget speech and we had the budget itself, but this budget implementation bill goes far beyond what was contained in the budget. It is using itself as a cover for all kinds of draconian measures. I will mention a couple.

Environmental assessment is a very important issue in terms of ensuring that the public interest is represented in dealing with environmental issues. Why is it in a budget implementation bill that the minister will now have all kinds of discretion to dictate the scope of environmental assessments of any of the projects to be reviewed? Why would it be that federally funded infrastructure projects can now be exempted from environmental assessment?

These are very serious questions which in and of themselves should be debated separately through legislation in a debate in the House, yet they have been slipped into Bill C-9, the budget implementation act. We are very concerned about that. We are very disturbed that the government is yet again using these kinds of means to try and slip important matters through the House.

The Conservatives did it a few years ago with Bill C-50, when they brought in all kinds of very substantive changes to the Citizenship and Immigration Act. They used a budget bill to do that. We see the same in this bill with Canada Post. We know that the Conservatives have tried to move a bill through the House which in effect would privatize aspects of Canada Post and affect the jobs and services that are provided by that crown corporation and federal agency.

We have held up that bill. We prevented it from coming forward. What is the response? Yet again, the Conservatives are trying to slip it through in the budget implementation bill. I am actually surprised that they did not try to include the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and sneak that one through, too, because we have been holding that one up.

I want to reserve the rest of my comments for issues pertaining to what I think are very serious in my community and how this budget implementation bill does not deal with them.

I represent the riding of Vancouver East. It is a wonderful riding, full of activists and great neighbourhoods, and yet right now in the city of Vancouver there is a crisis taking place. The seven Vancouver homeless emergency action team shelters are slated to close by April 30.

Those shelters have been providing a safe, warm, appropriate place for people to go where there is a laundry facility, food, good management and care for about 600 people a night. There was a lot of suspicion that these shelters were put up just for the Olympics. Hundreds of thousands of people were in our city for the Olympics. We were all aware that we had a serious homelessness and housing affordability crisis in our city. These shelters were opened and they have provided support to people. That has been very important. Now they are going to close.

In fact, there has been a very public conflict going on between the province of B.C. and the city of Vancouver as to what will happen with these shelters. What is remarkable to me is that the federal government has not said one word. There is nothing about the federal homelessness partnering strategy and that maybe it could provide some assistance with these shelters now slated to be closed and the fact that there will be hundreds of people out on the street. It is just so staggering to understand what is taking place.

We are dealing with issues in my community that are deeply systemic. This housing crisis has gone on for two decades. It started with the former Liberal government that eliminated all of the housing programs. My Bill C-304 would try to get the federal government back into housing by working with the provinces, municipalities, first nations and civil society.

This crisis is incredible to me. People are out on the street in our city right now and more people will be out on the street because these shelters are going to close down.

The annual homeless count that was done on March 23 showed that the number of homeless people in Vancouver had increased 12% from 2008 from 1,576 people to 1,762 people. Those are numbers but we also need to think about this in terms of individual people. We need to think about the impact on people's lives when they do not know where they will go each night, do not have access to proper food, do not have a decent income, do not have proper shelter assistance to keep out of the cold and wet weather and do not have access to laundry facilities. These figures are staggering.

The only good news, if there is any good news, is that 1,300 of those 1,700 homeless people were in shelters. In fact, the number of people in shelters has increased, which is good, but, as I said before, these shelters will be closing.

I have to question the government with this budget implementation bill that is nearly 900 pages long as to why there is nothing in the budget that will help the City of Vancouver deal with this crisis as it tries to cope with the costs. It costs the city about $7 million to keep these shelters open when the federal government could be doing that.

The City of Vancouver, like other municipalities, relies on the property tax base. It does the best it can in stretching every single dollar. It has gone more than its distance and more than its responsibility in ensuring that these shelters are operating. It did get some assistance from the provincial government but most of that is now coming to an end.

This raises a very stark contrast. On the one hand, we see a budget that continues with outrageous tax breaks to corporations in the billions of dollars, robbing the public purse of desperately needed revenue, and on the other hand, we see communities, like the Downtown Eastside and other communities across the country, where people are destitute on the street and do not know where they will go each night.

A budget is about disclosing the real priorities and the real objectives of a government. We have had so much emphasis and focus on crime bills and little boutique bills. We have had so much overemphasis on law enforcement and tough on crime measures that will solve every problem we have, but we have deeply systemic and complex social issues in the urban environment, whether it is a lack of funds for public transit, lack of funds for housing or lack of funds for child care. People are literally struggling each month to get by.

The plight of homeless people is quite shocking but it affects a broader segment of society too. I know lots of working folks where both parents are working and making minimum wage or maybe a bit more and they are struggling to keep up with exorbitant child care costs, even if they can get into child care.

In addressing Bill C-9, the budget implementation act, I want to put it right out there that this is an outrage and a shame in terms of what the government has not done to address some of these ongoing and deeply systemic issues in our country. The gap is growing between wealth and poverty. More Canadians are falling into an environment where they cannot make ends meet.

We saw a wonder film the other night Poor no More that was premiered here on Parliament Hill hosted by Mary Walsh that showed so well in a very articulate way what is taking place for the working poor. These are people who are working, many of whom are getting a minimum wage. It showed how people are struggling and are actually living below the poverty line.

This is a bad budget implementation bill because it does not deal with what needs to be dealt with in my community and other communities. I hope that we can convince other members of the House not to support it.

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

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that the Conservative government is using the budget implementation bill to exploit the Liberals' weakness by sneaking in things that have been debated in the House, such as Bill C-44, concerning Canada Post.

They are using the budget implementation bill and the Liberals' weakness to introduce the privatization of Canada Post's international mail services.

The member did not talk about this, but I would like to know what she thinks about the impact this measure, which targets Canada Post, would have on rural areas.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would agree. What on earth does the privatization and deregulation of Canada Post have to do with a budget bill? However, it is stuck right in the bill. Maybe the Conservatives were hoping that no one would notice, but it was pretty glaring that it was there and of course its impact will be enormous, particularly on smaller communities.

Many of us in the House, and I know our colleagues in the Bloc Québécois share this as well, that smaller and rural communities have suffered tremendously from cutbacks at Canada Post. It used to be that we had good service but now many of the postal outlets and offices have been removed. People have to rely on supermailboxes and so the service in rural Canada has seriously deteriorated.

I live in an urban environment so I am not so familiar with those changes, but I know my other colleagues have raised that in the House. The Conservatives are trying to use this Trojan Horse approach and move this about Canada Post through a budget bill. On those grounds alone we should be rejecting the bill and calling it for what it is. It is really fraudulent that they would try to do it in this way in a budget bill.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to change the channel a little and ask the hon. member, who I know has a very deep interest in the arts, about something on page 305 of this budget document where it talks about the cultural crown corporations. There are five lines in the entire budget about cultural crown corporations.

To paraphrase it, it says that all the cutting and slashing has already been done so we do not have to do anything more specific in terms of savings because everything is working out pretty good it seems with CBC, and the Canadian Council for the Arts, the National Film Board and Telefilm Canada. However, that is not what the stakeholders in those organizations tell me and that is not what listeners of regional radio and television programming of CBC say to me in the Maritimes.

I wonder what the situation is out west. With her broad experience with the arts and cultural crown corporations, what can she tell me about the devastation the government has visited upon CBC, NFB and Telefilm, et cetera?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, here again is a very good example of what is buried within the budget implement bill. The whole issue of the public broadcaster and funding for the arts. I know many of us are actually part of the arts caucus that reflects members from different parties, but we are very concerned about the state of arts and culture in Canada.

The member is right to point out that buried in this document there are a few lines that somehow say that we should not worry, that everything is okay, but the reality is that our public broadcaster, as well as our cultural institutions, have suffered enormously. We should know that an investment in the arts and culture and in artists is very beneficial to society as a whole in terms of not only cultural benefits, but also in economic benefits.

This idea that within the bill everything is okay for arts and culture is just another fraud that is being put through in this budget implementation bill.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we are on the verge of accepting what may be one of the great parliamentary travesties of the early 21st century. It relates to the comments just made by the previous speaker. If any one of us have looked through this bill, we will see that it is massive in cope. It is not just a budget implementation bill.

Normally in a budget implementation bill there will be a ways and means motion to implement, but it is amazing how few things were in the ways and means motion and how many things are in the budget bill itself.

I am going to bet everyone around here dollars to donuts that about a year from now, unless this is a serious legislative problem, the members on that side of the House will be debating something and they will look to this side of the House and say to the members, “You voted against that measure.”

How many measures will we be voting on in this budget? If we bundle all of the income tax measures into just one item and all of the GST-HST items into just one time that is two items, and I still count 27 separate pieces of legislative change.

I will just talk about me. I get one vote on 27 separate statutory amendments and policy changes. How does that allow me as a parliamentarian to consider, deliberate, debate and analyze what is in a bill that comes forward as a government confidence measure? How fair or appropriate is that?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River will have seven minutes when this debate resumes.

The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River has seven minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. When I was speaking yesterday, I felt that I had to bring to the attention of the House what, in my view, was almost an extraordinary package of measures contained in Bill C-9. It was the scope of the measures contained in the bill that struck me. It struck me so much that I feel that there is a procedural anomaly extant here, that the bill is too big, too wide, and harms the ability of the House, of members of the House, to deal with its components.

As I mentioned, and maybe other members have done this, it would probably take me five or ten minutes to go through all the components of the bill if I read each statute and just mentioned what the amendment was all about. There are 11 income tax amendments. There are eight GST-HST amendments. There are a couple of Customs and Excise Act amendments. And there are some 20 other statutes amended.

In order to bring in a budget implementation bill, normally there is a ways and means motion that precedes the introduction of the bill. That is normal. That gives the House a heads-up. In fact, the government must have a ways and means motion adopted before such a bill is introduced.

I would not have a problem, and I do not think anybody would have a problem, with a bill that reflected, give or take, what was in the ways and means motion. If the ways and means motion implementing the budget has 10 or 20 separate items and the budget implementation bill that follows deals with those 10 or 20 separate items, I do not think we could argue that the bill does not reflect the ways and means motion and the ways and means motion does not reflect the budget because there is a theme.

However, in this particular case, the bill goes way beyond both the ways and means motion and what I heard in this House in the budget. I think probably all of us were here to listen to the budget speech,. However, there are things in this bill which were not mentioned in the budget speech and there are other things which were not listed, mentioned, or itemized in the ways and means motion.

What this bill comes forward looking like is what we sometimes call an omnibus bill. It is an omnibus bill. At least that is what some would say at first blush. However, I must say that as I look at this bill, it is not even an omnibus bill.

So, what kind of a bill is it? I will try and tell members why it is not an omnibus bill. But what kind of a bill is it? It is not even on the list of types of bills. It contains so many measures it looks like the House may be in the process of accepting a bill which is not an omnibus bill but which has dozens or hundreds of separate statutory amendments because there does not appear to be a limit.

If we can put 30 or 40 statutory amendments in this bill, why could we not put 50 in another one? How about 100?

This is a little bit like the Texas senate. As I understand it, the Texas senate used to meet for about one week per year. What it did was take all of the legislation it had to deal with and put it into one bill. It had one bill that dealt with the dozens of pieces of legislation it wanted to deal with in the legislative body in Texas, U.S.A. It would meet for a week, debate for a week and pass the bill. Its members were out of town, gone, and it was done. That is how easy it is. Maybe we are heading in that direction. I hope we are not and I am still considering just what the procedural implications are, both at this point and later at committee and then report stages.

There is also another procedure the House has adopted over the years. It is not an omnibus bill issue; it is called the miscellaneous statutes amendment procedure. This is a procedure, which the House has accepted and used for many years, where a whole bunch of miscellaneous minor technical amendments to statutes, 10, 20, 30 statutes, are bundled. The Justice Department bundles them up, creates a bill, and the bill is put through the House. It is usually debated very quickly at second reading and then goes to the justice committee.

If at any point along the way there is objection to any one component of the bill, that component is dropped. Otherwise, the bill goes through and these dozens and dozens of miscellaneous technical amendments are made, passed and done. It is really easy. This is not a miscellaneous statutes amendment bill. This is a budget implementation bill. It is too big and wide.

It is so big and wide that in the 10 minutes we each have here to talk about this bill, we will not actually get a chance to address some of these components. This has serious implications for the way we do our business and there may be another opportunity for me to talk about that in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's arguments. An important aspect of this bill specifically affects rural areas. The government is trying to sneak in the privatization of Canada Post, as the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel would say. Losses for Canada Post as a result of this privatization are estimated at about $80 million, and rural areas would suffer the impact.

In my RCM and in other rural RCMs, post offices have been closed down. Canada Post has even limited accessibility and mail delivery in an attempt to further centralize post offices in certain areas. Seniors and people with reduced mobility have a hard time getting their mail.

I have a question for my colleague. Will the Liberals let this bill pass, or will they stand up and tell the Conservatives that they have had enough of privatization and that they want to maintain our post offices?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's remarks raise a very important issue. This bill contains financial measures and, like it or not, if the bill fails in the House, we are going to an election forthwith. We will not pass go or collect $200.

I do not know if the member is asking whether or not we are going to have an election now. But he is right, this bill contains measures dealing with changes to Canada Post Corporation. Believe it or not, this bill contains a provision dealing with the complete divestiture of AECL, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

In the past there have been separate bills dealing with the divestiture of Petro-Canada and Air Canada. They were separate bills and we debated a major policy issue, but no, in this bill it is buried. It could not help but be buried. When there are 30 tax and other measures in a bill, everything is buried.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is close to being the dean in Parliament. I will have to look at my remuneration package to figure out that $200 remark and will get my assistants to work on it, but I want to ask him a serious question about omnibus bills.

We do not use omnibus bills in Parliament in that name. However, in my short time here, which is about one-sixth of the time of the hon. member, I have seen various measures dealt with in one bill. I assume he is saying it is not against procedure to do same, but he would say that it is sneaky to do same and would not recommend it.

I know he is a learned author in these matters of parliamentary procedure, but is he saying it is sort of legal but semi-moral or is he saying it is all political and we have to sort of, as he would say, not pass go and not collect $200?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the $200 reference came from the game of Monopoly. It does not have much to do with what we are doing here today, I do not think.

An omnibus bill has a definition generally accepted by the House. The essential defence of an omnibus bill procedure is that the bill in question, although it may seem to create or amend many disparate statutes, in effect has one basic principle or purpose, which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes.

This bill does not have one principle or thing. It ties together many disparate bills. It is not intelligible or useful for parliamentary purposes. We each get one vote on some 30 different measures, many of which should be stand-alone measures so that we can represent our constituents in dealing with those legislative measures and policy issues. Each of them is arguably quite distinct.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.