Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2009

Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus)

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I regret to have to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak today to Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures. When we are talking about Bill C-51, I want to talk about a couple of the points that are covered under this particular piece of legislation.

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

When we come to the CBC, of course we know that New Democrats have been calling for some changes to the loan provisions for the CBC. I want to go back to a question that was raised in the House by the member for Timmins—James Bay. Within the context of his question, he said:

Mr. Speaker, we are now seeing crippling losses at CBC in Windsor, Sudbury and Thunder Bay. While we are talking about pink slips, he should be giving them to the Conservative MPs from Quebec who will pay for his decision to blow 260 jobs yesterday in Montreal alone. These job losses were completely avoidable. All it required was his signature so that they could get a bank loan or bridge financing, and it would not have cost the taxpayer a cent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

You can't even say that with a straight face.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is heckling on the other side.

--shifts the tax from businesses to the consumers.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, order. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration wishes to ask questions, I would be happy to recognize him when the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan's last minute for her remarks has expired.

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

Thank you for that intervention, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, the harmonized sales tax will hurt businesses. It will hurt hard-working families in our communities. I call on the government to remove its inducement to have provinces implement that.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not mean to cause you the grief of having to rise from the chair, but it was my response only because of the incredulous words I was hearing from the member. I certainly appreciate the eloquent way in which she presented her facts, but those facts are completely untrue, as she knows.

There is no other government that has worked harder with the economic development statement that we designed. Implementation began in January of this year. Work has gone into it, and 90% of it has been implemented already or is in the process of being implemented. There are 4,000 of 7,500 projects announced by this government that either have a shovel in the ground, are in process, or are nearing completion.

I would like the hon. member to clarify. In her own riding I am sure she has projects under way as we speak. I would ask her to clarify that jobs have not been lost, but jobs have been created. That work is under way. It is true. This government has done more to stimulate this economy than has any of the other G7 nations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in this bill is a provision with respect to a change in the Canada pension plan. As the Canada pension plan is presently constituted, if people take their pensions early, there is a 0.5% discount per month for every month the pension is taken early. Similarly, if people take it after 65, there is a bonus, so to speak, of 0.5%.

This bill proposes that the numbers be changed, that if people take the pension early, instead of the discount being 0.5%, it would be 0.6%. People could take their pensions somewhere in the order of five years early, which is 60 months, which would represent a fairly significant cut in people's pensions. Similarly, if people take it after age 65, instead of getting a 0.5% bonus, they would get a 0.7% bonus.

I am wondering how the hon. member feels about that, with the provinces and the federal government apparently having negotiated all of this. If people are in need of their pensions early, there is going to be a bigger discount and if they want to postpone collecting their pensions, there is going to be a bigger bonus. I would be interested in knowing how she feels about that particular provision in this bill.

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

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

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

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

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, on the topic of the home renovation tax credit, last month I had the opportunity to travel through Nova Scotia. I saw a rather large sign outside a hot tub emporium, which said that hot tubs are available under the home renovation tax credit. If people buy hot tubs and install them in their homes, they will get the home renovation tax credit.

Hot tubs, along with other things, actually increase energy use in people's homes. They are a great example of how a policy should have direction. Governments are there to provide direction. They are not there simply to enable more consumerism, but to assist Canadians in making good choices.

What we see here is a tax credit ostensibly needed to stimulate the economy this year, but in years to come the idea is obviously not good. We need to have a new direction for a tax credit. Does the member not agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a valid comment in that tax policy does shape behaviour in any country. The member correctly identified that there were no green guidelines attached to the home renovation tax credit.

There are many members in this House who did not support the Kyoto protocol. Canada is falling behind in its obligations to meet Kyoto. Kyoto in itself did not set the limits high enough for Canada to contribute meaningfully.

The New Democrats have put forward a climate change accountability bill, Bill C-311. It sets out some meaningful targets. We developed that bill with other environmental partners.

The member is absolutely correct that we need to have some green filters on things like the home renovation tax credit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a follow-up question on the response by the hon. member during which she read a note and then she said it is time to take a step back and review CPP and OAS.

I would respectfully suggest that maybe this is the time. We are not going to postpone this forever. Maybe this is the time that we come to ground on whether we are comfortable with reducing pensions for people who have to take their pensions early and increasing the benefit of pensions for people who do not have to take pensions until after the age of 65.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member that it is time for a comprehensive review of CPP and OAS. In fact, in June, the New Democrats proposed that very thing in a motion in the House of Commons and it was passed unanimously.

Typically in this House we do things piecemeal. We tinker with things at the margins. Instead of doing the kind of work we should to ensure that the Canada pension plan and old age security provide a dignified retirement income for seniors who have worked hard all their lives, we do exactly as the member suggested, we look at 0.5% here and something else there. We need to take that overall look to ensure that seniors do have that income.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present at the second reading of Canada's economic recovery act, an act that would implement key parts from budget 2009, Canada's economic action plan and other important initiatives.

Earlier this year, we were in the midst of an unprecedented economic uncertainty, both here and, more intensely, abroad. As the President of the United States soberly noted in January, “all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression,”.

A little over eight months later, nearly everyone would concede that because of our economic action plan and our work with our international partners, great progress has been made in combatting this unprecedented global recession here in Canada and around the world.

However, while the Canadian and global economies are entering a period of fragile and tentative economic recovery, there is more to be done. Now, more than ever, our government must stay focused. We must stay on course.

As the G20 leaders declared in their recent joint statement:

A sense of normalcy should not lead to complacency.

The process of recovery and repair remains incomplete. ... We cannot rest until the global economy is restored to full health, and hard-working families the world over can find decent jobs.

While the Liberal opposition is playing political games and is obsessed with forcing yet another election, our government recognizes that Canadians expect more of their elected representatives, especially now. That is why we are focusing on the economy. That is why we are bringing forward legislation like the economic recovery act, legislation that would help to promote the economic stability needed for a sustained recovery and legislation that Parliament should support.

We have been clear that our Conservative government is ready to do whatever is necessary during these tough times to protect Canadians. That is why we introduced the economic action plan, a plan that will provide the largest fiscal stimulus boost in the G7 as a percentage of our economy and among the largest in the G20.

Our plan is helping to ensure that Canada handles the fallout as well as any country. Our plan is building our economy, maintaining and creating jobs, lowering taxes and much more. Our plan is working, keeping Canada in among the strongest economic positions in the world. It is not only our government saying it. Non-partisan, independent and well-respected global institutions are also saying it.

These institutions include the IMF, which, in its recent fall World Economic Outlook, proclaimed, “Not only will Canada experience one of the smallest drops in all of the G7 in 2009, Canada will be the fastest growing economy among G7 countries in 2010”.

The OECD praised our plan declaring:

Canada's fiscal stimulus package should have a relatively large effect in stemming job losses. ...because the size of the fiscal package was reasonably large....

The economic recovery act is an extension of this plan, as it includes many of its key provisions as well as many other important measures. Among the key provisions legislated through the economic recovery act is the home renovation tax credit, which a recent Globe and Mail editorial called “one of the more successful of the government's stimulus measures, helping create demand for services and supplies”.

Through this temporary tax credit, we are providing an estimated 4.6 million Canadian families with up to $1,350 dollars in tax relief on eligible renovation projects undertaken before 2010. The home renovation tax credit's popularity is driven by its effectiveness as everyone from the home renovation and construction industry, to retailers, home hardware stores and lumber producers, to manufacturers, suppliers, carpenters and roofers are benefiting as a result, helping protect and create jobs and helping fuel the economic recovery.

Canadians from all regions are seeing first-hand that the home renovation tax credit is working. I would like to take a moment to share with the House a small sample of the feedback we are hearing and what this has meant for communities and businesses across our country. Hopefully Liberal members who voted against the home renovation tax credit will listen to these words and reconsider their opposition shown toward the economic recovery act.

In British Columbia, listen to a recent Richmond Review column:

Spend a few minutes marching up and down the aisles of Home Depot, and you'll notice it's not easy.

Customers have been clogging the store, pushing around orange shopping carts as they pick up everything from hot water boilers to light fixtures to new tools to air conditioners and sheets of plywood, and renting equipment for do-it-yourself home renovation projects.

It's a sign the economy is recovering.

Peter Simpson, chief executive officer of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders' Association, said there's no question that the federal government home improvement tax credit has been a huge success.

Simpson said that the home renovation industry has been booming of late....

The good news has spilled over from big box retailers like RONA and Revy to shopping malls, were consumers are purchasing accessories like towels, curtains and furniture as a facelift to their homes.

Listen to what we have heard from retailers, industry associations and economists, retailers who employ thousands across Canada.

Home Hardware has heralded the credit, noting:

What we are hearing from our dealers right across the country is that people are definitely taking advantage of this opportunity to invest in their homes.

Home Depot Canada remarked:

Since the HRTC was announced, we have seen an increase in interest from our customers, specifically in regards to smaller home improvement projects.

Indeed, as CIBC World Markets economist, Krishen Rangasamy, observed, the home renovation tax credit is having a measurable positive impact on retail sales, noting:

That [credit] definitely is having an effect. Since this home renovation tax relief became available, you've seen sales in that particular category increase....

What about industry associations? Listen to the Building, Industry and Land Development Association. They have also applauded the home renovation credit, pronouncing:

There's no question that the renovation tax credit has been the most effective stimulus spending initiative the federal government brought forward last January. The tax credit is spurring economic activity while helping to combat the underground economy....

I am hopeful that our Liberal colleagues listened to that small sampling of words of those Canadians in support of this important tax credit. Words they have likely heard time and time again from their own constituents in the past months. I hope my Liberal colleagues will listen to what it has done to fuel our economy and reconsider their decision to vote against it and against the economic recovery act.

If not the home renovation tax credit, what about other measures in this important bill they would be voting against? What about the first-time homebuyers tax credit? This credit would provide up to $750 in tax relief to help first-time homebuyers with the costs associated with the purchase of a first home, a move announced in our economic action plan that the Canadian Home Builders' Association welcomed as it would help employment and give Canadians greater confidence in their economic prospects, remarking, “the first-time buyers tax credit is a practical measure that will help first-time buyers with their closing costs”.

A move that is getting results as demonstrated in the continuing strength in existing home sales, sales that largely reflect the entrance of first-time homebuyers into the market, spurred on by the first-time homebuyers tax credit as well as another important aspect of our economic action plan. Specifically, an increase to $25,000 in the amount first-time homebuyers can withdraw from their RRSPs to purchase or build a home. This was the first increase in this limit since 1992. Taken together, as previously mentioned, these measures are getting results.

The following is a National Post article from April. It reads:

Rock-bottom interest rates combined with some relief from Ottawa to pull the housing market out of its tailspin, industry experts said Wednesday....

“Interest rates and government stimulus are what's helping right now” said Ron Lawby, president of Century 21 Canada LP.

Specifically, two measures introduced within the federal budget's stimulus plans are bringing buyers around; an increase in the allowable withdrawal from registered savings plans for first-time buyers to $25,000 from $20,000; and a tax credit of $5,000 home buyers may count against their incomes.

“It really is first-time buyers," Mr. Lawby said.

Or more recently—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member still has time in her speech but it is 1:30, so she will need to conclude the second half of her speech the next time this bill is before the House.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Criminal Code

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

moved that Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I first introduced a private member's bill on the right to die with dignity in June 2005, because I felt confident that Quebeckers and Canadians needed Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to recognize that every person, subject to certain specific conditions, had the right to an end of life that is consistent with the values of dignity and freedom they have always espoused and so that an individual's wish regarding his or her death would be respected. In fact, I introduced this bill so that people would have a choice, the same right to choose that people in other countries have.

My conviction has grown stronger, and that is why I am introducing an amended bill on the right to die with dignity, Bill C-384. Briefly, it amends the Criminal code so that a medical practitioner does not commit homicide just by helping a person to die with dignity if—I am coming to the conditions—the person is at least 18 years of age, continues to experience severe physical or mental pain without any prospect of relief or suffers from a terminal illness. The person must have provided a medical practitioner with two written requests more than 10 days apart expressly stating the person's free and informed consent to opt to die.

The medical practitioner must have requested and received written confirmation of the diagnosis from another medical practitioner. The other practitioner must be independent and have no personal interest in the death of the person. The medical practitioner must have no reasonable grounds—this is important—to believe that the person's written requests were made under duress or while the person was not lucid. The practitioner must have informed the person of the consequences of his or her requests and of the alternatives available to him or her and must act in the manner indicated by the person, it being understood that the person may, at any time, revoke the requests made under subparagraph (a)(iii) of clause 2 of the bill.

The patient is free to change his mind. The doctor must constantly remind him of that. If he does not change his mind, the doctor must submit a copy of the confirmation referred to in subparagraph (i) to the coroner.

Mr. Speaker, would you please let me know when I have two minutes left?

As we all know, the right to receive medical assistance to die exists in other countries. The Netherlands was the first to make it a right. In that country, before the law existed, doctors who helped patients die were tolerated by the legal system, as long as they complied with medical directives from the country's equivalent of a college of physicians and surgeons. Then the law was changed to reflect what people had been thinking about and doing for all that time.

In the Netherlands, euthanasia is when a doctor, acting on behalf of a patient and in accordance with the patient's strict instructions, deliberately puts an end to the patient's life. I want to emphasize that, in the Netherlands, palliative care is excellent and euthanasia is one of the care options.

Belgium also passed a law after senators from different parties worked together to hold nationwide consultations and agree on a piece of legislation in which euthanasia is defined as an action by a party intentionally ending the life of a person at that person's request. The law has been in place for six years, and there is oversight in place as well. This year, there was a report on the application of the law. For those who fear that permitting people at the end of their lives to choose how they wish to die might result in a huge number of people seeking help to die, the incidence over the past six years in Belgium has been 4 per 1,000. I repeat: 4 per 1,000 deaths.

In Quebec, the debate is ongoing. The Collège des médecins has asked its ethics committee to consider the matter of euthanasia. After three years of study, the committee should soon be making recommendations. As Dr. Yves Robert, the college's secretary, told L'Actualité médicale,

Doctors do not want to abdicate their responsibilities when it comes to euthanasia, but we must determine the scope of those responsibilities and how they are to be carried out.

At its annual meeting on April 16 and 17, 2009, the Association des soins palliatifs broached the topic with a presentation by Dr. Yvon Beauchamp, who began his introduction with the following:

I have found that over the years in Canada, palliative care has been championed as the anti-euthanasia and the universal alternative to an act punishable under the laws of God, the laws of man and the laws of the college of physicians.

He added:

There are people who believe that “increased development of palliative care means there is no longer a need for suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.”

I could go on. On August 11, 2009, an Angus Reid survey of 804 adults in Quebec was published with the title, Strong Support in Quebec for Legalizing Euthanasia. The subtitle read, “Most Quebecers believe that laws governing euthanasia should be provincial responsibility.” The survey showed the following figures: 77% of Quebeckers believe euthanasia should be allowed, and 75% think it is a good idea to re-open the debate on euthanasia. On August 22, the Association féminine d'éducation et d'affaires sociales, the AFEAS, well-known in all ridings of Quebec, voted in favour of euthanasia at its convention. Members of the AFEAS took the position that Quebeckers should be allowed to die with dignity.

Palliative care and assisted suicide are not mutually exclusive; they complement each other. I am saying this right off the bat, because I know that I will hear that argument. How many times have I heard, “As long as some people do not have access to palliative care, we cannot consider medical assistance in dying”? Why? That has nothing to do with the issue. Everyone needs access to quality palliative care.

It should also be known that palliative care does not relieve all pain and especially not all the suffering that comes with the end of life, aging and the difficulty of a lengthy hospital stay.

I will read from a text by Dr. Boisvert, a long-time palliative care doctor at the Royal Victoria Hospital:

Caregivers, whose own health is relative, are not equipped to experience the throes of progressive decline (a teaspoon at a time, wrote one patient); the indignity of urinary or fecal (rectal, or worse, vaginal) incontinence—we do not often hear that in Parliament; of constant breathlessness; the throbbing acute pain caused by a collapsing cancerous vertebra, causing the patient to cry out at the slightest movement; the gauntness and extreme weakness that result in total dependence, even for the simplest things such as turning over in bed just slightly or lifting half a glass of water to one's parched lips.

Dr. Boisvert continued:

That is why I do not subscribe to the idea that people should find the strength to suffer to the end or the idea that people should be so compassionate as to suffer with their loved one, when it is the loved one that is truly suffering.

I would add that I do not understand why people prefer to wash their hands of this suffering that cannot be relieved, that can only be relieved by death, because the time that passes is a kind of torture. Do we here have the right not to hear or think about it? Again, palliative care cannot end all pain and suffering.

My colleagues may have received the document from five doctors who oppose my bill. They may have the support of a hundred or so others. What do they have to say? I read this document carefully and it acknowledges that palliative care cannot relieve all pain and suffering and certainly not the suffering described by Dr. Boisvert. Then why are they against my bill?

They say, “These people have to be heard and helped as much as possible, but their request remains absolutely unacceptable to us”.

Why? To me there is a disconnect here. Their position is unacceptable, especially when they admit:

The line between palliation and euthanasia may seem tenuous to some, since the distinction between them lies in the intention of the act and not in what it involves.

They wrote that because palliative care also uses what is known as terminal sedation, which plunges patients into a coma when their suffering cannot otherwise be eased. In such a coma, they cannot eat or drink, but they are still alive and, in the end, they die of lethal complications. This can take a short while or a very long time, and this terminal sedation basically amounts to an act of euthanasia. They claim it is not the same thing. Even the Catholic church says that when any action is taken that has a double effect, such as the positive effect of easing the suffering, and the negative effect, which leads to death, one is not responsible for the negative effect, because it was the positive effect that was sought. This was one of the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

When we consider that, not as followers of any religion, but as people who are responsible for the well being of our citizens, do we have the right to refuse to look at all the possibilities?

I would like to see the broadest possible committee hear from as many citizens as possible in order to be able to provide end of life medical assistance to people who are suffering greatly, who can no longer endure the suffering and want to end their lives. We should help them die with dignity.

I await your comments and hope to have your support, not for me, but for the people we may one day become. The lottery of death offers no guarantees.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, there were so many failures of logic, and so much misinformation and misguided information there that I hardly know where to start, and I only have a minute or so.

I would like to make the point that we need to understand that allowing people to die is a far cry from causing their death. That is one of the things that the member opposite seems to have completely misunderstood.

She made a number of comments and I would like to mention a couple of them.

She said that according to her bill, physicians are required to provide information and alternatives. The problem with that is that these physicians are basically always advocates, and we have seen in other countries that this does not work. This would not provide the necessary safeguards for patients. It would not protect patients and it would not protect Canadians.

She talked about the fact that choice exists in other countries. While that is true, many of those countries have developed death tourism, so that people go there to die. That is not in line with what we want either the heritage or the future of this country to be about.

It is ironic that she claims that an association for palliative care champions euthanasia. Is this not a complete twisting of the commitment that so many palliative care providers across this country believe in? They believe they are doing good work. They do not believe in euthanasia. Is the member not twisting this in a way that they would abhor?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I read in Dr. Boisvert's writings that, in the course of the debate, whether one was for or against euthanasia, there were interventions such as these.

Nevertheless, we must ask what is good for the patients. That is the question. It is not about what we personally want. It is about determining whether or not we should, by changing the Criminal Code, allow doctors who so wish—only those who wish to do so—to medically end the life of someone who wants to die, who has made that choice, who is at the end of life and who is suffering. That is the only question. We are trying to help and that is what the College of Physicians and Surgeons, AFEAS and others are trying to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult subject. The end of life is difficult for us all.

The essential core of this legislation is that it would engage society in the ending of a life. It would engage the doctor and it would engage us as a society.

I will give a small but imperfect analogy.

Many years ago our Canadian society decided that we would not have capital punishment. We had found over time that in capital crimes our justice system had made mistakes. We have one of the best justice systems in the world but we make mistakes. Had we had capital punishment in this society, Mr. Marshall would have been executed. Mr. Milgaard would have been executed, and a number of other people would have been executed.

It does not much matter what systems the hon. member proposes in her bill, mistakes will be made. It is inevitable. People's lives will be ended prematurely and they will be ended without full and informed consent. Inevitably, we as a society will bear that shame and that guilt.

I would request that the hon. member respond to the inevitable, the absolute certainty that errors will be made and that therefore she and I and all the rest of us will bear that guilt.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I studied the Belgian report. I could make a copy available. Because of the way it was drafted and applied, the Belgian legislation makes it clear that the persons who have asked to die and who have been helped to die were truly at the end of their lives, suffered terribly and could not have been helped by other means—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I would ask my colleagues to please listen.

Could a mistake be made? Could the life of someone who did not truly wish to die be brought to an end? The person is asked the question repeatedly and there is not one doctor who would want to help someone die if they did not want to. However, if we consider—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works now has the floor.