Debates of Feb. 27th, 2009

Budget Implementation Act, 2009

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

Just because one has been a Liberal for many years does not necessarily mean that one is not highly intelligent, which Mr. Donolo is.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to rise in this House this afternoon to speak with my colleagues about Bill C-10 and, more specifically, the Group No. 1 amendments put forward by the Bloc Québécois. First of all, we would like to see clause 6 deleted as it permits the use of tax havens.

In a situation as critical as the one we are facing today, it is important to focus government intervention on the poorest among us, the people who truly need a helping hand in the economic sectors that are flagging and urgently in need of financial aid to make it through the current situation. Take, for instance, the forestry sector. These workers and businesses have been trying to make ends meet, trying to get on stable financial footing, for four years now.

As well, the Conservatives are not helping those who are newly unemployed. The Bloc Québécois proposed a simple measure to eliminate the two week waiting period for people who fall victim to unemployment so that they can immediately benefit from government support, a support system which they paid into when they were working.

Yesterday, here in this House, my colleague from Laval wanted to hold a debate on the status of women. In her speech, she said that eliminating the two-week waiting period could help many women. Yesterday, the new Liberal-Conservative alliance prevented that debate from taking place. I say “new alliance”, but as everyone knows and the Bloc Québécois has always said, Liberals and Conservatives are cut from the same cloth. We can really see this as we debate the budget. The Liberals decided to support the budget, without reading it, I imagine. Now, there is some criticism coming from the Liberal benches, but the damage is done. They decided to support this budget blindly.

It is clear that the Liberals and the Conservatives do not want to tackle the problems head-on and put in place all these measures to benefit unemployed workers and industries hard hit by the economic crisis. Instead, the finance minister is keeping all the systems that allow companies to use tax havens, depriving government coffers of tax money that would have come in handy at this time of crisis.

The minister is clearly trying to benefit his friends at the expense of our local businesses. Those friends are companies that benefit from this financial assistance and these tax havens. He wants to benefit people who likely asked him to. I will come back to that later. Members will be surprised to learn who was on the expert panel in charge of justifying this about-face by the minister.

I say “about-face”, because in his 2007 budget, the minister had said that everyone should pay their fair share of tax. Every time an individual or a company does not pay applicable tax, other taxpayers have to pony up. It is therefore clear that he had to come up with an excellent alibi to go back on what he had so rightly said in 2007. So he set up an advisory panel to review Canada's international tax system. Four of the people on the panel were from the private sector, including a former CEO of Scotiabank.

Need we say more? Scotiabank is the Canadian bank with the most branches in tax havens. If that is not a conflict of interest, it is definitely an apparent conflict of interest. As I was saying earlier, I find it at the very least peculiar that in this time of crisis, businesses are still being encouraged to use these strategies to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. We know very well that, especially now, any money that can be added to the federal coffers will be very important to support those who are most vulnerable in our society.

As a final point, I would like to talk about the older workers who are losing their jobs right now. How long have we been calling for a program for older worker adjustment? These people have worked their entire lives and cannot be retrained within a few years of their retirement. They have an urgent need for immediate help from the government through the insurance they have been paying into their entire working lives.

We would like another set of provisions to be eliminated: clauses 295 to 299. These clauses deal with the establishment of a single securities commission. At this point, it is unfortunate to hear the minister and members opposite tell us that the economic crisis dictates that we establish, from coast to coast, a single securities commission when we know very well that the Minister of Finance has been dreaming of this for a number of years, ever since his Toronto cronies asked him to concentrate Canadian economic activities in the Ontario metropolis. And once again, they decided to create a committee to examine this possibility. It is clear, since that was the minister's wish, that they had to come up with what is now in the bill: the establishment of a transition office.

The National Assembly of Quebec is unanimous on this issue: there must be no interference in Quebec's jurisdiction. Throughout the world, groups responsible for evaluating the performance of securities regulators have told us that Canada's system is above reproach and that it is one of the best in the world.

Why change what works? Why decide to turn upside down a system that works well and to initiate—that is the spirit of the bill—lawsuits if the provinces do not co-operate. It makes no sense to use the courts to voluntarily meddle in areas that are clearly the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

It is clear to the Bloc that clauses 6 and 295 through 299 must be struck from BillC-10. In this regard, I hope my colleagues have the foresight demonstrated by the Bloc since it arrived in this House.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are debating amendments to Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill. I want to discuss these amendments both in a general and a particular context. I will break my remarks into three parts.

First, in relation to the bill and these amendments which on the face of it attempt to make the bill better in the view of those proposing the amendments, as a matter of fact they probably would slow down the passage of the bill.

While I, too, have seen problems in the bill, the fact is the government very much wants to get the bill passed and I with the Liberal opposition very much want to get the stimulus package passed as well. When people pass legislation in haste, that sometimes gives rise to errors. We do make mistakes from time to time and in the view of many in the House, this bill has some mistakes.

If there is one single item that keeps the government alive, it is the stimulus package. Without the stimulus package, as I said before, the Conservative government would be what I referred to as a dead man walking. The government has twice in the last year come to the brink with the realization that the House is not working. The government does not have the support of the House.

We went to an election once, we came back. We had an economic statement and we were on the edge of another election. I do not see that a lot has changed except for that one thing: the stimulus package. The economy is in trouble and my party is determined to serve Canadians first and get the stimulus package passed, get the money out the door to stimulate the economy.

My party has insisted on report cards from the government on a periodic basis so that we can see what is happening, so that there will be some transparency from a parliamentary point of view and we can see some real things happening rather than just being announced into submission. The government is really good at making announcements. In my view it is less good at actually doing the deal, walking the walk. I refuse to be announced into submission.

I was surprised yesterday to see the government introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code that appeared on the face of it to provide protection to gang members that were being killed by other gang members.

The government is so desperate to be seen to be doing something, it will do anything. If the roof leaks, the government will want to pass a bill to fix the roof. The Conservatives just want to be seen to be doing things. They will announce a bill that prohibits roof leaks 100 times before they stop the roof leak.

My party and I are supporting the bill to make sure the stimulus package gets through as soon as we can get it there.

I had prepared some amendments. I drafted them, submitted them and then I withdrew the amendments. The amendments did not have to do with substantive measures from the budget point of view, but they did have to do with elements in the bill. As everyone knows, the bill, to the extent that it is an ambulance bringing economic first-aid and help to the country, it has a bit of contraband in the back of the ambulance. It has amendments to the Competition Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act and a half dozen other statutes.

One of the things it does is the Department of Justice in drafting the bill has put in a phrase that these regulatory provisions, these regulatory empowerments in the bill, are not statutory instruments under the Statutory Instruments Act. While that does get rid of the problem of having to pre-publish and consult before the regulation and order of exemption has passed, what it does also is preclude Parliament from reviewing these things after they are put in place. That is a huge mistake and it runs contrary to everything I have seen Parliament do around here for the last 30 to 40 years.

My amendments were intended to correct that. I have discussed it with members around the House, and I think there may be an opportunity to propose amendments that will reverse the impact of these provisions in the stimulus package bill. There is a risk that if we do not do it here, the members in the other place may do it. I do not know what they will do. I hope they subscribe to the same ethic that we do and want to get this bill passed quickly.

On the issue of stimulus itself and the amendments here, I do know that in the current fiscal year, which will end on March 31, 2009, the government had 12 months to get out the infrastructure spending that was contained in last year's budget. There are hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in that budget. I have not read this with my own eyes, I have not actually followed the government accounts, but I am informed the government has only managed to get 5% or 10% of that money out the door. Even as it admits the economy needs the stimulus investment, it appears as though the government has been unable to get this money out and invested in infrastructure projects across the country. That is very strange.

Even as we look at the upcoming estimates and the stimulus package moneys referred to in Bill C-10, to be authorized by the House soon in the main estimates and supply votes I see there is a $3 billion chunk of money which has been placed at the disposal of Treasury Board. That is a departure from how the government normally spends money, because when it does it that way, we in Parliament do not actually get a chance to see it project by project in the supplementary estimates.

In this House, and I am quite sure this will happen, one or more of the committees will have to construct a protocol, a mechanism, a procedure which will meticulously review both the process and the decision making for this stimulus spending, the investment in infrastructure. That is going to happen. It may be uncomfortable for some ministers, but that is what the House is going to have to do because of the way this stimulus package money is put in the estimates and the way it has been proposed in Bill C-10.

I will close with two issues. I note that the Minister of Finance has said that in moving to get this money out quickly, there is always the possibility of a mistake. It would not be the government, but it would be governmental officials who would do the work, the calculations, check on these projects to ensure that they are good projects, and there might be a mistake. There could even be fraud. There is $3 billion sitting out there, and I am sure there is a crook out there somewhere who is going to try to get his hands on it.

I want to make sure that in the process of letting contracts, the government checks with its partners, the provincial governments and the municipal governments, for the presence of organized crime in the whole array of contractors out there. I want the government to check for crime and organized crime as this money is spent.

Last, I would only ask the question, if we are asking the auto workers to freeze their pay and benefits or take a cut, should we not be looking to organized labour in the construction industry to perhaps cap and freeze their wages and benefits during the currency of these investment projects? What is good enough for the auto workers should be good enough for the construction industry. I have asked the question, and the answers will be forthcoming in due course.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. We are all very concerned about how this money is going to be spent, the oversight, the accountability and of course the transparency.

The NDP has a proposal, and in fact in question period today our finance critic was very clear on the proposal to the government about what should be done.

I want to ask the member if he would agree with us that this is the way to go, that every single solitary nickel and penny that is being spent in the stimulus package should be accessible on the web so that any citizen can see where the money is being spent, who is spending it, to make sure we have oversight. It is good for us to have reports every once in a while, but why not have Canadians hold our government to account as well as Parliament.

Would he agree with us to have the government do what has been done in Washington and have all moneys that are being spent on a website for all to see?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, we, in opposition, and I presume government members feel the same way, are all in favour of transparency. I wish Parliament could track every nickel the government spends both in the stimulus package and on everything, but the fact is that we cannot. We do not have enough time, it is just too much.

However, I do agree fully that it is possible in this case to have transparency with respect to each project: the amounts, the potential for overruns, under budget, over budget, accountability during and after, an eye on the process itself and who makes the decision. I would not want the process to materially slow down the spending of the money but I would want the process to scrutinize it sufficiently so that we get the best bang for our buck and that we avoid the kinds of mistakes the finance minister referred to.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, more often than not, since the budget was brought down in this House, the NDP has been accused of opposing the budget before even reading it. As for the Liberal Party, it said it would support the budget, then proceeded to vote for it. Questions were asked after the fact.

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether it is possible that the Liberal Party of Canada voted for the budget without even having read it.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can confirm that most of us on this side read it. I can certainly confirm that my party knew what was in the budget before we decided to support it. The one overriding component of the budget and the budget bill that we support is the stimulus package.

Does the bill have its deficiencies? Yes,and I have already mentioned a couple of them. Are there things in the bill we might rather deal with in greater depth at a later time? Of course, but the government has chosen this route. I personally regretted the bundling of all these things in Bill C-10 but we firmly support the stimulus package. There is nothing else more important to Canadians at this time and that is why we are proceeding on this basis.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member talked briefly about infrastructure and yesterday we had a full debate. One of the facts given was that of the $1.9 billion promised by the government, only 9% of it actually was delivered, a 96% failure rate. Over the last two years, some $2 billion of infrastructure spending has not been made.

Since the major component of the stimulus package is infrastructure and given the fact that we could not trust the government to approve money out, why are the Conservatives now saying that they need approval so they can get it out when clearly they have shown historically that even when they get the approvals they do not spend it?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a very significant issue and I do not think the government has responded meaningfully to this. Why has the government been unable to get out over $1 billion in stimulus spending in this fiscal year? The money is there. I am sure there are projects there. The government will need to convince Canadians that it is able to get the new stimulus money out more quickly than the last stimulus money where it conspicuously failed.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise with anticipation of what may be a lively debate in the future. We are talking about the expenditure of billions of dollars. Although it has not been mentioned a lot lately, the deficit and the continuing debt will be passed on to our children.

It only stands to reason that opposition members would hope for accountability and transparency from Conservative members in these discussions. I can just see the Auditor General and her staff working overtime in years to come analyzing these expenditures to ensure that taxpayers receive value for their money. We simply do not know.

This is not a question of the NDP wishing to delay assistance to workers and their families in this country. I remind the House that not long ago it was the Conservative government that prorogued Parliament. We did not throw out Parliament. Before that, it was the Conservative government that quit in the middle of governing, It said that it was tired and did not want to govern anymore so it called an election. Nobody asked the Conservatives to do that. They Conservatives spent $300 million, money that could have helped a lot of autism cases in Canada, helped a lot of veterans, helped a lot of students with the cost of their education, helped a lot of seniors and could have cleaned up the environment. Instead of using that money for important issues, the Conservatives called an election.

After the election, the Conservatives painted a picture of no worries. I can hear that song in the background. They said that Canada would not go into deficit, that there would be no recession in Canada, even though everybody else in the world was having financial troubles. In fact, they said that they had provided a stimulus package with their GST cuts and everything else. They said that Canada was in great shape, that no one needed to worry because we were in great shape. They told everyone to sit back and relax.

The Prime Minister told everyone that this was a good buying opportunity. Thank goodness he is not a stockbroker because a lot of people would have lost their shirt and their underwear if they had listened to him.

However, the idea of a coalition scared the living daylights out of the government and all of a sudden Canada had a $34 billion deficit. The Conservatives said that the money needed to go out to Canadians right away, even yesterday, but it would go out without any accountability. That is what amazes me.

I had the privilege of sitting in this place with Preston Manning. Preston Manning and I may have disagreed on a lot of issues but the one thing he and I agreed on was the fact that accountability was important to the taxpayer.

I have heard a countless number of Conservatives over the years say that people should never vote for the NDP because we are a reckless bunch and have no idea how to handle the economy. Who were the top three, most fiscally responsible premiers in the history of this country? They were Allan Blakeney, Roy Romanow and Tommy Douglas. I am taking this information from a Conservative Party report. Who were the three worst premiers of all time? They were Joey Smallwood, Grant Devine--and where did half of his cabinet go--and John Buchanan of Nova Scotia. We are still paying off the debts of those premiers.

We now have a Conservative bunch of people over there and they are not bad folks really. I have said many times that there is not one Conservative, Liberal or Bloc member who I would not want as my neighbour. However, the Conservatives are twisting themselves into pretzels that we cannot even eat because they have completely reversed every one of their principles. It is incredible to think that those members can sit in the House and try to bully us into what they think we must do. When they were in opposition they were very good at attacking the Liberals.

I well remember the HRDC boondoggle. I do give the member for Calgary—Nose Hill a lot of credit for her excellent attacks on the human resources minister when she said that accountability was paramount. Now we have a government saying no, that we need to get it out right now. It is asking us to forget about accountability, forget about transparency and to trust it.

I wonder what the investors of those trust agreements thought. I wonder what those veterans, when Mr. Harper, on September 9, 2008, promised those allied veterans that we would--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The member, I am sure, is aware that he cannot use the name of a sitting Prime Minister.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, you are correct and I regret having said it in that sort of exuberant tone. I will try and tone it down a touch.

On September 9, 2008, the Prime Minister told a group of Polish veterans, who are allied and Commonwealth veterans, that when the Conservatives got elected, they would institute the veteran's war allowance, which was ripped away from them in 1995 by Paul Martin and the Liberals.

We applauded that. In fact, we wrote a letter to the Prime Minister the next day asking him to get a special warrant from the Governor General to issue those funds immediately. These veterans, on average, are 86 years old. Some of them have already passed away since that September promise. Where was that in the budget? There was not a single word.

We have already seen what they did to the VIP and agent orange. Today in the papers, a group of veterans who had to clean up the Chalk River site are suing the government, the fourth lawsuit by veterans against the government in three short years.

However, that promise was something we were excited about and we congratulated the Prime Minister for making that promise, but it is not in the budget. We heard from the veterans affairs minister that the government was committed to this. When? They are 86 years old on average. What in heaven's name is this Parliament waiting for?

There is not one member of Parliament or one senator from any party who would say to the government, “No, do not do that”. We would do it immediately, in a heartbeat. If I had a motion that I could pass to get the government to agree and get it done tonight, I would do it, but the government completely ignored that.

There are all kinds of other things we are concerned about, navigable waters being one. The Conservatives are asking us to trust them when it comes to the protection of the environment, on our most precious system , our water. Many people from across the country have written me and written the MPs on both sides and have asked us what the heck the government was about to do to our rivers, lakes and ponds. What is it doing?”

I know I only have a minute left and I know that the audience in this room will be disappointed that I have to be quiet now, but where are the true Conservatives in this House who wanted fiscal accountability and fiscal responsibility? Where are those things?

I will say this much. We know that a stimulus package needs to be there to help those workers and families in those businesses and we know that credit needs to get flowing out fairly quickly, but we just cannot open up the vault and tell them to help themselves. There needs to be accountability because somebody must pay for this.

As an aside, it is my daughter's birthday tomorrow and I just want to wish her a happy birthday. One of my children is 21 and the other one is 18. They will be handling this debt. They will be paying for this and my mom's pension and her concerns are going to be looked at as well.

We need to be accountable and honest and help the people who truly are in need. Before the Conservatives get up, I did read the budget. I read it very carefully and I did send my submissions to the finance minister. The parliamentary secretary should not be saying that they did not get any submissions. One of the submissions I made was for us to show leadership by freezing our salaries for the duration of this Parliament. I asked the government to do that and I did not get any response. If we were to take a zero per cent increase that would show leadership.

As well, on law and order, the RCMP personnel are the ones who maintain that law and order. What did the government do? It ripped up a contract with them and flattened out their wages to 1.5% when they agreed to 3.5%. How can it do that to the brave men and women who wear the red serge and protect our citizens on a daily basis?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was great oratory. Obviously the member has gone to the NDP school of better acting, hyperbole and all those other things. Those members speak very loudly.

I want to tell the hon. member this and then ask him a question. There are a whack of questions I could ask, but when it comes to the RCMP, I happen to know a fair amount about policing.

Let me educate the member. We have increased the numbers of the RCMP by upward of about 1,500 members in the few short years we have been here. We have added to the municipal and provincial police forces of our country. We have opened up and expanded their ability to better train officers so they can go on the streets and do the job we want them to do.

The hon. member said that he sent some suggestions to the minister. He talks about the Conservatives having done this, that and the other thing, but those members always voted against our budgets and would have plunged our country into election after election.

Why does the member choose the RCMP when this party was one that built it up?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, first, I thank the hon. member for his service as a police officer to our country.

I assume by his comments that he will support my Bill C-201, which would end the clawback of the military and RCMP pensions. Debate on the bill at second reading starts on March 25. I look forward to that gentleman's support.

It was not the NDP that issued confidence votes; it was the Conservatives. What government tells our most honoured citizens of the RCMP, in an email prior to Christmas and without any consultation, that they will get an increase of only 1.5%. That was after six months of negotiations that ended in an agreed collective contract of a 3.5% increase. What a slap in the face to the men and women who serve our country.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member and all hon. members know, the infrastructure strategy in terms of stimulus is the most significant part of the package.

It is only the end of February. We still have one month to go in the current fiscal period. Over the last two years about $2 billion of approved infrastructure spending have lapsed or will be reverted to the coffers.

If it takes a long time to get approval, if the government really wants to be serious about this, what it should do allocate and appropriate right now additional funds in the last fiscal month of this fiscal year so we can not only create jobs, but also save some of those jobs that are currently in jeopardy.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member was here when the NDP re-wrote the federal budget of 2005 and put in $4.8 billion of a stimulus for public transit and everything else. We re-wrote the federal Liberal budget, which the Liberals accepted, and yet the Conservatives ripped that up and told us we were irresponsible. The government was still in surplus for a time after that and paid down the debt, as that hon. member knows, and he is a great member of Parliament.

I wish to tell the House that I learned by oratory skills from working in the airline industry for many years.

The hon. member knows that 96% of packages promised in 2006 and 2007 were never delivered.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been a member of Parliament since 1993. I too, as the hon. member correctly indicated, was here when Preston Manning sat in this House. Mr. Manning was the leader of the Reform Party of Canada.

The current Prime Minister was a Reform MP under Preston Manning, and a majority of members, including the ministers in this House were with the Reform Party. In Quebec, support for the Reform Party was a mere 1%.

Now, they have changed party banner and colour. They have failed to deliver the packages for infrastructure and do not even maintain their own infrastructures. In the regions, wharves are in an advanced state of decay, yet the government is not maintaining—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to give the hon. member a few seconds to reply. The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, we know what the Conservatives are doing, but the sad thing in all of it is they are being propped up by the Liberals. It is completely unbelievable why they would do that when they had an opportunity to make serious amendments to change some of the budget for the betterment of all Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. friend on his speech. Who knew that people could learn oratory skills in the airline industry. When someone loses baggage somewhere, someone else probably has to say something to the customer.

Here we are at the end of a budgetary process that started on January 27. By parliamentary standards, this is lightening speed to have a budgetary implementation bill implemented by the end of February.

The budget was presented much sooner than the Prime Minister wished because of a parliamentary crisis entirely initiated by the Prime Minister. His economic statement was so inflammatory that the three opposition parties gave serious consideration to a coalition. Panicked, the Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament. It was an extraordinary spectacle by anyone's standards. After the two month cool down period, he hastily introduced the budget with the undertaking of the official opposition to not defeat him for now.

The budget was allowed to pass on the condition that the implementation of the stimulus package would be reviewed on fixed supply dates, and that is where we stand now.

The Bloc has been largely responsible, recognizing the overall wisdom of the official opposition that what Canada needs now is economic stimulus, not an election. The NDP members have been doing their usual pro forma, “We're against everything even before we've read it”. They are so irritated by the withdrawal of the official opposition from the coalition that they have decided to attack the official opposition rather than the government.

All the while the Prime Minister has been playing nice with the official opposition because he has to have Bill C-10 if he has any credibility as a prime minister.

What do we make of the Prime Minister's outburst yesterday when he said, “Give me $3 billion of play money, free from parliamentary scrutiny, or we're off to another election”. He just cannot help himself.

Even the mildest forms of opposition send him into paroxysms of towering rage, metaphorically kicking the furniture around the room and hurling curses upon those who oppose him and upon their children and their children's children. It is quite a spectacle really.

The NDP does its pro forma, “This is an abuse of Parliament” rant and the Prime Minister just loses it. Meanwhile the Leader of the Opposition serenely watches this spectacle of adults acting as children.

He has said in the past that Canadians need another election like they need a hole in the head. That was last month. What has changed? Due to the level-headedness of the Leader of the Opposition, we are on the cusp of having a budget far earlier than the government wanted, with the opportunity to inject fiscal stimulus into the economy much earlier in the economic cycle. That was not the government's plan.

The government wanted to wait for the economic crisis to deepen before being in a position to do something. In retrospect, that was not very wise. One only has to look at today's newspapers. Even Wal-Mart is closing stores and GM has lost something in the order of $9.6 billion in the last quarter and is literally on the cusp of declaring bankruptcy.

In my judgment Canadians prefer a less partisan atmosphere. In fact, last night's CBC political panel talked about a post-partisan Parliament. In my view the panel members are being overly optimistic. One can see from the atmosphere here today that possibly the idea of a post-partisan Parliament is just wishful thinking, especially in light of the fact that, in the mildest circumstances, the Prime Minister seems so easily provoked and he loses it in front of reporters.

The day before the Prime Minister's little rant, the Minister of Finance said that mistakes would be made in the allocation and delivery of infrastructure funding, that the government was rushing the bureaucrats through the normal checks and balances process, so we could expect some problems, possibly even some boondoggles.

What a curious juxtaposition. On the one hand, the Minister of Finance is saying that the government is going to make some mistakes with the money it has, that it has just gone through several layers of parliamentary scrutiny and that, with the amendment of the official opposition, it will have more layers of official opposition scrutiny. Simultaneously, the Prime Minister is asking for $3 billion of play money to do with as he sees fit with no scrutiny whatsoever.

This is from the same Prime Minister who saw no need for an early budgetary process, did not anticipate the drastic effect of the economic crisis and precipitated a political crisis that almost cost him his government.

The contrast between the Prime Minister and President Obama could not be more obvious. President Obama has repeatedly reached out to the opposition so he can make his response to the economic crisis a non-partisan event. He has addressed some systemic and structural flaws in the American process that has brought this mighty American colossus to its economic knees. He is moving with assurance and confidence into very difficult areas with a boldness and verve seldom seen.

What do we have? A chirping NDP opposition that reacts to every provocation and a Prime Minister whose default position on every issue is “let's go to an election, right now”.

Canadians can thank the Liberal Party for C-10. We are very aware that it is an imperfect document. It is full of political provocations. It lacks coherence. It has within it many items of no relevance to a budgetary document such as navigable waters, pay equity and jamming certain public sector employees. It is an obnoxious document. There is no doubt about it.

Many of these items deserve far greater scrutiny than the finance committee was able to provide in the context of trying to get this budget moved along. However, it seems to be in the DNA of the Prime Minister to load up every obnoxious element he can think of in a bill and try to jam the opposition.

In an era when Canadians crave leadership, they get a partisan bully. However, in the judgment of the official opposition, the potential good of an early stimulus package, as amended with the built-in review periods, outweighs the obnoxious elements of C-10. Therefore, we will be supporting it.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thought it was the responsibility in the House for members of Parliament to uphold the institutions of our great country with some reverence.

Could the member opposite advise the House how his cutting remarks about the Prime Minister will instill in the children of Canada respect for the office that the man holds.

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

Madam Speaker, it is very curious. The Prime Minister holds the most significant political office that the country can offer. It is an enormously powerful office. He gets to appoint the justices of the Supreme Court. He has just loaded up the Senate with 18 new appointments. He basically tells his caucus how to vote.

It is an enormously powerful position. Yet, faced with the mildest form of opposition, even on a pro forma rant that the NDP does out of its sleeve, he goes off the edge. He does a great disservice to the office that he holds and that Canadians have now given to him twice. I seriously fear the Prime Minister will continue to abuse the institutions that we hold dear.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member just explained and I noted earlier, the Prime Minister often accuses the NDP of opposing the budget before even reading it. The problem with the members from the Liberal Party is that, in their case, they voted for the budget without reading it. Since the economic update was tabled in this House, I have not seen a single member rise to say anything positive about this budget.

We are talking about a $3 billion envelope to be administered by the Treasury Board. This is not a casino where the Prime Minister can play blackjack with taxpayers' money. Let us be serious here. We have responsibilities. We have to account to the people. How could we let the Prime Minister use this money? Chances are we would see history repeat itself. Members no doubt recall the sponsorship scandal. The House of Commons is accountable to the people. The budget has to be approved and spending reported to Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, unlike the Bloc and the NDP, the Liberal Party, the official opposition, actually has to exercise judgment. In our judgment, the obnoxious elements of Bill C-10, of which there are many, and the provocations that are actually built into Bill C-10, were not of such sufficient magnitude that we would defeat the government at this time.

We have, to speak to the hon. gentleman's specific question, built in three review elements, March, June and December, on the stimulus package itself to see that in fact it is impacting on the economy. I respectfully submit that is a responsible official opposition holding a government to account in very difficult circumstances.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague, by the way, seems to be a frustrated playwright. Maybe he has another career; I do not know. “Obnoxious” might not be the word, but “noxious”, I think, is the right word.

Why will he and the Liberals not support amendments, responsible amendments like taking out the navigable waters out of this budget, support us, and quite frankly do their job?