2009-11-06

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
[Interjection]
The Speaker: There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Hon. Peter Kent:  moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Peter Kent:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand today to begin third reading debate on Bill C-51, the economic recovery act.
Ideally, this will be a short debate ensuring this important legislation, which includes key provisions from budget 2009, along with other vital initiatives, continues on its path to becoming law.
I want to begin by thanking all members of the finance committee who put partisan politics aside on this legislation. Acknowledging how important this legislation was for Canada's economy, we worked together to expedite our consideration of Bill C-51 at committee stage. We, nevertheless, had the opportunity to hear from strong witnesses who spoke in favour of the economic recovery act. These witnesses spoke of the importance of its timely passage. I will highlight a few of those comments later in my time today.
Why is the economic recovery act so important? As an extension of Canada's economic plan, this legislation continues our Conservative government's focus on the economy, a singular focus that people who elected us here have demanded, a focus from which we will not be distracted.
Implementing Canada's economic action plan, protecting the economy must be our top priority. Our plan is rebuilding Canada's infrastructure, slashing taxes, investing in research and development, supporting the unemployed and much more.
This multi-year plan is working. It is protecting and creating jobs and it is helping shield Canada from the worst ravages of the deepest economic downturn since World War II. Indeed, nearly all independent observers are uniform in their assessment that Canada has remained and will continue to remain in one of the strongest positions to weather this economic storm.
During his recent appearance before the finance committee, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, declared, “--it is likely that Canada will return to our path of potential quicker than the other crisis-affected economies.... ...that's something one sees over the fullness of time and that's what ultimately will matter”. 
A Canadian Business magazine editorial pronounced: 
 --Canada has come through this economic crisis in relatively robust health. Our recession promises to be shallower and briefer compared with many others;.... 
 ...we're in an enviable position compared to other developed countries. 
Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer asserted, in his recent economic and fiscal assessment update, said, “Thus far, the Canadian economy has weathered the global recession better than most economies”.
While we have recently seen early signs of a potential global economic recovery on the horizon, they are merely that, early potential signs. In the words of IMF managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, “The good news is that in our view the recovery really has started. That does not mean, and I want to be crystal clear, that the crisis is over. It's too early to crow victory”.
Clearly, we need to stay on track. Early progress made in securing a Canadian recovery will be lost if we allow ourselves to be lulled into distraction and deviate from the course that we have set.
In the words of the recent G7 finance ministers and central bank governors communiqué, “In recent months, we have started to see signs of a global economic recovery and continued improvement in financial market conditions. However, there is no room for complacency since the prospects for growth remain fragile.... We will keep in place our support measures until recovery is assured”.
The economic recovery act is one way we are staying the course and helping to secure a strong sustained economic recovery.
As I mentioned, not only will it legislate measures from Canada's economic action plan but also it contains other diverse but critical measures. In my time remaining, I will highlight the importance of but a few of these measures.
Among the most high profile and popular measures in the economic recovery act is the temporary home renovation tax credit, or the HRTC. This job-creating measure has been overwhelmingly well received by Canadians assisting them to improve and add value to their own homes.
It is estimated that, through the temporary HRTC, millions of Canadian families will receive significant tax relief on eligible renovation projects. Already we have clear statistical proof that the home renovation tax credit has had a measurable impact on the economy.
According to Statistics Canada, even as the overall economy contracted, the volume of home renovation investment had spiked by over 2% in the second quarter of 2009, an increase of 9% on an annualized basis. Without a doubt, the home renovation tax credit has been an awe-inspiring success since our Conservative government first introduced it last January.
All MPs have heard stories of how this tax credit is working in their own communities. They have heard how it is encouraging their constituents to invest in their homes, how those investments are helping employ men and women in the construction and other skilled trades, fueling the purchase of building materials from Canada's forestry sector, supporting local hardware stores and stimulating the local economy when it is needed most.
Indeed, during the finance committee hearings on Bill C-51, all members on that committee heard witness after witness sing the praises of the home renovation tax credit. The Canadian Home Builders' Association told us, “The HRTC is having a significant and positive effect on the level of home renovation activity across the country. In their work with customers, renovators report that the HRTC is a significant factor in motivating homeowners to initiate home renovation projects. This view is reinforced by building material retailers, who also report increased sales as a result of HRTC”.
“I think there's no question it's increased economic activity, it's created jobs, it's definitely shown consumer confidence in renovating their homes, and I think it's done a lot of good for the industry and for consumers as well”. 
“I think it obviously has kept the industry stronger in these tough times and in job creation as well”. 
Home Depot Canada reported to the finance committee that the HRTC, “--has been a motivating force for consumers”.
“We have seen the results of the stimulus in increased demand for products and services and believe the stimulus did much to temper the impact of a rapidly worsening sales environment across our industry....”
“From the beginning, the HRTC captured Canadians' interest, but the HRTC has done more than capture interest. It kept many contractors in work, and put other contractors back to work. It restored consumer confidence, improved retail sales, and directly and positively enhanced the sustainability and growth of the Canadian home improvement industry”. 
Home Depot Canada also revealed at committee that the HRTC has been so successful that, “--we're in a situation where our sales are growing versus the prior year and we're actually having to hire in order to be able to look after the sales that are coming into our stores. I'm sure our competitors are feeling the same”. 
We also heard from the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Ken Georgetti, not someone usually supportive of our Conservative government, however, when asked about the home renovation tax credit he said, “--there's no doubt anecdotally that a lot of people are accessing and conducting home renovations. I'm sure the program is an incentive. We've encouraged and endorsed it as a good incentive to help offset the job losses that are occurring in manufacturing”. 
However, this is not the only important tax relief included in the economic recovery act. For instance, to help alleviate some of the costs associated with buying a home, we have introduced the first-time homebuyers' tax credit that will provide up to $750 in tax relief to first-time homebuyers. 
Another important provision will relax conditions regarding temporarily imported shipping containers by increasing the amount of time that such containers can remain in Canada on a tariff and tax-free basis from 30 days up to 365 days.
We are also enhancing support for those struggling to get ahead with our improvements to the working income tax benefit, or WITB, as our finance minister likes to refer to it. This was originally introduced in budget 2007 by our Conservative government. The landmark WITB is a refundable tax credit that supplements the earnings of low-income workers. WITB helps ensure that these workers are financially better off by getting a job, and thus helps people stay off social assistance.
The economic recovery act would enhance WITB by $580 million for 2009 and subsequent taxation years, effectively doubling the total tax relief provided by the working income tax benefit.
The OECD, in its September 2009 employment outlook, heralded this measure, noting: 
 [r]ecent moves to increase the generosity of Canada's Working Income Tax Benefit are welcome, particularly given that the benefit is strongly targeted to the lowest-income households. 
Other measures in Bill C-51 include steps to modernize the Canada pension plan. These reforms were unanimously agreed to by federal, provincial and territorial governments, which jointly manage that plan.
The reforms would provide greater flexibility for older workers to combine pension and work income if they wish to do so, expand CPP coverage, and improve fairness in the plan's flexible retirement provisions.
We are improving transparency and accountability in the way government uses taxpayer dollars.
Fulfilling a commitment included in our Conservative Party's 2008 election platform, we are legally requiring all federal departments and crown corporations to produce and publish quarterly financial reports, an idea individuals like Tom Axworthy, chair of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen's University, have advocated for.
Axworthy, writing an op-ed article in a major national newspaper, said:
 Canadians will be surprised to learn that quarterly financial reports, a standard accounting requirement in the private and not-for-profit sectors, are not [in fact] required in the public service.... 
 Parliament has many duties, but one of the very first, since the Magna Carta, has been to assess the spending decisions of the executive and provide resources to the state through taxation. Yet this first function of Parliament has, somewhat amazingly, sunk into decrepitude. By depending primarily on reports of the Auditor General, which are made years after the fact, Parliament does eventually fix problems, but millions of dollars are wasted in the meantime.... 
 Quarterly reports would certainly have alerted Parliament to the exponential rise in spending for the [long] Gun Registry program. 
Bill C-51 would also mark the historic resolution to the crown share saga for the benefit of the people of Nova Scotia.
It would fully implement the crown share agreement and authorize an initial payment of nearly $175 million to Nova Scotia for 2008-09, as well as 2009-10.
We all understand this is tremendous news for Nova Scotia which, after a decade-plus of neglect under the previous Liberal government, has finally found a partner in our Conservative government to resolve this issue.
Indeed, the NDP premier of Nova Scotia, Darrell Dexter, cheered:
 Nova Scotia is seeing progress on the Crown share file. The federal government introduced legislation...that will pave the way for regulations to be enacted.... I congratulate the federal government for moving forward to seal the deal. This is good for Nova Scotia, and good for Canada. 
Considering the landmark nature of this measure for Nova Scotia, I am very surprised that the five Liberal members of Parliament from Nova Scotia actually voted against it, and so casually.
Clearly, the Liberal Party of Canada never cared enough about this important issue for Nova Scotia to fulfill its original promise.
 I would be remiss if I closed without quickly reviewing other initiatives in the economic recovery act to help provide the stability our economy needs. They include helping farmers by extending the existing tax deferral currently available in regions affected by drought to those in regions affected by flood or excessive moisture as well; ensuring the dependability of public broadcasting by increasing the borrowing limit for the CBC; promoting global growth and cooperation by giving small and low-income countries a bigger voice at the IMF while strengthening Canada's commitment to debt relief; and there are many others.
Our Conservative government has been clear. We are ready to do whatever is necessary during these tough economic times to protect Canadians. The economic recovery act would build upon that commitment and help lay the foundation for long-term growth.
I urge the House to give this legislation its quick approval, allowing Bill C-51 to be introduced into the Senate in a timely manner.
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I was much charmed by my hon. friend's happy little speech about all the sweet and lovely things that are going on in this place. I congratulate him on his immense work of fiction.
Unfortunately, the hon. member did not mention that under the Conservative watch, we have gone from a position of surplus to a position of endless chronic deficits, probably totalling in the neighbourhood of about $175 billion over the next five years.
The government has run the fiscal framework into the ditch. Its excuse is that it had do this because of this worldwide recession. It put in all the stimulus money and the world has been raining Conservative cheques, Conservative logos, Conservative signatures and Conservative happy faces all over the place. 
When the Parliamentary Budget Officer asked to be shown how this was working, the government's response was to stonewall and then to dump 4,000 pages' worth of stuff on him. Then in this morning's paper we read that Canada now has the highest rate of unemployment it has had in 11 years.
I ask the hon. member if in fact he can stand in his place and tell the House that anyone should have confidence in the government's management of our nation's economy.
[Interjection]
Ted Menzies: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague on the other side was rather instrumental in making sure this bill finally passed through committee, and I urge him to speak to his colleagues in the Senate to make sure this economic recovery act gets through the Senate when it clears this place.
As to the question of whether Canadians should have faith in this government and believe that there is hope, the answer is that they absolutely should, and this is the government that is willing to provide it to them.
Canadians elected a Conservative government in 2006 and re-elected us again even though we were going into a recession. No one knew how serious the recession was, but they voted for a Conservative government because they knew there was leadership there. There is a reason that the Liberals are not in power and have lost in two elections. It is because Canadians are not confident that they understand the economy in this country.
Liberals talk about having handed a surplus to the Conservative government. That is because they overtaxed Canadians and Canadians are not happy with that. Canadians expect us to provide services to them. They do not expect to be overtaxed and not know where those dollars are going.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Manicouagan, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the Conservative member's speech. It was clear that there are some major oversights in Bill C-51, and the forestry industry is one of them. When the government gives the entire Canadian forestry industry $70 million as part of the economic stimulus, and then turns around and gives the Ontario auto industry $10 billion, that is a double standard.
Then there are the unemployed. People have lost their jobs, for example in the mining industry, or in other industries where they had job security. With the economic crisis, plants and paper mills have been shut down. Given the current economy, the Bloc Québécois proposed much easier access to employment insurance. We wanted to create a 360-hour eligibility threshold and to eliminate the two week waiting period.
The parliamentary secretary is bragging that with this bill, the Conservatives have done everything to stimulate the economy, but they forgot about workers, the unemployed and the forestry industry.
[Interjection]
Ted Menzies: Madam Speaker, that is certainly a false accusation. 
Our economic action plan that was put forward in January reflected the seriousness of this global recession, and it reflected it to each and every sector of this economy. We put in place assistance for the forestry industry. We put in place assistance for the auto industry. We put in place tax cuts for individual Canadians.
Through our actions since we have formed government, we have taken 950,000 Canadians completely off the tax roll. That is more money in their pockets so they can choose to either invest it or spend it wherever they like. That is what we need to stimulate this economy.
To suggest that we are not respecting all sectors of this economy is an unfair accusation when we represent all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We have put in place measures that will help those who are unemployed, and we are very troubled by the numbers we see this morning regarding more job losses. However, we have said all along that this worldwide recession is impacting Canada, just as it is impacting other countries. Our neighbour to the south has lost far more jobs than we have. We need the United States to see recovery to help Canadians' recovery as well.
 We put forward legislation this week to extend the time that Canadians can be on EI, and that will help those people who have received that bad news in this last month, but unfortunately, the Liberals actually voted against the economic recovery bill in this House. They voted against extended support for those on employment insurance.
I am glad I'm not going back to their ridings to speak to their constituents who have lost jobs, to try to explain to them why the Liberals voted against the bill. I am glad I am going home as someone who supports people who have lost their jobs.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): Madam Speaker, while the home renovation tax credit is hardly a new idea, certainly we have had critical home repair programs in Manitoba since the seventies, it has proven to be very successful, particularly at times when the economy is in some difficulties.
I would like to ask the member whether at this point he has any idea as to how many people are taking advantage of the program and what the tax losses would be to the government.
I would also ask him if he is prepared today to announce, because I noticed he said it was a temporary program, that he is planning to extend it for another year.
[Interjection]
Ted Menzies: Madam Speaker, that question does not surprise me at all because I believe, in the debate on the first budget bill, I had the same question from the hon. member. I respect his tenacity.
We have made no decision at this point as to whether or not it will be extended. It is tremendously successful. It has instilled confidence in consumers, in homeowners, the likes of which we have not seen before.
Canadians are concerned. They are very concerned about this economic recession, about the impacts to their livelihoods, about their jobs. We need to be able to make sure that we can quickly pass this bill through this House and deal with it at this point. Soon we will be looking forward to a new budget coming up.
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC): Madam Speaker, as further evidence that the government is razor-focused on recovery, the Windsor area, which has the highest unemployment in Canada, has the highest stimulus investments in the country.
 Is that not proof to the member that the government is getting the job done?
[Interjection]
Ted Menzies: Madam Speaker, I do need to recognize the hon. member's work. He is doing whatever is within his powers to make sure that those people who were unemployed in his region may actually have an opportunity at some new jobs and actually see some stimulus money going into that community.
That is partnership. That is working as a member of our government. That is working with us to make sure that his constituents receive the support that they need and they deserve.
John McKay: Madam Speaker, unlike the previous speaker, who was a work of fiction, I will be a work of fact. I am going to chronicle how our party has come to the position of losing confidence in the government. It is an interesting exercise.
In 1993 we took over from the Mulroney government. At that point, there was a $42 billion deficit that had accumulated over the eight or nine years of the Mulroney government. Each and every year, that government ran a deficit and added to the national debt. At the end of 1993, when the government changed, Mr. Martin and Mr. Chrétien had a nasty little surprise and it took them about four years to dig out from that hole.
The election of 1997 was a critical election. We barely held on to a majority government because of the decisions that Mr. Martin and Mr. Chrétien had to make with respect to getting the nation's finances under control. Thereafter, we ran about 10 years of surpluses and paid down the national debt significantly.
That is how we got to the change of government in 2006. In 2006 we had a nice little gift for the incoming government: a $13 billion surplus. It immediately took it without any thanks and added it to its own little rhetoric. The history is made of Conservative deficits and Liberal surpluses, and here we are four years later into the most massive deficit that this nation has ever experienced.
How did we get from there to here? One would have to work at it. The first deficit was not actually this year. It was last year, for the fiscal year beginning March 2008 and ending in March 2009. It was a $6 billion deficit. In two short years, excluding the year it inherited from the Liberal Party, the government was into deficit again. Things were back to the good old Mulroney years where spending could not be controlled, the revenue base was reduced and, Bob's your uncle, we were into deficit.
One of the reasons why it does not seem to be able to walk away from its fixation with deficits is that it does not seem to be able to control its spending. Many commentators were making the observation that the revenue base cannot be flatlined while expenditures were simultaneously running at a 7% or 8% increase on an annual basis. Revenues were being flatlined by the government.
In any household, we cannot carry on spending more money than we take in unless we run up the debt. That is what we are doing here. We are running up debt. The first deficit was not this year. The first deficit was last year. Now, we are into some rather massive amounts of deficit.
It is kind of interesting to quote the Prime Minister on these sorts of things. Apparently, in September of last year, he said that there would not be a recession in Canada and that we would be fine as long as we did not do stupid things such as running a deficit. That was only September 2008. 
In October he suggested that the market represented good buying opportunities for Canadians. In November, exactly a year ago, his failed economic statement promised a surplus for the next five years.
The government projected a surplus for the next five years. Finally, it was up to the Bank of Canada to tell Canadians, because the Prime Minister would not, that we were in recession in November of last year. By December, after a bit of a political crisis, he admitted that he would probably be running a deficit in the order of $20 billion to $30 billion. In the budget that was passed in January, it projected a deficit of $34 billion. 
That was then and this is now, and $34 billion became $54 billion, $54 billion became $56 billion, and we still have not finished the fiscal year end and we do not know what the deficit will be.
It is a pretty impressive list of incompetent statements, possibly even misleading statements, and it speaks to the issue of confidence. If I stop right there, people may say that maybe the Liberals actually have it right and maybe they should not have confidence in the government. Indeed, that is the situation. We have ceased to have confidence in the government, and this litany of incompetence and misleading information just keeps on keeping on.
Then the excuse has become that it is a worldwide recession and because it is a worldwide recession and because all of these other countries need to stimulate the economy, we need to do the same thing. We in the Liberal Party say that is possibly a good idea, but only if it is a timely stimulus with, as the phrase goes, shovels in the ground. Stimulus two, three or four years from now is actually useless. Stimulus now and stimulus in the last number of months, when the economy was shrinking is, in theory and in practice, a useful exercise. We agreed that if we stimulated the economy with a temporary deficit, then fine, let us do it, and maybe we will ride through the recession as best we can.
That was the theory going into it, and then suddenly a whole bunch of Conservative cheques started raining down on the heads of Canadians, Conservative cheques with Conservative logos and Conservative MPs, and Conservative signatures. We had signs and cheques, and cheques and signs, et cetera. Clearly, the thing that has been most stimulated in the last few months has been the sign making industry and the cheque writing industry. However, it does not seem to have had really any impact on the economy.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer was asked to see whether he could establish whether the stimulus money that had been injected into the economy would have any impact, any real and measurable impact on the economy. First, he was sort of stonewalled. He asked and asked and did not get any response. Then after a period of asking and asking, he got 4,000 pages of incoherent documentation dumped on his lap and was told to figure it out. He said that was an unacceptable disclosure and asked for electronic formatted material. Apparently the government is unable or more likely unwilling to actually produce the numbers and disclosure with respect to the stimulus projects in any kind of fashion that would allow a coherent analysis. 
It is one thing for the Government of Canada to stonewall the opposition. It is another thing altogether for the Government of Canada to stonewall the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is exactly what it is doing. That is essentially an insult by the government to every member of Parliament in this chamber.
Let me read from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's observations with respect to the attempt to get information. He puts it in much better language than I could. He points out that we have uneven information regarding the implementation process, relevant benchmark outputs and expected outcomes of measures of the stimulus package. Uneven information, what does that mean? Unmeasurable outcomes of the stimulus package: inconsistent in its presentation, some measures have been dropped or renamed; lack appropriate disclosures regarding major components of the stimulus package, including infrastructure spending. What does that mean? The only thing that it can mean is that 4,000 pages were dumped on his desk and he was told to figure it out.
If the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an officer of the Parliament of Canada set up by Parliament, is unable to discern whether stimulus has actually worked in this country, it does not lie in the mouths of government members, particularly the parliamentary secretary, who say that everything is wonderful and it is all working. There is no way to tell whether it is working.
The parliamentary secretary went on at great length about the home renovation tax credit and all that sort of stuff. He could not tell the NDP member who asked if it was actually working whether it was working or not. He cannot tell whether it has had any impact at all. The only thing he knows for sure is that the government has run up the deficit by $56 billion. That is the only thing that is a factual truth.
The hon. parliamentary secretary, and I assume Conservative speakers who will follow, will talk at great length about how this stimulus package is working, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an officer here to serve us, cannot tell. Nobody can tell.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer then goes on to say that we should compare how the Americans disclose their stimulus package with how Canadians disclose theirs. The U.S. has a recovery, accountability and transparency board. Canada does not. 
With respect to government-wide reporting, the U.S. has quarterly reporting on oversight and quarterly reporting on economic impact by the council of economic advisers. Here, we get a note from Finance Canada once every three months. There are agency recovery websites, agency recovery aid plans, agency IG recovery work plans in the United States. Canada has nothing. The U.S. has program specific recovery act plans and other activity reporting tied to agency level reporting. We have nothing. Recipient reporting, risk management reporting, award level reporting, all of that is available in the U.S. We have nothing.
When hon. members on the government benches say that stimulus is working, we on the Liberal side of the House will have to be pardoned for saying we have no confidence in what the Conservatives say about the effectiveness of stimulus. If the Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot analyze it, and if the government will not disclose it, then it does not exist. But it gets worse.
We have chronic deficits as far as we can see. We cannot measure the effect of stimulus. Then, in this morning's paper, there is a report which says that unemployment is at its highest point in 11 years. 
The Globe and Mail states:
 The recession has killed hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada since employment peaked last October, with the jobless rate hitting an 11-year high of 8.7 per cent. More than 1.6 million Canadians are now out of work, with the steepest job losses among factory workers, though no sector has been spared. 
There we have it. We have run up a huge tab on the government's dime, which is really our dime. We have chronic deficits as far as we can see. We cannot measure whether stimulus works or does not work, and unemployment is at the highest level in 11 years. 
I do not know what would be required to turn one from confidence to a lack of confidence, but those seem to be rather fundamental parts of being in government. The government has to be able to run the fiscal framework of the nation. It cannot spend more than it takes in. It cannot run up the deficit endlessly. 
We need to be able to measure the stimulus effects, where they are, how effective they are and whether they have impacted the economy. We want a recovery where the jobs are there and people are available to do them.
What do we have? We have a jobless recovery, if there is a recovery at all. We have a huge run-up in our deficit. We have a Parliamentary Budget Officer who has been stoned each and every day when he has asked for more information.
It is a pretty damning indictment of the competence of the government. I do not quite know how the parliamentary secretary will face his constituents. He will a lot of explaining to do to the folks in Alberta, who are generally of a Conservative persuasive, that he has run the bills up by $175 billion. Then he will have this cute little argument that the government paid down an amount of debt. The government only paid down about $39 billion of which $13 billion was left over from the Conservative government. Therefore, it has not done much of a job. Net, the government is probably up about $130 billion to $140 billion in debt.
Let us hope that the Governor of the Bank of Canada can keep the lid on the rates. I do not know if he can always do that. It is pretty low right now and we are pretty fortunate. Having racked up and anticipating racking up more and more debt, if the rates take off, then the problems of the government will pale in comparison to either inflation or the cost of borrowing.
It is pretty difficult to express confidence in a government that cannot control its spending, flatlines its revenues, runs up the debt, taxes the futures of our children, cannot and will not tell us whether stimulus actually impacts the economy and has an unemployment rate that is starting to go through the ceiling.
Forgive me if I express a lack of confidence in the government. The litany of incompetence, the litany of misleading information and this relentless propaganda machine that comes from across the other way would do credit to a totalitarian regime. There were $100 million spent on telling Canadians what good, fine folks the Conservatives were. Meanwhile the debt is through the ceiling, unemployment is rising and the government cannot tell us whether stimulus works.
I appreciate the opportunity to express this lack of confidence in the government.
[Interjection]
Ted Menzies: Madam Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood begged forgiveness near the end of his speech because he needs to do that.
I know the Speaker listens intently to all speeches in the House but, Madam Speaker, as you and I know at third reading one is supposed to speak somewhat about the bill being debated. I did not hear a word in there that actually addressed Bill C-51.
I would ask, with all due respect, to either approve his forgiveness or not, whichever the Speaker sees fit, because I do not think his constituents will forgive him. He stood in the House and voted against the economic recovery act. Now he will have to go back and explain that. He referred to me going back to my constituents. I am going back proudly to say that I am standing up for Canadians and I am ensuring that they have all the tools available to them to withstand this economic downturn.
He talked about job losses. The United States lost 190,000 jobs last month. He says that he is worried about our jobs. Absolutely, we are worried about the jobs we lost in Canada, but did it help that when he and his party, just this week, voted against extending EI?
Now I am not speaking to the bill, but I have to ask if the member knew anything that was in that bill. We have seen both sides of it. In the House he voted against it and he supported us at committee. I wish him all the luck in the world when he goes home this week.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I will take this opportunity to remind all members that we are at third reading. There is less latitude and members should speak more specifically to the bill, although this is not a point of order as the member raised it after the speech.
The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
[Interjection]
John McKay: Madam Speaker, it is rather amusing. I do not know how the hon. member will go back to his riding. I know where it is and it is a wonderful part of the country, although it is poorly represented.
He will have to tell his constituents that the Conservative Party of Canada has run up the debt to $175 billion. That is pretty impressive. He will tell them that the government cannot really tell them where the stimulus has helped the economy and it cannot tell them because it either has not analyzed it, or it will not tell the Parliamentary Budget Officer or it will not give the Parliamentary Budget Officer any information to make an intelligent analysis.
Then, when all the unemployed folks start traipsing into his office, he is going to say that the Conservatives are really good at managing the economy, that they have taken it from a Liberal surplus and have run it right into the ditch. It is brilliant.
If I do not express the greatest confidence in the government, please forgive me.
Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Madam Speaker, I want to focus a bit on the home renovation tax credit.
During the last campaign, New Democrats travelled across the country and advocated very strongly for a program that would allow Canadians to retrofit their homes in an energy efficient way. It is our belief that not only will this help create the green jobs of tomorrow, but it will also help Canadians improve their single biggest assets, their homes, and save energy at the same time.
I am very pleased to see the government brought in the home renovation tax credit because it allows Canadians to pursue this laudable goal. What does my hon. colleague think about the benefit of this program in helping Canadians make their homes more energy efficient and does he think it is a good idea?
[Interjection]
John McKay: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks a good question. On the face of it, the home renovation tax credit enjoys a lot of support among Canadian, certainly among contractors, who love it.
The problem is nobody knows whether it works. The idea of the home renovation tax credit as part of the stimulus package was to get shovels in the ground. On the face of it, that is a good idea. The trouble is the government will not tell us whether it works. There is a significant component of taxpayer-funded dollars in that program. 
The government should let the Parliamentary Budget Officer find out whether it works. The point of stimulus, the point of the member's party sometimes support and sometimes opposition was the stimulus money would be timely, in the ground and effective. It may be, but nobody really knows.
Gérard Asselin: Madam Speaker, as the member who just spoke said, in 1984 when the Conservatives were in power under Brian Mulroney, Canada's debt was $150 billion. By 1993, when the Liberals took over, the debt had risen to $750 billion. The Conservatives incurred that debt over a period of nine years. They took the $150 billion debt and grew it to $750 billion.
In his speech, the member who just spoke also pointed out that when the Liberals took power in 1993, with Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, they had trouble keeping their majority in 1997. Why? Because the Liberals chose to reduce transfer payments to the provinces to pay down the debt that the Conservatives had accumulated at a rate of $54 billion per year. That affected the provinces, including Quebec. Funding for education and health was slashed. They also appropriated $6 billion in surplus cash from the employment insurance fund.
Was taking money that should have been transferred to the provinces, money that went along with the transfer of certain responsibilities to provinces and municipalities, a good way to manage the nation's finances? Was cutting funding to the provinces and taking $6 billion from the employment insurance fund the right thing to do?
The Auditor General said that when the previous Liberal government was in power, annual contributions in excess of $58 billion from employees and employers produced a $58 billion surplus. Unemployed and seasonal workers have been denied access to that money.
[Interjection]
John McKay: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will recollect that in 1993 the Wall Street Journal designated Canada as an honourary member of the third world because it did not control its finances. Therefore, it was with some great difficulty that cuts were made to programs, transfers, et cetera, and that did have an impact on people.
However, we cannot have it both ways. We either have a financial system that is coherent, a financial framework that works, or we do what the current government has done, which is let it run and run and go into chronic deficit.
I actually addressed this question with the finance minister  when he came to committee. He has said that he will not raise taxes, that he will not to cut transfers and that he will not to cut pensions. That only leaves programs. His program spending is running at 7% or 8% on an annualized basis. He has said that maybe the government could get $100 billion of it to 3% on an annualized basis.
If we parse that answer, we will have deficits for the foreseeable future, as far as the eye can see. That is what we get with a Conservative government, no fiscal discipline. The fiscal framework for the country is a wreck. We are at the edge and we are about to go over.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, members know there was a worldwide recession last year at this time. In fact, Iceland actually declared bankruptcy.
However, while all this was happening, the Conservative government was totally oblivious to the state of the economy. During the election, the Prime Minister was saying that the land was strong and that the stock market crash was creating buying opportunities.
It was not until January, under the combined pressure of the opposition parties, that the Conservatives in fact introduced a stimulus package.
However, he is right that the Americans have a better reporting system—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I have to give the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood equal time to respond.
[Interjection]
John McKay: Madam Speaker, very briefly, the member's point is well taken on the stimulus disclosure. The Conservatives have it. We do not. They can do it. They will not.
On the issue of the Prime Minister and his fantasy life, this time last year, during that “necessary” election, the land was strong, we were free and only the stupid ran deficits. Here we are, 12 months later. Who is running the deficit?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Resuming debate. The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska may begin his speech.
Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Madam Speaker, like last Friday, I see that I am coming just before question period. I would not want this to become a habit, but question period is obviously very, very important. I will be back after question period to finish my speech on Bill C-51, which the Bloc Québécois supports. It is An Act to Implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.
I would like to preface my remarks by explaining a bit about what Bill C-51 entails. As I said, this bill implements the renovation tax credit. We in the Bloc Québécois had come up with similar proposals in our two recovery plans. When Parliament resumed, the House talked about the economic recovery plan, which contained provisions about implementing a renovation tax credit. Our actions are always consistent with our demands.
When the government introduced this bill, we supported it. Often, our adversaries say that the Bloc Québécois is all about blocking legislation and is opposed to all measures. We hear that regularly, especially during election campaigns, but it is totally false. When a measure is good for Quebec, as this bill is, of course the Bloc Québécois will support it.
However, when Parliament resumed in the fall, there was this election psychosis. The leader of the Liberal Party decided that Canadians and Quebeckers suddenly wanted an election, even though he himself had said not long before that Canadians needed an election like they needed a hole in the head. 
Journalists, who always get a bit excited at such times, asked the Bloc what it was going to do in response to the economic measures that had been put forward. The Bloc did what it has always done: it voted in favour of the measure, because it was good for Quebec. A bit later, when the Liberal Party introduced a motion saying that the House had lost confidence in this government, we supported it, at the risk of triggering an election, because we could not say that we had confidence in this government. 
We are guided by consistency, and we acted accordingly. Now, there is less election panic, because the Liberal leader realized that people did not want an election. I believe that the public felt the same way a month earlier. In any case, let us look at Bill C-51, which implements a tax credit.
I will come back to this later, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  The hon. member will have approximately 17 minutes remaining when debate on this bill is resumed.

Statements by Members
PeacekeepingMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Madam Speaker, dating back as far as the late 1940s, Canada has had a proud tradition of peacekeeping. Canada's armed forces, Canadian diplomats, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, provincial and municipal police forces, as well as civilians have all taken part in peacekeeping efforts.
Last year, August 9 was declared National Peacekeepers' Day. This past summer, I had the privilege to celebrate with peacekeeping veterans in my riding of Oshawa. From this point on, every August 9, Canadian peacekeepers past and present will be honoured through events and activities held across Canada.
However, our recognition of their service does not stop there. We as a nation owe these men and women an everlasting debt of gratitude. The significant contributions made by our peacekeepers have helped shape Canada's identity. This year, during Veterans' Week, I ask all Canadians to remember and honour our peacekeepers, our veterans and the members of our Canadian armed forces, with whom the tradition of service continues.
 Lest we forget.
Laval NewspaperMs. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to announce the arrival of Mon Laval, a new French-language newspaper in Laval. It is the French counterpart to Laval News, an English-language publication that has been an excellent source of news for several years. 
As the Liberal critic for la Francophonie, I fully appreciate the importance of this new newspaper, which will bring greater visibility to the French fact. It also exemplifies the linguistic diversity of Laval, a city where French and English coexist in a multicultural context.
I would like to congratulate the Mon Laval team for the important contribution it will surely make to the world of news, and I wish the newspaper every success.
Françoise MauriceMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Madam Speaker, today I would like to pay a final tribute to a remarkable woman from my riding, Françoise Maurice, who died on September 11, at the age of 93.
Referred to as the grande dame of culture, she played such a pivotal role in developing and promoting culture in Coaticook that the municipal library was named after her a few years ago. 
Françoise Maurice sat on every committee. She was a volunteer at the library that would bear her name and an archivist at the Beaulne museum. She was also very active at the arts and culture pavilion and was an extraordinary reference for the Coaticook historical society for many years.
Like other women before her, Françoise Maurice was a pioneer and a visionary, an exceptional woman whose contribution deserved a special mention in the House today.
Death of Three MinersMr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Marc Guay, Bruno Goulet and Dominico Bollini, the three miners killed tragically at the Bachelor Lake gold mine in Quebec. 
We often forget that mining is a very dangerous job. I worked for a mining company for 34 years, and some of my friends died underground. In the weeks to come, Quebec's workplace health and safety commission will investigate this tragedy. I hope that the entire industry will take its recommendations seriously and will do everything it can to prevent deaths in the workplace.
I know that all of the members will join me in expressing our condolences to the family and friends of Marc Guay, Bruno Goulet and Dominico Bollini, and to all of the people of Desmaraisville.
Fall of Berlin WallMr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): Madam Speaker, Monday, November 9, marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the peaceful revolution that led to the reunification of Germany and a divided Berlin.
The 12-foot concrete wall extended for 100 miles, surrounding Berlin, and included electrified fences and guard posts. It stood as a stark symbol of the decades-old struggle between the west and the Soviet Union.
When the wall fell, it marked the beginning of the end of the cold war. Shortly thereafter, the iron curtain would be lifted from the Soviet Union, freeing millions of people and bringing democracy to many more. It was the strength and determination of the western allies that stood firm with freedom-loving people of the world against oppression. 
It was Ronald Reagan who said at the Brandenburg Gate:
 We in the West stand ready to cooperate with the East to promote true openness, break down barriers that separate people, to create a safer, freer world. 
We must never forget those who sacrificed their lives in the name of liberty and freedom. We must always work toward a freer, more democratic world.
2010 Winter Olympic GamesMs. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in less than 100 days, hundreds of thousands of visitors will head to Vancouver for the experience of a lifetime. After years of hard work by athletes and others, Canadians will unite to celebrate sport and excellence at the 2010 Olympics.
Excited as I am for Canada, I am also very worried. I am worried that the Vancouver Games will be undermined by the fear and chaos of a national health crisis that has been terribly mismanaged. I am worried that visitors will choose to stay home instead of enter the eye of a pandemic tornado that experts believe is yet to reach its peak. 
With priority vaccinations finally starting to reach clinics, long lines are a regular sight in Vancouver. Liberals have made constructive proposals which are being ignored. If the Conservatives do not take action now on the H1N1 pandemic, years of hard work and resources may be wasted. 
The Conservative government has ragged the puck on H1N1. The clock is ticking down, but there is not time for a time out. British Columbians need vaccinations now and the world needs to be assured that Canada has not thrown in the towel.
Veterans' WeekMr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Madam Speaker, members of Parliament will be returning to their constituencies to attend many different Veterans' Week ceremonies.
In my riding of Crowfoot, Government of Canada Remembrance Day wreaths will be laid in 21 communities as we gather together to express a sincere thank you to the generations of men and women who have worn our country's uniform, who have defended our way of life and made Canada strong, free and proud.
We acknowledge the contributions that ordinary Canadians have made in two great wars, in Korea, on peacekeeping missions, on military operations and in Afghanistan today.
Canadian soldiers are the best in the world. They are the best trained, the most disciplined and the most professional.
We live in a country blessed with peace, a country built on the values of generosity, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
During Veterans' Week we thank our men and women in uniform, past and present, for their sacrifice.
Lest we forget.
Drummondville Figure Skating ClubMr. Roger Pomerleau (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, six members of the sport study program at the Drummondville figure skating club excelled at the BMO Skate Canada Quebec sectional championships held in Sherbrooke from October 28 to November 1.
Roxanne Rheault, Claudia Paquet and Vincent-Olivier Han won the provincial title in their respective categories, with Vanessa Grenier and Marie-Pier Duchesne taking second place and Marie-Gabrielle Hémond third place.
In addition, seven skaters from Drummondville won a spot on the Quebec team that will be competing in December at the Skate Canada Eastern Challenge in Mississauga. Hémond, Duchesne, Rheault and Grenier will be joined by Valérie Bergeron, Maude Leclerc and Roxanne Cournoyer. 
Congratulations to these athletes and good luck in the Eastern Challenge, the qualifying event for the Canadian Championships.
Attempted CarjackingMr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is said that when we want something done right, we have to do it ourselves.
MLA Lyle Stewart showed that Saskatchewan politicians are not to be fooled with. Last week, Stewart was the victim of an attempted carjacking, emphasis on the word “attempted”. Rather than risk losing his beloved 2001 Ford Taurus, the normally mild-mannered MLA sprang into action, subduing his attacker with one hand while phoning 911 on a cell phone with the other hand.
The attacker's arsenal of weapons included pens, pencils and the side mirror that had been ripped off Stewart's car, but this proved no match for Stewart. In fact, Stewart barely felt the assailant's blows to his head at all, because Stewart has spent his entire career trying to talk sense into the NDP which we all know is like running one's head into a brick wall. 
And so, let evil-doers beware. In Saskatchewan some people may like to wear Superman pyjamas, but in Saskatchewan, Superman actually wears Lyle Stewart pyjamas.
Pan American GamesMr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, since 1951 the Pan American Games have brought athletes from across the Americas together in the spirit of competition and excellence.
The most recent host city, Rio de Janeiro, welcomed over 5,000 athletes and saw the participation of 42 countries. These numbers will only grow each time the games are held.
Toronto is up against the fine cities of Lima and Bogota, but we are also confident of the excellence of our outstanding bid.
The greater Toronto area would benefit enormously from hosting the games. Upward of 15,000 jobs would be created and economic benefits in the range of $2 billion would mean improvements in public transit, revitalized sports infrastructure and the construction of affordable housing.
This bid is a significant opportunity to show our many attributes to our neighbours across the Americas and indeed around the world. 
Along with all residents of Toronto and my colleagues here in Parliament, I would like to congratulate and thank the many individuals who put together our bid for the games. Their hard work and dedication is appreciated. We share their excitement today as we wait for the announcement.
Prime MinisterMrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface, CPC):  Madam Speaker, I am very proud to have this opportunity to congratulate our Prime Minister on receiving the Grand Cross of the Order of the Pleiades, from the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. This award, in honour of his exceptional contribution to la Francophonie, went to a man who is dedicated to the people of his country, a caring man who is committed to the cultural and linguistic diversity of Canada.
I am very touched by the award that our Prime Minister has received from the APF. The work that our Conservative government is doing for francophone communities across Canada is finally being acknowledged by parliamentary colleagues throughout the world. I feel very good about that.
I am very honoured to work alongside a Prime Minister like this. He is very deserving of this honour, which reflects the kind of person he is.
PensionsMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, seniors in east Vancouver, the self-employed and those approaching retirement worry about the future as they watch their pension plans fall apart. Many seniors in our community live in poverty and it is even harder to get by during this economic recession.
The problems with Canada's pension system are serious and they must be fixed.
The NDP has introduced a comprehensive plan to reform Canada's pension program. We want to see a national pension insurance program to protect workers' pensions from company shortfalls, an increase to contributions to CPP benefits, and something which I think is especially important, a significant increase in the guaranteed income supplement to a level that will eliminate seniors' poverty. The seniors of east Vancouver desperately need this.
It is high time the income security of seniors was made a top priority. I call on the government to move swiftly to adopt these proposals. They are affordable, responsible and simply the right things to do.
Employment InsuranceMr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC): Madam Speaker, I am very proud to announce that Bill C-50  has received royal assent.
This means that unemployed long-tenured workers can now receive between five and twenty extra weeks of EI while they search for a new job. These Canadians have worked hard and paid premiums for years. They deserve our support now when they need it most.
Unfortunately, the Liberal leader voted against support for these Canadians and their families. He needs to explain why he does not think these Canadians, who have given so much to our country and so much to our economy, are deserving of this support.
When it comes to helping Canadians and their families weather the global economic storm, Canadians know that they can count on our Conservative government to deliver results.
20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin WallMs. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago next Monday, the Berlin wall fell. The “wall of shame” was erected in 1961 by East German authorities in order to prevent the residents of East Berlin from leaving for West Berlin. For 28 years, it was a symbol of the east-west divide that characterized the cold war.
On the evening of November 8, as the Soviet bloc collapsed, the authorities from the German Democratic Republic, or GDR, announced that they would “facilitate” passage to the west. Confusion quickly took over, and during the night of November 9 to 10, the wall fell. Thousands of people helped knock it down, destroying it as they passed through. It marked the end of an era of oppression, poverty and conflict. It also meant the end of the GDR.
There are 17 other “walls of shame” that still exist around the world, stretching over 7,500 km. May the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall serve as a reminder that there is no place for segregation, since it only encourages hate—
The Speaker: The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.
2009 Moulin d'or AwardMrs. Lise Zarac (LaSalle—Émard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to congratulate the Corporation L'Espoir, run by Claude Barbier and Huguette Giroux, on winning the 2009 Moulin d'or award at a large gala for volunteers organized by the borough council. This prestigious award is given to a volunteer organization that has made a remarkable contribution during the year.
I want to acknowledge the magnificent work this organization does for our community in helping those with intellectual disabilities. Despite its very limited resources, it enjoys a strong structure, incredible dedication and volunteerism beyond compare, which has allowed it to complete many projects and achieve many wonderful successes.
This award given to the Corporation L'Espoir is proof that the most noble of virtues are still alive and well: goodness, dedication, sharing and respect for others are values that best describe this organization.
I want to thank them for the past 30 years of service to our community and wish them all the best for the years to come.
The EconomyMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government continues to implement Canada's economic action plan to help combat the effects of this global recession. Infrastructure projects across the country are up and running and they are creating jobs.
We have reduced taxes on families and businesses. We have created the home renovation and first-time homebuyers' tax credits. However, while our Conservative government is fighting the recession, just this week the Liberal leader directed his party to oppose extending employment insurance benefits to long-tenured workers to help them while they search for new employment.
Canadians know they can count on us to ensure that we get through the global economic recession stronger than ever and, with Canada's economic action plan, this Prime Minister and this government are leading the way.

Oral Questions
HealthMr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about the H1N1 flu pandemic.
Australia, not Canada, has the highest per capita vaccination rate because its program began more than two months earlier than ours. Canada was not the quickest out of the starting gate as the U.S. and the United Kingdom were vaccinating long before we were. Even China started seven weeks before us.
How will the Conservatives make up for lost time?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Australia has vaccinated close to one million people out of a total population of 22 million. Canada has vaccinated more Canadians over the last two weeks than any other country in the world on a population basis.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, the story is always changing. Let us look at the figures.
The Public Health Agency of Canada has left $50 million of the allocated budget on the table, unspent. For infectious disease prevention and control, $17 million is unused. For health promotion, $17 million has not been spent. In addition $3.5 million for emergency preparedness has never been used.
Why did the Conservatives not allow the agency to use all these available resources?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, our government has invested over $1 billion in the pandemic plan and we are investing more. We have purchased the vaccine for Canada. We will continue to support the Public Health Agency in the delivery and the rollout of the pandemic plan.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, the only thing Canadians have more of per capita is partisan sloganeering and wasteful signs.
This is about putting needles in arms, not about pointing fingers and blame. The real problem is that the priorities are all wrong. Infections will peak by the end of this month, 40% fewer than the promised vaccines have been delivered and $50 million have been left on the table.
Why not support more clinics? Why not more public health nurses? Why not help for our shut-ins? 
Would Canadians not have been much safer if only a fraction of the energy put into the blue waste campaign had been dedicated to leading a truly national pandemic response?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, by the end of next week, over 8.5 million doses of the H1N1 vaccine will have been delivered to the provinces and territories. There is enough vaccine available for all priority groups and all Canadians.
Canada currently has more H1N1 vaccine available for Canadians than any other country in the world has for its own population make-up.
Hon. Ken Dryden (York Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not getting vaccinated fast enough. The minister says that she is right on plan but H1N1 sets its own timetable and, according to its timetable, it will peak about three weeks from now and there is no way the minister's timetable will meet H1N1's timetable.
What more, additional, different will the minister do now to deliver, not to her plan but to the pandemic's need, the people's needs?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, in regard to when the pandemic will peak, the Chief Public Health Officer's comments yesterday were taken out of context. We do not know when the peak will be.
 However, we are encouraging all Canadians to get the vaccine when it becomes available. We are also encouraging Canadians to respect the sequencing of the vaccine approved by the provinces and territories.
Ken Dryden: Mr. Speaker, this is pitch-in time. This is not about jurisdictions. It is about people.
When flood waters rise, it is about all of us doing whatever we can. That has never been the Prime Minister's approach. His approach is, “We will do this, and you will do that”, and that is the end of it. Except the government has not done its part, the provinces and territories are struggling and Canadians are not getting vaccinated fast enough.
What more, additional, different will the minister do now to deliver, not to her plan but to Canadians' needs?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to provide support to the provinces and territories. We are producing vaccine on a weekly basis and that is being distributed across the country.
This plan was put together by the provinces and territories. Every province is doing its part to deliver the pandemic plan. I must also say that by next week some jurisdictions will have vaccinated their entire population. This is good news in terms of the rollout and in terms of support to the provinces and territories.
Political Party FinancingMr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one of the shady characters who contributed money to Senator Carignan's campaign when he was a Conservative candidate in the last election is Giulio Maturi. Members will recall that Mr. Maturi is a Conservative Party bagman, who became the executive director of Vision Montreal on the recommendation of Senator Housakos, and after entrepreneur Tony Accurso spoke to Benoît Labonté.
In light of this troubling information, will the Prime Minister stop sticking his head in the sand and demand an investigation into Senator Carignan's election funding?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 2006, we said we would do some housekeeping and we cleaned up election funding. We have the strictest laws this country has ever seen. The Bloc Québécois has been making these accusations for two weeks. I repeat, if they have allegations, if they have something to report, they should report it to the appropriate authorities outside this House. 
Pierre Paquette: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of housekeeping, after the broadcast of Benoît Labonté's testimony alleging the existence of a corruption scheme in municipal politics, Mr. Maturi, a close friend of Conservative Senator Leo Housakos, suddenly disappeared as a Conservative Party official.
Does the Prime Minister understand that covertly disposing of a troublesome organizer will not solve the situation? There needs to be an in-depth investigation into these financing schemes.
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, these are just words; this is all nonsense. What we want to know is whether there are allegations. There are no allegations here in the House. There are none on the other side.
Pierre Paquette:  Yes, there are allegations.
Christian Paradis:  If there are allegations, they should be made outside the House to the appropriate authorities. They should speak to the appropriate authorities to clear up this situation, this so-called scheme or whatever they are claiming.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Conservative bagman and Senator Leo Housakos is implicated in the questionable financing in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. His network backed Conservative candidate Claude Carignan. Housakos is also mixed up in the award of a major contract to the Bridge Corporation. Hon. members will recall that he organized a cocktail fundraiser that was attended by engineering firm representatives, ministers, including the minister of patronage, the Minister of Public Works, and managers of the Bridge Corporation who were responsible for awarding contracts.
Are Leo Housakos' shenanigans in these two cases not enough to warrant an investigation into financing practices?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to fabrication, this takes the cake. It is shocking to hear such baseless insinuations. If these people have anything to report, let them make their allegations to the appropriate authorities. For two weeks, they have been yelling from the other side of the House that they are going to do just that. But they are not doing anything, because their allegations are baseless. If they have any proof, let them go to the appropriate authorities. That is what they should do.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, in addition to Senator Housakos, Giulio Maturi, a Conservative Party bagman, was involved in financing Claude Carignan, who became a Conservative senator and, like Housakos, attended the Conservative Party fundraiser on May 20 that led to the awarding of a contract to a firm connected with Senator Housakos.
Are these facts not enough to warrant an investigation into financing practices in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and the awarding of contracts to the Bridge Corporation?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc is starting to put people to sleep with its story. For two weeks, all sorts of crazy insinuations have been made in this House. All these people have to do is make allegations to the appropriate authorities. Are they trying to distract people from the fact that from the start, they have voted against measures that are producing results, such as the economic action plan and the measures to help the unemployed? Municipalities in Quebec are in the process of completely renewing their infrastructure. If we were to follow the Bloc's logic, we would be mired in insinuations and there would be no construction projects under way in Quebec.
EmploymentLibby Davies: Mr. Speaker, once again, today we see the results of failed Conservative economic policies.
Despite government assertions that the economic crisis is behind us, 43,000 more Canadians were thrown out of work in October. There are 43,000 more Canadians now facing a grim winter, many of them women and young people. Sadly, most of them will not qualify for EI.
When will the government realize that its economic action plan is failing? When will it figure out that it needs to change the direction it has taken?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, our economic action plan is working. Canadians have been telling us that what we have put into this economy, the economic action plan is making sure that the jobs we have remain secure. We are creating new jobs.
It is always unfortunate when we see the number of lost jobs, like we did today, but I would remind the House that in the last two months we actually had an increase in jobs. Did we hear a question? Did we hear any concern from those hon. members? No, but as soon as we hear some sad news, they seem to be all over it.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the NDP is proud to have forced the government to give an extra $1 billion for the unemployed, but it is far from enough. In the last 12 months, the Conservatives have presided over the net loss of 400,000 jobs in Canada. 
Yet, the government keeps repeating that the economy is doing better, but the facts speak for themselves. The Conservative economic recovery is a jobless recovery. When will the government realize that an advertising campaign is not an economic plan?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, all hon. members in the House have heard our Prime Minister and our finance minister remind us day after day that this will be difficult. There will be job losses. There will be gains. We will see positive numbers and negative numbers. Unfortunately, today we saw negative numbers. 
We need a clear, entrenched economic recovery in Canada and abroad, mostly in the United States, our largest partner, before we will see a true and strong recovery.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep claiming that we are supposed to be over the worst of the economic crisis, yet the job losses are mounting.
The largest losses were in Alberta, with 15,000 jobs and B.C., with 13,000 jobs. What does the government do to help these new 13,000 unemployed British Columbians? The Conservatives reward them with the HST, a higher sales tax on the most vital goods, like home heating.
People are losing their jobs. They are facing a tough winter and the Conservatives are increasing their home heating bills. What kind of help is that?
Ted Menzies: Mr. Speaker, let me answer that with a question. What kind of help is it when the NDP votes against every tax cut that we provide for Canadians?
We tried to give a tax cut to those who provide service through guide dogs for the blind. The NDP voted against that. We tried to put forth tax reductions that would leave more money in Canadians' pockets so they could help recover from this worldwide economic recession. The NDP members continued to vote against that. I do not think they have any credibility standing up and talking about taxes in this House.
Natural ResourcesMr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal Toronto Port Authority has been exposed as being dysfunctional and mismanaged. Yet, the Minister of Transport says everything is in accordance with policy, but today we find out that the current board chair, who was recently appointed by that minister, altered the board minutes of last year to cover up political interference and gross mismanagement.
Since the auditors have advised the minister of these ethical and legal breaches, will the minister now ask the Auditor General to conduct a thorough investigation?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Port Authority is an independent and arm's-length organization. The TPA has said many times that all expense and hospitality claims, for example, had been followed. The board has since stated that management and staff clearly followed all of these policies. The chairman of the audit committee stated that there was nothing unusual in these expenses for a business of this size.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, not true. The former CEO, the current Minister of Natural Resources, reimbursed herself for two expense reports which were not signed by the chair of the board. The chair refused to sign these reports.
The member has just misled the House. There is fiscal mismanagement on hospitality and other expenses; doctoring board minutes to cover up political interference and gross mismanagement; a feuding, dysfunctional board; unauthorized use of government offices for political fundraisers; and the list goes on.
This is not accountability. This is a cover-up. This is not just unethical; it is fraud. When will the government call in the RCMP?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest if that member wishes to make those kinds of allegations that he have the courage to say them outside of the House of Commons.
In the meantime, the Toronto Port Authority is an arm's-length organization. The TPA has said many times that all expenses and hospitality policies were followed. The chairman of the audit committee stated that there was nothing unusual in these expenses for a business of this size.
EmploymentMr. Francis Valeriote (Guelph, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the loss of over 43,000 Canadian jobs last month drove the country's unemployment rate up to 8.6%. With the $100 million the Conservatives are spending on political propaganda, they could have been helping small and medium size businesses.
The average small business loan is $100,000. That $100 million could have helped over 1,000 businesses, directly creating thousands of jobs and saving countless more.
Why is the government so concerned about its own image rather than the livelihoods of Canadians?
Mr. Mike Lake (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that question is simply ridiculous. 
The hon. member knows that this government has done more for businesses across this country than any government in Canadian history, than any government around the world in terms of this global economic slowdown. That is why the World Economic Forum came out just a month ago and said that Canada will emerge from this slowdown as one of only two industrialized countries in a more competitive position than it went in.
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, so far, more than half the job losses during this Conservative recession have affected young people. Again in October, 50% of the 43,000 jobs lost were held by this category of worker. Last year, youth employment dropped by nearly 10%, which is unprecedented. Young Canadians are disproportionately affected by the recession and disproportionately neglected by the Conservative government.
Instead of wasting $100 million on propaganda, why have the Conservatives not instead increased funding for young entrepreneurs?
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that thousands of jobs have been created for students and young people this summer. We have invested over $20 million over two years for Canada summer jobs and created 40,000 jobs. We have done a number of things to create jobs and to help those unemployed. 
I would like to ask the member, why would he oppose aid to those who are unemployed?
Firearms RegistryMr. Richard Nadeau (Gatineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in introducing a private members' bill to repeal the firearms registry in order to allow a free vote on the matter, the Conservatives from Quebec are complicit with those who are calling for the entire gun registry to be scrapped. Quebec's public safety minister sees this approach as nothing but a ploy. Unlike the Conservatives, Quebec wants to keep the firearms registry.
If the government has no use for the registry, then why does it not transfer it to Quebec, as Jean Charest asked it to during the last election?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, repealing the long gun registry is a Conservative Party position. There is nothing new in that. The Conservative members from Quebec are proud to support that position because that is what we promised our voters and we are going to keep our word. The Bloc does not represent every point of view in Quebec. If it asked the general public, the Bloc would see that popular opinion is much more divided than it lets on. I am thinking about the Fédération québécoise des chasseurs et pêcheurs, with whom the Bloc has probably never spoken. If Quebec wants to set up a registry, then it can do so through the registration of goods and property, which is a provincial jurisdiction. We have decided to decriminalize this, period.
Richard Nadeau: Mr. Speaker, what little good faith the government still had on this has just vanished. The government waited until the day after the vote to release an RCMP report underscoring the usefulness of the firearms registry.
Why is the government determined to deprive police forces of a tool that they consider useful?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, the report was tabled here in the House according to the rules of the House of Commons. They should stop making all these unfounded insinuations.
The problem lies with illegal weapons, knives and handguns, and that registry is still in effect. We are repealing the long gun registry. Let us stop penalizing farmers and hunters. There are going to be more restrictions on getting a permit.
Instead of saying whatever they want, the members should get out and talk to people in Quebec. They will see that opinion is much more divided than they think. 
InfrastructureAndré Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, Quebec municipalities deplore the fact that infrastructure money is not flowing quickly enough. By insisting on entering into agreements for each individual project, the federal government is more concerned with its own visibility than with the need to create jobs. 
Why is the federal government refusing to transfer a block of funds to Quebec for infrastructure so that the work can get started quickly? 
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, my colleague does not understand that within a federation the government can work with the province of Quebec. That is what we are doing.
Quebec is in charge and we are working together with Quebec. I will say it again. If we followed their logic not a single cent would have been disbursed. There would be no construction sites and no new construction jobs in Quebec. What is shameful is that they opposed us from the beginning. They oppose every measure we suggest to help Quebec. They should explain that to their voters.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, the promise made with regard to highway 185 just three days before the by-election in Rivière-du-Loup reveals the Conservatives' cynicism. The voters in that riding will not be taken in by these partisan games.
A study by the Canadian Press indicates that the riding, which has been represented by the Bloc Québécois for 16 years, has received its share of investments. With a Bloc member, it is ranked fourth in terms of the number of projects funded by the last budget.
When will the Conservative government stop politicizing the infrastructure program?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to imagine a more ridiculous question because all Bloc Québécois members voted against Canada's economic action plan. 
The reason why Bloc, Liberal and Conservative ridings throughout Quebec have benefited is because there are 10 Conservative members from Quebec in this House who support the implementation of the Government of Canada's economic action plan.
If we followed their logic, they would not see a single cent.
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the city of Mississauga tried to get funding for a pathway project in Willowcreek Park. It was turned down. Yet, with the money the government forced Mississauga to spend on partisan signs, it could have done the project twice and still had money left over.
Why has the Conservative government put propaganda ahead of the people of Mississauga?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a problem. For months, the Liberal Party has been telling Canadians that there are no projects or construction under way throughout the country. Now, there is construction everywhere throughout the country. We are creating jobs, building bridges, expanding hockey facilities for young people, and providing a home renovation tax credit.
All of these things are happening and the Liberals do not want these to be publicized. Now, they complain that there are signs all over the place. First, they say there are no projects and now they say that there are too many projects with too many signs.
Navdeep Bains: Mr. Speaker, the priorities of the government are a joke. It forced the city of Mississauga to spend an average of $227 per sign, yet when it comes to infrastructure spending, Mississauga only received $46 per resident.
Could the government explain why propaganda is five times more important to it than people?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, members of the Liberal Party really have to decide. Either they believe that there are no construction projects and therefore no signs to advertise those projects, or they believe that there are too many construction projects and therefore too many signs to publicize them.
At the end of the day, the Liberal Party has to make a decision. On this side, we have made our decision. We are funding job-creating projects that are building communities across this country. They are creating jobs today, expanding hope for the long-term, and providing Canadians with an economic action plan that delivers results.
Olympic Winter GamesJoyce Murray: Mr. Speaker, in Ontario the Olympic torch is stopping in 29 Conservative ridings and only three held by Liberals. Clearly, there is a bias. The government is a torch relay sponsor. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons put out a list of all of the ridings that will see the torch.
The government minister asked MPs to contact him about torch events in their ridings. Whether it is infrastructure or the Olympic Games, the Conservative government inappropriately exploits public initiatives for its own partisan gain. When will it stop?
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, of course it is “ready, fire, aim” on the other side. These desperate conspiracy theories are totally false, but do not take my word for it. Let us listen to what John Furlong, the CEO of VANOC had to say about this issue. He said:
 At no time did anyone in any government, or any political party offer one iota of counsel or influence about that.... We did our jobs the way we should have done them. 
That is what John Furlong said. The member must have a problem with John Furlong.
Mr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Olympic flame is a symbol. It represents healthy competition, camaraderie and people coming together. It is anything but a partisan tool.
Unfortunately, today, some questions have been raised about the flame's journey. Among the events that have been planned across the country, only 12% are being held in Liberal ridings, 13% in NDP ridings, 10% in Bloc ridings and 62% in Conservative ridings. I repeat, 62%.
One has to wonder if these are the Conservatives' Olympic Games or Canada's Olympic Games. 
Dean Del Mastro: Mr. Speaker, I think it is kind of disgraceful that the Liberal Party is trying to politicize this.
As I said earlier, VANOC organized this, and of course we heard what CEO John Furlong had to say.
Let us listen to what the Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra had to say about VANOC. She said:
 VANOC can be proud of their seamless organization, embodying the Olympic principles of excellence, friendship and fairness. Congratulations to John Furlong and his Organizing Committee. 
What in the world are they going on about over there? One minute he is doing a great job, and the next minute he is not. I cannot figure it out.
Employment InsuranceMr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is still being affected by the global recession. Our economic recovery is very fragile.
That is why our Conservative government is focused on staying the course and implementing our economic action plan. Our plan provides support for Canadians and their families to help them weather the economic storm.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour please update the House on the measures that we have taken to help these hard-hit Canadians?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, our economic action plan is working. 
Our Conservative government provided five extra weeks of EI, which benefited over 300,000 unemployed Canadians.
We made unprecedented investments in skills training to get Canadians back to work. We have expanded work-sharing which is currently protecting the jobs of over 165,000 Canadians.
I am proud to announce that our bill to provide extra support for long-tenured workers has received royal assent, despite the shameful opposition by the Liberal leader and members of his party. I have no idea what they have against those hardest hit by the global recession.
We are getting results for Canadians and we will always stand up for those who need--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Toronto Port AuthorityMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Port Authority is a swamp of sleaze and corruption.
We are now learning that the board was rewriting minutes of their meetings while rubber-stamping dodgy receipts.
What a perfect training ground for our own ethically challenged Minister of Natural Resources. She used the crown agency to troll for political donations. She covered up expenses while dining out like aristocracy on the taxpayers' dime.
The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities could have cleaned house but instead he played along.
Will the government finally rein in these rogue ministers?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, this government brought in the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history. It is called the Federal Accountability Act. It limits political contributions; it protects whistleblowers; it makes the system more transparent; and, it adds roughly 20 additional organizations to access to information.
This was a positive step for accountability and transparency in Canada. On this side of the House and indeed right across Canada, people are proud of that act.
Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, they do not call it the pork authority for nothing.
The Tories interfered with the election of the chair of the board. They fired people who asked tough questions and replaced them with bagmen and pals.
Why would that be? Would it be so that the Minister of Natural Resources could use the private list to troll for cash, so they could use the board to dump their buddies into the positions of power?
The government is busted. It needs to fess up and apologize to the people of Toronto.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Port Authority is an arm's-length organization. The TPA has said many times that all expenses and hospitality policies were followed.
The board has since stated that management and staff clearly followed all of these policies.
The chairman of the audit committee stated that there was nothing unusual in these expenses for a business of this size.
Employment InsuranceGérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-50 does not meet the needs of Quebec's forestry workers. It was designed to help Ontario's auto workers. Similarly, Bill C-56 will not really help Quebec's self-employed workers, since they already have access to the Quebec parental insurance plan. Furthermore, the premiums required are too high compared to the benefits offered.
Does the government not see that this piecemeal reform of the employment insurance system is not working, and that a complete overhaul is needed?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-50 is an excellent bill for Quebec's unemployed workers. The Bloc should have supported it. Long-tenured workers will have access to an additional 5 to 20 weeks of benefits. That is not insignificant.
As for self-employed workers, they currently have access to a private system that is very expensive. We are offering them something affordable, and once again, the Bloc is going to vote against it. They will have to explain to people who want to take advantage of those measures why they will have to make do with the private system, at outrageous prices.
Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, this week, a majority of members in the House supported the Bloc Québécois bill that proposes increasing employment insurance benefits and easing the eligibility requirements.
Will the government respect the will of the House of Commons and see that the bill gets royal recommendation, so the employment insurance system can be completely overhauled?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, we introduced Bill C-50. What did the Bloc members do? They voted against it. That is what they did. An additional 5 to 20 weeks of benefits for Quebec's unemployed workers is significant. There are long-tenured workers everywhere in Canada, and particularly in Quebec. The Bloc voted against that. They will vote against everything we do to help the economy and unemployed workers. That is what is shameful. They do not want to move things forward; they want to create divisions. So they continue to pick petty quarrels that make no sense. 
Veterans AffairsMr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the New Veterans Charter was adopted unanimously in 2005. It renewed this country's commitment to Canadian Forces members, veterans, and their families.
The government has had four years to implement the charter, yet last week the Royal Canadian Legion said:
 It is...becoming evident that critically...wounded veterans may not be provided adequate financial security under the New Veterans Charter. 
If the problem is not the charter, when is the government going to implement it and why is it failing at it?
Mr. Greg Kerr (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, certainly as part of the veterans affairs committee, the member does get that information first-hand, and probably he is well aware that the government is working hard on reinstating so many programs that were devastated by the former Liberal government.
Certainly the charter is an important initiative that we are picking up on. However, as all members sitting over there would know, it is going to take a long time to reinstate those very important programs.
We all know we can never do enough for our veterans in Canada.
Rob Oliphant: Mr. Speaker, this week, the Veterans Ombudsman said that this charter would create a great deal of confusion and discontent, particularly among those suffering from operational stress injury. More and more people are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
What is the minister doing to ensure that modern care is being provided to armed forces personnel suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder?
Greg Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as our minister has stated very clearly several times, the traditional review and respect we have for veterans does not change. 
However, the reality today is that we have many more people entering the veterans stage from the modern wars and the modern responsibilities we have right around the world.
This government knows that we can certainly never do enough for the standard veterans. We have to make sure we do just as much, and even more, for the new veterans because they are protecting Canada and freedom right around the world.
HealthDon Davies: Mr. Speaker, with the H1N1 outbreak, Canadians need a strong public health care system now more than ever, but the Conservative candidate in the British Columbia byelection, Diana Dilworth, just said on local radio that she wants more private health care in our country.
This is a candidate so out of step with British Columbia that not only does she oppose public health care, she opposes a judicial inquiry into the salmon collapse, something all British Columbians want and this government just announced.
Is Ms. Dilworth's position on private health care the position of the Conservative government, or is she out of step with her own party on this issue too?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with the provinces and territories and support the Canada Health Act of this country.
Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the hard-working people at the Sudbury Regional Hospital are doing all they can to deal with H1N1, but they have reached their critical care capacity. ER volume is up 30% and they have already been forced to cancel over 40 surgeries.
In the event of a natural disaster, the federal government supports provincial and municipal efforts. That system is in place. Exactly how much worse must the situation get before the federal government steps up and provides financial support for the delivery of the vaccine?
Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Speaker, our government has invested over $1 billion to support this pandemic plan and we continue to assist the provinces and territories in developing the vaccine as well.
As well, in terms of supporting provinces to deliver health care, this government, on an annual basis, now contributes $24 billion under health care transfers to support the provinces in delivering their health care, and I will continue to work with the provinces and territories as we deal with this pandemic.
Employment InsuranceMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, unemployed long-tenured workers are among the hardest hit by the global recession. These are Canadians who have worked hard, paid premiums for years and need extra support while they search for new employment. Our Conservative government took concrete action to help them by introducing Bill C-50.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources please update this House on the status of this important bill that will provide much-needed support for these hard-working Canadians?
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that Bill C-50 has received royal assent. This means that unemployed Canadians, long-tenured workers, can now receive between five and twenty weeks of extra EI support while they transition into a new job.
Shamefully and regrettably, the Liberal leader and members of his party voted against these hard-working Canadians at every stage in the House and in committee.
While the Liberal leader continues to disappoint those hardest hit, it is our Conservative government that will continue to stand up for hard-working Canadians and their families in their hour of need.
Foreign AffairsMario Silva: Mr. Speaker, in order to achieve real progress in Haiti, political stability and good governance must be restored. Last Friday's events were a step in the wrong direction.
Will the Conservative government commit to restoring political stability and good governance to Haiti?
Many Canadians are working to improve quality of life in Haiti, so where is the government's commitment?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. 
I can tell the House that I had an opportunity to speak with the President of Haiti last week about the government transition. The Minister of State of Foreign Affairs for the Americas was with me. I can assure the members of the House that the President assured me that he embraces and is completely open to the need for stable government.
We will continue to work with the Haitian government.
The EnvironmentMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada's actions this week showed just how little the Conservatives care about the environment. Canada is still the wrench in the works at the climate conference in Barcelona. The minister would have us believe that his refusal to negotiate binding targets is some kind of sophisticated strategy. But his strategy is non-existent.
Will the minister acknowledge that his so-called strategy is actually that of oil companies seeking to derail negotiations so that as little as possible will be done about the environment?
Mr. John Duncan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister has been clear. The purpose of the Copenhagen negotiations is to achieve a new global framework to replace Kyoto. There are 192 countries at the table. We have tough negotiators to ensure an agreement makes sense for Canada's economic, geographic and industrial realities.
 We will not sign a deal that is bad for Canada. That was the Liberal way at Kyoto. It is not the Conservative way at Copenhagen.
Government AppointmentsMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, appointments should be based on merit and not partisanship. Look at the board of Rights and Democracy. The Tories are turning this into the board of Conservative cronyism.
 Earlier the government indicated its intention to appoint Irene MacLeod to the board. According to her resume, she has no past experience in the field, but she is a loyal Conservative partisan. The latest offering is Michael Van Pelt, another individual whose resume indicates no background in the field, but he has been a donor to the provincial Conservative Party.
When will the government stop the assault on democracy and institute merit-based appointments?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. member, and indeed the entire House, that all our appointments are based on merit.
Fisheries and OceansMrs. Tilly O'Neill-Gordon (Miramichi, CPC): Mr. Speaker, important meetings are beginning today in Recife, Brazil.
 Canada has long pressed the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas to adhere to scientific advice and enforce the rules of this organization. However, members fishing the stock in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, fish recklessly, leaving environmental groups and some countries to call for a trade ban.
Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans assure the House that Canada will stand up for conservation and its fishers?
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's bluefin tuna fishery is a responsible and sustainable fishery. It is worth as much as $10 million annually to Canadian fishers, not to mention significant economic spinoffs.
Canada is calling on all ICCAT members to take immediate, concrete and decisive action on conservation and management at ICCAT's annual meeting, which begins today. ICCAT must put an end to the overfishing by the violating countries. If it does not take immediate action, it could have serious and long-term consequences for international trade for all of bluefin tuna.
This government will continue to press and stand up for—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Davenport.
Foreign AffairsMario Silva: Mr. Speaker, Haiti is the second largest recipient of Canadian foreign aid, with many Canadians currently serving there to help bring stability to the people of Haiti. Last Friday, in a clearly disturbing development, the senate in Haiti voted to remove the country's prime minister who was just elected in 2008. 
With so much Canadian investment in Haiti and with so many Canadians working in there, and I am glad the Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken to the president, what action has the government actually taken to deal with this issue?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my previous response, I did speak with the president. He has reassured me, as well as the minister of state for the Americas, that they will be continuing to keep to the game plan that the previous government had put forward.
We as well as our allies, which are not only involved in building infrastructure, building institutions, policing that country and ensuring that Haitians take over that country, are satisfied with the course of action taking place.
I want to reassure the members of the House that we are satisfied with that course of action as well.

Routine Proceedings
House of CommonsThe Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the Report of the House of Commons to Canadians for the year 2009.
Commissioner of FirearmsMr. Dave MacKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2008 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Firearms in accordance with section 93(2) of the Firearms Act.
Government Response to PetitionsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.
Interparliamentary DelegationsHon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association respecting its bilateral visits to Luanda, Angola and Windhoek, Namibia on August 16 to 21.
One of the changes we have made with this report is in the past we have not made specific recommendations, but at this point, the delegation unanimously thought it should recommend that the government seriously consider the establishment of a trade office in Angola for the purposes that are very obvious and are referred to in the report.
Committees of the HouseHon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to chapter 5, Passport Services—Passport Canada of the 2009 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the list of members of the committees of the House.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 23rd report later this day, that is, very, very shortly. 
Canadian Human Rights ActRaymonde Folco:  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code (mandatory retirement age).
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today in this House to introduce my bill on human rights and the Canada Labour Code to prohibit federally regulated employers from setting a mandatory retirement age. This would include private-sector employers subject to federal acts and regulations, as well as the federal public administration. 
I would like to thank the member for Vancouver Quadra for her support on the bill. 
The purpose of my bill goes one step beyond the decision of April 9 by the Federal Court of Canada, which found that age discrimination violated the charter following complaints by two Air Canada pilots. This was followed by a Human Rights Tribunal decision on August 28, which said, in part, that mandatory retirement was an affront to the right to equality and found that the infringement of equality rights through mandatory retirement could no longer be justified.
My bill would remove the offending provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Code and other federal acts and regulations.
These changes would affect more than 840,000 Canadians, or 10% of the country's labour force, at a time when our birth rate is on the decline. I hope that members on both sides of this house will support the swift passage of this bill. 
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
Committees of the HouseMichel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move: 
 That the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented earlier this day, be concurred in. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
Hon. Jay Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all parties and I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 83.1, the deadline for the Standing Committee on Finance to table the 2009 Pre-Budget Consultation Report be extended to Wednesday, December 9. 

The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsGlenn Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present these petitions today on behalf of close to 200 citizens in my riding of Sudbury.
 The petitioners ask the federal industry minister to issue an official apology to the citizens in the city of Greater Sudbury. In an article in The Sudbury Star in July, the industry minister referred to Sudbury as being the valley of death and made other remarks that angered citizens across the city of Greater Sudbury. Sudbury is a very proud community and deserves respect from the federal government, just like other communities across Canada.
The residents of Sudbury call upon the Minister of Industry to officially apologize for his comments and confirm the federal government is doing what it can to support the city of Greater Sudbury.
Mrs. Michelle Simson (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by close to 100 constituents in my riding of Scarborough Southwest. 
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House that there is a scientific consensus and public acknowledgement that animals can feel pain and suffer, that all efforts should be made to prevent animal cruelty and reduce animal suffering, that over one billion people around the world rely on animals for their livelihoods and many others rely on animals for companionship and that animals are often significantly affected by natural disasters and yet seldom considered during relief efforts in emergency planning despite their recognized importance to humans.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to petition the Government of Canada to support a universal declaration on animal welfare.
Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from constituents in my riding of Kitchener Centre and elsewhere.
The petitioners call the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that veterans have served with honour and have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice in the service of our country. However, there exists a chronic shortage of medical and convalescent facilities for them and they face multi-year waiting lists for services.
Therefore, the petitioners ask the House to expand the range and scope of medical and convalescent services for veterans, to expand the number of beds and to initiate a re-evaluation of medical services provided to our veterans, specifically those in their seniors year, to ensure adequate resources and attention are being paid to those who have served their country so well.
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, citizens of Vancouver and, indeed, all Canadians.
The petitioners call upon the government to pass Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act. They care deeply about the future of our planet and believe Canada should be playing a leadership role in the global effort to combat climate change. They want the government to take immediate action to meet the science-based greenhouse gas reduction targets that are mandated in the bill. They know climate change is real. They know we need to take our responsibilities and actions seriously now. They want us to commit to strong environmental targets at Copenhagen.
I am honoured to stand today in the House of Commons and present their call to action. Our future hangs in the balance.
Shawn Murphy: Mr. Speaker, during the periods September 3, 1939 to March 1, 1947, and subsequently from June 27, 1950 to July 27, 1953, certain veterans received the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal for Korea. 
This petition is from residents of the greater Charlottetown area and a smaller number from Oakville and Victoria. They are calling upon the Government of Canada to recognize by means of the issuance of a new Canadian Volunteer Service Medal to be designated the Governor General's volunteer service medal, for volunteer service by Canadians in the regular and reserve military forces and cadet corps support staff who were not eligible for the aforementioned medals, and who have completed 365 days of uninterrupted honourable duty in the service of their country since March 2, 1947.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by constituents of mine and other residents of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia who believe that there is scientific consensus and public acknowledgement that animals can feel pain, believe all efforts should be made to prevent animal cruelty, and that over one billion people around the world rely on animals for their livelihood or for companionship.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support a universal declaration on animal welfare.
Jim Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I present a petition which calls for equal employment insurance benefits for adoptive parents.
Adoption is an important and essential act in a compassionate, caring and just society. Under the current EI program, adoptive parents are given 35 weeks of paid leave followed by a further 15 weeks of unpaid leave. Under the law, a biological mother is given both the first 35 weeks and the latter 15 weeks as paid leave.
Adoptions in Canada are often expensive and lengthy and they are stressful on the adoptive parents. Recent studies have shown that an additional 15 weeks of paid leave would help parents better support their adoptive children and handle many of the specific issues they must face.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support Bill C-413, which would amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code to ensure that an adoptive parent is entitled to the same number of weeks of paid leave as a biological mother of a newborn child.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House today pursuant to Standing Order 36 and as certified by the clerk of petitions.
The first one has to do with support for the universal declaration on animal welfare.
These residents from Burlington, Oakville and my riding of Mississauga South draw to the attention of the House that there is a scientific consensus and public acknowledgement that animals can feel pain and suffer, and all efforts should be made to prevent animal cruelty and reduce animal suffering. They also indicate that over one billion people around the world rely on animals for their livelihood and many others rely on animals for companionship.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to support a universal declaration on animal welfare, which we will be debating later this day.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns the protection of human life.
The petitioners who are from various points across Canada call upon Parliament to recognize that Canada is a country that respects human rights and includes in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that everyone has the right to life. They point out that it has been 40 years, since May 14, 1969, when Parliament changed the law to permit abortion, and that since January 28, 1988 Canada has had no law to protect the lives of the unborn.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the final petition has to do with probably one of my favourite topics, although I am not expressing an opinion of support or contrary. It has to do with public safety officers, police officers and firefighters.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to recognize that police officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk in the execution of their duties on a daily basis. They indicate that the employment benefits of these police officers and firefighters often provide insufficient compensation to the families of those who are killed while on duty. They point out that the public also mourns the loss of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty and wish to support in a tangible way the surviving families in their time of need.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to establish a fund known as the public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 453.
Claude Gravelle: Is the federal riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka within the jurisdicition of the Southern Ontario Development Agency or the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario (FedNor)?
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the entire riding of Parry Sound--Muskoka is within FedNor's jurisdiction. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 418, 419, 420, 421 and 423 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Mrs. Alexandra Mendes:  Concerning the length of time it takes to apply for permanent residency under the immigration sponsor program with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, what is the average wait time, in days, from the day an application is submitted until permanent residency is awarded to an applicant in each year during the period of 2005-2009?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Alexandra Mendes:  Concerning the length of time claimants wait for a refugee claim and appellants wait for an immigration appeal to be heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board, what was: (a) the average wait time, in days, for claimants to have their refugee claims heard before the Board in each year during the period of 2005-2009; and (b) the average wait time, in days, for appellants to have their appeals heard before the Immigration Appeals Division in each year during the period of 2005-2009?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ms. Ruby Dhalla:  With respect to the organizations that officially requested the attendance of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to an event since January 2008: (a) what were the names of the organizations, the names of the events, the organizers, the dates, times, and locations; (b) did the Minister attend the event and, if not, what is the name of the government representative who attended the event in lieu of the Minister; and (c) what were the costs of any advertisements in event publications or greetings, and the description and costs of any gifts to the event or organizers?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ruby Dhalla:  With respect to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration since January 1, 2008, what are: (a) the names of the contractors; (b) the amounts of the contracts; (c) the dates of the contracts; (d) the dates of completion; and (e) the descriptions of the services provided?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Ruby Dhalla:  With respect to Ministerial Permits granted by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, for each month since January 2006 and by country of origin: (a) how many requests were (i) granted, (ii) refused; and (b) how many individuals did not abide by the terms and conditions of the permit?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Private Members' BusinessThe Speaker: The Chair would like to take a brief moment to provide some information to the House regarding the management of private members' business.
 As members know, after the Order of Precedence is replenished, the Chair reviews the new items so as to alert the House to bills which at first glance appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown. This allows members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
Accordingly, following the November 2 replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items, I wish to inform the House that Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave), standing in the name of the member for Compton—Stanstead, gives the Chair some concern as to the spending provisions it contemplates. I would encourage hon. members who would like to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation to accompany this bill, or any of the other bills now on the order of precedence, to do so at an early opportunity.
 I thank the House for its attention.

Government Orders
Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures, be read the third time and passed. 
The Speaker: Before oral questions, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska had the floor. He has 17 minutes left for his remarks.
The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I was once again interrupted on Friday by question period. The questions were excellent. However, given the government's answers, I have to say that we might have been better off listening to speeches about bills.
However, question period did give me an opportunity to hear the Minister of Public Works and Government Services say that the Bloc Québécois is always against everything. He was not listening right before question period. I had just said that the Bloc Québécois would support Bill C-51. We are completely in favour of this measure, the act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures.
I would like to summarize what I said during the first three minutes of my speech. I said that Bill C-51 would implement the renovation tax credit. That was one of the proposals in the recovery program that the Bloc Québécois released when Parliament resumed. Every party in the House but the Conservative government recognized that we were in the middle of an economic crisis.
During the 2008 election campaign, the Conservative Party denied the possibility that such an economic crisis would hit us here, even though our American neighbours—with whom we conduct a great deal of trade, of course—were in the midst of a major crisis, which unfortunately, is still not completely over.
Everyone knew that the whole world was facing an economic crisis and that Canada, Quebec and all the provinces would inevitably be affected. No one was happy about that. However, we needed to take off our rose coloured glasses and prepare for the worst, and also bring in concrete, effective measures to deal with and mitigate the effects of the crisis.
That is why the Bloc Québécois presented such a plan, which was, I might add, commended by the Minister of Finance. The minister said the Bloc Québécois was the only party in the House to bring forward concrete measures, and he thanked us for doing so. However, thanking us is as far as he went, given that, when he presented his budget, there was not much left of the important measures the Bloc had developed and proposed.
 Bill C-51 also introduces a first-time homebuyers' tax credit. That is a good measure that was also proposed by the Bloc Québécois in our most recent election platform, during the election campaign that ended on October 14, 2008. 
Bill C-51 implements Canada's international commitments to the International Monetary Fund, which were signed in 2008. 
It also includes some other measures, such as the temporary home renovation tax credit, the first-time home buyers' tax credit and an increase in the tax relief provided by the working income tax benefit.
What I also liked about Bill C-51, since I am the Bloc Québécois critic for agriculture and agri-food, is that it will also extend the existing tax deferral available to farmers in prescribed drought regions to farmers who dispose of breeding livestock because of flood or excessive moisture, and it will designate the eligible flood or drought regions between 2007 and 2009. 
We are not talking about a measure that will make all our farmers rich overnight, but this adjustment will prove very beneficial when a catastrophe hits our farmers. In addition, this bill amends the customs tariff to relax the conditions relating to temporarily imported shipping containers. 
These are the main measures contained in Bill C-51.
I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance just now and at first reading of the bill and also when the home renovation tax credit was announced, touting this as the eighth wonder of the world and that the Canadian and Quebec economies would get back on track with this home renovation tax credit. 
However, they should not exaggerate. I realize that this government tends to use every opportunity for the marketing and branding of the Conservative Party, with its logo and all the rest. 
This measure alone will not put an end to the economic crisis and solve all the problems that have arisen in recent months and years. They should not exaggerate and consider it the be-all and end-all.
There a number of things missing from the government's deficit control plan and we can discuss these in the next few minutes.
The federal government's comprehensive plan to fight the recession is incomplete and poorly targeted. However, given that the measures in Bill C-51 are good for Quebec, the Bloc Québécois, in keeping with its responsible approach, will support this bill.
With respect to the home renovation tax credit in particular, as I was saying, in the first phase of our recovery plan, we had proposed introducing a similar home renovation tax credit. We emphasized the conversion of oil furnaces to more energy efficient equipment. We had a very specific plan for decreasing our dependence on oil.
This measure, in addition to helping reduce our dependence on oil would also have rapidly injected money into the economy. The measure we are debating today, the government's Bill C-51, does not specifically target energy efficient retrofits but is still an effective means of quickly stimulating the economy. 
The government could have gone farther, as I said, and introduced a real environmental plan that would have stimulated the economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and decreasing our dependence on oil.
The first-time home buyers' tax credit is also interesting, because in our 2008 election platform, we had proposed a tax credit for first-time home buyers and called for such a program. The measure the government has introduced is not as generous as what we proposed, but we feel that it is a step in the right direction. That is why we also support this measure.
Buying a home is a big step for many families. It allows homeowners to build equity and benefit from the appreciated value of their home. Quebec is significantly behind the rest of Canada in this area. Many young families often have a hard time saving for a down payment to purchase their first home. In addition, since most people who are active in the workforce see their income increase over time, they often have to wait a while before they can purchase a property. 
The Bloc Québécois is proposing that the government give interest-free loans of up to $10,000 for first-time home buyers. That would have been a very significant measure, although, as I said, the tax credit is clearly a step forward. 
I spoke earlier about the last election campaign. I imagine that many of my colleagues in this House and many candidates in the last election had the opportunity to meet with real estate agents, because they demanded action on the issue of first-time home buyers. While I was campaigning, I had the chance to meet with people throughout Quebec, including people in my own riding. We talked to them and listened to their suggestions. This proposal that first-time home buyers receive interest-free loans of up to $10,000 was very well received by the people I met with. They felt it could be an efficient and effective way to help people buy their first home. Real estate agents were very much in favour of this measure.
If this measure were implemented, it would complement the tax credit proposed by the government in Bill C-51 and make it easier for people to purchase their first home. Then we would have a comprehensive home buyers' program.
In terms of the economic measures presented in the budget, some of which would be implemented by Bill C-51, a bill that would put the tax credits into effect, as I started out saying just after question period, the government denied that there was an economic crisis during the last election campaign. Conservative members unfortunately showed up empty handed for the economic statement last November, which sparked a crisis. I will not dwell on it, but we came very close at one point to having a coalition government, and to returning to the polls.
They finally presented some measures, even if they were not complete, as I was saying.
We did our homework. We presented a stimulus plan that had four objectives: tighten the social safety net and restore confidence to the public, which was experiencing—and still is—an economic crisis; stimulate employment and investment; support Quebec and the provinces; and stimulate strategic spending on things like measures to reduce oil dependency.
The OECD suggested that countries with the means to do so should provide income support for workers who lose their jobs. The best way to do that, of course, is through the employment insurance system. Economists agreed that one of the best ways to stimulate the economy was to help the least fortunate and in particular, to help those who, unfortunately, because of the economic crisis, lost their jobs. Needless to say, in the forestry sector, for example, people would have benefited from more extensive and flexible measures regarding employment insurance.
We suggested improving the employment insurance system by making it easier for people who lose their jobs to collect benefits. Our proposed changes would have enabled 148,000 more people to collect benefits every year. If we eliminate the waiting period, which is something the Bloc Québécois and other parties have been calling for for a long time, people will not have to wait 14 days for their cheques. We also suggested helping the most vulnerable with an investment of about $6 billion to help seniors by increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $110 per month. And we suggested helping middle-class families by doubling the GST credit for 2009.
We know that the government has put economic stimulus measures in place. A lot of money was invested to help Ontario's auto sector. We were never against helping that sector, but according to the statistics, it is clear that the government helped Ontario at the expense of Quebec and the other provinces, but especially at Quebec's expense because its forestry sector got nothing. At any rate, there is many a slip twixt cup and lip when it comes to what Ontarians got. As of now, 100% of the $9.7 billion—nearly $10 billion—in direct federal cash for the auto industry has been spent. About 80% of the $70 million allocation has been spent developing new markets for the forestry industry across Canada. There is still a huge difference between $10 billion in support for auto workers and $70 million for the forestry sector across Canada. Moreover, while 100% of the auto sector's money has been spent, 20% of the amount announced for the forestry sector has not yet been disbursed.
So, for its economic recovery plan, it would have been in the government's interest to listen to Quebec, the provinces, the opposition parties, unions, workers and the National Assembly of Quebec. They all made urgent requests to ensure that a real economic stimulus package would be introduced, particularly for the manufacturing and forestry sectors. The Quebec forestry industry employs over 88,000 workers and is an economic driving force in many regions of Quebec.
I was talking about employment insurance earlier. We heard some good news yesterday. Unfortunately, it does not have to do with the unemployment rate. There was some bad news on that, since it increased. The good news was that here in this House, a majority—except the Conservatives, unfortunately—voted in favour of Bill C-308 introduced by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. That bill will now go to committee. It includes several measures for a complete overhaul in the context of an economic stimulus plan. It would have been great if the government had supported those changes, which are more comprehensive than the piecemeal changes it wanted to make in several different bills.
The Bloc Québécois bill proposes improving access to the system and establishing a 360-hour threshold for everyone, which would make it easier for women and young people, who are often the most likely people to lose their jobs, as well as people with unstable jobs, to access benefits. In addition, Bill C-308 proposes a benefit rate increase from 55% of earnings to 60%.
It also recommends amendments that would give self-employed workers access on a voluntary basis to all employment insurance benefits, unlike the Conservatives' Bill C-56, which offers self-employed workers access to special benefits only. Our bill contains measures that are not only practical, but comprehensive and very effective in helping the unemployed. This is what the Conservative government could have done.
We have no problem supporting Bill C-51. It is hard to be against motherhood and apple pie, even if the pie is not all there. This bill provides one piece of the pie that will help us, namely, tax credits, including the home renovation tax credit. I cannot say that people are lining up at my three constituency offices to ask for information about these measures, but I would be lying if I said that I had not answered any questions from my constituents about this tax credit.
Obviously, we are pleased to provide them with information, and some people I know have begun to consider applying for this tax credit. That is why we are agreeing to promote this type of measure by voting in favour of Bill C-51.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, I want to go back to a statement made earlier by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood in which he indicated that the stimulus package in the United States has a much better system of accounting attached to it, which is why, at the end of the day, it should have less problems with boondoggles than perhaps our government will be directly faced with because it does not have the accounting in place that it should have.
Does the member have any observations or comments about that issue?
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I was present when the Liberal member made those comments. I have not compared the Obama plan measures, the U.S. measures, specifically on certain tax credits. One thing is certain, it is important that the government have a comprehensive plan. All aspects of economic stimulus must be considered.
What I fear, what I have noted and what people are seeing also, is that the Conservative government has decided to target certain sectors and to implement piecemeal measures in certain files. For example, I spoke for a few minutes about employment insurance, where they have decided to introduce bills one at a time to help a specific segment of the population affected by unemployment. However, there is no vision or comprehensive plan, in terms of either economic stimulus or assistance, to mitigate the effects of the economic downturn. 
That is our greatest criticism of the government. It is not because they were unaware of it, even though the Conservatives denied it in the last election. It is virtually impossible that they did not know that Canada, like all other countries in the world, would be affected by the current economic crisis. 
That is the main problem with the measures before us.
Claude Gravelle: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Bloc Québécois member. I would like to read one line from Bill C-51:
Provisions for income deferrals for farmers of breeding livestock in drought conditions and designations for regions where this applies. 
We do not know when droughts will occur in Canada. We can have one good year followed by two bad ones. It varies enormously from region to region.
Does the Bloc member believe that this program should be permanent?
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Madam Speaker, my answer to the member's question is yes. I have the French version right here. Bill C-51 includes a measure that “extends the existing tax deferral available to farmers in prescribed drought regions to farmers who dispose of breeding livestock because of flood or excessive moisture and sets out the regions prescribed either as eligible flood or drought regions in 2007 to 2009”. This measure should be permanent. We support Bill C-51 because it will enable more farmers to benefit.
Currently, there is a disaster relief program in the agriculture policy framework, but many more methods remain to be understood and implemented. That is why we are still trying to make sure that farmers will really benefit from this disaster relief program. These are known as “acts of God” or, in French, actes de Dieu. Obviously, as my colleague pointed out, we cannot predict droughts or floods.
As members of Parliament, it is our duty to be able to immediately and very quickly come to the aid of people who face unexpected weather-related problems. This could also include problems related to illness among the animals or parasites in the crops. We must be able to help people very quickly. For example, there was the case of avian flu in British Columbia when we did not react quickly enough. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food even had the opportunity to visit some of the provinces where people had lost their herds to bovine tuberculosis. The criticisms we heard from these people was that the government did not react fast enough to help them after the problem was discovered. In fact, in these cases, everything can be wiped out very quickly.
Obviously, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has unanimously called for corrective action to be taken. We are always looking for ways to help our farmers. I think that this measure from Bill C-51 is a step in the right direction that can help the victims of droughts or floods.
Don Davies: Madam Speaker, the New Democrats are proud to support Bill C-51 because it does a number of positive things for Canadians. It brings in the home renovation tax credit. It provides a tax credit for first-time home buyers, a particularly important measure in Vancouver where I come from, where real estate is out of reach for so many young people. It has drought relief for livestock owners.
I think this legislation shows what can happen when we use public policy in a positive way to make lives better for Canadians.
I wanted to ask my hon. colleague about CPP. The Canada pension plan exists right now as an easy way for us to improve the income security for seniors. The administrative structure is there. By adding just a little under 2% in contributions from employees and employers, we could double the pension security for our seniors. We think that this is a wonderful way that we can help our seniors.
I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments on bolstering the Canada pension plan so that Canadians from coast to coast can have more secure futures.
[Interjection]
André Bellavance: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from the NDP for his question. When I was talking about a comprehensive plan, the Bloc Québécois did indeed ask for certain measures to help the less fortunate. I was talking about people who receive employment insurance and also retirees, older people who could use a little extra in their guaranteed income supplement. We know that with CPP and the guaranteed income supplement combined, those people are still currently living below the low income cutoff. Increasing the guaranteed income supplement to $110 a month would at least allow them to reach the low income cutoff. That is one measure.
The measure the hon. member is talking about is quite interesting. My own bill, Bill C-290, has just reached second reading stage and will be referred to committee. This bill will help retirees who may unfortunately have lost part of their pension because of the bankruptcy or closure of their employer. For instance, a person who was supposed to get $30,000 and is getting only $22,000 and therefore lost $8,000, could get a 22% refundable tax credit. That more or less puts them on the margins of the middle class. It would allow that retired person to receive $1,760 a year. It is a type of compensation, and not full compensation, but it is better than nothing. Other measures like that and like the one mentioned by the hon. member as well, could be implemented by the government to help stimulate the economy. It is the best approach. We can start with the people who need it the most.
Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to report stage of Bill C-51, which, ironically, is called the economic recovery act (stimulus).
The NDP has been supporting the bill because it does contain some significant measures that were in the budget that we approved last spring but were never actually implemented. They are now included in this bill, and I will go into that later. I did want to reflect on the fact that this is called the economic recovery act and, as we heard today, there was not good news for Canadians, in terms of the number of people who are unemployed.
We know that over the last year we have had a net loss of about 400,000 jobs in Canada. That is very significant. However, the numbers today show us that there has been a further increase of 43,000 to 44,000 people who are unemployed and the heaviest losses were in B.C. and Alberta, being 13,000 and 15,000, respectively.
 I raised this today in question period because I guess the one thing that really bothers us is that we have seen the so-called economic action plan and the stimulus program from the current government and yet, we continue to see these heavy losses and erosion of jobs. From the numbers that we saw released today, it is particularly difficult for women and young people. Many of the jobs that were lost were part-time jobs. That means that they were people who were already having a really hard time dealing with this economic crisis. They may be people who will not qualify for EI.
The NDP has spent a lot of time in this House bringing forward very substantive proposals. In fact, we have 12 bills concerning reform of the EI. That just shows how bad the program is. This is a program that was designed to help unemployed people and yet, we have 12 different bills on different aspects of the program because we think it so badly needs to be fixed.
So, for those unemployed folks who, over the last month, lost their jobs, just think about the impact that would mean. They might have had a part-time job in the first place or maybe they were a young person, or a woman contributing to the family's income, or a lone parent, and they have to face the fact that they cannot even rely on employment insurance.
I think it is a very serious and dire situation for so many Canadians. Juxtapose that against all of the rhetoric that we hear from the government side. We are told that the worst of the recession is over. We are told that its economic stimulus plan is working. We are told not to worry about it, that the government is going to take care of things. Yet, these jobless numbers keep rising and the impact on our local communities keep mounting. I think that we are facing a very serious situation.
I know that yesterday in question period my colleague from Winnipeg Centre had one of the doorknocker propaganda pieces that the government has been distributing, we understand, to 3.5 million households, concerning the home renovation tax credit.
That is one of the measures that is contained in this bill and is actually one of the reasons we are supporting this bill. It was a measure announced in the last budget, but it was not actually in the budget implementation bill. For some strange reason, it was left behind and then had to be introduced later through a ways and means motion, and now it is in this bill. There is no doubt that it is a very popular program. We see it advertised on TV by home improvement centres and there is probably very good awareness about that program.
There are two things here to note.
First, why is it that the Conservative government would then spend, presumably, millions of dollars on further propaganda messaging and advertising about the program when it is already very well known? In fact, people can receive information at building improvement and home improvement centres. 
There has been so much emphasis on the politicization of the economic stimulus program, whether it is the oversized cheques that had the Conservative logo or individual MPs signing these cheques. These things are pretty outrageous and I think people feel pretty cynical about it.
The question from the member for Winnipeg Centre really highlighted that the government will leave no stone unturned when it comes to promoting itself and its political message, but when it comes to really, truly helping people, really digging in and finding out what is wrong or what needs to be done, the government kind of shuffles it along and says it is doing a good job.
On the home renovation tax credit, we do support it. As far as it goes, we do support it and there is no doubt that there has been a lot of pickup on the program, but we ask the question, why does it not go further? Why was it not linked to a broader green energy retrofit program, particularly for low income Canadians? There are many Canadians right across the country who live in housing that is substandard. Their heating systems are very poor. They are not energy efficient. 
These are the people who need help. These are the people who would have welcomed a broader program that would have helped them maybe with some other kinds of incentives beyond a tax credit. The fact is that many people cannot take advantage of this program because they may not have the money to actually spend on that home renovation.
I know, for example, that there was some money in the economic stimulus program to help housing co-operatives. Many co-ops that were built in the seventies and eighties are facing envelope failures. Some of them were not well constructed. They are certainly not energy efficient, and although there was some money earmarked in that budget to assist those co-ops, we do know that the demand and the applications that have gone in have far exceeded what is actually available. There is a very good example of where this home renovation tax credit program actually could have been part of a much broader program that would really tackle this major question of energy efficiency and housing affordability in this country.
Yesterday at the HRSD committee, I appeared as a witness before that committee in support of my bill, Bill C-304, which calls for a national housing strategy, something that we do not have in Canada, which is really quite unbelievable. We are the only industrialized country that does not have a national housing strategy.
 In putting forward this idea for a framework and a strategy for housing and leadership from the federal government, we come back again to this question of needing to have a coordinated and comprehensive approach to housing in this country. There are something like four million Canadians who are in housing insecurity. They are either paying too much for their housing, living in very substandard housing, facing eviction or one paycheque away from being on the street, or it might be all of the above. They might be in housing that is overcrowded and very inappropriate for a family situation. Certainly, that is a huge issue for remote aboriginal communities on reserve, where we have seen the most appalling conditions for aboriginal people in this country.
There is no question that we need a national housing strategy, that we need leadership from the federal government, but it is not only a question of good public policy. It is also a question of very sound economic policy, and in my mind, if we had a really good housing supply program in this country, something that we have talked about for years and that we have suffered from because we do not have it, it would be a huge economic stimulus. Generally, building housing creates good jobs for carpenters, electricians, plumbers, drywallers, architects, landscapers, and the list goes on. 
The question of housing affordability and generating the comprehensive program with leadership from the federal government would be something that would be a really significant economic and social investment in the future of our country. We would actually be helping people. There is no question that having housing security and knowing that one's housing is affordable, accessible, safe and appropriate is one of the most basic things in our lives. If we do not have that, we know how hard it is to do anything else such as going to school, going to work, raising kids, and knowing what is going to happen at the end of the month.
That is one of the reasons I wanted to focus on that. It really bugs the hell out of me that there is this very small home renovation tax program that is popular and yet so much more could have been done, if we only had a government that was seriously focused on a substantive economic stimulus program that would actually help people.
There are other provisions in Bill C-51 that we are supportive of. The home renovation tax credit is one. The first-time home buyers' tax credit is another. The revenue sharing agreement with Nova Scotia is another one. Members have already raised the issue of drought relief for livestock owners. 
There are also some provisions around pensions and some fairly minor adjustments in terms of pension changes. I want to spend a few minutes on this. This has been the other key substantive proposal advanced by the NDP. 
We are very worried about what is happening to seniors in Canada. There are seniors who are living below the poverty line. They depend on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Even those seniors are still living below the poverty line, particularly if they live in urban areas where they do not have good housing. One can see how it relates back to affordable housing again.
I am very proud of the fact that the NDP has made very substantive proposals to reform the pension program just as we have done for EI. We see these as the basic foundations of what quality of life is about in Canada, and what human dignity means in this country. As Canadians, we tell ourselves that we live in a fair-minded country; we live in a country where there is equal opportunity, where there is no discrimination and where everybody has the right to use their own human potential, yet, we have seen so much over the last couple of decades. 
We have seen a growing gap between wealth and poverty. We have seen the incomes of CEOs rise and rise, sometimes in an utterly obscene way. Just look at the pension investment board and the millions of dollars in bonuses that are being paid out. It is unbelievable. I am sure that those people are doing their jobs, although one could argue that the pension programs have not been well managed. They get these massive bonuses and yet, on the other side, there are people who are really hurting and are having a tough time getting by every month.
The pension system itself is something that I think more and more people are understanding is in serious trouble, whether it is a private pension program, or whether it is a senior who is dependent on OAS and GIS. We have seen the situation with Nortel here in Ottawa and what has happened to those people who paid in good faith into their pension plan only to now be terribly worried about whether or not they will ever be able to collect their pension or, if they were on long-term disability, only to find out that their support for that may be in jeopardy.
The proposals we have put forward are very substantive in terms of significant increases to the guaranteed income supplement and say up front that no senior in this country should be living in poverty. When one has worked for decades, whether it is in paid work or unpaid work, when people have contributed to this country, they should at least be assured that they have enough money in their retirement years to live in a decent way. Nobody here is talking about luxury or affluence. We are talking about the basic necessities of life. 
The NDP did have a motion that was approved in the House last June. We did a lot of research on the proposals that we have advanced. Our member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek travelled across the country, talked to seniors and got tons of feedback. He heard and did wonderful things.
It is unfortunate that this so-called economic recovery act that we are debating today is so minuscule. It does not do the job in terms of where people need to get that support from programs, services and investment in our economy. There are other provisions in the bill. One of the provisions concerns the CBC. 
How many times have there been questions, at least from our side, on the future of the CBC? This is an iconic institution in this country. It was fighting for its life in terms of financing and asking for bridge financing. We raised that issue over and over again in the House. The reply from the heritage minister was more of a brush off. We are glad to see in the bill some recognition of the financial situation facing CBC and that it will be able to have some of that bridge financing, which we called for and which it was seeking. It is obviously something that is very important to the financial stability of the institution.
I would like to speak about what the Conservative government is doing with respect to economic recovery. I am from British Columbia. I represent the riding of Vancouver East, which by and large is a low income riding. People really do struggle. They do not actually ask for a lot.
I am always amazed when I go out in the community. I hold travelling community offices. People come forward to tell me what is going on in their lives. I am always amazed at how resourceful people are. People are struggling to survive with very few resources, whether it is their housing situation, a work situation, trying to find affordable child care, or a student going to post-secondary education who is struggling with student loans and tuition fees. I am really amazed at how people get it together and keep going, but we can see how hard it is and how stressful it makes people's lives.
It has been pretty rough in B.C. We have seen the re-election of the Liberal government under Gordon Campbell who promised so many things but all he has done is attack workers, rip up collective agreements, allow privatization of health care and has not done anything to support a better child care program. Then kind of the worst happened. After the election, we suddenly learned that B.C. was going to be hit with the HST. The firestorm that has created in my province has just been unbelievable. It has crossed the political spectrum. Former premiers, such as Bill Vander Zalm, business people, small business people, the restaurant association, the labour movement, certainly the provincial NDP and hundreds of thousands of regular folks in B.C. are signing petitions.
Some of the polls that have been done show there is 80% opposition to the imposition of the HST. It is not just the HST itself, which is really a tax shift, but it is a shift from what corporations have paid on to consumers. I do not have the full list of things that it covers in front of me, but I know it includes newspapers, magazines, movie theatre tickets, haircuts, funerals, vitamins, baby diapers, food and clothing. The restaurant association has estimated that for restaurant meals alone the extra cost will be $694 million in B.C.
One issue is the tax itself. It is a regressive tax. It is a shift from corporations on to individual consumers. It is also the manner in which it was done. People are really outraged that during the provincial election there was no discussion of it. In fact, people were told there would be no more tax increases. Yet somehow after the election this issue suddenly started to appear.
We have been asking questions every day. We have been trying to find out when the negotiations took place and what negotiations took place between the federal and provincial governments. We are still trying to find that out. I think people in B.C. would be very interested to know when it was that those negotiations began to take place.
It is sort of ironic that on the one hand we have this bill before us today that promises economic recovery and yet on the other hand we have a Conservative government that is slapping people in B.C. with the HST. In fact, the Conservatives are running from it. They are trying to claim that it is not their problem, that the decision is up to B.C.
We know it originated with the Conservative government. We know it was in the federal budget. We know that the finance minister has actually been campaigning and advocating for this. We know that the Liberal members have been lining up with it as well. It feels like a slap in the face to people in B.C. who are going to feel the impact of this increased tax on the everyday items that they need to purchase.
It is the most terrible timing to think about bringing in this tax during an economic recession. The NDP has been saying loud and clear that this HST proposal must stop. My guess is that the opposition to it will continue to grow in B.C.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Perhaps the hon. member can complete her comments in questions and comments.
The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
John McKay: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member whether she is at all concerned that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been effectively stonewalled with respect to the efficacy of the stimulus package. Four thousand pages were dropped on his desk and he was basically told to figure it out himself. When he asked for an electronic copy, some sorting, some organizing, the government said it could not find an electronic copy. That is question number one.
The second question has to do with the projections of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He has done a pretty good job, I think, on the revenue side of the equation. However, on the program side of the equation he has basically had to photocopy finance projections and he stuck with that. The reason that he stuck with that is that when he inquires to get the actual data behind the projections, he is told that is all cabinet confidence.
If one puts those two together, one is almost inevitably driven to the conclusion that our own Parliamentary Budget Officer, ours, the members' own Parliamentary Budget Officer is being driven into a position where his material is not as accurate as we would like it to be. He is being stonewalled and we are therefore being stonewalled. Therefore, any material that comes from the government is entirely suspect. I would be interested in her comments on that.
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the member raising this question. 
Let us go back a little and remember that when the whole question of the need for an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer came up, the Conservatives were in opposition. I remember my colleague the  member for Winnipeg North  was the finance critic at the time,
There was a great push and advocacy for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be independent, to be able to advise members of Parliament to give a second opinion and to ensure that there was full transparency in government expenditures and operations, and we have public accounts and so on, and in the analysis that was being done.
There was very strong support for the idea that if committees are to do their job, typically the finance committee but not just the finance committee, there needs to be an independent officer who can provide that analysis. I have to say that the Library of Parliament and its researchers who provide information do an awesome job, but the focus on a parliamentary budget officer to provide that analysis was very important. 
It is quite astounding that there has been this war going on between that office and the government as to what information is being received. The government is one that talks about ethics and accountability. This is probably the most fundamental thing we deal with. We are in a position of trust with public funds. We make decisions about where those public funds go and what the priorities are.
 I think there were 17 boxes; I might have it slightly wrong, but a huge pile of boxes was handed over to go through them and sort it out. To think that financial records and information is being disseminated in that kind of state makes it very difficult to do the analysis that is required. It is pretty hypocritical to hear this from a government that is saying that it is very much into accountability, disclosure and handling the taxpayers' funds. 
The member has made a very important observation. We as parliamentarians across party lines have an obligation to ensure that office has the mandate but also that it receives information in a manner to enable it to carry out that mandate. That has certainly been thrown into question in the last short while. It is very pertinent to the debate we are having today on a bill that is called economic recovery.
Claude Gravelle: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Vancouver East a couple of questions. One is on the home renovation tax. It says in the bill that this applies only to tax year 2009-10. We are going through a recession right now, and there are many people who would like to renovate their homes, but unfortunately because they have lost their jobs, or for whatever reason, they cannot. Does the hon. member think this should be expanded for a few more years?
Also I would like to ask about small businesses-- 
[Interjection]
Mr. David Anderson: Ask her if she opposed it first.
[Interjection]
Claude Gravelle: A small business owner in my riding wants to make renovations, but there are no provisions in here for a small business owner. I would like the hon. member to tell me if this is something that could be added.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): The hon. member for Vancouver East.
 I would ask for a little more respect while the member raises a point, to allow him to ask that question without being interrupted by questions nearby.
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Hear, hear, Madam Speaker. The home renovation tax credit has been very popular and so the question arises as to what will happen after the years 2009-10 when presumably it will be over. It is a very good example of how the economic stimulus package has been designed in a way that is very short-sighted and there are many things that could have been done in a more structural way in terms of our income tax system and providing tax credits. I have already talked about the housing program.
This could have been a piece of a much more comprehensive program around housing affordability and allowing homeowners to do renovations but also ensuring that low-income people would be able to qualify, particularly for energy retrofit, where they are facing housing that is very unsafe or unhealthy. People are facing moulds and heating systems that are way out of date, and it is very difficult for them to find the financial resources to deal with those.
With regard to small businesses, this is a very interesting point. We often do not speak enough about what small businesses contribute to our society and the jobs they provide and the enormous time, energy and hours small business owners put into their operation. Often it is a labour of love, and they do not get paid a lot. There could have been a program based on a green energy outcome that might have addressed their needs in terms of the building they own or in which they operate. I am sure there are millions of small business operators who would have taken advantage of something like that. I think these are very good suggestions from the member, but they unfortunately point out that although we are supporting the bill before us as far as it goes, it could have done so much better.
Jim Maloway: Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest to the member that if the program is extended by the government, which I think is probable given the budget and possible election in the spring, on July 1 next year the HST is going to kick in. Is there not a question here about whether or not this will just be a wash? Any benefits that people would get by hiring renovators to renovate their houses will be taken away when the HST is put on all those renovation contracts.
The second point I would like the member to deal with is the whole issue of the program itself. Perhaps if the Conservatives do announce an extension of the program next year, they might look at some sort of tax credit system for people of low income so that the program could be expanded to apply to even more people who could use it.
[Interjection]
Libby Davies: Madam Speaker, very good suggestions are being made here. I know that the NDP has proposed a retrofit program for lower-income Canadians who are living in housing that needs to be fixed up, whether they own it themselves or whether it is part of a not-for-profit housing system. This is something that we have actually advanced as a very sound economic and environmental investment.
Again, the member is pointing out the stunning sort of ironies such as on one hand giving people a small credit while on the other hand immediately taking it away by increasing the taxes they will pay on the products they need to buy in order to get the credit. Go figure.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I vaguely remember hearing a statement, something to the effect that we are getting the job done. I think thou dost protest too much, because that is as far from the truth as we can get. 
For the financial year that ended March 31, 2006, the Government of Canada had a $13 billion surplus, which was used to pay down the debt. The current government came into power and we started sitting in Parliament one month later, in April 2006. What has happened between April 2006 and today? It is all in the numbers. By the following September the government was saying we would not be in a recession. In October--
[Interjection]
Ted Menzies: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we had a discussion earlier today about relevance. We all know that at third reading, the speech one gives must reflect a certain importance and at least a semblance of relevance to the piece of legislation we are dealing with. Therefore I will leave it up to you, Madam Speaker, to advise the hon. member that he might even reflect on what we are dealing with here today rather than ranting about who knows what.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  I thank the hon. member for the point of order. We are reviewing the bill on so-called economic recovery stimulus, or entitled economy recovery (stimulus). I would ask all members to bear in mind that we are at third reading and we should focus on the provisions in the bill and focus our comments on those.
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I should have indicated that I was leading up to the reason we needed a stimulus and the magnitude of the problem we have to deal with, but I could go right to it.
 We went from everything being rosy to all of a sudden looking, since the fall update, at a $56 billion deficit. The experts are saying that we have a technical recession. The projections are that in 2013-14 we will still have an annual deficit of $20 billion. I can imagine what that will do. The government undoubtedly will have to continue to increase taxes and peck away at the pensions of Canadians. I wish I had time to talk about Nortel.
The bill is supposedly about stimulus. I think everyone in this place would agree that what we needed to do when the financial difficulties started to emerge was to pay lots of attention to this. At the time, the discussion was about what we needed to do, and everybody agreed that was to make strategic injections into those areas where we could save the greatest number of jobs, to provide where there were existing jobs. That is probably the most efficient, most effective use of money: to save current jobs and mitigate the loss of jobs.
The second part was to stimulate the economy in those areas where we believed we had the best chances of creating new jobs, new productivity. Canadians can do that. We needed that injection, and one of the aspects of that was infrastructure funding.
I know that in the last fiscal year, although we were already talking about needing to get these infrastructure programs going, and members may recall the term shovel-ready, it made sense that we had to have shovel-ready programs, and so what has happened? Over $3 billion of infrastructure money was all ready for approved projects, ready for the cheque to be cut, and the Conservatives let it lapse. The money just went back into the Treasury. Those projects did not happen. They are coming back now because they have been re-announced. Now we see that only 12% of the announced projects actually have a shovel in the ground right now. That is 12%.
[Interjection]
David Anderson: Next year will be a big year then, won't it?
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: I thought that we were talking about saving current jobs. We have over 100,000 construction workers out of work. Why is that? Talking about employment, in October, it was just announced, we lost another 43,000 jobs. We now have the highest rate of unemployment in 11 years.
[Interjection]
Ted Menzies: What happened last month? Where were you last month?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Order, please. I would ask hon. members to restrain their comments until questions and comments.
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I suppose it is fair to say that the government really does not like to hear the facts. Conservatives react. I am encouraged by the fact that they like to shout me down when I put the facts on the table. That is okay. I will carry on and see how they perform.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer provides independent financial expertise to Parliament and lets members of the House know whether the projections the government puts on the table are reasonable.
 Why does the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer exist? Because when the Conservatives were in opposition they said that the Liberals kept having surpluses but their budgets were not showing that high of a surplus, so we were obviously cooking the books. Each and every year there was a $3 billion contingency in Liberal budgets. If there were no extraordinary, unforeseen circumstances, there would be a $3 billion surplus, although the budget showed balanced books. 
There also was a performance reserve. The government used the average of the economic forecasts for growth and interest rates, but it also took the low end of that so it was a conservative, cautious projection of how we would perform. If we achieved those targets, if it was as good as we thought, then the reserve would be used to ramp up additional programs on behalf of Canadians.
What has happened to the Parliamentary Budget Officer now? In the last article I saw, he said “Fund me or lose me”. The government has—
[Interjection]
Ted Menzies: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the risk of sounding repetitive, the hon. member is talking about the Parliamentary Budget Officer. If he has read Bill C-51, he would know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is not even referenced in it.
With all due respect, I wonder if the hon. member has even mentioned Bill C-51 in his comments. There is some relevance. Is it because the Liberal Party has no position on the bill? Is that why those members are skirting around it, not even speaking to it or against it?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I believe we are entering into debate on that question. I am sure the hon. member will take the parliamentary secretary's comments to heart.
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, the government says that it wants to do something on the EI side, so it decides to change things a bit. It decides to slap on a $13 billion tax grab on the backs of hard-working Canadians, many of whom are struggling to get back into the workforce. They are going have to eat up that $13 billion, which is in the bill.
[Interjection]
David Anderson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Some of us have made the trek here today to hear debate about the bill before the House today. I am not sure if the member is trying to mock you, Madam Speaker, but I would ask you to ask him to get to the bill. He is referencing everything but the bill. 
A valid point was made earlier. Perhaps the Liberals should talk about their position on the bill, which they do not seem to have. We would really like to hear their position so we can actually have some debate on it rather than this kind of wandering and meandering, which that member seems to be doing. 
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): I thank the hon. member for his comments. I am sure no mockery is intended as that would be a very serious breach.
As the hon. member has only three minutes left, I would suggest he begin to conclude his comments on this bill.
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I will conclude them when I finish my 20 minutes at some later date.
There are some key items in here, for instance the Canada pension plan changes the government has proposed. When people take early CPP now, they get a certain reduction in the rate that they can earn it at.
What the government has done, the mechanics of it in plain language, is if people take early retirements, they will be penalized by the changes in the bill. If they defer it for up to five years, the government will give them a bonus. The incentive is to have more people continue to work past age 65. Those who really need the money and have to take early retirement will be penalized for doing that and for protecting themselves. I do not like that.
On the CBC, the government is increasing the borrowing authority of the CBC to $220 million from $25 million. Why? We might think it is so the CBC can be more productive. No. It is simply a technical requirement. Now, because the government will not fund the CBC when it really needs it to be competitive, the CBC will now be forced to sell the leases on buildings it owns but does not use.
The government is discounting future lease payments. It is mortgaging the future of the CBC, and this will continue.
In the last moments, let me leave this thought with Canadians. I quite honestly believe that the fuse has been lit on the CBC to the future privatization of it. The Conservatives have never supported the CBC. When there are lockouts or strikes and Canadians do not have this unifying body, it shows how important the CBC is to Canada. The Conservatives could not care less. 
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): 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. 

Private Members' Business
Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from October 1 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.
Don Davies: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak in favour of Motion No. 354. The motion calls on the government to support the development of the universal declaration on animal welfare and to promote its adoption at the United Nations and in other global fora.
Before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague from the Liberal Party, the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, for bringing the motion forward. I would also like to acknowledge the work done on behalf of this issue by my hon. colleague from Burnaby—Douglas. He has introduced motions on this subject in previous parliaments. He is a man of great compassion and a strong sense of justice. I know his concern for animal welfare stems from these deeply held convictions.
The universal declaration on animal welfare was first conceived back in the year 2000. Three years later, at the Manila Conference on Animal Welfare, the draft text for the declaration was adopted. Since then, the declaration has been endorsed by the governments of 13 states, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, India and the Philippines. The World Organization for Animal Health and the World Veterinary Association have signed on in support as well.
 Therefore, I think it is fair to say that this declaration has been a long time coming. It has the support of a growing and wide number of states around the world and non-state organizations alike. 
It is time for Canada to show global leadership on this issue, as we often call on it to show in other issues, and to take a stand against animal cruelty and to support the universal declaration on animal welfare.
I would like to talk a bit about the declaration. The declaration calls for states to take all appropriate steps to prevent cruelty to animals and to reduce their suffering, to treat them humanely. It calls for the development of standards for animal welfare governing the treatment of farm animals, companion animals, animals in scientific research, animals in recreation and wildlife.
The preamble to the declaration sets out what I think is a very important framework for assessing the welfare of animals. It refers to five freedoms: freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; freedom from fear and distress; freedom from physical and thermal discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; and freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.
I do not think anyone could argue that these five freedoms represent anything but a reasonable, comprehensive, scientifically sound standard for preventing animal cruelty and promoting animal welfare.
For thousands of years, human beings not only coexisted with animals on the planet, they were also interdependent. Animal domestication has been around for 30,000 years since men and women domesticated wolves and turned them into their best friends: dogs. Fifteen-thousand-year-old rock paintings show the earliest evidence of beekeeping. The relationship between humans and animals has developed over thousands of years. It has been mutually beneficial, and humans have treated animals with affection, compassion and respect. 
I know of no farmer, no rancher, no animal keeper, no person who would argue with the principle that animals should be treated humanely. In fact, I believe all these groups take great pride in knowing how their animals are treated and they benefit from the treatment of their animals in a humane manner. No one benefits when animals are caused fear and distress or suffer from injury or disease. It is only careless or callous acts that cause these things and neither are worthy of us as human beings.
At the heart of the universal declaration on animal welfare is that animals are sentient. Sentience is the capacity to have feelings, to experience suffering and experience well-being. Sentience implies a certain level of conscious awareness. There are obviously degrees of sentience, but the scientific consensus is that all vertebraed animals and also many forms of aquatic animals possess some degree of sentience.
I know there are many pet owners in the House. I personally am the lucky owner of a four and a half year old yellow Labrador named Zoe. I know I am not the only one who does not need any scientific research to tell us that animals have feelings, that they experience suffering, that they experience well-being and need comfort.
I would like to share with the House some examples of the positive effect when we learn to treat animals with respect.
As the New Democrat public safety critic, I have toured a number of correctional facilities over the past few months. I have seen the challenges that we face in delivering adequate treatment to a prison population that overwhelmingly suffers from addiction, mental health problems and other spiritual maladies that come from isolation and loneliness. I have also seen some very positive examples of how a modern, effective corrections system should be run, with some innovative rehabilitative programs.
One such program I witnessed was during my recent trip to the women's facility in Abbotsford, British Columbia. This program operates in partnership with the local SPCA. It is a great example of the value of community involvement in our corrections system. The SPCA brings in dogs that are in its care and allows them to be kennelled, groomed and taken care of by the women inmates at the facility. There is a wonderful interaction to see between the female inmates and the animals. It is a beautiful thing to see the kind of compassion, warmth and humanity that is expressed when animals and humans come together in such a fashion.
With this program, the women volunteer. They perform a valuable service to a worthy community organization and they learn or relearn the importance and rewards of being caring and compassionate to a fellow living creature. In turn, they get the comfort, the caring and the reward that comes from animals that return that same care and concern. This clearly demonstrates the positive power of dealing humanely with animals.
I can give another example from our corrections system, although this story does not have a happy ending.
Correctional Service Canada operates six prison farms. These prison farms are located at institutions across the country, from Alberta to New Brunswick. These farms employ inmates to produce local organic food for the institutions and for the surrounding community. 
We all know the health, economic and environmental benefits of locally produced food. Beyond that, the farms are a setting for inmates to interact with animals in a positive way. Working with animals has a profound rehabilitative effect. That is why animals are regularly used in hospitals and nursing homes and in community programs dealing with autism and other psychological issues. 
With rehabilitation programs in short supply in our prisons, these farms are a shining example of what we can achieve. In partnership with the community, when we expose inmates to positive interactions with animals, they learn emotional closeness, they learn caring and they learn compassion. They get to relearn patterns of behaviour that are gentle and that are humane. 
Inexplicably though, the government has decided to close these farms. I am proud to join with the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Labour Congress and a number of food security and social justice organizations in calling for the government to reverse this short-sighted decision.
I believe we can tell a lot about a society by how it treats its most vulnerable. Mahatma Gandhi expressed it best, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”.
I am proud to support this call for a universal declaration on animal welfare and urge all members of the House to adopt this important motion on behalf of all Canadians.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the issue of animals and animal cruelty in particular.
The motion before the House today, which is in the second hour of debate, calls on the government to support the development and adoption of a universal declaration on animal welfare at the United Nations, as well as at all relevant international organizations and forums. I am aware that a couple of minor amendments that were requested were acceptable to the member, but the essence of the motion is unchanged.
 I thank and congratulate the member for Scarborough Southwest who brought the motion before the House. I am a strong supporter of private members' bills and motions because they give an opportunity for all hon. members to pick an area where they have a passion and a need to make a difference and bring to the floor something that will encourage more attention to the important issues of the day in the eyes of many Canadians. This particular issue, obviously, has caught the attention of many Canadians.
I know the member. We served on a committee together and I know she has done her work because she always does. She comes to committee prepared to do the job. With the materials that she has provided to all hon. members and with the collegial dialogue that she has had through the House over this period of time to finally get it to this stage, I know that she has earned the respect of her colleagues and the support for this motion. I congratulate her for that.
For Canadians who may not be aware, the universal declaration on animal welfare is an agreement among people and nations to recognize that animals are sentient. That is going to be heard in the debate. That means that they can feel pain, suffering and pleasure as well. It is to respect their welfare needs and to end animal cruelty for good.
I was involved in the last bill that was before this place on animal cruelty. It was a very simple bill that had to do with increasing the penalty structure for those convicted of animal cruelty. It was a small step. We assured Canadians that was not the last step, because there were problems with a more comprehensive bill.
I am sorry that the government has not set animal cruelty issues as a priority. I am sorry that it has not brought or developed a bill or at least asked a parliamentary committee to study the issue of animal cruelty. Canadians across the country responded to Parliament by saying that this was an important issue.
We have this motion and it should reignite that commitment that we have as a Parliament to addressing the issues of animal cruelty. This universal declaration on animal welfare would be structured as a set of general principles that acknowledge and emphasize the importance of animal welfare.
The purpose of these principles would be to encourage nations to put in place or, where they already exist, improve animal welfare laws and standards. The universal declaration on animal welfare would be a prescriptive piece of binding legislation and, therefore, not concerned with attributing legal rights to animals. Ostensibly what we are talking about is to declare our commitment, understanding and solidarity in regard to the issue of animal cruelty.
Animal welfare concerns the physical and mental well-being of sentient animals. It involves considerations on how animals evolve in their natural environment and it is a description of the state of animals and the effect on them of care or mistreatment. However, any definition of animal welfare should be guided by the five freedoms as stated in the draft of the universal declaration on animal welfare.
This motion asks us to support this declaration because it is needed to help animals and, by doing so, help people as well. The livelihoods of over one billion people depend on animals. It is part of the petition that many members have been giving in this place in support of this initiative.
The implementation of this declaration would also improve the condition in a number of areas that members or Canadians might not be aware of.
One such area is environmental sustainability. Taking better care of animals would mean putting more thought into land use, climate change, pollution, water supplies, habitat conservation and biodiversity. It is extremely important and it paints a picture of the linkages among the key priorities that most industrialized countries have. Many of these issues are before our Parliament at this time. This kind of initiative is complementary and should be supported.
Another area is human health. Treating animals well would reduce the risk of food poisoning and disease crossing over from animals to humans. Companion animals has also been shown to have a therapeutic effect. I do not think I need to explain that when we see how many people, the disabled, the blind, et cetera, have animals for comfort and for guidance.
Another area is disaster management. Taking animals into account during emergency preparation and response would help the people affected to recover their lives and livelihoods afterward.
Poverty and hunger is another area of implication. Improving animal welfare would also improve productivity.
Social development is another area. How we treat animals effectively would help to determine how we treat each other.
Animals are very important. I have had so many letters from constituents about this issue and they want us to support this. They want us to make a commitment, not just to adopt this universal declaration, but to take the first steps toward appropriate legislative changes that would reflect not only our value but our commitment. Talk is cheap. What we need after this is action. I hope the hon. member will play a constructive role, as she always has, in working with all hon. members to come forward with constructive ideas on how we can act legislatively to reflect our commitment to this declaration.
 In Canada, the universal declaration is supported by many organizations, including the World Society for the Protection of Animals, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, many of its member societies, the Animal Alliance of Canada, the Global Action Network, the SPCAs in British Columbia, Ontario and Montreal, and the SPA in Quebec.
Almost two million people worldwide have signed a petition to support the universal declaration of animal welfare, and worldwide organizations, including the World and Commonwealth Veterinary Associations, the Humane Society International, the Compassion in World Farming, the American SPA and the Royal SPCA in England.
When we look at this, it is a modest grouping of words but it means so much. It means that this House is being asked to take a leap of faith that joining with countries around the world to support the universal declaration on animal welfare will represent a foundational decision that this House makes, a value system, establishing that value system on which we can build, as I said, through other legislative initiatives, which I think are necessary because in our legislative system right now we do not have effective, up-to-date animal cruelty legislation.
Our history on that kind of legislation has been somehow to confuse farming animals with domestic house animals, like cats, dogs, et cetera. The problems have been enormous. I would encourage the government that when we come forward with animal cruelty legislation, if the government ever becomes moved to come forward with such legislation, that we would deal ostensibly with the spirit of the universal declaration, that we are talking about animals that are there for companionship. When we see those new stories of these severe cases of animal cruelty, the public reaction tells all Canadians just how important it is that we do need to have changes in our laws.
 I believe this is a starting point and I believe the member has done a great service to the House. I think she has acquitted herself very well as an early member of Parliament. I congratulate her and wish her well when this passes this week.
Tilly O'Neill-Gordon: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to address the House on this issue.
I am particularly pleased that the sponsor of this motion has agreed to the amendments proposed by the government. It is the Government of Canada's view that pursuing the continued development of science based standards of animal welfare is a noble goal and that a universal declaration on animal welfare, should it come to be elaborated as an international document, would represent a set of general principles that would help guide all countries, including those lacking in adequate animal welfare legislation, toward taking measures to ensure the appropriate treatment in the handling of animals.
As has been mentioned before, Canada supports the development in principle of a universal declaration on animal welfare because we are committed to making continual progress to improve animal welfare.
It is important to reiterate, however, that while we are supportive of this aim, we must be cautious about the manner in which it is pursued. It is for that reason that we suggested the amendments to the original motion, which have since been accepted, because, before taking steps on the international stage, it is important to thoroughly consider all implications of our action.
Since no internationally agreed upon language for a universal declaration yet exists, it would be premature at this stage for Canada to express its support for the adoption of an eventual document.
International text can change significantly during negotiations and, until the wording is made clear, it is impossible for Canada or any other country to conduct a thorough analysis of the implications that the text might have.
That is why we suggested that the motion be amended such that the House express its support for the development of a universal declaration but not prematurely for its adoption.
I am glad that the honourable sponsor of this motion has been agreeable to this. Similarly, I am pleased that the words “in principle” have been inserted into the motion. This phrase provides the government with valuable flexibility, such that the government can promote the aims of a declaration to the best of its ability, but is not pledging itself to supporting any text that is developed, in the unfortunate event, for instance, that the final text were to be inconsistent with Canadian domestic policy.
This decision is prudent and is consistent with international practice. Indeed, the phrase “in principle” has been used by a variety of international actors already when discussing a universal declaration on animal welfare.
In May 2007, for instance, the World Organization for Animal Health, of which Canada is a member, decided to support, in principle, the development of a universal declaration on animal welfare. In March 2009, the Council of the European Union similarly invited the member states of the European Union to support, in principle, the universal declaration initiative.
Thus, as we can tell, the words “in principle” represent important and accepted language on the international stage when making broad statements of support such as this one. I think it is important that we have included these words here.
Finally, I am thankful that the amended motion does not refer to the United Nations. As was outlined in the first hour of debate on this motion, it is the government's view that the United Nations is not the most appropriate forum to address this issue. The United Nations is not mandated to address issues relating to animal welfare. Instead, it focuses its work on other areas, namely peace and security, economic development and human rights.
Canada's commitment to the United Nations, which was discussed during the first hour of debate, is significant.
A few weeks ago, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs went to the United Nations to deliver Canada's statement to the world, he highlighted this commitment and put particular emphasis on our efforts to promote peace and security, to protect human rights and to make necessary reforms to the architecture of the United Nations itself in order to help it better reflect the realities of the 21st century.
Given the very serious challenges facing Canada and the international community, challenges with which the United Nations must deal, it is appropriate at this time that we not attempt to further stretch the already expansive responsibilities of the United Nations by asking it to take on matters of animal welfare.
I am therefore thankful that the wording of this motion has been amended to make it more inclusive of other forums and to remove its focus on the United Nations, given Canada's ongoing efforts to improve the focus and effectiveness of the United Nations in its mandated areas of activity.
It would be appropriate for a universal declaration on animal welfare to be developed at an institution more directly suited to the area of animal welfare. Thankfully, as we have noted, there is such an institution, the World Organization for Animal Health. 
In its capacity as an active member of the World Organization for Animal Health, Canada has been working for over half a century now to co-ordinate its activities with those of a global community, including through the development and implementation of international standards. It is appropriate for Canada to continue its approach on animal welfare through this framework.
Allow me to conclude this speech by reiterating Canada's commitment to animal welfare, both domestically and internationally, and by expressing my thanks to all hon. members for their co-operation in this matter.
Michelle Simson: Madam Speaker, as this marks the end of the debate on Motion No. 354, I would like to begin my remarks by thanking all of the members who rose to speak to this motion. I would also like to thank the member for Yorkton—Melville who on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs brought forward an amendment to my motion. I obviously preferred my original motion as I do believe that the United Nations is an appropriate organization for this resolution. The government, as we heard during this debate, does not. 
That said, I believe that the House of Commons' adoption of the spirit, values and beliefs outlined in Motion No. 354 supercedes debating forums in which it is delivered. I therefore agreed to the hon. member's amendment. I also believe this amendment and subsequent debate demonstrates a healthy cooperation among all parties in the House. Such cooperation is increasingly less frequent these days. However, I am very pleased that the motion may serve as a small example of what a spirit of cooperation can achieve in our collective support for a universal declaration on animal welfare.
Animal welfare is a sensitive issue. Not all of us in the House may agree on the best way to go about enacting laws to properly protect animals, but we all believe they should be protected. There are competing points of view, those of pet owners, farmers, developing nations and the rights of our native peoples. At the heart of it, the universal declaration on animal welfare is a start as it demonstrates our belief that animal welfare is essential.
As I mentioned in my previous speech, the declaration is an agreement among people and nations to recognize that animals are sentient, suffer, have welfare needs, and to ultimately end animal cruelty worldwide. The declaration will be structured as a set of general principles that acknowledge and emphasize the importance of animal welfare. The purpose of these principles is to encourage all nations to put in place or enhance existing animal welfare laws in standards.
The declaration is supported by a growing list of governments from countries around the world including all 27 members of the European Union. There is also a great deal of support from the public. Thousands of Canadians have signed petitions in support of a UDAW. Many of these petitions have been introduced in the House of Commons. The declaration is actively supported by Canada's foremost animal protection organizations including the World Society for the Protection of Animals.
The implementation of the declaration is an important step and will act as a catalyst for change in the following ways: by raising the status of animal welfare as an international issue; by encouraging those in industries which utilize animals to keep their welfare at the forefront of their policies and practices; and by inspiring positive change in public attitudes and actions toward animals.
 I am heartened by the tone of the debate that has transpired. The declaration will be a key toward improved animal welfare legislation worldwide and a step closer to ending cruelty to animals globally. This first step is only one of many in a long road, but it is a critical one, one we must take for this extremely important cause. 
I urge all members to support the motion, so that Canada can join a growing list of countries on the world stage in support of animal welfare.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  I declare the amendment adopted. 
(Amendment agreed to)
 The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):  I declare the motion, as amended, carried.
 (Motion agreed to) 
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): It being 2:02 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 16, 2009 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:03 p.m.)