Bill C-48 (Historical)

An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments

This enactment authorizes the Minister of Finance to make certain payments out of the annual surplus in excess of $2 billion in respect of the fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for the purposes and in the aggregate amount specified. This enactment also provides that, for its purposes, the Governor in Council may authorize a minister to undertake a specified measure.

Extension of Sitting Period

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spent $250 million per vote to stay in power, to cling to power. It is nothing more or less than that.

As far as the corporate portion of it, I will refer to his own finance minister when Bill C-43 was before the House. This is not what we are debating today. We are debating a motion that is closing debate upon whether we should extend this House or not, which is a slap in the face for democracy. There is nothing that urgent or is of the public interest to the degree where we should try to ram through the two bills, Bill C-48 and Bill C-38, when there is absolutely no reason for it.

Bill C-48 will not be implemented until August 2006. Where is the urgency in that? The only urgency is that the Liberals are trying to tie that bill into somehow justifying a public interest, when they really want to ram through Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill, which nobody in Canada wants in particular. They simply want to live up to their deal with the NDP, a deal cooked up in the middle of the night to stay in power.

Let me read the response that was made by the finance minister. He said, “You can't do anything to this budget”, when the NDP leader went fishing. The NDP leader then asked if he would change his mind. The finance minister replied that he would make technical changes but nothing substantive.

The NDP went fishing a little further and asked the finance minister if he would consider doing something further. They talked about the corporate tax break that would create jobs and allow for investment.

Here is what the finance minister said:

Mr. Speaker, that is really like asking whether I would be prepared to buy a pig in a poke. Quite frankly, no minister of finance, acting responsibly, would answer that type of question.

If the hon. gentleman has a serious proposition, please bring it forward and I will give it the consideration it deserves. I would point out to him, however, that the changes in corporate taxation are intended to ensure that jobs, jobs, jobs stay in Canada.

What do they have against jobs? No one has anything against jobs, jobs, jobs.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where that member has been. If he had been listening, a number of suggestions have come from this party that make good sense.

First, a good fiscal and prudent government has a plan, knows where it is going and is not throwing money around recklessly. An hon. member from this party suggested yesterday that if they throw more money at it, they have a bigger heart than somebody else but they do not care where it goes.

Let me ask one question. The farmers in Saskatchewan are going through one of the greatest crises. Despite what the government has failed to do, they have done reasonably well. They are staying alive by working two jobs. The wife works, the husband works and the children work. That is the only way they can survive because the government has neglected them.

Our party has said we would put together a program that would look after our farmers. Where were farmers in Bill C-43? There was hardly a passing mention. When they were in a crisis with the BSE and the border was closed, they were looking for some direction from the government. What did the government do? It hoped against hope that the border would open, somehow magically on its own, without any steps on its part.

The government cooked up this deal with the NDP, for one purpose and one purpose only, and that was to stay in power. There is no foresight or vision in Bill C-48. The Liberals asked the NDP members what it would take to buy their votes. The cost per vote was $250 million. Is that called vision? Is that called policy? No. Where was the agricultural crisis when that deal was being made? Where does the NDP stand with respect to the farmers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba? Are their concerns not important?

The government is not governed by philosophy or principle. It is governed by what it takes to stay in power, to cling to power, and that is the end. Whatever the means might be, whatever the money may be, it will use it. Those who do it in the cover of darkness will be charged criminally. Here, what the government is doing is in the openness of day, in the presence of the House, using great sums of money to stay in power.

The farmers of Saskatchewan could have done better. There were 46 auction sales in March of this year in my constituency. Farmers are going out of business. A fifth generation farmer who has five daughters has sold his farm. He has not passed it on to his children because of the losses he suffered in his cattle business over the last two years, $100,000 a year.

The government does not have the fortitude to stand up for them, to say that it will be with the farmers because this crisis is not of their own doing. This crisis is of a doing that is bigger than Saskatchewan and bigger than Manitoba. Where was the government? It was cooking up a deal with the NDP to preserve its own hide while the farmers of Saskatchewan were working 12 hours a day. Everyone in the family had to work in order to survive.

We would do things differently. We would ensure they were protected. They would be backstopped. In fact, when the BSE crisis was going on, where was the government? It should have been making some motions before the United States department of agriculture, saying scientifically that there was no reason for the border to be closed. Why was the government not presenting that evidence to the USDA? Why did the minister not insist that the USDA put those reasons in its decision? Because of the lack of those reasons and due diligence of the government, the judge in Montana was able to make the decision he did. There was nothing to prevent an injunction from being granted.

That group was playing politics when it should have been doing due diligence and doing its homework to ensure the border was open. If it failed to do that, it should have put some money into the secondary industry, in slaughterhouses and in marketing and processing. We would do that and we would see that it was done. Two years have passed. I would ask the member to come to my constituency to see whether anything is going forward, whether any money has been placed in it. There is nothing. That would change under our party.

We talk about housing and homelessness. A report states that there are more homeless today on the streets than there were when that government took office. It spent $1 billion and it did not build one affordable housing unit with that $1 billion. According to the minister, it went to protective care, nothing on which one could put their finger. How many more houses are there since it started?

We would take some dollars and put them into something we could see, something that is not wasteful. What money it has put in is $60,000 to $80,000 a unit, when it should be far less.

When the minister was asked for instance about the housing budget, he was prepared to spend the $2.6 billion without regard to the fact that this was a provincial responsibility. Whether the provinces went ahead or not, he was going to do it anyway. He had not spent yet the $700 million that was in the coffers from previous budgets. We think at least he would have that money properly spent before he would be ready to spend this. Anybody can spend money.

If we give someone $2.5 billion and tell them to spend it, they will. Will they achieve a proper balance? Will they achieve what is necessary with those funds? That is another question.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we look at the Standing Orders presently, there is no question that the calendar of this House is a fairly significant event that is agreed to, according to the Standing Orders, by the House leaders.

According to the Standing Orders, during the adjourned period when members of Parliament are in their constituencies, the House does not get called back unless there is need for royal assent on something that is of some urgency. If that is the case, the House can be called back for a short period.

The Standing Order 28(4) reads:

The House shall meet at the specified time for those purposes only; and immediately thereafter the Speaker shall adjourn the House to the time to which it had formerly been adjourned.

When we have a calendar it ought to be respected and, if it needs to be interrupted, then after the particular business is done the House needs to go back into adjournment. There needs to be a reason for the House to reconvene that is of substance.

This House could probably be guided by Standing Order 28(3) which talks about the Speaker utilizing his or her discretion to recall the House. It states:

Whenever the House stands adjourned, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, the Speaker may give notice that being so satisfied the House shall meet....

Therefore there needs to be some evidence that would satisfy the Speaker. There has to be some public interest that requires an interruption of the House calendar.

I would think this House would at least have to satisfy those same principles before this House could put forward a motion that would require this House to extend itself for a further period. What is the public interest?

We have heard discussion about Bill C-48. It does not get implemented until next year. In fact, when we look at the budget implementation portion of it, it talks about the moneys actually being requisitioned or looked at in the next year. What is the urgency? This is not in the public interest. This could be debated in the fall sitting. In fact one could argue that perhaps there is something to Bill C-43 passing.

Bill C-43 has cleared this particular House and is now in the Senate chamber for approval. We have a senator saying that the Conservative senators were prepared to expedite the passage of Bill C-43, the budget legislation bill, which includes the Atlantic accord, but that the Liberal senators were refusing to pass it. He also said that they agreed to waive certain procedural steps in order to speed the passage of Bill C-43.

He goes on to say:

Two other government bills are receiving clause-by-clause consideration immediately following testimony by witnesses in Senate Committees today. The Liberal government will not permit the same procedure to be followed for Bill C-43, thus putting the bill at risk should Bill C-48, the NDP budget bill, be defeated in the House of Commons in the next few days.

We just received notice that those two bills are here for royal assent.

How is it that the Liberal government, on one hand, says that it wants the bill to go forward so the funds can start rolling on that particular bill, but on the other hand, refuses to have it passed expeditiously, as it could have? I think it is playing games with this House.

Let us look at the marriage bill, Bill C-38. Is there a public interest to have it passed or at least a public interest sufficient to call the House back to order when it ought to be adjourned? What is the public interest in that bill? In fact, a large percentage of the Canadian public do not want that bill to pass. Therefore it is definitely not in the public interest to call Parliament back for that purpose and that purpose alone.

What has the government done? It has attempted to lump and link Bill C-48 with Bill C-38, the marriage bill, in an attempt to justify, on some kind of national basis, that it is in the public interest to reconvene the House. However this is not in the public interest. It is all subterfuge. It is all playing with the rules to get their ends.

The House leader stated earlier in the press that he was prepared to not have Bill C-38 pass if Bill C-48 passed, but then he changed his mind, dug in his heels and decided to connect the two and call Parliament back for that purpose.

What is the rush? Bill C-38 is fundamentally changing the definition of marriage. It is fundamentally changing society as we know it. It deserves the time that is needed to discuss it and the public need an opportunity to participate. What we had at report stage was a sham.

During question period today the member for London—Fanshawe asked whether limiting the witnesses at the committee was really doing the job it ought to be doing. Is it appropriate to give witnesses 24 hours or 48 hours notice to appear? Is changing members of the committee appropriate? Is setting up a separate committee to ram through the committee hearings appropriate? Those hearings should have been the widest possible hearings across the country in every city with every member of the public having an opportunity to address the government before that bill completed report stage.

However the Liberals are ramming it through, despite the concerns of Canadians, despite public interest and despite our nation's interest, because they want to. They have confused national agenda and public interest with their own interest. They have confused the House of Commons calendar, which should not be interfered with easily, with their own ends and their own desires.

I think it is appalling. It is appalling to democracy and it is appalling to this institution for the government to go further and put a motion in the House that would limit debate on whether the hours and sittings of this House should be extended. How can it be in this free and democratic country that we cannot have every member in the House speak to whether the preconditions exist for the House to be extended?

We have to justify the pre-conditions of the House. That is why the Standing Order is there. That is why there are safeguards. We cannot, just on a notion, say that we will pass a motion that will change the Standing Orders and call the House back because we want to. There must be some basis for that and that basis is the public interest, because that is the basis, Mr. Speaker, that you might have to contend with.

The Liberals chose not to allow every member in the House to speak. Since when does a government decide that closure is the way to go on an issue so important as whether or not this House should sit in the summer to deal with the marriage bill, Bill C-38.

This is not a national crisis. This is not a national public interest that requires us to do it. The Prime Minister and the government confuse their own interests with the interests of the nation.

When the Prime Minister appeared on television I thought he was going to speak to something that was of national interest or of some national crisis, or even perhaps proroguing Parliament or calling an election.

What was the purpose of that particular television address? At great expense to this nation and every taxpayer of Canada, the purpose of that television appearance was to protect the hide of the Prime Minister and his government because they were on the ropes of losing in a possible election. He used the media and the resources of government to bolster public opinion and that is shameful.

Even the NDP leader acknowledged that. In question period he said, “First, let me add my voice to those who are concerned about the televised address this evening. This is a Liberal crisis; it is definitely not a national crisis.” The government is confusing its own interests with those of the nation.

In the next question, the hon. leader went fishing to see if he could change the government's budget. He said, “Putting aside the issue of corruption, let me see if I can be bought”. How could he do that? He was speaking about the sponsorship scandal and the things that have happened. People were paid for doing little or nothing with Canadian taxpayer dollars for which many people worked very hard to put in the coffers of the government. Some people work 12 hours a day, six days a week, only to lose half of their money to the government to spend on projects and programs.

However we find the government using and abusing those funds to pay ad agencies for little or no work and then having some of that money filter back to the party to fund an election. It was buying votes at $250 million per member to get another party's support to cling to power and giving people positions to cross the floor. Those are the kinds of things that should not happen in the House but it gets worse than that.

The House raised a motion of confidence, if not directly, certainly indirectly. At that point, constitutionally, the Prime Minister and his government had an obligation to Canadians and to the House to raise the issue of confidence themselves and they did not have confidence. They did not have confidence for a week.

The House should have been closed shut. There should not have been one order of business happening until that issue of confidence was settled. For that week we were without a government because it should not have been exercising the powers of government, the levers of government, the position of government to advance its own interests.

However all the while we had ministers and the Prime Minister travelling across Canada signing deals, committing money, spending money, campaigning at public expense and doing the kinds of things that would be shameful in a third world country that is run by a dictatorship.

We should have closed the House down and went to the wall to prevent that from happening because it was an injustice. It was illegitimately trying to legitimize government. It waited until it had the numbers and then it put forward an issue of confidence, and that is wrong.

What is wrong with the government is that it confuses its own interests with the interests of Canada.

We expect far better. We expect to have a government with vision. We expect to have a government that is prepared to take a loss, prepared to sacrifice on behalf of the country and one that puts the country's interest above its own, above its own greed and its own temptations, not a government that tries to shove a bill through the House when the public of Canada does not want it.

We need a government with backbone and a government with the courage to lose if it has to. An election should have been called and that confidence vote should have been respected. The public would have made a decision on Bill C-38.

Now the Liberals are trying to ram it through. It would not surprise me if they would put closure on Bill C-38 and Bill C-48 to get their will, despite the will of the people of Canada. That is wrong and the people of Canada will pass judgment. Believe me, it will not end in this session and it will not end in the summer.

I am prepared to stay here in July, all of August and into September to preserve the democratic right of the people of the country to express their views through members of Parliament on Bill C-38 because what is happening here is wrong.

One could ask whether I was looking at this objectively. I would like to make reference to an article in the Toronto Sun . Chantal Hébert said, “One thing we have learned from the tape affair is that precious little stands between the Prime Minister and a repeat of the sponsorship scandal. It is a culture that's wrong. It is what permeates government that's wrong. It is the thing that says the end justifies the means. It doesn't matter how we get there, it just matters that we get there. Our objective is to stay in power and we'll do whatever we have to, twist and bend every rule we have to stay in power”.

Supply day motions happen once a week every week and it was during that time that a confidence motion could have been put by any one of the parties, including our party. The Liberals took those supply days away and the ability to make a confidence motion until the end of May.

Why was that? To me, that was something I expected to happen every week. It was tradition. It was something the House had as a constitutional kind of arrangement that happened week after week. The Liberals took it away for the sole purpose of preventing confidence because they knew they would lose. They then put them at the end of May. Why? So any election would take place in the middle of summer.

They wanted to have the opportunity to continue to buy, pay, promise, and get to the position where they could win and then call it. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. There is something very wrong with that. That is why the country is going astray. It needs some direction. It needs some commitment. It needs someone with some backbone who says there is a right, there is a wrong, that this is right and we will do it, regardless of whether it costs us or not, and not what we see here.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear any members of the official opposition say that they were opposed to affordable housing, or public transit, or to money going into infrastructure for cities. I did not hear members of the official opposition say that they were opposed to cleaning up the environment or ensuring that our students have access to post-secondary education.

They did not talk about the content of the bill being problematic. They talked about everything around it. That is usually a good clue that they are nervous about their position vis-à-vis the content of the bill and the substantive matters before the House. One of the parliamentary tricks one uses in that circumstance is to start talking about procedure.

The hon. member asked me if I thought the official opposition needed more time. I think Canadians know that the official opposition is in a bind. The popularity of that party's leader is going through the basement. A few months ago it looked like the Conservatives were about to roll into power. Now they are on the way to rolling out maybe into oblivion, but I doubt that is going to happen.

That is a glum group over there compared to what they were a few short weeks ago. The Conservatives are desperate to find something so they want to take a stand and fight Bill C-48 because it is an NDP thing and that cannot be good. Therefore, they talk about procedures.

The reality is I have not heard members of the official opposition say that they do not think these are good investments or that they are investments that they do not want. I have not heard them say that this is not something that should be a priority for the country as a nation, in terms of taking care of our people and putting us on a strong footing for the future.

The fact that they are talking about procedure, I take it to mean they are desperately floundering around trying to show they stand for something when in reality all they are doing is standing in the way.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask a very short question, I want to ensure that everyone who is watching and members of Parliament and their staff know a very important event has just started in the Senate lobby. It is a celebration of which every member of the House is proud, and that is the Labrador Inuit land claim. Anyone who can get there should, and of course I have an Inukshuk on my tie to celebrate that.

I have a hard time understanding the reasons that the other two parties are against this motion. The Conservatives in particular are asking for more time. Could the member outline the rational, reasonable and logical arguments the Conservatives have, given in the excessive time they have had so far to debate Bill C-48? If the member thinks they need more time, what more logical, rational, objective arguments might they come up with?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member neglected to mention that my colleague is all of those things. He is the Dean of the House and also a former House leader. He has all of the qualifications. Do I agree with my colleague, the former NDP House leader? Absolutely. What is his position on this motion? He is in favour of it. What is his position on Bill C-48? He is in favour of it. He is a proud member of this caucus. He wants to see the budget bill pass too.

Let me also comment on the loudness. Some might use my loudness to leave the chamber when I speak, but I am not so sure. I think they could find others. However, I was elected to come here and ensure Hamilton had a voice, and it is bloody well will be heard whether the hon. member likes it or not.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker. let me just say that my comments are very germane to the motion in front of us. It speaks to why the NDP is prepared to support extending this House, why we are prepared to shut down any shenanigans that get in the way of passing the bill and why we are ready to move heaven and earth to ensure Bill C-48 and the billions of dollars that are invested in this nation and in the families within this nation passes this House.

If it means we have to stand here all night long and force votes that ultimately brings about the enactment of that bill, then dammit, the NDP is prepared to do that. We are here to make a difference for Canadians, to help Canadians and pass legislation that will be meaningful for Canadians. That is exactly what Bill C-48 is about and it is exactly why the NDP will support the motion on the floor now.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is our understanding that the speeches are supposed to be relevant to the subject being discussed. It seems like the member is far off track. He does not seem to understand that we are not talking about Bill C-48 right now. We are talking about the motion.

If you could help him understand that, Mr. Speaker, it would be appreciated.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up where my colleague left off and point out that one of the reasons the Conservatives are having such difficulty was the original blunder they made when the budget was tabled in this place not that long ago.

What did we see? Before, underscore before, the finance minister was finished reading the budget, the leader of the official opposition stepped in front of the cameras and surrendered. He surrendered, and not only on the budget issue. As far as the NDP is concerned, the official opposition surrendered its responsibilities to provide loyal opposition in this place. We do not need an opposition to cave and fold and run up the white flag. Opposition is there under our parliamentary system to provide opposition. Those members did not do it. They caved.

What is driving the Conservatives crazy is that the NDP had sense enough and enough presence of mind to look at the budget and say, “We watched the Liberals in the last campaign. We listened carefully and in the final days of the campaign they sounded an awful lot like New Democrats”. They talked about all the things that we have consistently and historically fought tooth and nail for.

Canadians responded by allowing the Liberals to remain in office. They still get to ride around in their limos, but they do not have absolute control of this place. The message from Canadians was clear. They heard what the Liberals had to say. They liked what the Liberals had to say, but they sent a minority government to Ottawa to make sure there was some way to keep the Liberals honest and to hold them accountable and to make them actually govern the way they said they would in the campaign.

The official opposition surrendered right away and said, “We give. We give”. But right off the bat we in the NDP said that we were opposed to the budget because it did not fulfill the mandate that the Liberals in a minority situation were given by the Canadian people. We decided that if we had the opportunity we would use our 19 seats and leverage them in a minority situation with the sole purpose of forcing the Liberals to deliver on the issues Canadians expected them to implement.

What are we talking about? We are talking about affordable housing. My hometown of Hamilton desperately needs affordable housing. We need affordable housing in downtown Hamilton more than we need more corporate tax cuts which nobody ran on and nobody had a mandate for.

While I am on that, let me point out that the NDP made sure in Bill C-48 that we maintained the tax cuts that were there for small and medium size business because those are good investments. We all know that the job generators in this country are not the huge multinational corporations. The actual jobs are created by small and medium size business. That is why we made sure that those tax cuts stayed in there because they help Canadians.

The Conservatives were not interested in helping anybody beyond their corporate pals. Once their corporate pals were taken care of in the budget, there was nothing further for them to do because that is their constituency. That is fine. It would be nice if they were a little more up front about it and acknowledged it, but if they want to pretend that they care about other things, they can do so. They can make those arguments. Canadians understand. The white flag went up on that budget because of the billions of dollars that nobody had a mandate to give from the public treasury into the corporate profit bottom line. That is where the NDP drew the line.

As a result of the NDP better balanced budget, we will have a balanced budget. We will have tax cuts where they will do the most amount of good, small and medium size business.We will ensure there is repayment on the debt. We have the priorities of Canadians correct where the Conservatives in particular have it wrong. We have ensured that those billions that the Conservatives wanted to give the Stronachs of the world would go where it would make a difference.

I talked about my hometown of Hamilton needing affordable housing. Let me also underscore the absolute critical importance of public transit, infrastructure, roads and bridges. When I talk to the Chamber of Commerce in Hamilton, it is as concerned about the status of roads, bridges and sewers as anyone else, more than most, because its understands the importance to the local economy.

The money that is to be invested in cities is a benefit to virtually everyone who lives in Hamilton, except maybe any family members of the Stronachs who happen to live in Hamilton. They may not be so thrilled. For the most part, Hamiltonians are pleased. They want this budget.

Let us talk about money to clean up the environment. I do not need to tell my colleagues here the kind of challenges we face in Hamilton. It is not unlike many other cities and constituencies across the nation. Money invested in a Kyoto plan that works affects the lives of Hamiltonians just like it affects the lives of every other Canadian. We made that a priority. We thought that is more important than Frank Stronach getting an even bigger tax cut.

The bigger priority for us was our students. Again, we are blessed in Hamilton. We have McMaster University and Mohawk College. We have Redeemer University. We have a number of institutions of which we are very proud and which Hamiltonian students want to attend, but they need means. Unfortunately, under the Liberals for the last 12 years, the effects of the cuts to the post-secondary education system have meant that for many Hamiltonian youth going on to university, no matter how talented they are, or how smart they are, or how hard they are prepared to work, many of them are facing family circumstances where they will be unable to go on to university or college.

That is one of the secret geniuses of Canada. In addition to our ability to maintain and respect cultures from around the world, we also ensured that our young people historically over the past decades, no matter what the income of their family, if they had a desire to go to university or college, we ensured they had opportunity to do that. We have done quite well, but we are living off the dividends of that investment from decades gone by.

The Liberals cannot stand very proud I am afraid and talk about their investment in post-secondary education over the last 12 years. This new better balanced budget, Bill C-48, negotiated proudly by the NDP, will make a difference and will put money on the line to help Hamilton students and other students across the country achieve their fullest potential. Is that not the promise--

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

As the governing body. The NDP is not the governing body. Nineteen members do not constitute a majority government. On this side, we are a very formidable opposition, but we are not in governance either.

It is the responsibility of the Liberal government at this point in time to make the budget, because the people of Canada elected the Liberals to it. They did not elect a Liberal-NDP government to rule this country.

Having said that, this is what we are talking about when we are talking about democracy. People on this side of the House had a lot of input into Bill C-43. With regard to Bill C-48, no one on this side of the House was consulted in any way, shape or form. Bill C-48 was simply the result of two parties getting together to shore up a corrupt government.

The member opposite in my view is a woman of integrity. I have personally looked up to her. With all due respect, how can the NDP shore up the corrupt Liberal government? How can it ignore the democratic process? Governments in power are supposed--

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member opposite. She is from my city. I was a little reluctant to get up and ask a question, but I too can add, very well actually.

Bill C-43 was put together under the normal budget process, where one looks at the initiatives one wants to promote, collaborates with people in the field of expertise, and then looks at what can be done. It takes a certain length of time to accomplish this process. Bill C-48 on the other hand was much different. It was constructed in a hotel room in Toronto in a very short period of time. It was constructed with the NDP. The NDP, quite frankly, was not elected to this House of Commons. There are 19 members here--

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we need to straighten something out. The members for Yukon and Davenport should apologize to Canadians for misleading them about the contents of Bill C-48.

I have the bill right here. It is a page and a half long. We have $2.5 billion per page. It is probably the most expensive bill that has ever been brought into the House of Commons and there is absolutely nothing in here about mayors, urban transit or cities.

If members opposite want to talk about a bill, let us talk about Bill C-43, which does talk about mayors, urban transit, cities and the Atlantic accord. It is the government that is holding up the passing of Bill C-43. The government has held it up in the Senate. It refuses to let it go ahead. The Conservative Senators have offered to fast track that bill. The government refuses to do that.

These two members should stand up and apologize to Canadians for misleading them. I will let the member do that at this moment.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about the importance of the funds for municipalities in Bill C-48. The opposition member seemed to think it is only in Bill C-43. It is in Bill C-43. We would like to get the budget through. The new deal for cities has all sorts of things for municipalities. As the hon. member has correctly stated, the mayors would like us to adopt these bills as fast as possible if the opposition would not keep filibustering.

I would like the hon. member to talk about the importance of urban transit and the other items in our bills for municipalities, so that we can get these bills passed.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of errors in the member's statement and then I would like to ask him a question or get a commitment from him if I can.

First, he said Bill C-48 needs to be passed because it delivers urgent funding. I do not think he has read the bill because it cannot deliver the funding until next year when the government determines whether or not it has a surplus, a surplus of a particular amount. Not only that, there is no commitment within those four areas to spend anything. I hope he reads through the bill, so he will find the accurate information.

Second, Bill C-38 is not about human rights, as he said. It is about the redefinition of a traditional institution which the majority of Canadians still defend. He said we cannot possibly adjourn with such important legislation before us. I want to point out that this morning the House leader said that we are here for debate. That is actually true except he is cutting off debate. The government is trying to have it both ways and, as usual, it will blame other people for this.

I expect the government members, once they have been here for a couple of extra days, will get tired of being here. I would not be the least bit surprised if they played around with closure on these two bills.

Since the member said that we cannot adjourn with such important legislation before us, will he commit right now to refuse to go along with closure if it is brought in on both Bill C-48 and Bill C-38?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe all members come to the House with intentions to serve the public. I am still baffled. How will we serve the public by adjourning the House with such important matters at stake?

Bill C-48 has the support of many premiers. Mayors across the country are asking us to adopt this law before the recess for the summer. It is a bill that will provide $4.5 billion in urgent funding for the environment, training, post-secondary education, affordable housing and foreign aid. We are talking about that, and we are dealing with that in the motion.

The other important critical matter, Bill C-38, which I feel is fundamental as well for the country, is in keeping with our charter rights. It is a fundamental human rights issue to me and to many members of the government and we need to deal with it.

It is evident, unfortunately, that both Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 are not supported by the opposition. That is regrettable because I think they are very much supported by most Canadians.